But why would anyone do that? Why would anyone accept in the first place that there are such things as karma and incarnations and sitting-still-and-repeating-a-mantra-for-an-entire-incarnation-as-an-effective-method-of-"burn[ing]"-through-all-that-karma-whatever-that-means?

This "why?" to which you demand an answer is not relevant to N Joy's question which presupposes "com[ing] into incarnation for the specific purpose of effectively “sitting still” for almost the entirety thereof [emphasis added]." I chose to provide an answer in line with the question's terms.

 
An interesting response, Tao, for which thanks; it is one which I have considered in some depth from both sides.  My reference to “coming into incarnation” was intended to be ambiguous in that I wanted it to be open and nonexclusive to discussion from the perspective of the possibilities of single-‘this life’ only incarnation as well as multiple Reincarnations. (I also have the feeling that sometime in an earlier life I did devote way too much time to yoga practices, but as this feeling is thoroughly unscientific and will meet with extreme skepticism from our more ultra-rationalist Lashtalians, I had better abandon it forthwith.) 

I suppose my way of looking at it in the previous post was also couched in rather occidental as opposed to eastern, i.e. Buddhist etc., terms.  I think that one would have to buy into the Buddhist philosophy pretty wholesale and find it worthwhile in all its aspects, in order to then devote one’s life to trying to blot oneself out as the best means of advancement.  I don’t know, it might be because I’m only a ‘westerner’ (I’m also reminded of the song “♪ Maybe it’s because I’m a Londoner ♫ ” for some reason) but somehow it seems to me to go rather a bit against the grain of evolution, of progress, of all civilization stands for: and if everyone should choose to follow their own (‘selfish’) desires and become ’still’, what then remains there for civilization to do?

Incidentally, the Wheel is a very pervasive image - the wheel of (re)incarnations, the wheel of life & death, the wheel of woe… perhaps as it is so dictatorial upon the mindset we should really play around with it figuratively a bit more, for example what’s to stop us instantaneously jumping from the hub to the axle and back again simultaneously (or vice versa) - I wonder why should the journey to the axle have to be one way?  And why if the axle becomes stilled (= stationary) doesn’t this stop the movement of the rest of the wheel as well?

N≈ Joy

N Joy,

I agree whole-heartedly with every question and quandary you raise... except when I don't.  😉

As to having to buy into the Buddhist philosophy pretty wholesale, I'd say that's a pretty apt description of Bhikkhu Ananda Metteyya. That path through life may cause suspicions in the observer, as it does for you (and has seemingly sent our good friend into a hyphenated conniption), but for the true believer, it is the only worthwhile path.

Oh, to have that much certainty in any one thing...

until next go 'round,
8)

Ha ha!! Thanks for the reassurance!
I was in a bit of a rush with that last post, and the last paragraph was more in the nature of my “thinking aloud” about the restrictive nature of metaphors (specifically in this case the wheel): I realised after I’d sent it that it would make almost no sense (in rational terms at least), particularly also as I meant to have written “circumference” instead of “hub”, but on reflection I thought I wouldn’t edit it & wipe it out just see what would happen and whether anyone would notice and pick up on it.

Yes, for the true believer in anything, there is only one worthwhile path.  Often that path is the rocky road of fanaticism though, as we can see about us prevalent in the world today.

As you may have noticed, the ‘hyphenated one’ won’t deal with me direct for some reason but seems to prefer answering my points at one remove via the input of another poster - I suppose this manoeuvre might keep some people entertained other than myself!  Good luck with that, then – in the hope that you will manage to make further headway where I haven’t, I gladly turn over the reins to you on this one “…should you wish to accept” (in those immortal words directed towards Jim Phelps in the aptly named Mission Impossible)

This posting will self destruct in five seconds (theoretically I hasten to say; no promises, no pack drill)
N ◊ Joy

Right, but I was questioning the premise of the question. Why would someone accept that as a premise in the first place?

It seems to me that nobody has any good reason to think that the premise is true, thus making the question pointless. I'd be glad to be shown that I'm incorrect and that there are good grounds for thinking the premise is true.

Ah... then perhaps you should have quoted the question rather than the answer so the rest of us could decipher what it was you were getting on about and so that N Joy could have addressed your question directly.

That's how you do philosophy, my friend. You pick an axiom as your starting point and then you follow a line of questioning outwards from it to test how it accords with perceived reality. If we only did philosophy on premises that we already knew to be true, the practice wouldn't have made it past Aristotle.

That's one way to "do philosophy" -- a really stupid way.

If all a person does is "pick an axiom" -- what, like out of a hat? -- and then goes looking for data points *consistent* with that axiom, then that person is very likely to *think* he's acquired "evidence" for a claim when he actually has not.

To explain this point further, I'll note that having data that is *consistent* with a claim is not at all necessarily evidence that the claim is true. To give you a kind of silly example that nicely illustrates the point, let's take as our starting axiom the proposition that aliens are monitoring human life and that they occasionally steal a human's keys and move them somewhere else in order to test how humans react.

What would we expect to see if this axiom were true? Well, we would expect that people would sometimes lose their keys and then usually find them again in short order.

And what do we find when we investigate? Why, the axiom perfectly accords with reality!! Then, does this mean that I've demonstrated that aliens exist and are monitoring human beings right now?

Of course not -- because data points that are merely *consistent* with a claim don't demonstrate that the claim is true. They don't even demonstrate that the claim is more likely to be true than not.

I take it from your "scare quotes" and "silly example" (in this, at least, we are in agreement), that you're not all that well versed in philosophic discourse. Your silly example is an example of scientific inquiry, not philosophic. From the tenor of your recent posts across the board, I am coming to realise that you are fundamentally only interested in the practical "real world" applications of... well, anything.

It surprises me a bit coming from someone who chose a William Blake character for his handle but... some of us are Fraggles and some of us are Doozers, I guess. Carry on building up your well-constructed walls, my friend. I'll carry on exploring the caves.

The fantasies you construct about me are not relevant to the conversation.

Your silly example is an example of scientific inquiry, not philosophic.

But it illustrates why the process of looking for things consistent with an "axiom" does not lead to truth. You were the one who was apparently advocating starting with an axiom and then "test how it accords with perceived reality." My example illustrates exactly what's wrong with what you're advocating.

From the tenor of your recent posts across the board, I am coming to realise that you are fundamentally only interested in the practical "real world" applications of... well, anything.

As opposed to what? Fantasy land applications?

It surprises me a bit coming from someone who chose a William Blake character for his handle

"Mark well my words: they are of your eternal salvation!"

some of us are Fraggles and some of us are Doozers, I guess.

Oh, brother. And some of us are "muggles" and some of us like to pretend we're Harry Potter and his band of merry chums.

Carry on building up your well-constructed walls, my friend. I'll carry on exploring the caves.

That's some fantasy you've got there.

Not only a character but the indwelling essence – the spirit or soul if you like – of Sol, The Sun. (I didn’t notice before, but they are palindromes). 

I do go into the matter a bit more in Reply #82 and #84 to the “Thelemic Practice” thread from a long while back (nearly a year ago now!) when Los was still “talking” to me, if you want to amuse yourself reading it – here’s a short extract:

You know, Los, I find it extraordinary that you should dismiss the Solar being in this way, given your own atavar on this website and your sign-off which states, I quote (with my emphasis): “"Then Los appeard in all his power/ In the Sun he appeard descending before/ My face in fierce flames in my double sight/ Twas outward a Sun: inward Los in his might."(--William Blake.  My emphases.)
Some (I wouldn’t dare dream so myself, being a peaceable sort of chap) would call you a damnable Hypocrite! —Hypocrite lecteur,—mon semblable,—mon frère!

There was no answer to this. (Naturally).

It would be interesting to know also how much Los thinks “Los” (or should those quotation marks be reversed?!) corresponds to Heru-ra-ha / Ra Hoor Khuit.

What does this “in his might” mean in the last line (4) of his signature box to an ‘unbeliever’ – someone who is as stern, inflexible, materialist, empiricist, analytical, ultrarationalist a skeptic as, ahem, Los is?

I see a metaphor but no signs of a fantasy.  Or does Los in his wall-building frenzy (that is making an assumption though that he would work himself up about it) dismiss – by extension and implication – the bedrock of a lot of Platonic philosophy as fantasy as well?

By the use of “guess” I don’t think the analogy was meant to be taken very seriously, believe it or not, and I don’t see personally anything particularly wrong with using Potter – in his place: Horus save us all from intellectual snobbery.  And, as ever, Los uses “abuse” as a diversionary tactic to side-step answering the actual point or question which originally lay behind it – in this case, the “reason” for selecting the William Blake avatar name in the first place.  Can there be hypocrisy afoot?  Or (some would maybe go as far as to say blasphemic) sarcasm in taking the solar spiritual name in vain?  Certainly not much sign of any particular “scientific” consistency there…

N Joy

An Interlude

"And did those feet in ancient time
Walk upon England's mountains green:
And was the holy Lamb of God,
On England's pleasant pastures seen!

And did the Countenance Divine,
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here,
Among these dark Satanic Mills?

Bring me my Bow of burning gold;
Bring me my Arrows of desire:
Bring me my Spear: O clouds unfold!
Bring me my Chariot of fire!

I will not cease from Mental Fight,
Nor shall my Sword sleep in my hand:
Till we have built Jerusalem,
In England's green & pleasant Land"

--William Blake

was about to nip out for some popcorn, but just occasionally, the adverts are better than the main movie. 

there is a Great line in apocalypse now where Willard says "Shit... charging a man with murder in this place was like handing out speeding tickets in the Indy 500. I took the mission. What the hell else was I gonna do?

On a (frivolous) side note.  Fear not William for the saviour of England hath returned

Those Guardian journalists hath deemed it so after they roll in to their workplace via top of the range automobile as their nannies drop their children off at various private schools.

Thanks, everyone, but I think this thread has wandered as far as it's possible to do from the original topic. Time to lock it, preserve it for future generations to admire and move on. In any case, I was never very happy about the misspelling in the title.