What is a true act ...
 
Notifications
Clear all

What is a true act of magick ?  

Page 2 / 10
  RSS

 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
14/11/2011 10:39 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
"Camlion" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
"Camlion" wrote:
All of this falls within a framework, variously interpreted among us, but anticipated in Liber AL as follows:

So which of the Three Grades does Los' words fall under, again? Or do they just fall "somewhere within the framework".

Of the many interpretations to that verse, tossing it out and being vague about it is not really constructive, imo.

There are many interpretations used among Thelemites at present, most of them are Thelemic Order oriented, so to speak, and thus exclude the vast majority of the people on the planet. I strongly suspect that Liber AL did not intend to exclude most people on the planet when it said "the law of for all."

Los has some valid points in his act, about true Will, that is, along with some other, um, stuff. Personally, I don't think that enough time has passed for the shape of the Three Grade to flesh out yet, and I'm not going to try to predict it, but I think that it may include people who just know and do their true Wills because they were raised to do so, (the same reason most people do what they do now), and may never even know who AC was.

Pure speculation, of course. 😉

You should be a politician. Cam for President, anyone?

Talk about a scandal ridden Presidency. 🙂


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
14/11/2011 10:53 pm  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
Why not

- state clearly that you invented your new improved version of Thelema

Because I haven't. What I'm explicating, here and elsewhere, is Crowley's Thelema.

Sure, I don't talk about Thelema in tandem with the supernatural ideas that are usually lumped in with it, and sure, my opinions on matters outside of Thelema (such as my opinions on the supernatural) differ from some of Crowley's opinions (as we would expect, since he and I are different people and since I have the advantage of living after Crowley, when humanity has an even better understanding of the natural world and even less reason to believe that any supernatural claims are true).

It's to be expected that people studying Thelema today will have a different understanding of reality, and how Thelema fits with that reality, than Crowley did: it's that way in every actual field. Biologists today, for example, don't understand evolution in the same way that Darwin did: they have a better, more nuanced model that has resulted from learning more about their subject. Do you think they should come up with a new name for evolution?

I don't agree with the ridiculous position "Well, what Los is saying is fine for the masses -- oh those poor, profane masses -- but for the special few, super friends, these supernatural claims are true!" I mean, I've gone out of my way to write a pretty detailed post in which I explain that not only are such claims not justifiable as true, but that accepting them as true anyway is detrimental to the practice of Thelema.

It's pretty telling that you're not trying to make a cogent argument against mine: you're just repeating your own claim louder and in shriller tones. I'm hoping tai replies soon because he's the only one who's tried to have a serious go at it.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5323
14/11/2011 10:56 pm  

Moderator's Note

"Los" wrote:
It's tedious to have to continually make this point to utter fools who make glaring mistakes of this kind and then have the gall to suggest that others have a "partial" understanding of Thelema.

Your point is, at its root, not unreasonable - I personally have some sympathy with your desire to raise Thelema above and beyond what is commonly called 'occultism'.

However, what is NOT reasonable is calling other members 'fools' ('utter' or otherwise), in effect, simply because they disagree with you.

This should be considered a formal warning - a repeat of such discourtesy will result in your posts being subject to pre-moderation.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
14/11/2011 10:56 pm  
"amadan-De" wrote:
Sorry Los, I for one am no longer going to engage in this rather futile pursuit

Whatever you say.

To close, what if one were to think "I should do X because it is my True Will" would one be deluded?

Yes. If a person thought that there was some kind of universal imperative for him to follow the Law of Thelema, he would be mistaken: no such imperative exists.

If an individual *wants* to follow the Law of Thelema -- and an individual might want to for a number of reasons, including especially that the proper practice of Thelema will eventually reduce internal conflict and dissatisfaction -- then an individual can, but there's no requirement to.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
14/11/2011 10:58 pm  
"lashtal" wrote:
This should be considered a formal warning - a repeat of such discourtesy will result in your posts being subject to pre-moderation.

Understood, and fair enough.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
14/11/2011 11:01 pm  
"amadan-De" wrote:
To close, what if one were to think "I should do X because it is my True Will" would one be deluded?

That would be up to each individual.

Ultimately, one's True Will is only determined by one's relation with one's self, and thus, there is really only one answer: "Ask your HGA".

Some people maybe "should", and some maybe "don't matter". And when faced with such a decision, one has to make informed decisions to the best of one's ability, and hopefully further facilitate the Link.

One's HGA doesn't give a damn where one puts a lamp, as long as when it is turned on, it allows one to benefit from its light, in an effort to accomplish the Great Work.


ReplyQuote
amadan-De
(@amadan-de)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 686
14/11/2011 11:14 pm  

Thanks Az but the question was intended for Los and his special understanding only. 😉
Of course his answer raised several more questions (about tacit assumptions just to start with) but that is entirely to be expected, apparently.
Ah well, my moving fingers have written and now move on.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
14/11/2011 11:23 pm  
"amadan-De" wrote:
Thanks Az but the question was intended for Los and his special understanding only. 😉

Shit. I really "should" stop surfing the internetz and finish my damn schoolwork for the day. :/


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
15/11/2011 2:13 am  

Hi Los - I don't have a lot of time to write lengthy replies. I will italicize your response and quickly comment beneath.

...

This is the understanding missing in your arguments:

The Neschamah or Intuitive Mind must also be furnished with Knowledge and Understanding of those Planes of Nature which are inaccessible to the untrained sense.

http://hermetic.com/crowley/little-essays-towards-truth/wonder.html

Note the subsidiary role that Ruach (reason, intellect) plays toward Neschamah (understanding, intuition) on the Tree of Life. The “Planes of Nature” refer to the inner planes – Yetzirah, Briah, Atziluth. If one cannot access at least Yetzirah, any manifestation of a magickal act on Assiah will be nil. This does not mean that magickal acts are not real. It means the person cannot access the inner planes at the most basic level – that of the astral plane. Therefore the person is not capable of magickal acts, much less verify their validity.
...

As a general rule of thumb, I’m wary of saying that some thinker’s idea is “identical” to another thinker’s. Certainly, there may be similarities between ideas, and it might be fruitful to discuss similarities, but to declare two concepts “identical” is to put up a barrier to understanding nuance in thought.

Ok, lets stick with Crowley. My only point is to 1) define intuition as Neschamic and 2) place reason in a subsidiary role to intuition, not of usurping it (cf. Little Essays).
...

I would agree that in Thelema one must directly “apprehend” (I prefer the word “observe”) the True Will (that is, the natural inclinations of the individual) apart from reason, but I disagree very strongly that one can verify claims about the workings of the universe through simple observation alone, without reason.

In fact most people and animals go through life without feeling the need to verify claims about reality. And they function just fine. If by “verify claims about the workings of the universe” you mean acts of magick, the reasonable and logical approach would be to research the subject, follow the map laid out by Crowley and others, then decide whether it is true or not. But the first prerequisite of low magick is accessing the astral plane. Those are the rules of Nature.
...

All claims about the workings of the universe are rational constructs, and as such, are subject to the laws of reason and skepticism.

I disagree that all claims about the workings of the universe are rational constructs. Most people make claims without thinking too hard about them. I do agree that all claims can be subjected to reason and skepticism. Whether this is a constructive or meaningful activity is another question…
...

To use a trivial example, take the claim, “The sun goes around the earth.” This is a claim about the workings of the universe, and it is not a claim I reach (or verify) solely by “observation” or “apprehension,” without the use of reason…all that my senses reveal is that the sun appears in different places at different times of day. It takes an application of reason to tie these observations together and to come up with the (rational) claim “The sun goes around the earth.” However, this very example demonstrates how easily the reason is fooled, and how the reason can come to false conclusions on the basis of faulty evidence, and how with the discovery of better evidence, we can revise the conclusions of the reason and discover that some claims are not true and that others are true. It's not observation alone that does this: reason is an important part of the process.

I would say reason is easily fooled because of its tendency to reach false conclusions in the absence of evidence, rather than due to faulty evidence. That means reason has overstepped its bounds. A person could reason logically about why magick is not real, but if the person has not fulfilled the first step of accessing the inner planes, any reasoning arising therefrom is fraudulent. It does not prove anything, but merely deprives the person from making a greater effort and possibly attaining initiation.
...

As Crowley puts it, the mind “should be a perfect machine, an apparatus for representing the universe accurately and impartially to its master.” The function of the mind in Thelema is in accurately representing reality, and “representations” of reality – i.e. the mental models we construct to represent reality to us – can only be verified through the use of evidence and reason (that is, the application of reason to evidence, what I call “evidence-based inquiry”).

I strongly dispute that, when is comes to evaluating claims about the world around us, reason is supposed to play “a subsidiary role to the higher faculty of intuition,” as you put it.

This is where you are wrong - and why your consistently and perfectly reasoned arguments don’t convince anyone.
...

Adopting such an approach would make it impossible to properly evaluate reality, for “intuition,” by itself, provides no means for distinguishing between two conflicting claims that are supported by intuition. As such, we need to reject such an approach in favor of one that allows us to discern reality.

For example, there are people who have an intuitive sense that the Bible is the infallible word of God and that Jesus is the savior and that people who follow Jesus will be rewarded in the afterlife and people who do not will be punished. Further, there are people who have an intuitive sense that the Koran is the infallible word of God and that people who follow Muhammed will be rewarded in the afterlife and people who do not will be punished. Further, there are people who have an intuitive sense that the gods of Greek paganism are real and that the virtuous (however they “intuitively” define that word) will be rewarded by being sent to the Elysian fields. Further, there are people (like you, I’m presuming) who have an intuitive sense that reincarnation is real and that an individual undergoes multiple incarnations.

I could continue the above by listing additional afterlife beliefs that are held by people on the basis of intuition.

All of these afterlife claims are mutually exclusive: they cannot all be true.

How did you arrive at that conclusion? On the contrary it suggests many people have the same intuition that a part of consciousness survives physical death. Just because the content of each person’s dream is not the same does not mean dream consciousness is not real...
...

This leads us to ask how we can distinguish a true claim supposedly verified by the intuition from a false claim supposedly verified by the intuition.

False dilemma. Please see earlier comment on whether the application of reasoning to claims is indeed a constructive activity...
...

One is forced to appeal to reason and evidence to settle the matter – that is, the application of reason to evidence, or what I call “evidence-based inquiry” – since evidence-based inquiry is the only consistently reliable method to evaluate claims about the world around us.

But as you pointed out earlier, reason is easily fooled by faulty evidence. Moreover we know the horizon of science and knowledge is continually expanding. Therefore any reasonable conclusion based on evidence is continually being decentered and displaced. Most importantly the strongest argument against your model is the fact that contemporary science has not been able to ascertain the nature of consciousness. If the validity of the afterlife lies in determining the nature of consciousness and science has not been able to do so, what evidence are you basing anything on? I am stating incontestable facts. The Book of the Law addresses these questions in a far superior manner than what you are suggesting above.
...

From my position, there are all kinds of conflicting claims about the afterlife, claimed by what seem to be equally sincere appeals to “intuition,” and I don’t have a way of distinguishing between true afterlife claims and false afterlife claims. I know that all of the claims can’t be true, but I do know that they can all be false, and not having a means of choosing between them, I think the most honest position is not to accept any of them as true.

No the “honest" position is to ask: if the afterlife were conclusively proven to be true or not true, how would it change your life in the here and now?
...

And further, not only do I not have sufficient evidence to hold one of those claims as true, even people who have an “intuitive sense” that one of those claims is true equally do not have sufficient evidence to hold that claim as true.

And this is all without even considering facts like consciousness appears to be – based on evidence – a product of brain activity and thus not anything at all supernatural that can live on after the death of the body.

Please cite a publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that conclusively proves consciousness is solely a product of brain activity.
...

All of the evidence, taken together,

Sorry I have to interject - nothing you’ve said so far constitutes “evidence”. I think you meant speculation, conjecture or personal belief...
...

gives us very strong reason not to accept any afterlife claims, and – as I demonstrated in my last post – accepting one of those claims can give the individual reason to deviate from the course of his natural inclinations (true will).

Fixating on afterlife claims is a red herring. Expending energy on unimportant issues can even become a restriction to finding and doing True Will.
...

The conclusion from all of this is that even if you were right that Crowley was recommending that people blindly accept claims that strike them as “intuitively” being true – which is pretty much the opposite of Crowley’s position – such an idea would still be a detrimental to a proper practice of Thelema.

I would say you are wrong on both counts, namely Crowley’s position and reason being subsumed to intuition as being detrimental to the proper practice of Thelema.

best,

tai


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
15/11/2011 3:17 am  

I think this dialectic get's back to our perception of the universe according to whether we are processing the world in a purely analytical fashion, or whether our perception of the world is a synthesis of perceptions from the whole of your being.

When reason rides out, it does not have to ignore the perceptual synthesis of the Self. When it does so, it enters the world of pure form, but in an insular fashion. It's part of the work for reason to see it's function in relation to the Self, so that a readjustment of identity and some real growth can take place.

All these discussion on Lashtal are excellent for that, even when people get a little hot under the collar at times. 🙂


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
15/11/2011 9:51 am  

Los, 93!

Let's start with the end.

"Los" wrote:
It's pretty telling that you're not trying to make a cogent argument against mine: you're just repeating your own claim louder...

I am not claiming anything except that I think that your claim to represent Crowley's Thelema is not so convincing. There are many parts in Crowley's Thelema that you leave out which I feel are pretty important to the Thelemic practice as Crowley envisioned it. Over the time I dug out enough quotes of Crowley which I think are against your claims. Again, your claims, not mine.

"Los" wrote:
...and in shriller tones.

Okay, so it was me complaining about your "utter foolishness?"
Are you one of those guys who think that a critic has to be a better or equal composer/painter/sportsman or in your case philosopher? Well, it is my observation that for the most part only the worst composer/painter/sportsman/philosopher laments about the quality of his critics. I don't want to tell the world that I have the correct interpretation of Thelema, that is just you.

"Los" wrote:
I'm hoping tai replies soon because he's the only one who's tried to have a serious go at it.

Well, I thought I also tried to. But if you think you can choose your "opponent", a public forum might be not the best place.

"Los" wrote:
and sure, my opinions on matters outside of Thelema (such as my opinions on the supernatural) differ from some of Crowley's opinions

Yes, because Crowley's Thelema includes the acceptance of the book of the law with all its implications about the preater-humanship of its author, its prophetic instances and his role as Thelema's prophet. Crowley repeatedly stated that the proofs for the claims of the book are non-debatable. So, what you are explicating is a continuation and extension of Crowley's Thelema (in a way just like the "Typhonians" do), an extension especially laid out for the naturalistic hard-liner. That's absolutely okay, but it is not the same as Crowley's Thelema or Scientific Illuminism. Many of your thesises about the True Will and its common obstacles and problems do sound very helpful to me, but your fancy picture of how stupid occultists are, really outshine any sincere thoughts of yours. You just sound like someone who has been hurt by a new-age type of person immensely.

"Los" wrote:
I don't agree with the ridiculous position "Well, what Los is saying is fine for the masses -- oh those poor, profane masses -- but for the special few, super friends, these supernatural claims are true!"

With respect, I never did say anything like this, on the contrary, this sounds more like what you are saying constantly: "Well, what the majority of the Lashtal community is saying is fine for the masses -- oh those poor, profane masses -- but for the special few, super friends of Los, these supernatural claims are simply false!"

"Los" wrote:
Biologists today, for example, don't understand evolution in the same way that Darwin did: they have a better, more nuanced model that has resulted from learning more about their subject. Do you think they should come up with a new name for evolution?

No, I don't think so, because evolution was not invented by Darwin. Biologists today do indeed come up with new models of evolution that differ from Darwinism and they probably call it differently. Thelema as the name for a religious philosophy (or whatever you want to call it) was invented by Crowley (of course the word existed before).

In short: Your claim is that "belief in the supernatural" is incompatible with Crowley's Thelema. I say your claim is wrong. "Belief in the supernatural" is compatible with Crowley's Thelema and even reflects Crowley's viewpoint more accurately. Note: I am not saying that "belief in the supernatural" is neccessary. On the other you are indeed saying that "non-belief in the supernatural" is neccessary to practice Crowley's Thelema correctly. This is clearly wrong. Sorry, but that's the way it is. No-one has to prove the existence of the "supernatural" to you to make my point clear, you have to prove that the "belief in the supernatural" is anti-Thelemic and you can't and didn't do that. (By the way, I am using "belief" in the way Crowley did when he believed in the praeter-humanship of Aiwass and the existence of the Secret Chiefs: not blindly believing, but belief based on scientific proof and real experience). And since you repeatedly refuse to acknowledge the compatibility of both belief-systems with Thelema, Los' Thelema IS NOT Crowley's Thelema, although a lot of the key elements are identical.

And that's the whole point. It is not about spooks, flying saucers, giant squids or funny robes. If you like to check and to come back to the original topic of this thread: Visit a party, talk to 10 guests and then try to figure out their birthdate. Crowley did it in 9 out of 10 cases. By means of a totally "un-scientific" and "magical" method. Coincidence?

But of course you are free to speak only to tai.

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
15/11/2011 12:43 pm  

93!

A short addendum: Of course, anyone whose "belief in the supernatural" is based upon some - how you like to call it - fancy picture of himself (be it that there are higher powers to redeem the world or Angels to safe them from anything bad) falls into the same trap as anyone whose "non-belief in the supernatural" is based upon a quite narrow-minded belief in a "regular science" reality-tunnel, or the blind rejection of "occultists" because of their utter foolishness. There really is no difference between both types in the end. And both types of people cannot prove to others that what they are following (or what they are searching for) really is their True Will. The provableness of the reality or existence of the super-natural has nothing to do with the Thelemic method per se. Crowley just says it is immaterial if the super-natural has any objective reality, he doesn't say the super-natural only exists in the mind of fools, case closed. In fact, he often says the contrary and even more often acts accordingly. But well, if you think you now have overcome all his mistakes because you have so much more scientific data that he didn't have access to, then I am glad if that makes you happy. Alas, I just don't buy it. Thelema is about Will and the Thelemic method needs the application of brutal honesty (among other things), and not about buying into the current level of scientific knowledge (which is even more debatable and definition-dependent than the notions of magic, religion, truth and so on).

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
15/11/2011 4:11 pm  

More from One Star in Sight

"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
15/11/2011 6:56 pm  

Hi tai,

Thanks for the thorough response. I want to say, at the outset, that I intend to only address right now one point you made.

This is not an attempt to “avoid” anything you’ve said – as someone else unkindly accused me of doing earlier – but rather an attempt to establish groundwork before moving on in our conversation. I want to make sure that we agree on some basic points before going further because proceeding to answer some of your points before we’ve agreed on the basics is kind of a waste of time.

So here’s the deal: I will address anything you want me to, but I first want to go over a few points I consider basic to this whole debate.

I’m going to begin with my statement that “All claims about the workings of the universe are rational constructs.” This idea is fundamental to everything that follows, so we can’t really have a productive conversation if we don’t agree on this point, or if – as I think is the case – we’re using “rational” in different ways.

You object to my statement on rather odd grounds. You write: “I disagree that all claims about the workings of the universe are rational constructs. Most people make claims without thinking too hard about them.”

Your objection implies that you think “rational constructs” must involve “thinking hard” about them, and that anyone who arrives at a conclusion without “thinking hard” must not have made a “rational construct.” If this is indeed your objection, you completely misunderstand what I mean by calling all claims about the workings of the universe “rational constructs.”

All claims about the workings of the universe are rational constructs in that they are mental representations of how the individual thinks the universe works, arrived at by application – and not necessarily “thinking hard” concentration – of the faculty that produces conclusions from evidence (aka “reason”).

It is true that most people – myself included – hardly put any effort into their application of reason when it comes to 99% of the conclusions we reach daily: this is because the brain has been equipped by evolution to carry out the operations of reason at lightning-fast speed, such that we barely even notice the work of reason.

As an example, when I go out to start my car, and I turn the key and hear a sputtering noise, I instantly think, “Oh great, my car broke down…guess I’ll need to call my mechanic.” In that instant, my brain has performed many rational operations that led to my conclusions, which are rational constructs (several inductions and deductions are needed to reach those conclusions). I don’t sit there “thinking hard” to reach my conclusion, but that doesn’t make the claims that comprise my conclusion any less the product of reason and any less “rational constructs” about the state of the universe. My conclusions are in no way “revealed by experience” alone, nor are they conclusions that I “intuit” about the state of the universe: my conclusions are the product of my reason operating on evidence. It’s just that my reason operates on evidence so quickly that I can barely observe it happening.

Every claim that any person has every accepted about the universe is a rational construct. Now, many of those claims may be claims reached through a faulty application of reason, or may be claims reached through a proper application of reason to faulty or incomplete evidence – so it’s very far from true that all of the claims a person accepts are true, but they are rational constructs nonetheless.

Every claim, from the most mundane (“I live in a house,” or “It will probably snow today,” or “My car is broken”), to claims about the world at large (“The universe is 13 billion years old,” or “There are billions of galaxies, each with billions of stars”), to claims people accept about religion (“There is a God,” or “Praying to St. Christopher will help me find my lost ring”) – every last claim about the universe, not matter how “hard” or not the person has to think about the claim, is a mental representation of how a given individual thinks the universe works, arrived at by means of the faculty of the mind that deals with drawing conclusions from evidence: that is, every one of those claims is a rational construct.

Even claims about non-rational things are rational constructs. For example, the True Will, as defined in Thelema, is non-rational (which is one of the reasons that the reason cannot figure it out). But we can make claims about it that are rational constructs, including defining it and explaining how one goes about discovering it. Similarly, supernatural magick – of the kind where one does a “magical spell” in one’s bedroom and has a “miraculous coincidence” occur – makes claims, which are rational constructs, about a non-rational subject. If you make the claim, “By doing X ritual, you can get Y result,” you’re using your reason to arrive at a claim about a non-rational event (in that, it supposedly works in ways that our idea of cause and effect would not permit).

Even the most absurd claims (“I saw a ghost!” or “Bigfoot came over with Darth Vader last night and we played cards!”) are rational constructs about the way the universe works. In an instance in which a person sincerely accepts a claim such as these, this person’s reasoning faculty has concluded that this claim is true based on evidence (for example, the person may have seen something and concluded, by use of the reason, that he had seen a ghost – in exactly the same lightning-fast manner in which my reason concludes that my car is broken).

What skeptics object to in these latter cases, by the way, is not the idea that someone has had an experience of some kind. Skeptics object to the rational conclusions drawn by people who have experiences. I have no doubt that there are people in the world who have seen things that they can’t explain – but I do doubt the rational conclusion that their reasoning faculty has drawn from the experiences. Similarly, I have no doubt that there are people in the world who have done a “magical ritual” and had a coincidence happen to them shortly thereafter – but I do doubt the rational conclusion that their reasoning faculty has drawn from the experience.

So I’m going to leave it off there. There’s more to say – a lot more – but unless we can come to an agreement on how I’m using “rational constructs,” then we’re just going to be talking past each other.

Again, I will be happy to address the rest of the points in your post, but I want to come to an agreement on this point first.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
15/11/2011 8:50 pm  

Wearisomely verbose ,the above.
I'll summarise.
Kant : Noumenon ,phenomenon .


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
15/11/2011 10:30 pm  

Good summary Nagendra.

"Los" wrote:
You object to my statement on rather odd grounds. You write: “I disagree that all claims about the workings of the universe are rational constructs. Most people make claims without thinking too hard about them.”

There is nothing odd about it. I’m using “reason” in the classical philosophical sense – Kant, The Enlightenment, etc. This is the sense that Crowley would have been familiar with, and used, the term:

In epistemology and in its modern sense, rationalism is "any view appealing to reason as a source of knowledge or justification" (Lacey 286). In more technical terms, it is a method or a theory "in which the criterion of the truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive" (Bourke 263).

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

Note the criterion of truth is “not sensory but intellectual and deductive”. Its the conscious and deliberate application of intellect and deduction to reach conclusions. In fact you used “reason” in exactly this sense when providing an argument against the afterlife:

1. There are people who believe in the afterlife
2. The afterlife scenarios are not the same and therefore cannot be true
3. Therefore the afterlife does not exist

The confusion comes the following definition:

"Los" wrote:
All claims about the workings of the universe are rational constructs in that they are mental representations of how the individual thinks the universe works, arrived at by application – and not necessarily “thinking hard” concentration – of the faculty that produces conclusions from evidence (aka “reason”).

How do you distinguish between “reason” and “understanding” or “reason” and “instincts”? How do you explain the behavior of so-called “unreasonable” people who function just fine in the world? You may not see the point in making these distinctions, but others do - starting from Crowley.

Moreover if you believe this:

"Los" wrote:
It is true that most people – myself included – hardly put any effort into their application of reason when it comes to 99% of the conclusions we reach daily: this is because the brain has been equipped by evolution to carry out the operations of reason at lightning-fast speed, such that we barely even notice the work of reason.

The very concept of “reason” becomes meaningless. It would mean everyone is subconsciously reasonable (“such that we barely even notice the work of reason”). This is utter nonsense. It contradicts everything we know about psychology and the nature of the conscious, subconscious and unconscious.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
15/11/2011 10:55 pm  

a) Transrational: Mystic

b) Rational: Scientist

c) Irrational: Mad ( a few here; not me obviously ) 😆


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
15/11/2011 11:31 pm  

Los some unsolicited advice: If you want to write, write what you know. If you want to write about what you don't really know yet, wait until you do know. In this case, that would require a genuine effort to do the Work involved and sufficient time to acquire the experience necessary. Also, you'd have to be able to approach the endeavor with a somewhat open mind, which may be the biggest stumbling block of all. Skepticism is actually supposed to be a requirement, but you also have to be willing to be wrong about your preconceived ideas.


ReplyQuote
amadan-De
(@amadan-de)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 686
16/11/2011 1:27 am  

or maybe write about what you don't really know, admitting that you dont really know and maybe others who dont really know (me for one) will join in an exploration of the boundary between known and unknown.
Strikes me that the happy meeting place between the two stances here (in this excellent thread btw) would be the scientific study of the collective magickal record - measure similarities, consider context in the widest sense, look for things you can test - which is what I thought Crowley advocated.
Or I might be wrong, it's late. 🙂


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
16/11/2011 4:32 am  

I think it would be interesting to explore the relationship of the rational to the supra-rational as well as the non-rational.

What role do each play in the workings of our intelligence?

How do each contribute to claims we make about the universe?


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
16/11/2011 5:36 am  

Tai,

I’m using the word “reason” to denote the faculty by which the mind produces conclusions from evidence.

In the example of the car not starting, which I gave above, it’s evident that my mind formed that conclusion on the basis of evidence – without the conditions given in that case (that is, the key turning and the car just making a sputtering noise) – I wouldn’t have thought it was broken down at all, so it’s clear that my mind formed that conclusion on the basis of that evidence. It formed that conclusion very, very quickly, and if I wanted to, I could go back and look at it and make sure that it was formed correctly, but it formed a conclusion on the basis of evidence nonetheless. I’m using the word reason to denote the faculty by which my mind formed that conclusion on the basis of evidence and, by extension, the faculty by which all people’s minds form conclusions.

In your last post, you present two objections to what I say, both of which are inadequate, as I’m about to demonstrate. [If you think I have missed a substantive objection in your post, please call it to my attention, and I'll address it]

Your first objection isn’t an objection at all – it’s just you asserting a different definition. You want to use “reason” to denote all deliberate acts of judgment (deliberate in contrast to, say, the way that the mind performs induction and deduction at a snap, as in my car example). This fails as an objection because it’s not an objection…it’s just an attempt to focus the conversation on a subset of what I call reason. We could shift terminology if you like and just use the term “conclusion-forming faculty” instead of “reason,” if that helps you, but I don’t see how it’s very helpful.

Your second objection, unlike the first, is an actual objection to what I’ve said, but it fails because it misunderstands the significance of my argument. This objection consists of claiming that adopting my definition of reason makes reason “meaningless.”

But this is simply not true: under my definition, reason isn’t meaningless – it’s of utmost importance because, if all people use it to form all judgments, then all people are in danger of using it improperly and coming to false conclusions or – worse, from the perspective of Thelema – conclusions about their own course of conduct that could put them into conflict with the true will.

[Again, if it helps you to use different language, then, read the above as “The conclusion-forming faculty is of utmost importance because, if all people use it to form all judgments, then all people are in danger of using it improperly and coming to false conclusions or – worse, from the perspective of Thelema – conclusions about their own course of conduct that could put them into conflict with the true will.” I trust I don’t have to keep translating my text into your idiom like this]

As a practical example, consider the fellow who concludes that “it is wrong to be gay.” He further tells himself that he didn’t reason his way to that conclusion: his perception that it’s “wrong” to be gay is an intuitive perception of the way the universe is: that’s just the way things are, he might say. It’s evident, he might continue, that that’s how the universe is, and anyone who can’t see it is a “sinner” or blinded by the “homosexual agenda.” Whether you like it or not, there are people in the world who talk just like this.

My objection to people like this is that they do use reason to come to conclusions like that, but they blind themselves to the fact that they use reason by convincing themselves that their conclusion stems from some other source (like “direct perception” or “intuition” or “divine inspiration”). But conclusions don’t come from those sources: they come from the faculty of the mind that draws conclusions.

For example, someone like this may have been told, since he was young, by authority figures that being gay is wrong. In this case, his mind drew the conclusion that it’s wrong to be gay deductively. The implicit, unarticulated assumption underlying this conclusion is that authority figures are usually right, and authority figures told him it’s wrong to be gay, and thus it’s wrong to be gay.

Even if this individual had the experience of seeing a bright light appear in front of him and hearing a booming voice say, “It is wrong to be gay,” it still would be his reason that forms the conclusion on the basis of this experience. In this case, his mind would operate on the unspoken premise that any voice he hears in his head accompanied by a bright light is God, and God is always right, and so since he has heard a voice accompanied by a bright light telling him that it is wrong to be gay, it is therefore wrong to be gay. Even if he doesn’t articulate it to himself that way, that’s precisely what his mind is doing: it’s using its conclusion-forming faculty to form a conclusion on the basis of the evidence (in this case, his experience). In neither example is his conclusion actually coming from “direct perception” or “intuition” or “divine revelation,” even if he tells himself it is. It’s coming from his reason, the conclusion-forming faculty.

In both of these cases – and we could go on, inventing similar ways that his reason might have mistakenly come to this conclusion – the train of reasoning that his mind is using is unsound because it starts from premises that are undemonstrated to be true and that he has no reason to accept as true.

But the only way that this individual would ever realize his mistake is to first realize that his conclusion doesn’t come from “intuition” or “divine revelation” or whatever: once he realizes that his conclusion actually comes from the reason, he can start paying attention to the way that his reason works and can be on guard against coming to false conclusions like that.

But so long as he convinces himself that he doesn’t use reason to reach conclusions, as long as he convinces himself that his “divine revelation” reveals the truth of the matter to him, he’s going to be lost in a prison created by his reason. He is, to return to the point that prompted this sub-thread, going to “fall down into the pit called Because, and there he shall perish with the dogs of Reason.”

It’s easy for such unsound conclusions to become the basis for actions, actions that are probably not in accordance with the true will because they are prompted by the motions of the mind, rather than the True Self.

Incidentally, the peanut-gallery sitting on the sidelines is welcome to raise substantive objections to what I’ve said, but if you’re not able to raise substantive objections (and nothing leads me to think that you can), then I would suggest you get a head start on the fervent desire you’ve been expressing in the chat box to ignore me.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
16/11/2011 7:08 am  

Now,...consider the fellow who concludes that “it is wrong to shoot gay.”...and then his buddy who concludes that "it is wrong to shoot gays.” 🙂


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
16/11/2011 8:54 am  

Moderator's Note

Post deleted


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
16/11/2011 9:27 am  

93!

Wow, I wouldn't have thought it is possible seeing someone so deperately trying to save his ass.

He is just constantly talking about this caricature of an "occultist" without ever addressing anything relevant to the topic. We all just learned that someone who apllies reason should be aware of doing so. Thanks! Of course he forgot to mention that even if a giant squid from outer space landed on this planet witnessed by millions and brodcast live into billions of homes and told us that it is wrong to be gay and you would "believe" it you would be wrong. The same goes of course for an international team of nobel prize winning scientists who would tell us so. The provableness or reality or probability of the thing/entity/event that triggered your conclusion has absolutely nothing to do with how your mind works to draw that conclusion.

So who can raise a "substantive objection" to the fact that a conclusion is a more or less rational process - or better: who would want to comment anyway on such obvious drivel?

Indeed, I sometimes enjoy sitting on the gallery and getting out the peanuts. But usually only when entertained by the racket performed, and not when I am bored to death by pathetic and arrogant armchair philosophers who just cannot stand the fact that their favourite star was (among other things) the world's most infamous OCCULTIST!

Maybe he should get into Dale Carnegie? He satisfies the Self without all this occult bullshit attached.

Go ahead, I'll read it when I am awake again...

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4021
16/11/2011 10:37 am  
"Los" wrote:
Incidentally, the peanut-gallery sitting on the sidelines is welcome to raise substantive objections to what I’ve said, but if you’re not able to raise substantive objections (and nothing leads me to think that you can), then I would suggest you get a head start on the fervent desire you’ve been expressing in the chat box to ignore me.

Well, "utter fools" one day, "peanut-gallery" the next; agog to discover what we'll be tomorrow.

Your advice to tai is of course sound, and I'll take it. Whatever the worth of your views, you do their propagation a disservice with your arrogant, high-handed attitude.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
16/11/2011 1:16 pm  
"moyal" wrote:
Now,...consider the fellow who concludes that “it is wrong to shoot gay.”...

Just want to add some 'formulation' to make more clear, what I had 'in mind' with this formulation (no synergy with person pictured and point I want to make, as far as I know):


Lesbian

Never heard of lesbians, who eat one another...


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
16/11/2011 1:23 pm  

1. The example breaks down once the individual becomes a "Free Thinker", and begins making his own decisions. Then, he no longer needs to use simple divisive terms like "wrong", and he can just be gay if he wants, and not have to worry about such arbitrary labels as "wrong".

2. I think you might want to re-consider some of your audience here, as you use examples of sheep when talking to wolves.

3.

"Los" wrote:
But the only way that this individual would ever realize his mistake is to first realize that his conclusion doesn’t come from “intuition” or “divine revelation” or whatever: once he realizes that his conclusion actually comes from the reason, he can start paying attention to the way that his reason works and can be on guard against coming to false conclusions like that."

Yep, I agree. But again, what people have been trying to tell you (for how many years?), is that this model breaks down, especially when the Voice of the Silence becomes involved.

4. "utter fools", "peanut-gallery", I agree with Michael. It's no wonder you are worried about people putting you on ignore, even though you weren't mentioned by name in the Babble-On Box.

5. Nagendra, did we ever get an introductory post from you, or are you trollin'?


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
16/11/2011 1:38 pm  

if science is the "real" way of looking at and partiticipating in the universe then scientists would be the most powerful people on earth.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
16/11/2011 1:56 pm  

i dont even think that that term " coincidence" works. it assumes parameters and identical phenomena . as if perception is a clean clear and constant itself. umm, wheres my mescaline so i can discredit my entire existence to the rest of the world ?


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
16/11/2011 2:40 pm  

I wrote above:

“But the only way that this individual would ever realize his mistake is to first realize that his conclusion doesn’t come from “intuition” or “divine revelation” or whatever: once he realizes that his conclusion actually comes from the reason, he can start paying attention to the way that his reason works and can be on guard against coming to false conclusions like that."

Now, as some have picked up, I’m drawing an analogy (one I left implicit in my last post): just as this fellow uses reason to reach his conclusions – and would realize his mistake if only he recognized that he used reason, and not “intuition” or “divine revelation” – so too do people who accept supernatural claims use reason to reach their conclusions – and would realize their mistake if only they recognized that they used reason, and not “intuition” or “divine revelation.”

In response to my implicit analogy, Azidonis wrote the following:

Yep, I agree. But again, what people have been trying to tell you (for how many years?), is that this model breaks down, especially when the Voice of the Silence becomes involved.

What Azidonis is doing here is called “special pleading”: making an arbitrary exception for a handful of claims. In exactly the same way, the guy in my example could say, “You’re absolutely right, Los, when it comes to those people who accept those Satanic delusions called “magick”…but you’re totally wrong when it comes to my claim that it’s wrong to be gay because your model breaks down when the “Voice of the Lord” is involved, and I’ve heard the Voice of the Lord, so you’re just wrong on this issue.”

Any individual can use special pleading to argue that those claims he happens to like are exempt from what I’ve been saying.

Even the claim, “The model Los is presenting breaks down when the Voice of Silence becomes involved” is a claim reached by means of the reason. As such, we can examine the evidence that supports it and determine that it isn't supported and that no one has any reason to think it's true. In the same way, the claim “The model Los is presenting breaks down when the Voice of the Lord is heard” isn't supported, and no one has any reason to think it's true.

Now please understand – and this is a point I’m going to get to with tai, if he and I ever get past the first step of agreeing that all conclusions are rational constructs – I’m not at all denying that the “Voice of Silence” is experienced by people. I’m equally not denying that the “Voice of the Lord” is experienced by other people. I’m also not denying the Neschamah from the Qabalah.

My argument is merely that none of these things – the Voice of Silence, the Voice of the Lord, Neschamah, divine inspiration of all kinds, intuition, and other terms that may or may not be synonyms for each other, etc., etc. – reveal factual claims about the world because factual claims, as I have painstakingly been arguing, are reached through the faculty concerned with forming conclusions from evidence, or the reason.

The reason – to say this again, for the billionth time – is limited. It is limited to areas that fall under its sphere of concern, and chief among these areas is “making and evaluating factual claims about the world.” Reason isn’t supposed to “describe everything perfectly,” it isn’t supposed to be “infallible and supreme,” and it most especially is not supposed to tell people how they should be acting (when it does, it usurps the place of the true will and leads to restriction). But reason is supposed to make and evaluate conclusions about the world. That’s more or less its job. And such claims that reason makes and evalutes include supernatural claims, even though people try to argue, via special pleading, that their particular favorite claims are exempt from the rules to which they subject all other claims (including rival supernatural claims).

I know that there are people here who resent my stance, who resent my tone, who resent my presentation of Thelema, who resent the lack of respect I have for supernatural claims. That’s fine, and you’re welcome to ignore me if you like, but I would have thought that more of you would like to actually present an argument against mine. I appreciate the two attempts to make an argument against mine in this thread (from tai and Azidonis).

[As an aside, I additionally appreciate the_real_simon_iff's attempts to engage with me, but I've been neglecting his posts because the issue that they concern -- whether Crowley's beliefs about "Secret Chiefs" et al is part of Thelema -- has been very well covered on these forums, and my opinions on that issue are a matter of public record. I don't think it would be terribly enlightening to rehash that debate here, especially when this thread is moving in a productive new direction. The_real_simon_iff is welcome to PM me if he'd like to discuss the matter in private, or he can start a new thread on the matter if he really wants to discuss it in public]

But apart from the handful of people who have been actually writing arguments that respond to mine, there are a lot of people who seem to be just objecting to my tone and not offering any arguments against what I say.

I mean, there are people here who are heads of magical orders, people who have been members of magical orders for decades and decades, people with decades of experience studying Thelema and magick, and people who, in short, hold points of view that are completely and totally undercut by what I’ve been arguing. One would assume that at least some of these people would have, long ago, considered the objections I'm raising and have arguments to present against mine.

And the best some people can present as a case against my arguments is “you’re mean! I’m not talking to you!”? Seriously?

Thanks to those of you who have attempted to engage rationally with me, and I look forward to continuing this conversation with people who are interested in making actual arguments.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
16/11/2011 3:36 pm  
"Los" wrote:
... engage rationally with me...

I like you.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4021
16/11/2011 3:58 pm  
"Los" wrote:
I mean, there are people here who are heads of magical orders, people who have been members of magical orders for decades and decades, people with decades of experience studying Thelema and magick, and people who, in short, hold points of view that are completely and totally undercut by what I’ve been arguing. One would assume that at least some of these people would have, long ago, considered the objections I'm raising and have arguments to present against mine.

I can't speak for others, Los, but I don't find much of interest in your posts, and have stilll less inclination to engage with them. You might well feel that you are dealing devastating body-blows to occultists, but to me it feels like I have been savaged by a dead sheep.

So why aren't I being devastated by your body-blows? Because after many years of working in mysticism and magick I have developed my own criteria of evaluation. You consider those criteria invalid, but I don't. You feel that I should be squaring up to you on these forums; I don't. That's all there is to it; doubtless you'll go on your way, rejoicing, as will I.

It's my guess that most people have got better things to do with their time than engage in sterile and repetitive "debate" with you. I doubt that they're running scared; similarly, they'll normally avoid the pub bore down at their local, no matter how brilliant he thinks he is.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
16/11/2011 3:59 pm  
"Los" wrote:
In response to my implicit analogy, Azidonis wrote the following:

Yep, I agree. But again, what people have been trying to tell you (for how many years?), is that this model breaks down, especially when the Voice of the Silence becomes involved.

What Azidonis is doing here is called “special pleading”: making an arbitrary exception for a handful of claims. In exactly the same way, the guy in my example could say, “You’re absolutely right, Los, when it comes to those people who accept those Satanic delusions called “magick”…but you’re totally wrong when it comes to my claim that it’s wrong to be gay because your model breaks down when the “Voice of the Lord” is involved, and I’ve heard the Voice of the Lord, so you’re just wrong on this issue.”

Any individual can use special pleading to argue that those claims he happens to like are exempt from what I’ve been saying.

It's not special pleading. I'm not pleading anything. I'm telling you.

"Los" wrote:
Even the claim, “The model Los is presenting breaks down when the Voice of Silence becomes involved” is a claim reached by means of the reason.

"Even the claim?" Give me some credit, Los. Of course the reply was reached by reason. The reasoning that 1) I see your little model, and 2) I know for a fact that it breaks down. You want proof? It's available. Get some.

"Los" wrote:
My argument is merely that none of these things – the Voice of Silence, the Voice of the Lord, Neschamah, divine inspiration of all kinds, intuition, and other terms that may or may not be synonyms for each other, etc., etc. – reveal factual claims about the world because factual claims, as I have painstakingly been arguing, are reached through the faculty concerned with forming conclusions from evidence, or the reason.

No, it is not reached through reason, and this much has been stated to you many times over the years. You simply don't want to believe that any factual claims come from beyond reason due to the fact that your model is based on the existence and "lolauthority" of reason.

"Los" wrote:
The reason – to say this again, for the billionth time – is limited. It is limited to areas that fall under its sphere of concern, and chief among these areas is “making and evaluating factual claims about the world.” Reason isn’t supposed to “describe everything perfectly,” it isn’t supposed to be “infallible and supreme,” and it most especially is not supposed to tell people how they should be acting (when it does, it usurps the place of the true will and leads to restriction). But reason is supposed to make and evaluate conclusions about the world. That’s more or less its job. And such claims that reason makes and evalutes include supernatural claims, even though people try to argue, via special pleading, that their particular favorite claims are exempt from the rules to which they subject all other claims (including rival supernatural claims).

At least you admit reason is limited. You still haven't admitted that there are methods of "making factual claims about the world" that do not originate with reason.

"Los" wrote:
I know that there are people here who resent my stance, who resent my tone, who resent my presentation of Thelema, who resent the lack of respect I have for supernatural claims. That’s fine, and you’re welcome to ignore me if you like, but I would have thought that more of you would like to actually present an argument against mine. I appreciate the two attempts to make an argument against mine in this thread (from tai and Azidonis).

Well, to be fair to the "peanut gallery", I recon that many of them don't care enough about it to give any energy to your arguments.

I personally think you have limited yourself in a little box, or sorts, and until you break out of it, you are going to continue the same drabble you have since you first read Erwin's writings. (Take a look at your post history, and how it has changed since you first read said works.) So in that light, I think you are full of shit, and possibly a little jealous of others when you can't "See the Sylphs".

BUT, I also think you mean well, you have a good head on your shoulders, a good heart, and you put a tremendous amount of energy and effort in supporting your claims, even when they are broken down, so you get an A for effort, and I don't mind "fighting with you". It's a good sport. Maybe one day you will be willing to admit you have been clinging to a limited paradigm when attempting to address an unlimited phenomenon. But that's your business, until you try to push it onto others.

"Los" wrote:
[As an aside, I additionally appreciate the_real_simon_iff's attempts to engage with me, but I've been neglecting his posts because the issue that they concern -- whether Crowley's beliefs about "Secret Chiefs" et al is part of Thelema -- has been very well covered on these forums, and my opinions on that issue are a matter of public record. I don't think it would be terribly enlightening to rehash that debate here, especially when this thread is moving in a productive new direction. The_real_simon_iff is welcome to PM me if he'd like to discuss the matter in private, or he can start a new thread on the matter if he really wants to discuss it in public]

Actually, Iff's posts are very much on topic, even in this "productive new direction", in that the "Voice of the Silence" is Spoken by, you guessed it - "The Secret Chiefs".

What makes it all the better, is that somehow you think that all people who have experienced such a phenomenon "believe in otherworldly spirits", or that such a belief is required for the events to occur.

What's even better is that you obviously believe "The Secret Chiefs" are "otherworldly" or "up-in-the-sky-somewhere", and since that is not provable by science or the paradigm you cling to, you have concluded, by your own reason and confusion, that these Secret Chiefs do not exist. The fact is "they do", but not how you may think.

I know, you are wondering, "How did he just say that about me"? Well, if you really thought none of it existed, you wouldn't have to badger the point for years on end, trying to convince others to believe what you have forced yourself to believe, in order to work with your paradigm, which breaks down before it even reaches the Abyss.

"Los" wrote:
But apart from the handful of people who have been actually writing arguments that respond to mine, there are a lot of people who seem to be just objecting to my tone and not offering any arguments against what I say.

Well, to be quite honest, you self-righteous prick (doesn't sound so good directed at you, does it)... you don't come off as the most friendly person.

And no, I'm not trying to start arguments or fights or launch a personal attack against you, but you do deserve a dose of your own medicine, however small.

"Los" wrote:
I mean, there are people here who are heads of magical orders, people who have been members of magical orders for decades and decades, people with decades of experience studying Thelema and magick, and people who, in short, hold points of view that are completely and totally undercut by what I’ve been arguing. One would assume that at least some of these people would have, long ago, considered the objections I'm raising and have arguments to present against mine.

They don't because your arguments simply don't matter to most of them. They just don't see it as important, or worth the energy. It's typical for such a person to allow one to wallow around in his own piss until he figures it out for himself. You are experiencing real Thelema in that regard. There are no crutches there, and very few will even interfere with your understanding. You are a big boy, figure it out!

You do realize that in order to cross the Abyss, if/when you "arrive", you will have to drop all of your preconceived notions, even the facts upheld by science, don't you? Are you prepared for that?

"Los" wrote:
Thanks to those of you who have attempted to engage rationally with me, and I look forward to continuing this conversation with people who are interested in making actual arguments.

Thank you for actually trying to address the problem, instead of taking the little shots at people and ideas that you are prone to do. It's big of you.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
16/11/2011 5:48 pm  

Sol is 'thelemic Hod supreme', be all careful not to destroy her totally!


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
16/11/2011 5:55 pm  

OK Los, let’s put your definition to the test. On what evidence do you draw the conclusion that “All claims about the workings of the universe are rational constructs”? Please focus on "rational constructs" and state your evidence accordingly.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
16/11/2011 6:14 pm  
"Nagendra" wrote:
Azidonis, you know who i am.
Did you really forget to check my IP this time 😉

I'm not a moderator, and don't have the capability (or the interest) in checking your IP.

Just wondering, was all.


ReplyQuote
mika
 mika
(@mika)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 360
16/11/2011 6:17 pm  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
I can't speak for others, Los, but I don't find much of interest in your posts, and have stilll less inclination to engage with them.

Yet apparantly you found enough interest and inclination to respond.

How can a reader take anything you say regarding magical practice seriously when your actions don't align with your words? Hypocrisy kills credibility.

"Los" wrote:
And the best some people can present as a case against my arguments is “you’re mean! I’m not talking to you!”? Seriously?

That's what you get for encouraging people to challenge the voice in their head that narrates their existence. For people who are stuck in the game, questioning their version of reality is no different from questioning their intelligence, hence the defensive reactions.

"Is it me that’s playing head games with you? You’ve heard the voice in your head for so long, you believe it to be you. You believe it to be your best friend. Where’s the best place for a con to hide? The last place you’d look. He’s hiding in your head. Pretending to be you. You’re in a game. The game. Everyone is in it, and nobody knows it. ... But you think he’s you’re best friend. And you protect your best friend. ... Eventually, when the conman is questioned or challenged, it means the victim’s investment, and thus his intelligence is questioned. No one can accept that. Even to themselves." (Jake Green, Revolver)


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
16/11/2011 6:28 pm  

Here Tai (and all),

"tai" wrote:
OK Los, let’s put your definition to the test. On what evidence do you draw the conclusion that “All claims about the workings of the universe are rational constructs”? Please focus on "rational constructs" and state your evidence accordingly.

rational:

"1a : having reason or understanding
b : relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason : reasonable "

construct:

"2 : to make or create (something, such as a story or theory) by organizing ideas, words, etc.
▪ The author constructs all the stories around one theme. ▪ a well-constructed argument"
___________

Also,

Skandha: "In Buddhist phenomenology and soteriology, the skandhas (Sanskrit) or khandhas (Pāli, aggregates in English) are any of five types of phenomena that serve as objects of clinging and bases for a sense of self. The Buddha teaches that nothing among them is really "I" or "mine"."

Buddhist doctrine describes five aggregates:[3]

1. "form" or "matter" (Skt., Pāli rūpa; Tib. gzugs): external and internal matter. Externally, rupa is the physical world. Internally, rupa includes the material body and the physical sense organs.

2. "sensation" or "feeling" (Skt., Pāli vedanā; Tib. tshor-ba): sensing an object as either pleasant or unpleasant or neutral.

3. "perception", "conception", "apperception", "cognition", or discrimination" (Skt. samjñā, Pāli saññā, Tib. 'du-shes): registers whether an object is recognized or not (for instance, the sound of a bell or the shape of a tree).

4. "mental formations", "impulses", "volition", or "compositional factors" (Skt. samskāra, Pāli saṅkhāra, Tib. 'du-byed) : all types of mental habits, thoughts, ideas, opinions, prejudices, compulsions, and decisions triggered by an object.

5. "consciousness" or "discernment" (Skt. vijñāna, Pāli viññāṇa, Tib. rnam-par-shes-pa):
(5a) In the Nikayas/Āgamas: cognizance, that which discerns
(b) In the Abhidhamma: a series of rapidly changing interconnected discrete acts of cognizance.
(c) In some Mahayana sources: the base that supports all experience.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
16/11/2011 6:47 pm  

Well Azidonis, Nagendra is Soofi.
Soofi is Spoofi.
Spoofi is 7.
7 is 11
11=2=0

And every stick has two ends !


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
16/11/2011 7:09 pm  

This makes no sense to me. As far as I can understand him, Los is promoting the theory that the objective mind makes imperfect observations and inaccurate interpretations. Is this not a fundamental occult theory? Yet, he is using it to argue against the occult and the occultists are having none of it.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
16/11/2011 7:16 pm  

Bingo! A+ plus for linda93 😉


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
16/11/2011 7:18 pm  
"tai" wrote:
Bingo! A+ for linda93 😉

ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
16/11/2011 7:32 pm  

Los is very confused.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
16/11/2011 7:33 pm  
"Nagendra" wrote:
Well Azidonis, Nagendra is Soofi.
Soofi is Spoofi.
Spoofi is 7.
7 is 11
11=2=0

And every stick has two ends !

I vaguely recall some of your names. Did you get tossed by the moderator and return with his permission, or register multiple times, or what?


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
16/11/2011 7:41 pm  
"Camlion" wrote:
"Nagendra" wrote:
Well Azidonis, Nagendra is Soofi.
Soofi is Spoofi.
Spoofi is 7.
7 is 11
11=2=0

And every stick has two ends !

I vaguely recall some of your names. Did you get tossed by the moderator and return with his permission, or register multiple times, or what?

I think it's ....or what.
But i'm not too concerned.
Lifes too short. Way too short. Who cares.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
16/11/2011 7:42 pm  
"linda93" wrote:
This makes no sense to me. As far as I can understand him, Los is promoting the theory that the objective mind makes imperfect observations and inaccurate interpretations. Is this not a fundamental occult theory? Yet, he is using it to argue against the occult and the occultists are having none of it.

What is happening, in general, linda93, is people are bickering about whose equally accurate but only partial understanding of, or preference within Thelema is best. 😉


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
16/11/2011 8:07 pm  
"Camlion" wrote:
"linda93" wrote:
This makes no sense to me. As far as I can understand him, Los is promoting the theory that the objective mind makes imperfect observations and inaccurate interpretations. Is this not a fundamental occult theory? Yet, he is using it to argue against the occult and the occultists are having none of it.

What is happening, in general, linda93, is people are bickering about whose equally accurate but only partial understanding of, or preference within Thelema is best. 😉

I don't agree, but whatever.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5323
16/11/2011 8:26 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
I think you are full of shit … Thank you for actually trying to address the problem, instead of taking the little shots at people and ideas that you are prone to do. It's big of you.

Can we all just tone it down a little, please?

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
16/11/2011 8:29 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
"Camlion" wrote:
"linda93" wrote:
This makes no sense to me. As far as I can understand him, Los is promoting the theory that the objective mind makes imperfect observations and inaccurate interpretations. Is this not a fundamental occult theory? Yet, he is using it to argue against the occult and the occultists are having none of it.

What is happening, in general, linda93, is people are bickering about whose equally accurate but only partial understanding of, or preference within Thelema is best. 😉

I don't agree, but whatever.

Well, I think AC would agree with some of what Los writes about true Will. And he would agree about some of what Los writes about "occultists," since AC said the same about some "occultists," and he tried to redeem "occultism" from the sorry state in which he found it. AC was, nonetheless, a Master "occultist" himself, very much so. Some of the "occultists" of today would piss AC off, but certainly not all. Capisce, Az?


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
16/11/2011 9:49 pm  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
I can't speak for others, Los, but I don't find much of interest in your posts, and have stilll less inclination to engage with them.

That’s perfectly fine, but you did, after all, say, on page 2 of this very thread:

When I have a bit more time, Los, I'll look forward to discussing with you some of your remarks in this thread. In the meantime, I'm interested to see you […]

So earlier in this thread, you professed a desire to discuss some of my points and an interest in something I said.

Between then and now, something changed your tune, and it appears to be the fact that you think I’m a big ol’ meanie.

And it’s fine if you think that, but if you really have no interest in what I say or inclination to respond, it’s odd that you continually crop up in threads in which I play a significant role: and when you crop up, it seems as if you never actually offer anything constructive to the argument. Instead, you typically offer dismissive comments toward what I have to say without giving any kind of justification for your attitude.

It seems like odd behavior for someone who has “no interest” in my posts and “no inclination to respond.” I would expect a person with “no interest” and “no inclination” to actually ignore what I have to say.


ReplyQuote
Page 2 / 10
Share: