What is a true act ...
 
Notifications
Clear all

What is a true act of magick ?  

Page 5 / 10
  RSS

Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
25/11/2011 9:34 pm  

maybe when AC says something that sounds supernatural to us, the possiblities of its origins are simpler and even more mysterious than we think?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
25/11/2011 10:10 pm  

Reformulation:
Los, your thinking is not wrong, but you are not able to 'impart' it on Lashtal.
Why?


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
25/11/2011 10:37 pm  

93!

This is all a word-game now, and it will become even more fruitless as before (although I am satisfied that I have some clues about what Los thinks of Crowley and his shortcomings of his perceptions of his environment and how this interfered with his True Will, in Los' opinion).

Take for example the word "claim", often used here. Maybe it is because I am German, but to me a claim is something rational (as Los said), but not because the subject of the claim is rational, but because the making of a claim in itself is a rational process. I am claiming anything only when I rationalize it to communicate it. Any perception I perceive is not a claim until I put it into words for someone other than me. So to say that any intuitive experience or perception I am having "claims" something is wrong, only when I communicate *my feelings or thoughts or whatever* about it, I am making the rational decision to claim something about it. Unless of course, you are so unimaginative to think that when something "strange" happens, it has to be something like an "important claim" from the supernatural.

As soon as you claim anything you should be prepared to back it up. Crowley did so, he told us why he thought that the Book of the Law was communicated to him by supernatural powers. You can accept that or not. We will never know if Rose really suddenly knew all about Egytian Gods. If she really did as Crowley claimed I guess this would be convincing enough, but we don't know and we can only believe Crowley or not. I would be shocked if my wife would do anything like this. But to think that there would have to be some sort of overwhelming message from the supernatural is like to think that an artist *has to produce* a fine work of art - it is not obejectively measurable. What would be wrong if the supernatural just says average stuff? One should not think so much of "super" being a hierarchic "higher", "wiser" or whatever thing, it just means it is outside of what is "natural" for us.

I guess it is now on record that Los, Mika and Erwin do not believe that anything supernatural exists. But all they deliver is that there "might be" other explanations for what is perceived as supernatural by others. And that can be hardly called a proof. What is evident is that they loathe "occultists" - for whatever reason.

Anyway, I am simply objecting Los' thesis that a "false" perception of your environment means a hinderance to following your True Will. Because how could one know? Or is it possible to know what anybody's True Will is NOT? And I don't go deeper into the meaning of "false" or "knowing" - in the end it is a word game.

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
26/11/2011 2:38 am  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
I guess it is now on record that Los, Mika and Erwin do not believe that anything supernatural exists. But all they deliver is that there "might be" other explanations for what is perceived as supernatural by others. And that can be hardly called a proof. What is evident is that they loathe "occultists" - for whatever reason

I do not believe in the supernatural either. Everything in the universe follows fundamental laws. What we call “miracles,” “supernatural” or “acts of magick”, if authentic, are manifestations of higher-dimensional laws that are not understood at present.


ReplyQuote
obscurus
(@obscuruspaintus)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 315
26/11/2011 5:45 pm  

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

First, a confession of sorts. I started following this thread at the beginning but around the end of the first page I could no longer. No matter how hard I tried, I simply could not force myself to read anymore. Somewhere in the past I may have said something about,” chasing after the written word like a dog gone mad chasing it’s own tail.” I think the dog may have caught it and is now in the process of chewing it into a bloody stub? I ask your indulgence then should I be repeating something already said in this thread.

What is a true act of magick? Speaking for myself I see it more as a point of view or perception. There is within and without, inhale-exhale, in and out, down and up. An act of magick is (to me) placing oneself in-between, to go where everything and nothing is possible. First one must fulfill the biological function of propagating the flesh so that hisself has a place to dwell. I no longer want to lay the girl next door, drive the fast sports car or win the lottery. I take the events of this life as they come. It is now the drawing of the bowstring and I am the arrow. When the flesh finally fails and gives way and release occurs, may the flight be straight and true. Past the moon and threw the sun and on out into the womb of space. That to me, is a true act of magick.

Love is the law, love under will.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
26/11/2011 5:51 pm  

i am going to attempt to explain. i believe that crowley's wording of seemingly supernatural events that influenced him, is a key. Praeter-human means beyond-human. AC was a human. He accounted for his own thoughts based on physical reality. Lam the idea, came to him quickly, without prethought, and out of nothing it seemed. Therefore it can be said that AC experienced something from beyond his own self consciousness of his pyhsical reality. From his viewpoint it came not from immediate influence of his body, surroundings, or human contacts. there is grey area but also a lot of black area as to the unknown. we cannot fully see from the lit through the grey throughout the dark. the non consciousness of our own perception out there or beyond can be truthfully labeled as something non human, discarnate, or higher (or lower) intelligence. Just as ufo means unidentified flying object the term accounts for aircraft we are are not familiar with as well as things totally alien. and also wording such as spirit may not only apply to the uncorporal but also the essences within a living body. so i say that not understanding the origins of something is can be credibly told in words of abstract explanation. This probably applies to Aiwass as AC describes it also. Our own minds have loose ends in the universe because we cannot fully connect perception to our self. it does not discount the possiblilities of things existing in higher, lower, or outer origins no matter how mundane or supernatural.


ReplyQuote
gurugeorge
(@gurugeorge)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 456
26/11/2011 7:27 pm  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
93!

This is all a word-game now, and it will become even more fruitless as before (although I am satisfied that I have some clues about what Los thinks of Crowley and his shortcomings of his perceptions of his environment and how this interfered with his True Will, in Los' opinion).

Take for example the word "claim", often used here. Maybe it is because I am German, but to me a claim is something rational (as Los said), but not because the subject of the claim is rational, but because the making of a claim in itself is a rational process. I am claiming anything only when I rationalize it to communicate it. Any perception I perceive is not a claim until I put it into words for someone other than me. So to say that any intuitive experience or perception I am having "claims" something is wrong, only when I communicate *my feelings or thoughts or whatever* about it, I am making the rational decision to claim something about it. Unless of course, you are so unimaginative to think that when something "strange" happens, it has to be something like an "important claim" from the supernatural.

As soon as you claim anything you should be prepared to back it up. Crowley did so, he told us why he thought that the Book of the Law was communicated to him by supernatural powers. You can accept that or not. We will never know if Rose really suddenly knew all about Egytian Gods. If she really did as Crowley claimed I guess this would be convincing enough, but we don't know and we can only believe Crowley or not. I would be shocked if my wife would do anything like this. But to think that there would have to be some sort of overwhelming message from the supernatural is like to think that an artist *has to produce* a fine work of art - it is not obejectively measurable. What would be wrong if the supernatural just says average stuff? One should not think so much of "super" being a hierarchic "higher", "wiser" or whatever thing, it just means it is outside of what is "natural" for us.

I guess it is now on record that Los, Mika and Erwin do not believe that anything supernatural exists. But all they deliver is that there "might be" other explanations for what is perceived as supernatural by others. And that can be hardly called a proof. What is evident is that they loathe "occultists" - for whatever reason.

Anyway, I am simply objecting Los' thesis that a "false" perception of your environment means a hinderance to following your True Will. Because how could one know? Or is it possible to know what anybody's True Will is NOT? And I don't go deeper into the meaning of "false" or "knowing" - in the end it is a word game.

Love=Law
Lutz

Great post. I was thinking a bit more about this the other day, and thought of an amusing analogy that might capture what I think many of us on this side of the argument are saying.

Suppose you have a gourmet dinner, it involves a couple of base foods of some kind (maybe a pie and some veggies), plus some sauces, garnishes, whatever.

What Los, Erwin, etc., are doing, is like eating some portion of that dinner, but setting aside the others.

Which is perfectly fine! They're enjoying a well-made pie, for example, and it certainly is tasty and beautifully cooked. And the way they extol its virtues is spot on - they're accurately describing the peppery taste of the meat, the exquisitely hearty (but not too claggy) quality of the pastry, etc.

But the "dinner", Crowley's "dinner", does happen to involve the veggies, the sauce, the garnishes, etc., for the full experience of the meal. When Crowley cooked the meal, he sort of wanted you to enjoy the whole experience (otherwise why would he have bothered making all those other bits)?

So there's no problem with the good folks of the Thelemic Rationalist Press Association just eating the pie bit of the gourmet dinner; nor, indeed, is there any problem with them saying that they're only interested in the pie bit because they have a principled objection to veggies, and they think Crowley shouldn't have bothered with the veggies because they spoil the taste of the pie; it's just that if they're claiming they've been eating Crowley's gourmet dinner, as intended by Crowley, they're wrong.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
26/11/2011 8:41 pm  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
Take for example the word "claim", often used here. Maybe it is because I am German, but to me a claim is something rational (as Los said), but not because the subject of the claim is rational, but because the making of a claim in itself is a rational process.

Yes, precisely. One might have an experience – say, seeing a bright shape out of the corner of one’s eye late at night, or feeling a strong feeling that one has lived many lives before – but any claims that one makes on the basis of this data are necessarily conclusions constructed by means of the faculty that draws conclusions from evidence (which is called reason). In this sense, all claims are rational constructs.

As soon as you claim anything you should be prepared to back it up.

Yes. And the rest of us can rationally discuss whether the evidence with which one “backs up” one’s claim is sufficient.

Crowley did so, he told us why he thought that the Book of the Law was communicated to him by supernatural powers. You can accept that or not.

This is a perfect example. Even if we take Crowley completely at his word, the circumstances surrounding the reception of Liber Legis do not rise to the level – or even anywhere near the level – of sufficient proof that it was dictated by a supernatural being (that is to say, by a discarnate intelligence of any kind). As I’ve expressed before, I think it’s rather likely that Crowley was less than honest about the details surrounding the reception of the Book, but what the exact truth of the matter was, none of us is really able to say. Again, this is not to say that Crowley is necessarily lying about every aspect of it: I really don’t know, but even if we grant that Crowley was totally honest, the evidence still is nowhere sufficient.

If one accepts Crowley’s claim, one would have to be able to give a sufficient reason to accept it, and, on the basis of the incredibly flimsy evidence available to us, no one has any good reason to accept Crowley’s claim.

I guess it is now on record that Los, Mika and Erwin do not believe that anything supernatural exists.

Well, my point – and I’m only speaking for myself here – is not just that I don’t believe in the supernatural: my point is that no one has sufficient reason to believe in anything supernatural– including especially those people who claim to have “experience” of the supernatural.

As I’ve noted before, a person who thinks he has “experienced” the supernatural does not have sufficient evidence – not even to demonstrate the claim “to him” – see here for details: http://thelema-and-skepticism.blogspot.com/2011/06/believers-say-darndest-things-2-hey-it.htm l"> http://thelema-and-skepticism.blogspot.com/2011/06/believers-say-darndest-things-2-hey-it.html

But all they deliver is that there "might be" other explanations for what is perceived as supernatural by others. And that can be hardly called a proof.

You’re missing the point: when someone advances a positive claim, the proper default position is not to accept the claim until there is sufficient evidence.

I’m certainly not claiming to offer “proof” that there are no supernatural things, any more than I’m not claiming to offer “proof” that there are no invisible purple pixies living under my house. It’s up to the person claiming that something supernatural happened (or claiming that there are invisible purple pixies) to provide sufficient evidence for the claim. Failing this, the proper default position is to remain in a state of non-belief in regards to the claim until such time as sufficient evidence is available.

I am simply objecting Los' thesis that a "false" perception of your environment means a hinderance to following your True Will. Because how could one know?

One doesn’t need to be able to know the specifics of another person’s true will to say that, in general, the accomplishment of one’s true will is aided by as accurate a perception of the environment as possible and is hindered by inaccurate perceptions of the environment.

If it helps, plug in a different activity to see the point. Here: driving to a particular destination is aided by having as accurate a perception of the environment as possible and is hindered by an inaccurate perception of the environment. That statement is indeed true. Someone couldn’t object to it by saying, “But how do you know the destination I’m driving to?!” because the truth of the statement in no way hinges on my knowing where any given individual is driving to. Similarly, the statement I made about the true will is true, and it in no way hinges on my knowing what any given individual’s true will is.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
26/11/2011 8:42 pm  
"moyal" wrote:
Los, you are right, but you can't fuck Lashtal.
Why?

Say what? Here is your “reformulation”:

Los, your thinking is not wrong, but you are not able to 'impart' it on Lashtal.
Why?

For the same reason that I can’t “impart” my (“not wrong”) atheist thinking on members of various religions when I debate them: people have an emotional investment in their cherished beliefs (especially beliefs they have convinced themselves are supported [rationally] on the basis of their [rational] interpretations of their experiences).

It’s pretty fascinating to observe the similarities between the kinds of arguments that crop up on a site like this and the kinds of arguments that crop up between atheists and religious believers elsewhere. In general, religious believers of all kinds – Christians, Muslims, Theistic Jews, etc. – give arguments that sound exactly like those on this thread: frequently, members of these religions claim to have a method of evaluating claims that is superior to reason (they usually call it “faith,” but it amounts to the same thing discussed on this thread under the heading of “intuition”: an inner experience that they think is supportive of their claims).

The kinds of discourse and “scripts” employed by these believers in their arguments is essentially no different than the kinds of scripts we’ve seen on this thread. That right there ought to give the people around here some pause: when you’re advancing a claim whose truth value is indistinguishable from the claims of regular old religions, something is wrong.

Honestly, my goal – insofar as I have a goal – isn’t at all to change the minds of any of the regulars around here, who aren’t going to change their minds any more than the fundie Christians are going to change theirs. In debates of this kind, the target audience consists of the bystanders, the passerbys, the lurkers, and people who generally don’t speak up but who read the threads.

Believe it or not, there are folks out there who aren’t (yet) aware that one can be a Thelemite without believing in a whole bunch of wacky stuff. It’s a good thing for Thelema to have at least a handful of people who say clearly and articulately that they don’t believe in any of this stuff and can explain why they don’t think others have any good reason to believe in any of this stuff.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
26/11/2011 8:48 pm  
"gurugeorge" wrote:
They're enjoying a well-made pie, for example, and it certainly is tasty and beautifully cooked.

Right. In your analogy, the pie is Thelema, and the meal is "Crowley's entire literary output and life interests."

When I'm talking about the pie (Thelema), I talk about the pie, and I leave out the ale (writings about the supernatural), the roast (claims about contact with non-human entities), the bread (mountain-climbing), the cheese (Crowley's poetry), the salad (Crowley's chess-playing), etc.

In fact, I don't even feel any need to talk about how the pie came to be: whether it was really baked by gremlins (received by a non-physical intelligence), as Crowley delights in telling his dinner guests, or whether it was just produced in the kitchen like any other pie.

Why is it, gurugeorge, that you continually and consistently make a severe category error (confusing "Thelema" with "Crowley's entire literary output"), that you are continually corrected on this point, and you never -- not once, to my knowledge -- address the point or even acknowledge it.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
26/11/2011 9:58 pm  
"Los" wrote:
people have an emotional investment in their cherished beliefs

Where's the specific data concerning the individual posters on these boards, or are you generalizing?


ReplyQuote
gurugeorge
(@gurugeorge)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 456
26/11/2011 10:08 pm  
"Los" wrote:
Why is it, gurugeorge, that you continually and consistently make a severe category error (confusing "Thelema" with "Crowley's entire literary output"), that you are continually corrected on this point, and you never -- not once, to my knowledge -- address the point or even acknowledge it.

I think I did address it way back in earlier discussions with Erwin.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you guys have the idea that "Thelema" is something rigorously extractable from Crowley's total output, and that it amounts to a rational (and even rationalistic, atheistic and materialist) philosophy of life.

Now that's a possible way of looking at Crowley's output, but it's not the way he saw it. It's just something Erwin has invented, that some of you agree with.

And on this board, we are more interested in Crowley's ideas than you guys'.

Now, I'm interested enough in Erwin's ideas to occasionally peruse his writings, and I find genuine value in them, just as I sometimes find value in yours and Mika's posts too; but on the whole, I'm much more interested in Crowley's thought - which, unfortunately for you guys, happens to include a fairly firm commitment to all this business about praeterhuman intelligence, something like God or gods, spirits, etc., etc. (I agree that in his earlier days he was more agnostic about the interpretation of astral visions etc., but it's pretty clear that towards the end of his life, while he still kept that option open, and still recommended that stance as a matter of pragmatism, especially to beginners - and remember here that Liber O is a beginner's text - his preference was towards "yes, all that stuff is pretty much real".)

What you are doing here amounts to a sophisticated type of spamming, that's all. And while nobody on any forum minds a bit of someone spamming their ideas now and then (we all do it, and it's fine if it's done with some sense of self-awareness and humour) it can get tiresome when it takes up soooo much bandwidth, is soooo blindly gung-ho, and even occasionally supercilious and - let's not put too fine a point on it - rude.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
26/11/2011 10:08 pm  
"obscuruspaintus" wrote:
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

First, a confession of sorts. I started following this thread at the beginning but around the end of the first page I could no longer. No matter how hard I tried, I simply could not force myself to read anymore. Somewhere in the past I may have said something about,” chasing after the written word like a dog gone mad chasing it’s own tail.” I think the dog may have caught it and is now in the process of chewing it into a bloody stub? I ask your indulgence then should I be repeating something already said in this thread.

What is a true act of magick? Speaking for myself I see it more as a point of view or perception. There is within and without, inhale-exhale, in and out, down and up. An act of magick is (to me) placing oneself in-between, to go where everything and nothing is possible. First one must fulfill the biological function of propagating the flesh so that hisself has a place to dwell. I no longer want to lay the girl next door, drive the fast sports car or win the lottery. I take the events of this life as they come. It is now the drawing of the bowstring and I am the arrow. When the flesh finally fails and gives way and release occurs, may the flight be straight and true. Past the moon and threw the sun and on out into the womb of space. That to me, is a true act of magick.

Love is the law, love under will.

Love the image of an Arrow.

"TreeDragon7" wrote:
AC was a human. He accounted for his own thoughts based on physical reality. Lam the idea, came to him quickly, without prethought, and out of nothing it seemed. Therefore it can be said that AC experienced something from beyond his own self consciousness of his pyhsical reality. From his viewpoint it came not from immediate influence of his body, surroundings, or human contacts. there is grey area but also a lot of black area as to the unknown.

I like where you were going with this.

"gurugeorge" wrote:
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
93!

This is all a word-game now, and it will become even more fruitless as before (although I am satisfied that I have some clues about what Los thinks of Crowley and his shortcomings of his perceptions of his environment and how this interfered with his True Will, in Los' opinion).

Take for example the word "claim", often used here. Maybe it is because I am German, but to me a claim is something rational (as Los said), but not because the subject of the claim is rational, but because the making of a claim in itself is a rational process. I am claiming anything only when I rationalize it to communicate it. Any perception I perceive is not a claim until I put it into words for someone other than me. So to say that any intuitive experience or perception I am having "claims" something is wrong, only when I communicate *my feelings or thoughts or whatever* about it, I am making the rational decision to claim something about it. Unless of course, you are so unimaginative to think that when something "strange" happens, it has to be something like an "important claim" from the supernatural.

As soon as you claim anything you should be prepared to back it up. Crowley did so, he told us why he thought that the Book of the Law was communicated to him by supernatural powers. You can accept that or not. We will never know if Rose really suddenly knew all about Egytian Gods. If she really did as Crowley claimed I guess this would be convincing enough, but we don't know and we can only believe Crowley or not. I would be shocked if my wife would do anything like this. But to think that there would have to be some sort of overwhelming message from the supernatural is like to think that an artist *has to produce* a fine work of art - it is not obejectively measurable. What would be wrong if the supernatural just says average stuff? One should not think so much of "super" being a hierarchic "higher", "wiser" or whatever thing, it just means it is outside of what is "natural" for us.

I guess it is now on record that Los, Mika and Erwin do not believe that anything supernatural exists. But all they deliver is that there "might be" other explanations for what is perceived as supernatural by others. And that can be hardly called a proof. What is evident is that they loathe "occultists" - for whatever reason.

Anyway, I am simply objecting Los' thesis that a "false" perception of your environment means a hinderance to following your True Will. Because how could one know? Or is it possible to know what anybody's True Will is NOT? And I don't go deeper into the meaning of "false" or "knowing" - in the end it is a word game.

Love=Law
Lutz

Great post. I was thinking a bit more about this the other day, and thought of an amusing analogy that might capture what I think many of us on this side of the argument are saying.

Suppose you have a gourmet dinner, it involves a couple of base foods of some kind (maybe a pie and some veggies), plus some sauces, garnishes, whatever.

What Los, Erwin, etc., are doing, is like eating some portion of that dinner, but setting aside the others.

Which is perfectly fine! They're enjoying a well-made pie, for example, and it certainly is tasty and beautifully cooked. And the way they extol its virtues is spot on - they're accurately describing the peppery taste of the meat, the exquisitely hearty (but not too claggy) quality of the pastry, etc.

But the "dinner", Crowley's "dinner", does happen to involve the veggies, the sauce, the garnishes, etc., for the full experience of the meal. When Crowley cooked the meal, he sort of wanted you to enjoy the whole experience (otherwise why would he have bothered making all those other bits)?

So there's no problem with the good folks of the Thelemic Rationalist Press Association just eating the pie bit of the gourmet dinner; nor, indeed, is there any problem with them saying that they're only interested in the pie bit because they have a principled objection to veggies, and they think Crowley shouldn't have bothered with the veggies because they spoil the taste of the pie; it's just that if they're claiming they've been eating Crowley's gourmet dinner, as intended by Crowley, they're wrong.

I agree with you two.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4021
26/11/2011 10:22 pm  
"gurugeorge" wrote:
What you are doing here amounts to a sophisticated type of spamming, that's all. And while nobody on any forum minds a bit of someone spamming their ideas now and then (we all do it, and it's fine if it's done with some sense of self-awareness and humour) it can get tiresome when it takes up soooo much bandwidth, is soooo blindly gung-ho, and even occasionally supercilious and - let's not put too fine a point on it - rude.

Agree absolutely.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
26/11/2011 10:44 pm  
"gurugeorge" wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you guys have the idea that "Thelema" is something rigorously extractable from Crowley's total output, and that it amounts to a rational (and even rationalistic, atheistic and materialist) philosophy of life.

Thelema is a philosophy developed by Crowley. It's "rational" in the same way that every philosophy is rational: it's a bunch of claims about individual conduct that are constructed by reason (just like every other philosophy in the world). That the philosophy deals with something non-rational (the True Will) doesn't make the system any less a "rational" one, in the sense that every system is a series of claims constructed by reason.

I've presented arguments that Thelema is best practiced in the context of atheism and materialism (defined as the lack of acceptance of the belief in gods and "supernatural" claims).

Now that's a possible way of looking at Crowley's output, but it's not the way he saw it.

I agree that Crowley was personally not a materialist in the sense that I am, but I disagree very much that Crowley would equate Thelema with his literary output or thought that Thelema necessitated a belief in the supernatural.

If you think otherwise, give me two quotes from Crowley that clearly and unambiguously equate Thelema with his entire literary output or magical practice.

While you're at it, give me two quotes from Crowley that clearly and unambiguously state that the practice of Thelema necessitates belief in the supernatural.

I'm much more interested in Crowley's thought - which, unfortunately for you guys, happens to include a fairly firm commitment to all this business about praeterhuman intelligence

And again, "Crowley's thought" is distinguishable from "Thelema."

"Thelema" categorically does not mean "everything Crowley ever thought or wrote."

What you are doing here amounts to a sophisticated type of spamming, that's all [..] it can get tiresome

I disagree very much that my posts -- which articulately and carefully engage in arguments presented against me -- constitute "spamming," but if you find me so "tiresome" or "rude," then ignore me already. Do people around here really need an "ignore" button to exercise the tiny bit of self control it takes to read a post and not respond?


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4021
26/11/2011 10:55 pm  

What is a true act of magick?

I agree with the definition that everything is an act of magick. Having said that, I prefer working a ritual such as Reguli to watching football, peeling the spuds or sinking a pint.

For me, "a true act of magick" renews my connection to cosmic consciousness, my awareness of True Will. Every "true act iof magick" not only reinvigorates awareness of that connection, but contributes to reifying that awareness, rendering it deeper and wider.

I agree with tai that there is no such thing as the supernatural, but rather that our knowledge of natural laws is incomplete - in fact, I suspect that we know very little. The sole usefulness of the label "supernatural", in my opinion, is to designate a certain class of literature.

Best wishes,

Michael.


ReplyQuote
gurugeorge
(@gurugeorge)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 456
27/11/2011 2:53 am  
"Los" wrote:
"Thelema" categorically does not mean "everything Crowley ever thought or wrote."

Who says it does?

Also, your verging-on-spam isn't so bad that it's ignore-worthy, but it's still verging-on-spam, and still sort of impolite in a way.

The way I look at it, this board is the best Crowley board on the web, the discussions here are really high quality (and yes, you, Erwin and Mika are part of that quality sometimes - usually up to the point where you've said your piece, but not beyond, not when you get into these interminable arguments).

But it's the best Crowley board on the web because it's focus is strictly on Crowley and his works. So it's a place where people of all persuasions can come here and share interesting tidbits about him, his work, analyse it, and even - to a limited and tactful extent - share insights about it.

IOW, we've all come here and, as it were, handed in our guns at the door. For instance, I'm a Motta man, I was a Probationer in good standing with him at the time of his death. I could have come here and splurged a whole lot of canonical stuff from my point of view, and argued my corner pretty well, through many, many pages of posts. But I didn't, and don't, and I try to keep a strict rein on that sort of thing (of course it's easy to slip into, but I try not to, and try to keep my comments tightly related to OPs, and what I think AC's position would have been on this or that point). I hope I give a good account of my lineage by doing so.

Why not splurge? Because maybe, just maybe, a board that presents "neutral ground" like this has more chance of actually arriving at a genuine Thelemic consensus than a board dedicated to any single supposed "Thelemic point of view" might. Wisdom of crowds, Army of Davids, and all that.

And that requires, yes, the coming together of our several, sometimes quite distinct points of view, but no, not the spamming of them on every goddamn thread at great, tedious and repetitive length.

Have some tact man, say your piece, contribute to the information, and move on. Stop trying to lock horns with everyone, please (and that goes for Erwin and Mika too), this isn't some sort of perpetual rutting season where you have to impress the ladies with the hardness of your logical "must".


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
27/11/2011 9:45 pm  
"gurugeorge" wrote:
"Los" wrote:
"Thelema" categorically does not mean "everything Crowley ever thought or wrote."

Who says it does?

Well, I was responding to what you said earlier:

I'm much more interested in Crowley's thought - which, unfortunately for you guys, happens to include a fairly firm commitment to all this business about praeterhuman intelligence

In my response to you, I was expressing that I’m primarily interested in one part of Crowley’s thought – i.e. Thelema – and I’m less interested in the other parts of his thought, including his apparently supernatural beliefs. The two are not the same thing.

You made a positive claim earlier to the contrary that I’d be interested in seeing you support. You wrote: “Correct me if I'm wrong, but you guys [i.e. Los, Erwin, Mika, et al] have the idea that "Thelema" is something rigorously extractable from Crowley's total output […] Now that's a possible way of looking at Crowley's output, but it's not the way he saw it.”

You are implicitly claiming that the way Crowley *did* see it was that Thelema is equivalent to his entire literary output and that Thelema necessitates accepting supernatural claims.

In all of my reading of Crowley, I never got the impression that he saw Thelema as equivalent to his entire literary output, nor did I ever get the impression that he thought that acceptance of supernatural claims was at all necessary to practice Thelema. In fact, Crowley always presented Thelema as a philosophy of individual conduct, and he never talked about Thelema in terms of supernatural claims. Look at, for example, some of the core Thelemic texts – Liber II, De Lege Libellum, for example, where Crowley explains what Thelema is – not a single supernatural belief and not a shred of a hint that Thelema is equivalent to Crowley’s literary output. The idea emerges from these texts that Thelema is a philosophy of individual conduct. Further, if you look at the extended commentaries to the Book of the Law (The Old and New Comment and Liber Aleph, primarily), there’s hardly anything at all about ceremonial magick and supernatural claims. These same ideas are echoed throughout pretty much everything Crowley wrote about Thelema.

I’d like you to support the claim you made by reference to Crowley’s writings, and I’d like you to at least address the evidence that I’ve just presented: if Crowley really did “see it” in the way that you suggest, then you should be able to do so adequately. This isn’t some kind of insoluble philosophical puzzle here, and it’s not a question of opposing “lineages” or anything: we’re talking about what Crowley actually said, which is a topic that can be decided by reference to what he actually said.

Incidentally, there seems to be some resistance around here – among some, anyway – to discussing in a serious way things said by the man, on the grounds that one can “cherry pick” things he said to make any case at all. Case in point:

I made this nice, lengthy post earlier in the thread arguing that Crowley never presented Understanding as a faculty that can verify factual claims (such as “Reincarnation happens”), and in fact never uses the Understanding as a basis for supporting such claims (he relies, instead, on reason and goes out of his way to dismiss his “feelings” as insufficient to answer such questions). I supported my claim not just with isolated Crowley quotes, but with quotes drawn from multiple sources spanning his entire career. And does anyone even bother responding? No, of course not. People simply say things like, “Oh, anyone can cherry-pick Crowley to make any point, so I’m not even going to bother to read your post.”

Of course, if it were true that “anyone can cherry-pick Crowley to make any point whatsoever,” then there would never be any point to discussing Crowley because everyone’s interpretation of Crowley would equally be “cherry-picking,” and no one would have any grounds for distinguishing correct interpretations from incorrect interpretations (because, by the logic of this argument, any grounds that could be established would themselves be disqualified on the grounds of having been “cherry-picked”). [Obviously, on some points, Crowley might have presented a variety of  conflicting (or changing) opinions, so a proper interpretation would take this into account: but on some points – such as what Thelema is and whether belief in the supernatural is necessary to practice Thelema – Crowley was both consistent and emphatic]

Thus, carried to its logical end, the rationale behind this resistance-to-discussion means that no one could ever have a correct interpretation of Crowley.

Incidentally, this would mean that everyone is equally “right,” that no one is “wrong” (no matter how little they knew about Crowley and his writings), and that everyone gets to be a “master.” In other words, it’s typical, egalitarian claptrap on par with “don’t talk about Crowley or you’ll spoil a seeker’s chance to ‘find his own answers.’” What a silly excuse for not actually talking about the subject – and how convenient for people who know absolutely nothing but still insist on boasting loudly (and emptily) about all their “experience” and “work” while all the time having nothing to show for it besides empty boasts. One starts to get the feeling that these people either haven’t really read Crowley or at least haven’t really read him all that carefully, such that they would be capable of such a discussion.

You, gurugeorge, don’t seem to fall into this camp, though. I’ve seen you make reasonable posts on this forum before, so I’m sure you’ll be kind enough to indulge me by supporting your claims.

Just a few quotes from Crowley saying clearly that Thelema is equivalent to his entire body of work and that the practice of Thelema requires belief in the supernatural.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5320
27/11/2011 10:23 pm  
"gurugeorge" wrote:
But it's the best Crowley board on the web because it's focus is strictly on Crowley and his works.  So it's a place where people of all persuasions can come here and share interesting tidbits about him, his work, analyse it, and even - to a limited and tactful extent - share insights about it.

I've been running this site in its current community-focused style for eight years and you know what?

You're the first member - if I recall correctly - to have got the point - or at least the first to have explained that point! It's the real reason why I've droned on and on about the site being the home of the AC Society, not an occult discussion group, and so on, and why the site's called LAShTAL.COM - a term that's virtually meaningless to all but those that have done at least some of the work. It's deliberately NOT called ThelemaWeb, iOTO, astrumargenteum or any other term that might promote partisanship.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
gurugeorge
(@gurugeorge)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 456
28/11/2011 12:41 am  
"Los" wrote:
Well, I was responding to what you said earlier:

I'm much more interested in Crowley's thought - which, unfortunately for you guys, happens to include a fairly firm commitment to all this business about praeterhuman intelligence

In Crowley's thought about X, whether that be Thelema, poetry, mountaineering, etc., etc.

"Los" wrote:
In my response to you, I was expressing that I’m primarily interested in one part of Crowley’s thought – i.e. Thelema – and I’m less interested in the other parts of his thought, including his apparently supernatural beliefs. The two are not the same thing.

Crowley wrote a bunch of stuff, including poetry, prose, etc., etc., some of that stuff was about Thelema, that's the "gourmet meal" in my previous post - that stuff about Thelema.

What I'm saying is that you're extracting the rational part of Crowley's writings about Thelema and taking it for the whole of Thelema.  In doing so, you get something like a coherent system of some kind, but I (and others here) don't think that that sub-section of Crowley's thought on Thelema represents the whole of Crowley's thought on Thelema.

What you are doing is, in effect, the same thing the Roman/Alexandrinian church did with Gnosticism - they "picked the plums that pleased them" (I trust you do know where that reference comes from?) and created a rationalistic system that would appeal to the masses.

And we all know how that turned out.

Would it be too much to ask not to make the same mistake again?

Thelema is a philosophy of life and a religion that's espoused in what AC claimed was a revealed work, dictated to him by a god.  Obviously it does have some elements of rationality in it (the pie), but it is also a purportedly mystical and magickal work (the veggies and sauce).  After some rebellion, he eventually dedicated his life to expounding what that revealed work contained - and by the end of his life he was totally identified with being the prophet of that revealed text.

This is all obvious. 

Now as I said, you can extract the pie (the rational bits) and obviously that element does cohere nicely in itself.  You can choose to believe that the magickal and mystical stuff is ditchable BUT CROWLEY DIDN'T THINK SO, otherwise he would have said something like "well, I got this revealed work but it's probably just the work of my subconscious, however it does seem to outline a tolerably rational way of life, which I shall now explain" - or something like that (depending of course on whether he made the whole thing up or not).

But he didn't, he stuck to his guns, in every piece of writing you can find - especially after his reception of Liber AL, and especially in his later years - that the book is the delivery of praeter-human intelligence, of "the gods".  In everything he writes about Thelema, he's constantly quoting Liber AL, which by his own words is a revealed text.

So you can take the pie and leave the veggies and sauce, you are perfectly free to do so, but you're not free to call that pie "Thelema".  It's the rational part of Thelema, that's all.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
28/11/2011 2:51 am  
"gurugeorge" wrote:
This is all obvious.

Well, obviously it’s not obvious or we wouldn’t be having this discussion at all.

Crowley wrote a bunch of stuff, including poetry, prose, etc., etc., some of that stuff was about Thelema, that's the "gourmet meal" in my previous post - that stuff about Thelema.

OK, so you weren’t trying to identify “Thelema” with “all of Crowley’s beliefs and writings.” So all that’s left in our disagreement is the question of whether Crowley thought that one must accept supernatural beliefs in order to practice Thelema.

Obviously [Thelema] does have some elements of rationality in it (the pie), but it is also a purportedly mystical and magickal work (the veggies and sauce).

This is the claim I was asking you to support: where, exactly, does Crowley say that Thelema is a “mystical and magickal [sic] work”? [Incidentally, you’ll never find a quote where Crowley calls Thelema a “magickal” work, since – as far as I’m able to tell – Crowley never used the spelling “magickal”]

I agree, certainly, that one might use magical and mystical practices in the service of attaining in Thelema – in the same way that one might use mountain-climbing or poetry in the service of attaining in Thelema – but I wouldn’t say that Thelema “is a mystical and magical work,” any more than I would say it “is a mountain-climbing and poetic work.” And certainly, one need not accept supernatural claims in order to use those magical practices.

The issue here is not whether one can use ceremonial magick in the context of Thelema – which, obviously, one can – the issue is whether Thelema necessitates supernatural beliefs and whether Crowley “saw it” that Thelema requires such beliefs. I think, based on Crowley’s writings, such as those I cited above, the answer is clearly no. After all, he doesn’t say, for example, in Liber II, “Oh, and by the way, in order to follow this philosophy you had better believe that there are supernatural critters running around.”

You have yet to offer textual support of your claim.

Please understand: I’m not trying to be belligerent here or confrontational. I’m having a discussion with you on a discussion board (who would have figured that, eh?) and as part of a discussion, I’m asking you to provide support for a positive claim that you made.

I really don’t think I’m being terribly unreasonable in doing so. 


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
28/11/2011 2:59 am  
"gurugeorge" wrote:
[Crowley] stuck to his guns, in every piece of writing you can find - especially after his reception of Liber AL, and especially in his later years - that the book is the delivery of praeter-human intelligence, of "the gods".  In everything he writes about Thelema, he's constantly quoting Liber AL, which by his own words is a revealed text.

I mean, is the sum total of your argument, "Crowley always said the Book of the Law came from a supernatural source; therefore, he thought that in order to practice Thelema, one must believe in the supernatural"?

If so, I have to admit that I'm not terribly impressed, not the least because in none of Crowley's writings does he make accepting the truth of the reception story a condition of practicing Thelema.

One would think that if Crowley thought that accepting the supernatural in general -- and his reception story in particular -- was a condition of practicing Thelema, he would have said so explicitly. Instead, he doesn't even mention it in the texts that actually explain what Thelema is or what the practice of Thelema entails (indeed, in Liber II, he defines Thelema as entailing nothing more than discovering one's true will and accomplishing it...nothing at all about accepting supernatural claims). He represents himself as being skeptical and doubtful (at least at first) about what happened in Cairo (to the extent of suggesting that "Aiwass" might just be a part of his subconscious), and he consistently urges students to be skeptical of supernatural claims.

Regardless of what he himself may have personally accepted about supernatural claims, I don't think any fair appraisal of his writings could reach any conclusion other than that Crowley did not think it necessary for others to believe in the supernatural in order to practice Thelema.

I'd be happy to reconsider my position if you could present some evidence that supports your case.


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
28/11/2011 8:29 am  
"Los" wrote:
the issue is whether Thelema necessitates supernatural beliefs and whether Crowley “saw it” that Thelema requires such beliefs.

93, Los!

It is also of issue here that Crowley never anywhere "saw it" that Thelema requires the dismissal of the supernatural or that the belief in the supernatural would be a hinderance to practicing or understanding Thelema per se - since this would mean that the man who wrote so voluminously about it was one of those who did not grasp it in the first place. I also agree with some posters here that the world supernatural is misleading. I would prefer to call it the transfer of information between different minds/times using methods that are currently not understood by "science" - or something like that. There don't have to be angels, bearded gods, spooks, unicorns, fairies or squids involved, but since you are constantly naming entities like these when talking about it, it can be inferred that this is how you believe "occultists" see the supernatural (combined with the pressumption that these "occultists" are desperately in need of some kind of redemtion or guidance provided by these entities), and that's not only a ridiculous claim (of course there might be a few people who think exactly this way) but it frankly sounds often quite condescending.

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
28/11/2011 7:16 pm  

AC also wrote about " sacifricing children everyday" which we know was impossible and something he probably never participated in on the physical plane. So what about all the other shocking or supernatural claims ? I can see him grinning quite a bit when he was writing.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5320
28/11/2011 7:28 pm  
"TreeDragon7" wrote:
AC also wrote about " sacifricing children everyday" which we know was impossible and something he probably never participated in on the physical plane.

'Probably'?! 😉

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
28/11/2011 8:43 pm  

Paul, i'd like to think not. AC seemed to like sex more than anything  😉


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5320
28/11/2011 8:56 pm  

You'd 'like to think' that Crowley 'probably never participated in "sacifricing [sic.] children everyday"'?

Allow me to put it a little more strongly: not only did Crowley NEVER sacrifice ANY children, he also NEVER sacrificed ANYONE. Fact.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
28/11/2011 9:09 pm  

i believe that he didnt sacrifice people. he's never as bad as he seems.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
28/11/2011 10:18 pm  
"Los" wrote:
the issue is whether Thelema necessitates supernatural beliefs and whether Crowley “saw it” that Thelema requires such beliefs.

Los, the issue is not whether "Thelema" necessitates "supernatural" beliefs. You are oversimplifying a complex issue.

What I wonder is how you can rationalize extracting the "occult" elements from the founding document of Thelema, Liber AL, and ignoring them. Even beyond the question of its authorship, (a BIG question, in AC's opinion), there is the text itself, and Crowley's comment thereupon - a comment that was mandated by the text. Why did the author deliver Liber AL to an "occultist" to comment on, of all people? Do Crowley's commentaries agree with you on what you call "the supernatural" elements of the Book. (Dumb term!) Does the text even agree with you before AC gets around to interpreting it?

I'm not an advocate of being preoccupied with only the "occult" elements of Thelema, mind you, but I think what you are doing as just as imbalanced. No, if you purged Liber AL entirely of its "occult" elements, it wouldn't be Liber AL. You're going to have to broaden your horizons somehow, as are those who ignore the exoteric applications of the concept of true Will in favor of the exclusively esoteric elements. By that I mean the people who take away from Liber AL ONLY that it was a message sent by an intelligence "independent of a human brain," but mostly disregard the message itself.

What is really required to fully 'get' Thelema is the integration of these esoteric elements with the equally important exoteric ones.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
28/11/2011 10:53 pm  
"Camlion" wrote:
What I wonder is how you can rationalize extracting the "occult" elements from the founding document of Thelema, Liber AL, and ignoring them.

Well, I don't "ignore" any parts of the Book of the Law. I accept the entirety of the text, as written, with no desire to change it.

You apparently think that I "ignore" parts of it, so here's a perfect chance for you to support your claim: cite a specific verse from the Book of the Law that you think I "ignore" and explain why you think this. I will respond to it.

I will reply to the rest of the responses on here when I have more time.


ReplyQuote
mika
 mika
(@mika)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 360
28/11/2011 11:21 pm  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
I guess it is now on record that Los, Mika and Erwin do not believe that anything supernatural exists.

That's more or less accurate in a backwards way, speaking for myself, because:
If something exists, it's natural, therefore nothing supernatural exists.  QED.

What I dispute are claims that something exists without any supporting evidence (other than personal subjective experience, which as much as people would like to believe, is not actually evidence).

For example, if you said "I had a spiritual epiphany during meditation and spoke with my personal Angelic Spiritual Guide", I would not dispute the reality of your experience or your personal interpretations of that experience.  What I would dispute is if you then claimed "therefore Angels are real".  That would not be an argument against the supernatural, it would be an argument against making claims about the objective universe based on a non-scientific, non-indpendently repeatable, subjective experiment.

"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
What is evident is that they loathe "occultists" - for whatever reason.

Personally, I do not loathe occultists.  I loathe self-delusion.  Unfortunately, for many people, questioning their theories or their interpretations of experiences is taken as a personal attack, so I can see how you'd assume that I loathe occultists simply because I require distinguishing between subjective conclusions and objective reality.

"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
Anyway, I am simply objecting Los' thesis that a "false" perception of your environment means a hinderance to following your True Will. Because how could one know?

How?  There you have it - the purpose of Magick, of the Great Work itself.  That is it right there - to learn to distinguish between false perceptions and reality.  You learn to do this by actually practicing magick, by doing the meditations, the work, everything.  Not by sitting around imagining how, but by actually doing it.  You learn to identify what is the false perception, what is imaginary, you call these things out in your mind when you notice your mind creating them, you do this diligently, with discipline, consciously and continuously.  Reality, your "True Will", your essential nature, is what remains.  This is not an intellectual exercise of distinguishing between this and that, it is a practice, it takes work.  The great work.  Are you up for the challenge, or would you prefer to dismiss this as impossible and continue to simply talk the talk?


ReplyQuote
gurugeorge
(@gurugeorge)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 456
29/11/2011 12:08 am  
"Los" wrote:
"gurugeorge" wrote:
[Crowley] stuck to his guns, in every piece of writing you can find - especially after his reception of Liber AL, and especially in his later years - that the book is the delivery of praeter-human intelligence, of "the gods".  In everything he writes about Thelema, he's constantly quoting Liber AL, which by his own words is a revealed text.

I mean, is the sum total of your argument, "Crowley always said the Book of the Law came from a supernatural source; therefore, he thought that in order to practice Thelema, one must believe in the supernatural"?

No. But the supernatural (or just "unfamiliar-to-most-people natural", depending on how you look at it) is implicated in Liber AL, in its reception, and in its message.  As I said, it's internally presented as the dictation of a god to a human being, and it's externally (by Crowley) presented as such too.  The word of the Law, Thelema, is given by a goddess.  The curses and promises are spoken by gods.

So, you guys are saying, "ok we think the gods stuff is bollocks, or at best just a bit of poetry, but there's a rational system here, and we like it, and we recommend people try it".  That's perfectly fine.  What's wonky is when you elevate your preference to a claim that Thelema, as Crowley thought of it, comprises, is implicated with, consists of, involves, etc., only what is physical or mental, and when you browbeat people of the contrary opinion.

(I don't mind you asking for quotes, it's perfectly reasonable, but it would take me some time and effort to get them together, and I'm not concerned enough about changing your opinion to bother with that.  Why should I try and convince you?  You seem to be happy with your position.  I'm just disagreeing, and I think I've given sufficient evidence for why I disagree.  Also, as I said, I would prefer it if you guys would stop spamming LaShtAl - not stop posting, but stop spamming at every available opportunity.  It annoys me because out of respect to the board I try not to spam, so from my perspective you're a "free rider" who's breaking a miniature social contract here.  It's not bad enough to put you on ignore, and it seems to be not bad enough to get you a ban, but it's bad enough for me to complain.)


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
29/11/2011 12:26 am  
"Los" wrote:
"Camlion" wrote:
What I wonder is how you can rationalize extracting the "occult" elements from the founding document of Thelema, Liber AL, and ignoring them.

Well, I don't "ignore" any parts of the Book of the Law. I accept the entirety of the text, as written, with no desire to change it.

You apparently think that I "ignore" parts of it, so here's a perfect chance for you to support your claim: cite a specific verse from the Book of the Law that you think I "ignore" and explain why you think this. I will respond to it.

Here are a few of many applicable verses. Keeping in mind your years of relentless condemnation of both religious and "occult" ideas and practices in these forums, how would you reconcile this intolerance with the following verses? The answer can only be by rationalization, as I said above.

AL III,23:  For perfume mix meal & honey & thick leavings of red wine: then oil of Abramelin and olive oil, and afterward soften & smooth down with rich fresh blood.

AL III,24:  The best blood is of the moon, monthly: then the fresh blood of a child, or dropping from the host of heaven: then of enemies; then of the priest or of the worshippers: last of some beast, no matter what.

AL III,25:  This burn: of this make cakes & eat unto me.  This hath also another use; let it be laid before me, and kept thick with perfumes of your orison: it shall become full of beetles as it were and creeping things sacred unto me.

AL III,26:  These slay, naming your enemies; & they shall fall before you.

AL III,27:  Also these shall breed lust & power of lust in you at the eating thereof.

As you may know, these verses and related ideas typify the physical basis of the central rites of both the most prominent Thelemic religious and "occult" practices at present.

How will you rationalize these verses, Los? And more importantly, why are they included in the text at all? Does the Book intend that religious and "occult" practices might be established in the name of Thelema, by those who Will, in addition to exoteric ones that you prefer?


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
29/11/2011 2:52 am  
"gurugeorge" wrote:
But the supernatural […]is implicated in Liber AL

It’s not. You're demonstrably wrong on this point.

As I said, it's internally presented as the dictation of a god to a human being

And we have Crowley on record as saying explicitly that the “gods” of Thelema are metaphors created for “literary convenience.”

The word of the Law, Thelema, is given by a goddess. The curses and promises are spoken by gods.

Again, not literal gods.

Also, as I said, I would prefer it if you guys would stop spamming LaShtAl - not stop posting, but stop spamming at every available opportunity.

I hardly think that making relevant and insightful posts consisting of cogent analysis of Crowley’s material – and asking people who disagree to provide evidence to support their claims – constitutes “spamming,” by any reasonable definition.

“Spamming,” to me, connotes jumping into all (or most) discussions and not actually engaging with said discussions. I do the opposite on here: I only post on threads where the ideas interest me, and I never do so without engaging explicitly with other posts in what I hope are thoughtful and thought-provoking ways. I try not to post if I don’t have anything to offer.

I think a better example of “spamming” would be those posters who follow me around on my threads, never addressing my points but instead posting variations of “shut up” over and over again. They spam the threads in which I participate.

Camlion:

Keeping in mind your years of relentless condemnation of both religious and "occult" ideas and practices in these forums, how would you reconcile this intolerance with the following verses?

I don’t condemn occult practices. I engage in a variety of occult practices, some regularly (including work with the elixir).

What I “condemn” are the supernatural theories that some people have as the basis for their practice. One is perfectly capable of performing a ritual without thinking that it has a supernatural effect. One can, for example, perform a ritual that triggers a psychological effect.

Those verses you cite indicate rituals that can be done by those whose Will is to do them.

You have failed to support your claim, but it’s nice to see you occasionally try.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
29/11/2011 3:10 am  
"Los" wrote:
Camlion:

Keeping in mind your years of relentless condemnation of both religious and "occult" ideas and practices in these forums, how would you reconcile this intolerance with the following verses?

I don’t condemn occult practices. I engage in a variety of occult practices, some regularly (including work with the elixir).

What I “condemn” are the supernatural theories that some people have as the basis for their practice. One is perfectly capable of performing a ritual without thinking that it has a supernatural effect. One can, for example, perform a ritual that triggers a psychological effect.

Those verses you cite indicate rituals that can be done by those whose Will is to do them.

You have failed to support your claim, but it’s nice to see you occasionally try.

I do not follow you. Please define "supernatural." It is not a term that I have ever used.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
29/11/2011 5:24 am  
"Camlion" wrote:
I do not follow you. Please define "supernatural."

Sure. I use "supernatural" in the same way that everyone else does, to denote things such as ESP, ghosts, demons, "magic," divination, psychic powers, etc. These things are called "supernatural" because they purport to work in ways that violate a naturalist understanding of the world (i.e. one that works according to regular, natural laws). They are additionally called "supernatural" because they appear to be "outside of nature," in the sense of not existing.

As I was saying, I have no problem with "occult" practices and rituals -- it's the supernatural theories attached to these rituals that I take issue with. For example, I regularly practice the Star Ruby and the LBRP to this day. I have no problem with anyone doing these rituals. It's the belief that these rituals can ghost-bust a house, for example, that I take issue with.

Or, as another example, I regularly use tarot cards for divination. The purpose of using these cards is to give my mind a set of symbols to use as a lens for interpreting a situation, to induce the mind to think in ways that it otherwise might not. I have no problem with anyone reading tarot cards (or learning about any particular set of symbolism). It's the belief that the cards actually predict the future -- or that some discarnate spirit can use the cards to tell one the future -- that I take issue with.

Liber Legis contains rituals, but it contains no injunctions toward supernatural beliefs. Rituals, in and of themselves, are nothing more than habitual actions, and whoever wishes to perform rituals can do so. The only thing I'm taking issue with on this thread is particular supernatural beliefs.

So, now that I've clarified that, you have two options: you can try to support your claim about my "ignoring" parts of the Book of the Law by using different kinds of evidence, or you can retract your claim. Well, actually, you have a third option: just ignore it. But since you engaged me on this point, I would assume you'd be interested in seeing it through.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
29/11/2011 12:09 pm  

Frater Pacitius (Albin Grau) Liber I - Book of the Zero Hour, 17:

17. Halten ihn noch am Gaengelband Vernunft und Intellekt - diese
"verfluchten und leeren Dinge" - - - so kehre er um!!

http://www.lashtal.com/nuke/module-subjects-viewpage-pageid-154.phtml


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
29/11/2011 12:53 pm  

93!

To clarify: With "you" I mean a composite of the forum avatars mika, Los and Erwin.

"mika" wrote:
If something exists, it's natural, therefore nothing supernatural exists.  QED.

Another wordgame. Which simply erases the word supernatural. But let's play it. Minds exists. They're natural. Minds communicate. Communication's natural. Minds communicate in different ways, some of them seem to be quite reasonably explained by "science", some of them not. Unexplained communications exist, they're natural. QED. Then it's up to everyone what explanations he buys. You buy only what can be photographed or measured by other technical instruments or is part of your personal interpretation of "objective reality".

"mika" wrote:
Personally, I do not loathe occultists.  I loathe self-delusion.

So you think, but by accepting only your game rules you are simply presupposing that everyone not accepting these rules suffers from serious self-delusion. And then you can happily loathe him. QED.

"mika" wrote:
Unfortunately, for many people, questioning their theories or their interpretations of experiences is taken as a personal attack, so I can see how you'd assume that I loathe occultists simply because I require distinguishing between subjective conclusions and objective reality.

You can require whatever you want. I personally never felt attacked, because I never made any claim about my personal experiences, I am just argueing that your claims about what is objective reality is neither convincing to me personally nor is there a common agreement among scientists about it.

"mika" wrote:
Are you up for the challenge, or would you prefer to dismiss this as impossible and continue to simply talk the talk?

You don't have to challenge me (and by the way, all that I see you are doing is "talk the talk" also, which is logical, since this is a discussion board). Actually all I am saying is that you are seriously challenged. Not by me. I don't want to convince you of anything nor could I care less about your game. Let me just repeat the challenge. Most of what you claim about "occultism", but also about "objective reality" or "Thelema", you are trying to sell as "Crowley's claims". And really, much of what you say can be found in his writings. But you will find a lot more. I am sure I don't have to repeat his convictions about Liber AL and its reception or about channeling information from exterior minds in unxeplained ways or much other "occult" stuff. Yes, he warned against assigning "objective reality" to demons, ghosts, or whatever, but he did never write that "objective reality" IS ALL THERE IS.

So according to your game rules Crowley was either 1) a quite self-delusional "occultist", but you distilled this perfect philosophical system of Thelema from his ramblings or he was 2) speaking "poetically" or "symbolically" when he spoke about this stuff and you finally interpret him correctly. Both of these claims can not be proved.

This has nothing to do with my experiences or self-delusions or claims, but only with your claim that you "speak for Crowley". I can see no indication that there is a distiction between finding/following one's True Will based on your definiton or finding/following one's True Will based on other people's definition which distills other parts of the Crowley corpus. And that's what is relevant to the Aleister Crowley Society, not what you think constitutes "objective reality".

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
29/11/2011 3:54 pm  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
Yes, he warned against assigning "objective reality" to demons, ghosts, or whatever, but he did never write that "objective reality" IS ALL THERE IS.

That he did not.

"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
So according to your game rules Crowley was either 1) a quite self-delusional "occultist", but you distilled this perfect philosophical system of Thelema from his ramblings or he was 2) speaking "poetically" or "symbolically" when he spoke about this stuff and you finally interpret him correctly. Both of these claims can not be proved.

I would have loved to have been present for the Call of the 30 Aethyrs, especially the 10th, so I could have seen the interplay between Crowley, Neuberg, and "Choronzon". It would have been worth the price of admission. Or, of course, present for the writing of Liber AL.

"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
This has nothing to do with my experiences or self-delusions or claims, but only with your claim that you "speak for Crowley". I can see no indication that there is a distiction between finding/following one's True Will based on your definiton or finding/following one's True Will based on other people's definition which distills other parts of the Crowley corpus. And that's what is relevant to the Aleister Crowley Society, not what you think constitutes "objective reality".

I see this as an actual downside of Thelema. Past prophets were an example to those who came after them, etc. Crowley is the anti-example. He didn't want people to be like him, follow him, or imitate him in any way. I think this is good, but it leaves some to the imagination where definitions are concerned. Eventually, you get people creating their own definitions and selling them as Crowley's.


ReplyQuote
mika
 mika
(@mika)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 360
29/11/2011 6:35 pm  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
with your claim that you "speak for Crowley".

Where did I claim that I "speak for Crowley"?  Please provide a quote with a direct link to my post.  If you can't, then this is just further evidence that you are having a very hard time distinguishing between reality and your imagination, what I actually wrote and what you imagine I wrote.

"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
To clarify: With "you" I mean a composite of the forum avatars mika, Los and Erwin.

Ah, so, you're not actually communicating with me.  You're talking to some image in your head, which you have labeled "a composite of ... forum avatars."  Good to know.


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
29/11/2011 7:50 pm  
"mika" wrote:
Ah, so, you're not actually communicating with me.  You're talking to some image in your head, which you have labeled "a composite of ... forum avatars."  Good to know.

93, mika

What's wrong with you? I started my post by saying that I am not talking to you directly. Maybe you personally never said that you are correctly interpreting Crowley (though I seem to remember that quite a lot of times you corrected people who in your view interpreted him incorrectly, so what's the difference?). I was "in a discussion" with Los when you jumped in and to simplify things a bit I composited you and him and Los to one entity. Did that hurt your feelings?

Well, it is also good to know that all you have to say is your little insult, I might have just begun my post with "Dear Gentlemen!" How pathetic.

Okay, so you are under the illusion that you are "really" talking to me, and not with someone in your head. Welcome to the cyberworld.

Not really surprised...

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
29/11/2011 7:56 pm  

Why not try the new "report to moderator" function?

"He said I have said something which I never said!"

Boo-hoo-hoo

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
29/11/2011 8:41 pm  

The atheist Thelemites don't seem to have anything against the term 'supra-rational', and neither do the theists.  Perhaps a little more common ground can be forged from this?  🙂 


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
29/11/2011 9:29 pm  
"Dar" wrote:
The atheist Thelemites don't seem to have anything against the term 'supra-rational', and neither do the theists.  Perhaps a little more common ground can be forged from this?  🙂

Maybe, but...

"Los" wrote:
"TreeDragon7" wrote:
I've always been a little skeptical about results and even my own ability to get them cosmically.

You’re right to be skeptical about supernatural “results” from magical rituals because that’s nothing more than a fantasy. You can’t make yourself find money on the ground by drawing funny signs in the air and muttering in Hebrew, for example.

Making a billiards shot is a much better example of magick at work: according to Crowley’s definition, all willed actions are acts of magick, including my writing of this post.

So if everything you do is magick, what’s the point of calling it magick? Why bother coming up with a term, if it just means everything? Well, look again at the definition: magick is the “Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will,” emphasis added. Most kooky occultists seem focused on the first part – causing the change – but the whole point of magick is the second part of the definition: in conformity with will.

A successful magical operation – and by “magical operation,” I am talking about everyday activities like blowing one’s nose or writing an online post – is one in which an individual successfully manifests his true will in the moment.

[Emphasis on those points which have become the foci of this thread.]

It began on page 1 of this very long thread (and in fact was introduced by Los in the quoted post), and has been going on for quite some time (even before this thread)... perhaps a resolution of some sort will eventually play out.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
29/11/2011 9:59 pm  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
I mean a composite of the forum avatars mika, Los and Erwin.

”Your powers combined…I am Captain Skepticism!”

Most of what you claim about "occultism", but also about "objective reality" or "Thelema", you are trying to sell as "Crowley's claims". And really, much of what you say can be found in his writings. But you will find a lot more.

I think you’re a little confused about what the skeptical crowd is claiming.

In the first place, I certainly acknowledge – and have said multiple times just on this thread, for instance – that what I say about occultism and objective reality are not Crowley’s claims. They’re my claims.

It’s obvious that Crowley claimed to believe in supernatural things.

But the thing is – and you still have yet to grasp this – in my posts, I’m generally not talking about the supernatural claims Crowley said he accepted. I’m talking about Thelema, which isn’t a supernatural claim (and which Crowley never presented as one).

So indeed, “much of what [ I ] say can be found in [Crowley’s] writings.” And while it’s true that “[one] will find a lot more” in those writings, I’m not talking about the “more.” I’m talking about Thelema. [see my exchange above with gurugeorge about distinguishing Thelema from supernatural claims…if he ever posts some evidence of his own, or challenges my evidence, we can resume our discussion]

I talk about Thelema in exactly the form that Crowley did – the unveiling of the Self underneath the veils of the mind – but my writings develop Thelema by exploring ideas consistent with and conducive to it.

The constant cry from people on this thread, “But…but Crowley believed in the supernatural!” is more or less a complete red herring. No one is trying to obscure the facts of Crowley’s life. Go right ahead and start a thread or two to discuss some of his supernatural claims. But these claims aren’t relevant to other parts of Crowley’s body of work: one typically doesn’t talk about Crowley’s claims about the supernatural in reference to his mountain-climbing or his writings about chess, and one also need not discuss them in reference to the practice of Thelema (practice, not supposed origin)


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
29/11/2011 10:05 pm  
"TreeDragon7" wrote:
AC also wrote about " sacifricing children everyday" which we know was impossible and something he probably never participated in on the physical plane. So what about all the other shocking or supernatural claims ? I can see him grinning quite a bit when he was writing.

While I would, like Paul, emphasize the fact that Crowley never literally sacrificed anyone, the point you bring up here is rather important, a point I’ve hesitated putting any emphasis on until now, but since you mentioned it, I might as well bring it up.

I think it’s an open question how much Crowley sincerely believed some of the supernatural claims he made and how much some of these claims were just ideas that he entertained for fun or that he espoused to impress people who would be impressed by that sort of thing.

I’m bound to be misread on this point, so I need to be clear: I think that Crowley was very sincere about his “spirituality,” for lack of a better word. His poetry alone, for example – even without the very impressive Holy Books – testifies to the strength of his aspiration and the sincerity of his pursuit of attainment. Further, the degree of constant work recorded in his diaries (both mystical and magical) indicates his dedication and the effort he put into what he clearly saw as a desirable goal.

When I say, “supernatural claims,” what I’m talking about are his claims to be able to do supernatural things, like guess birthdays nine times out of ten, turn invisible, talk to non-corporeal creatures, summon up real honest-to-goodness-no-fooling demons, levitate, etc.

Now, I don’t want to say something silly like “Crowley never believed any of it! He was a total faker, yo!” But I also don’t want to assert that Crowley blindly believed his own hype.

It might be more useful to put Crowley’s level of belief on a continuum, from supernatural beliefs that he claimed but probably didn’t really believe (like the “turning invisible” stuff) to supernatural claims he may have actually accepted (like the claim that he was chosen and guarded by “Secret Chiefs”).

As TreeDragon points out, it’s absolutely in character for Crowley to be winking over the page at us, putting on airs of being a great and powerful poobah to impress the impressionable, billing himself as some kind of Messiah, representing himself as possessing a wealth of powers that he gladly and selflessly gave up for the higher attainments, etc., etc. It wouldn’t at all be out of character for Crowley to be greatly exaggerating – if not sometimes outright lying – about his acceptance of these claims.

We’ll never know, of course, whether Crowley was sincere about any particular belief or not, but our knowing or not knowing that is completely and totally irrelevant to our study and practice of Thelema.

Lutz keeps saying comments resembling this one:

So according to your game rules Crowley was either 1) a quite self-delusional "occultist"

as if this is some sort of black mark against my position. “Oh no! He thinks Crowley was wrong! Shun the non-believer!!”

Yes, Crowley presented himself, on some points, in ways that most people today would call delusional. Indeed, if we take him at his word – which I hesitate to do in many cases – his beliefs on some issues aren’t too much different than those of any old run-of-the-mill wackaloo.

[Of course, one could always argue that a hundred years ago, it might have been a little more excusable to hold out hope that some supernatural claims would eventually be verified by means of evidence. A hundred years later, we aren’t any closer to any of these claims being verified. Exactly how long are we supposed to go on aping Crowley’s position, waiting for claims that fly in the face of what we know about the universe to be confirmed?]

But – to all of the above – so what? My interest isn’t in those supernatural claims. My interest is in Thelema, which is separate from those claims.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
29/11/2011 11:02 pm  
"Los" wrote:
"Camlion" wrote:
I do not follow you. Please define "supernatural."

Sure. I use "supernatural" in the same way that everyone else does, to denote things such as ESP, ghosts, demons, "magic," divination, psychic powers, etc. These things are called "supernatural" because they purport to work in ways that violate a naturalist understanding of the world (i.e. one that works according to regular, natural laws). They are additionally called "supernatural" because they appear to be "outside of nature," in the sense of not existing.

As I was saying, I have no problem with "occult" practices and rituals -- it's the supernatural theories attached to these rituals that I take issue with. For example, I regularly practice the Star Ruby and the LBRP to this day. I have no problem with anyone doing these rituals. It's the belief that these rituals can ghost-bust a house, for example, that I take issue with.

Or, as another example, I regularly use tarot cards for divination. The purpose of using these cards is to give my mind a set of symbols to use as a lens for interpreting a situation, to induce the mind to think in ways that it otherwise might not. I have no problem with anyone reading tarot cards (or learning about any particular set of symbolism). It's the belief that the cards actually predict the future -- or that some discarnate spirit can use the cards to tell one the future -- that I take issue with.

Liber Legis contains rituals, but it contains no injunctions toward supernatural beliefs. Rituals, in and of themselves, are nothing more than habitual actions, and whoever wishes to perform rituals can do so. The only thing I'm taking issue with on this thread is particular supernatural beliefs.

So, now that I've clarified that, you have two options: you can try to support your claim about my "ignoring" parts of the Book of the Law by using different kinds of evidence, or you can retract your claim. Well, actually, you have a third option: just ignore it. But since you engaged me on this point, I would assume you'd be interested in seeing it through.

Are you serious? "In the same way that everyone else does?" You have somehow managed to cajole a consensus among this thread's participants in adopting the unchallenged use of this bogus term, "supernatural," in a supposedly intelligent discussion.

In Thelema, very little, if anything, is seen "in the same way that everyone does." Everything on every conceivable level of life is questioned, doubted, scrutinized, and 99% of "the same way that everyone else does" is discarded as either useless, counter-productive or down-right dangerous to true Will being done efficiently and without hindrance. You are really nothing but a champion of the status quo imposing yourself on a pocket of resistance under the thin guise of being a fellow seeker after truth. You seek nothing beyond conformity with the shallow ignorance and mediocrity of the status quo.

What you are doing is trying to bring Thelema to the mainstream, where you feel comfortable, by sterilizing it, rather than allowing Thelema to enlighten and purify both the mainstream and yourself. All this is evidence of your very limited understanding of Thelema.

ESP, ghosts, demons, "magic," divination and psychic powers? All of this and more have been dealt with exhaustively by Crowley, employing the method of science, and the results are recorded for posterity. You and he may disagree on many of his conclusions but this is obviously because you have not really done the Work. You are doing an intellectual treatment of the Work, which is not the same thing. The very instrument of the intellect must first be circumvented in order to really do the Work.

In Thelema, as in science, things are understood to rarely be as they seem on the surface. In science, (invention excepted), everything that has ever been discovered and confirmed existed before it was discovered and confirmed, and there are always things that remain to be discovered and confirmed. This is the very spirit of science and any true scientist will affirm these truths. This is not, by any means, a license for the sham or deluded occultist, but not all occultists are shams or are deluded. It was Crowley's self-appointed mission to prove this fact.

As for withdrawing my claim that you are ignoring parts of Liber AL, I will modify it now in light of your recent pretense at doing the Work: You are pretending to accept the Book of the Law in order to facilitate this very sophisticated form of trolling that you do here. You are, as I said initially, rationalizing the parts that you don't understand, that do not fit into your own very narrow paradigm. Your only useful purpose here may be in keeping the few but inevitable sham or deluded occultists here honest.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
29/11/2011 11:40 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
It began on page 1 of this very long thread (and in fact was introduced by Los in the quoted post), and has been going on for quite some time (even before this thread)... perhaps a resolution of some sort will eventually play out.

Actually - when you think about it, this is really a marvellous new thing in human history that such a long running, deep and broad dialogue can take place on a forum over a matter of years like this.  It's quite a refined thing when viewed against the aeons of insularity and disconnectedness.  So; even though it may be frustrating at times when people get stuck on their positions and no movement or insight happens for a while - it's went on long enough that people also know things will change.  People do grow.  People will grow.  Insights and new ways of sharing our perspectives emerge.  And we, the internet generation, can appreciate this like never before, because we witness it happening.  And we can learn from that.

On Paul's site, and maybe this is hitting close to his vision of the grail of Lashtal too?  🙂

This process all seems to be in order and seems quite magical to me as well. 

93's everybody!  🙂

 


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
29/11/2011 11:55 pm  
"Camlion" wrote:
Are you serious? "In the same way that everyone else does?"

Yeah, in the same way that 99.9999% of the people in the English speaking world use the word “supernatural.” The fact that a handful of people on some thread somewhere want to reverse the meaning of the word or abolish it altogether doesn’t change the fact that the word supernatural is used by English speakers to denote claims such as ESP, magic, ghosts, demons, psychic powers, etc., and similar claims that appear to violate a naturalistic understanding of the world.

You seek nothing beyond conformity with the shallow ignorance and mediocrity of the status quo.

You say a lot of bold things in your post – with a lot of bold font – but your meaning here is very vague. What does this sentence mean, exactly? Do you seriously think that anyone who points out that there’s not a single shred of evidence for the existence of anything supernatural seeks “conformity with the shallow ignorance and mediocrity of the status quo”? What’s next? Pointing out that the sky is blue is a sign of yearning for mediocrity and a clear indication I “haven’t done the work”?

You and [Crowley] may disagree on many of his conclusions but this is obviously because you have not really done the Work.

Here’s another chance for you to support your claims: on what basis do you claim that I’ve “not really done the Work”? Because I don't accept wacky supernatural claims, that means I haven't "done the work"?

You don’t know me from Adam, and you don’t know how many years I’ve been at this, how much work I’ve done, what I’ve attained, etc. I could, if I wanted to, run around and yammer about how much “work” I’ve done, but it would completely irrelevant to discussions where we’re talking about ideas.

Anybody with a computer can log onto a web site and say that he’s done all kinds of “work,” but the only sensible way for an outside observer to even begin to discern how adept someone is at a field is the degree to which someone is capable of explaining and talking about his subject.

not all occultists are shams or are deluded. It was Crowley's self-appointed mission to prove this fact.

And how successful was that mission? What “proof” do we have of any supernatural claims, other than a bunch of anecdotes?

It’s quite true that things that are discovered always existed, but no one had any reason to accept that they existed until someone could produce some evidence for them.

You are pretending to accept the Book of the Law

And to this new claim, I have to ask: evidence?


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
30/11/2011 8:25 am  
"Los" wrote:
”Your powers combined…I am Captain Skepticism!”

93, that's a good one!

"Los" wrote:
I’m generally not talking about the supernatural claims Crowley said he accepted. I’m talking about Thelema, which isn’t a supernatural claim (and which Crowley never presented as one).

And I am talking about your claim that the belief in the supernatural is a huge obstacle in doing the Great Work, from which follows that the man who "invented" the system did not really get it himself. It is absolutely okay to think so. But it is nevertheless *your own* derivate of what Thelema *is*.

"Los" wrote:
No one is trying to obscure the facts of Crowley’s life. Go right ahead and start a thread or two to discuss some of his supernatural claims. But these claims aren’t relevant to other parts of Crowley’s body of work: one typically doesn’t talk about Crowley’s claims about the supernatural in reference to his mountain-climbing or his writings about chess, and one also need not discuss them in reference to the practice of Thelema (practice, not supposed origin)

Well, I thought this is a thread about "magical" acts, and not a thread about Thelema. So it is you who brought in the red herring. If we keep talking about "magical acts" you know as well as me that there are many instances in which Crowley was not talking about the psychological effects of magical rituals, but about "real", manifested effects of rituals that were neither coming from his own mind nor from the mind of the "seers" and "mediums" he worked with. Nobody ever said that this is a part of Thelema, I specifically said that I personally see no difference between practicing Thelema with or without the belief in the super-natural. I am not claiming that the super-natural exists! I am claiming that it existed for Crowley and for many others and there is no evidence to say that these persons "don't get it right", because, as you said, to be a Thelemite doesn't mean one have to believe in the super-natural, but it also doesn't mean one has to accept your opinion about it.

So while you think I hi-jacked this thread, I think you did. It's not about Thelema.

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
Page 5 / 10
Share: