Notifications
Clear all

Troll  

Page 1 / 5
  RSS

Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
29/06/2015 12:17 am  

Crawling out of Joe McCarthy's diseased mind
Little WoMan compelled by desperation to be "bigger"

Looking for a scapegoat
Looking for a scapegoat

Who dares to violate the sanctity of the Free Masonic founding fathers?
Find someone who "thinks outside the box" who won't toe the line
Troll
"commie"
Troll
"commie"

Troll...............

Distortion


Quote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
30/06/2015 5:05 pm  

Hmm, Re. Troll... troll... troll, eh?  This wouldn't be any relation to "The Troll-ey Song", as sung by Judy Garland, I suppose?  The one that goes:

♫ Clang, Clang, Clang - went the trolley
Ding, ding, ding - went the bell
Zing, Zing, Zing - went my heartstrings
From the moment I saw him I fell [though not off the bus, presumably - j.b.]

Chug, chug, chug - went the motor
Bump, Bump, Bump - went the brakes
Thump, Thump, Thump - went my heartstrings [again]
When he smiled I could feel the car shake

He tipped his hat
And took a seat
He said he hoped he hadn't
Stepped upon my feet...

Buzz, Buzz, Buzz - went the buzzer
Plop, Plop, Plop - went the wheels
Stop, Stop, Stop - went my heartstrings ♫ [Etc, etc]

Norma N Joy Conquest


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
30/06/2015 7:54 pm  

I'm contemplating how a human being could or would actually draw that conclusion.

There may be more earth-shattering poetry to follow. 


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
30/06/2015 8:40 pm  
"david" wrote:
I'm contemplating how a human being could or would actually draw that conclusion.

Simply enough, by association.  Are you familiar with the concept there, david?

"david" wrote:
There may be more earth-shattering poetry to follow.

“We are not worthy; we are not worthy” ?!??!!???  :'( ::) :-[ ;D.  And would you be expecting some sort of critical appreciation here, creative writing-wise?

" ♪ And it was grand just to stand with his hand holding mine - to the end of the line..."
N~Joy


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
30/06/2015 10:30 pm  

Nothing to do with Garland and her strange drug- fuelled childhood, no.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4054
30/06/2015 10:41 pm  

I'm sorry you responded to the opening post in this thread, Jamie. I was hoping that the thread would just be ignored and fall into the oblivion it deserves.

LAShTAL is about the life, work and legacy of Aleister Crowley. This thread has nothing whatever to do with that.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
30/06/2015 11:06 pm  

It's not a threadl

Post your poetry, stories, art or whatever here for peer review by LAShTAL.COM members. Who knows? You might even be noticed...

Feel free to review my other new poem Michael. http://www.lashtal.com/forum/http://www.lashtal.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3.msg91485;topicseen#new


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5034
01/07/2015 2:05 am  
"Michael Staley" wrote:
I was hoping that the thread would just be ignored and fall into the oblivion it deserves.

"It's not a thread,"  ::)  - it's His way of staying in the limelight.

[/align:22hto1i1]


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
01/07/2015 5:08 pm  
"Michael Staley" wrote:
I'm sorry you responded to the opening post in this thread, Jamie. I was hoping that the thread would just be ignored and fall into the oblivion it deserves.

LAShTAL is about the life, work and legacy of Aleister Crowley. This thread has nothing whatever to do with that.

"david" wrote:
[...] Post your poetry, stories, art or whatever here for peer review by LAShTAL.COM members. Who knows? You might even be noticed...

Feel free to review my other new poem Michael.

This is quite true actually, and was the reason why I responded: the piece was david’s -  I hesitate to call it a “poem”, exactly - and posted within the “Community” section of the forum, and I made a comment upon it purely in that vein. 

Just to mention for the record, I don’t especially view david as being a “troll”, nor do I subscribe to any idea of sending him to coventry or collectively ignoring his contributions here just for the sake of it, and will continue to take each one in turn on its merits - or otherwise.  Like everyone else, and despite sometimes displaying a slightly bolshy attitude (as I remarked in one of my first replies, an "agitator", no less), I'm nevertheless sure david will learn his life lessons in due course & may possibly even come to reflect with benefit upon other posters’ comments made here in the past on this forum.

I’ll also just mention for the record I did not and do not feel it necessary to comment on david’s other posted  “poem” The Hawk-Headed Lord of Radical Honesty, as apart from anything else qualitatively, it seemed to be a way of working his current hobby-horse of “Radical Honesty” in again by the back door, as it were.  I will therefore be ignoring it primarily on that basis.

N Joy


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
01/07/2015 11:02 pm  

Am I a troll?

I think the problem is that there are two camps here in relation to what AC meant in his writings.  I hate to describe it as such.  There  are the Dawkinsesque  a-leprachaunist, a-fairy-ist a-theist camp  who approach magick without recourse to mystical or metaphysical thought and there is their antithesis.  By the way let me explain the Dawkins reference.  He was asked by an interviewer if he was an atheist.  He answered yes, that he didn't believe in God (substitute that for metaphysical entities) only insofar as he didn't accept the existence of leprechauns. as so far there's been no real evidence to suggest that they exist.  He is therefore a-leprechaunist; a-theist.  That's my view, as well as a couple of others.  It's  a minority view.....at the moment...but remember the scene in Salem's Lot when the teenager is scraping on the bedroom window of the main character. repeatedly whispering, "Join us"?  Well, lol, we are growing....join us...join us..lol. 

Seriously though, different view points will inevitably reach a clash as each side hammers out their points and realistically speaking,"group hugs" can block learning.  However, impoliteness and insults are not necessarily part of the equation.  I was actually insulted in the RH thread.   

I felt that the RH thread was going along ok, people were being nice and friendly  until my evidence-gathering methods on social observation were questioned.  Now, maybe I was being paranoid but I felt it was tit for tat action ie calling me out as a sceptical hypocrite in a roundabout way.  That's fitting as RH is about getting one's resentments out in the open.  Nevertheless, a few others imo, were beyond reason and put the boot in as the Guidelines were forgotten  : contributions must be constructive and polite and I feel that I was wrongly accused of being a "troll" a disrupter.  Anyway Paul locked the thread and probably for the best as I had a job keeping things on topic, not that that's my job.

RH and Thelema, are they intertwined?  Well, no one here seems interested and that's fine by me, I guess it's a personal project.     


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 3139
01/07/2015 11:40 pm  
"david" wrote:
AI think the problem is that there are two camps here in relation to what AC meant in his writings.  I hate to describe it as such.  There  are the Dawkinsesque  a-leprachaunist, a-fairy-ist a-theist camp  who approach magick "without recourse to mysticism".   

david is of course correct as to there being "two camps" here: there are on the one hand the (two) partisans of "Thelemic skepticism" (Los and david, and the occaisional drive-by), and, on the other hand, the "camp" that is of course in the majority here, who acknowledge that AC's work is fundamentally about mysticism; the latter camp also includes every published academic who has ever written about AC's work and the authors of all published AC biographies (even Symonds never doubts this as AC's central obsession), every person who knew AC while alive, and every student and disciple who studied under him.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
01/07/2015 11:41 pm  
"david" wrote:
I think the problem is that there are two camps here in relation to what AC meant in his writings.

Although the "camps" you mention each indeed read different parts of AC's work in different ways, it's not ultimately a disagreement about how to read AC (and certainly I don't think anyone would ever argue that AC was a Dawkins-esque atheist).

I would say that the fundamental disagreement is over foundational principles. It seems to me that some people here begin from the proposition that all factual claims ought to be evaluated rationally, while others begin from the proposition that some factual claims ought not to be evaluated rationally.

The flaws of this latter position -- bound up as they are in the fallacy from special pleading -- are too numerous to examine in this post.

Additionally, there are some others who might agree that all factual claims ought to be evaluated rationally but disagree on the implementation of such evaluation.

The results of these conflicting foundational principles and conflicting ideas of implementation can be seen in many of the arguments around here. 

Seriously though, different view points will inevitably reach a clash as each side hammers out their points and "group hugs" can block learning.

"Without Contraries is no progression." --William Blake 

I was actually insulted in the RH thread.

In the spirit of force and fire, let me give you this advice: Get over it. RH is stupid.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
01/07/2015 11:44 pm  
"ignant666" wrote:
who acknowledge that AC's work is fundamentally about mysticism

For what it's worth -- and I'll speak for me here, not for a "camp" -- I would not deny that AC's work is fundamentally about mysticism.

Of course, I don't know that I would necessarily affirm that statement, either, because the phrase "AC's work" encompasses a vast number of texts composed over many years. If you mean to say that Crowley himself was generally a "mystic" in many of his personal practices, that he was deeply committed to personal spirituality, and that spiritual attainment was of deep importance to him, I would be inclined to agree.


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 3139
01/07/2015 11:50 pm  

Los #11: While i obviously disagree with Los about the nature of the difference between the "camps" (which i again note has nothing at all to do with evaluating "factual claims" about "reality" (whatever that is), but rather about evaluating claims about what a certain dead British author said about a thing he made up that he called "Thelema"), this "new Los" is a big improvement on the old version, and I could not agree more with his latter two points.

Los #12: I will clarify: AC's "Thelema" is fundamentally about mysticism.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5034
02/07/2015 12:06 am  

Aha. Note that "Troll" has now fallen into a "two-camp" hoop-de-doo about what Crowley meant.

[/align:3uo4ejxr]


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
02/07/2015 12:13 am  
"ignant666" wrote:
Los #11: While i obviously disagree with Los about the nature of the difference between the "camps" (which i again note has nothing at all to do with evaluating "factual claims" about "reality" (whatever that is)

See? How are people supposed to sensibly discuss Crowley if some of them spout the kind of silliness that you do here? It all goes back to foundational principles.

I will clarify: AC's "Thelema" is fundamentally about mysticism.

Depends on what you mean by "mysticism." I would say that Thelema is fundamentally "about" discovering and carrying out the True Will. Whether the True Will is "mystical" and/or whether or not discovering it involves "mysticism" depends entirely upon the definition of "mystical" and "mysticism" that you mean.

Now, we could have a conversation about this if you like. I think it would be quite interesting. But -- to return to the point I made in post #11, trying to have a "conversation" on any subject is kind of pointless when people don't agree about first principles. If I'm talking about reality and you're talking about make-believe-land where you get to make up anything you like, we're going to be talking past each other.

I'll be back later. If you're interested in having an actual discussion, I'll gladly participate. If, on the other hand, you're interested mainly in foaming at the mouth, raving against the things you imagine that I must mean, and acting belligerently, you can do that too. It'll make for mighty good entertainment either way.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
02/07/2015 12:18 am  
"Los" wrote:
In the spirit of force and fire, let me give you this advice: Get over it. RH is stupid.

haha!  I did.


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 3139
02/07/2015 12:46 am  

With all due respect to your touching belief in "reality", Los, this is the "Aleister Crowley Society" here, not the "Reality (As Seen by Los) Society"; your (or my) views as to the nature of "reality" (or how we  might best argue "factual claims") are of little interest to those who post here, as we are here to discuss the life and leagcy of a long-dead British poet, mystic, occultist, and mountaineer.
BTW, nicely played putting "conversation" in quotes, indicating a bit of a sensayuma about your persona here.


ReplyQuote
Tao
 Tao
(@tao)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 316
02/07/2015 2:40 am  
"david" wrote:
However, impoliteness and insults are not necessarily part of the equation.  I was actually insulted in the RH thread.

Would you say you were more or less insulted in that thread than your fat arsed coworker was by you? How about when you called our webmaster's use of the word "boring" "lazy": What made that polite as opposed to the impoliteness to which you believe you were subjected?

"david" wrote:
Anyway, as I was saying, after my R.H. comment the other day,  I was subsequently snubbed in a hostile manner, by him.  He started to brood.  These are signs of possible, and I want to stress, possible behavioural traits of someone who could get confrontational, particularly as we were both possibly going to leave the room together alone and at the same time.  Anyway all you need to know is that I pissed him off with a radically honest observation.  Pure and simple.

Ignoring the obvious impossibility for physical confrontation over the internet, how do you see your coworker's hostile snub and brooding response to your having "pissed him off" as different, qualitatively, to your two "poems" which you have posted here, ostensibly in the hopes that they will receive peer review and notice?

- Specific answers that display some level of self-awareness would be greatly appreciated.
- Explanation of the final line ("Distortion") also requested (i.e., is this meant to continue the bluntly un-nuanced, surface-level meaning of the rest of the piece as a description of the mentality of those you perceive to be the insulters (the anti-commie/troll McCarthyists), or are you perhaps attempting in the resolution to hint that the poet has also distorted his own perceptions by casting himself as the scapegoat, an apparent victim of the very energies he has recently been sending out into the world).
- Bonus points if you can jackknife Jugorum into your response.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
02/07/2015 5:07 am  
"ignant666" wrote:
With all due respect to your touching belief in "reality", Los,

That's the thing about reality. What you believe has no impact on it.

this is the "Aleister Crowley Society" here

See? You're making factual claims and are implicitly trying to describe reality. You do it all the time in your posts. In this case, there's a lot of evidence to support this assertion of yours, and we thus have good reason to think this particular claim aligns with reality.

Your claim that Thelema is "fundamentally about mysticism" is similarly a factual claim about something in the real world, and it can similarly be evaluated by using evidence and reason. This remains true regardless of what you want to believe.

The point I was making in my last post is that your claim isn't clearly defined enough for someone to make an evaluation of it. I might well agree with you that Thelema is "fundamentally about mysticism," depending on how you mean those words. Or I might disagree. I can't know unless you explain what you mean.

Don't worry, though. I'm not going to insist that you explain yourself, which I suspect you can't. I've had enough entertainment for the time being.


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 3139
02/07/2015 1:45 pm  

Los: Your inability to form coherent arguments is once again evident in your habit of responding to small snippets of what i wrote, as you typically do- young david has learned to this as well. It's a dishonest way of arguing that springs from the fundamental weakness of your claims.
Why not quote what you are responding to in full? It was quite brief.
The answer is that you have no very good response to what i actually wrote, and want to change the subject to your preferred topics, what "True Thelema" is, in some Platonic sense not actually realized in the writings, practice, and life of AC, and your favorite straw-man, the claim that your dispute is with those who say "some factual claims ought not to be evaluated rationally".
You have often pointed out that AC was in some instance "No True Thelemite" where he fell short of your lofty standards of "skepticism".
You want to discuss this "True Thelema" (what i have termed "Los-ianity"), while the rest of us want to get on with discussing the actual life, work and legacy of AC- maybe you would be better off on some sort of Thelemic site?


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
02/07/2015 3:11 pm  
"Los" wrote:
For what it's worth -- and I'll speak for me here, not for a "camp" -- I would not deny that AC's work is fundamentally about mysticism.

"However", in view of Los's later words

"Los" wrote:
Depends on what you mean by "mysticism."

His statement doesn't seem to be terribly “worth a lot” here, then! (Why bother, exactly?  :- ::) ;))

"Words, words, words ..."
N Joy


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5034
02/07/2015 4:19 pm  
"ignant666" wrote:
With all due respect to your touching belief in "reality" ... this is the "Aleister Crowley Society" here, not the "Reality (As Seen by XYZ) Society"; your (or my) views as to the nature of "reality" (or how we  might best argue "factual claims") are of little interest to those who post here, as we are here to discuss the life and leagcy of a long-dead British poet, mystic, occultist, and mountaineer.

Well put and posted!  Now the current trend becomes clearer. Maybe it's even an old trend. No matter WHAT the original title of any thread is, certain posters jump in and divert the subject matter to their time-worn topic(s) that is/are subjects that they previously beat to death in more than one LOCKED threads.

"My blog." "My definition of reality." "My version of Will, Thelema and Objectivity." "My new toy." "My stance on wanting to talk about an off-topic matter ... subject to seventy-seven pages of pre-definition and specific terminology analysis." "How I have been mistreated and mis-understood by you evil turkeys."

Over and over again, we see simple subjects turned into the same old debates, usually by the same people, who are the real Trolls of this Website. I am now considering a complete modification of my participation ... or not 😀


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5034
02/07/2015 4:33 pm  
"Tao" wrote:
... in the hopes that they will receive peer review and notice?


Noticed? Yes.  Review?  ::)[/align:18zdalcx]


ReplyQuote
obscurus
(@obscuruspaintus)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 315
02/07/2015 4:40 pm  

I liken it more to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYKcxnjFRAE


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5034
02/07/2015 5:06 pm  


Please define "liken," "tail," and "your reason for living (without beliefs)."

Also, stick to the point and say something about TROLL.[/align:3lzyqsqb]


ReplyQuote
obscurus
(@obscuruspaintus)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 315
02/07/2015 5:25 pm  

Liken as in compare. I believe it does speak to the topic of "Troll". As pictured.

Edited after thought. Wouldn't saying anything more actually be entering the "trolls" cave?


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
02/07/2015 6:13 pm  
"ignant666" wrote:
Why not quote what you are responding to in full?

Because the post I was replying to is directly above mine. There's no need for me to quote your entire post since someone following this thread can just read it. What I quoted was one of the many fact claims you made in your post, and my intention was to show that you, yourself, consistently make claims about reality that can be evaluated.

Your claim that Thelema is "fundamentally about mysticism" is a claim of this sort, and whether or not it's true depends on what you mean by it. Which is why I invited you to explain it.

It actually is extremely amusing to see you do your damndest to avoid having to explain yourself. And I don't blame you: your optimal strategy in this discussion is to retreat at full speed, with enough bluster thrown in to try to distract people from the fact that you can't defend the things you say.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4054
02/07/2015 6:40 pm  
"Los" wrote:
your optimal strategy in this discussion is to retreat at full speed, with enough bluster thrown in to try to distract people from the fact that you can't defend the things you say.

I don't see any "retreat at full speed" - this is yet another of your self-aggrandising "fancy pictures", similar to an earlier remark of yours that some here were "running scared" of you.


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 3139
02/07/2015 7:07 pm  

Los: Yes, i am aware that you want to turn this thread into the exact same "conversation" you want to have virtually every time you post. That you interpret my unwillingness to play, my mockery of your monomania, and my pointing out that you lack "chops" at logical argument, as "retreat" and "bluster" is as characteristic of your posting style as the unwillingness (or inability?) to engage with what i actually said. Your logical kung-fu is very weak, which is sad to see in one so very proud of his skills in this area (it is not for nothing that the Dunning-Kruger effect comes up so often in "conversations" with you).

This "conversation" that you want to have has been had here a great many times. Your endless preaching of the One True Religion has become tedious to many here, especially because discussion of virtually any topic on the forum is impossible without you (or your chela) trying to turn it into This Topic. This monomania is what caused me to formulate my hypothesis that your posts were a computer science Turing-bot experiment, along with your now-abandoned habits of 1) responding to all arguments with scattershot bursts of out-of-context Crowley quotes 2) never responding to any counter-argument- your posts have become stronger (though no less tedious) since you began to actually engage with those you "converse" with here.

As Shiva has pointed out, "No matter WHAT the original title of any thread is, certain posters jump in and divert the subject matter to their time-worn topic(s) that is/are subjects that they previously beat to death in more than one LOCKED threads."

As obscuruspaintus has pointed out, this "conversation" is pointless.

Every time we sit down to dine and conversate here at the ACS, we have to get up an answer the door- damn Jehovah's Witnesses again!

Perhaps in addition to the disclaimer that "this is not an occult site", we need some sort of evangelist repellant, like this from my front door (which got actual no-foolin' Jehovah's Witnesses to apologize for knocking when i asked how they read those Bibles if they were illiterate):

[/align:2ig13vvn]


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
02/07/2015 7:59 pm  
"Tao" wrote:
Would you say you were more or less insulted in that thread than your fat arsed coworker was by you?

He’s not on this forum (having to comply with it’s guidelines) so,  kind of an irrelevant question, with all due respect.

"Tao" wrote:
How about when you called our webmaster's use of the word "boring" "lazy": What made that polite as opposed to the impoliteness to which you believe you were subjected?

This is not constructive of you, at all imo.  You’re misrepresenting me i.e. that isn’t true. 

Paul locked the Thelemic Practice  thread as he said it was getting “boring” and after 56 pages (count ‘em yes that’s 56) I saw his point of view.  OTOH the accusation of the RH thread being  “boring”, made by posters, after a mere 10 pages, seemed a bit suspect, but i don’t care, it's over with.  That thread is locked and the subject of “RH and Thelema” is now closed.    Plus, it’s trivial and not constructive to discuss this subject further imo.

”.

"jamie barter" wrote:
Just to mention for the record, I don’t especially view david as being a “troll”,

Thanks.  It all rolls along nicely when it's ideas first, personalities second. 


ReplyQuote
Tao
 Tao
(@tao)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 316
02/07/2015 8:58 pm  

You have poured the full depth and breadth of your creative soul into two poetic concretisations of your feelings about Radical Honesty and the perceived unfairness of others' response to it, posted it on a page specifically established to elicit notice and review, and now you want to brush it off as trivial and non-constructive? After a mere two days?

Fair enough, here is my evaluation of your "poetry":

It is nothing more than a blunt and obvious continuation of your troll from the RH thread. When I use the term "troll" in this context, I am not describing some sort of ogre that sits on a bridge and pisses on every passing boat with insults and general unpleasantries. I am speaking of the act, described in the rationalwiki.org link previously posted, of "Breaking the normal flow of debate/discussion.... Disrupting the smooth operation of the site.... Making itself the main topic of interest or discussion.... [and] tak[ing] away from productive work (Rarely a troll may do small amounts of productive work to disguise its true intentions.)."

If you were indeed engaging in legitimate discussion over the past two weeks, then my question of insult would not be irrelevant because it gets at the heart of the perception issue that clouded your reported practice of RH. Likewise, your deflection of the evaluation of your use of the term "lazy"  as untrue also betrays a marked lack of self-awareness or an intentional deflection away from your true intentions in that thread and in this, your "artistic" regurgitation of the dredges of that practice. (See reply #131 of that thread for your direct response to JB's citation of Paul's use of "boring" with your own evaluation of "lazy". There was no qualification at the time that some boredom is justified and some is lazy. Nice off-the-cuff reframing job though.)

If you honestly now believe that it is "trivial and not constructive to discuss this subject further", then it is impossible for me to believe that you ever truly thought it was a constructive topic of discussion. I have no choice but to deduce that you were simply riding a hobby-horse (a "big" one, even) with the sole intention of directing attention at yourself and deflecting discussion from the topic of AC, as has been noticed by several others.

Hence: trolling.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
02/07/2015 10:37 pm  
"Shiva" wrote:
Aha. Note that "Troll" has now fallen into a "two-camp" hoop-de-doo about what Crowley meant.

Well yes, that isn't contradictory.  The use of the term "troll" or disruptor can be used by either side as a form of objectification, an attempt to invalidate, to falsely interpret the other's position.  The discussion, in effect has then become sabotaged.  It's not necessarily a conscious deed and can be wholly automatic.

"ignant666" wrote:
on the other hand, the "camp" that is of course in the majority here, who acknowledge that AC's work is fundamentally about mysticism; the latter camp also includes every published academic who has ever written about AC's work and the authors of all published AC biographies (even Symonds never doubts this as AC's central obsession), every person who knew AC while alive, and every student and disciple who studied under him.

What about Erwin Hessle and academic, Dr Timothy Leary?  The latter was also anti metaphysical,  scientific and a rigorous thinker......well, apart from the early 1970s ESP alien-transmission comet nonsense.  Besides, the authors of AC's biographies?  How many of them were actually rigorous in thought? 

Also, this is a fallacy to say that the majority agree on something in a given situation therefore it is true.  Think every major scientific breakthrough that ever happened particularly involving Galileo, Edison, the Wright brothers and Marconi.  In such cases the majority were, eventually proven wrong.

The fallacy committed was, in fact argumentum ad populum.


ReplyQuote
Tao
 Tao
(@tao)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 316
03/07/2015 1:27 am  

What does "anti metaphysical" (words that do not accurately describe Leary, as you yourself note) have to do with mysticism (something which Leary was studying throughout his life)?


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 3139
03/07/2015 1:34 am  

davd: had i argued that it is true that AC's work is fundamentally about mysticism because so many say so, you would be correct.

However, i didn't do this; I merely pointed out that literally almost every person who has ever devoted serious study to AC/Thelema, except Erwin, Los and you, thinks this: all academics who have published peer-reviewed scholarship on AC/Thelema  say this (this certainly doesn't include Tim Leary- has Hessle published scholarly work?), all published bios say this (you are correct that none are very rigorous), and everyone who ever knew AC who has left any written record agrees also.

You could of course be right against that near unanimous opposition; it could be true that no actually understood AC/Thelema until well into the internet era.


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 3139
03/07/2015 1:42 am  

Tao is of course correct that Leary's work was very much bound up with mysticism (my point was merely that the things he wrote about AC are not included in his scholarly work).
Speaking of "The Method of Science, The Aim of Religion", look up the Good Friday experiment, an effort to induce religious experience through mescaline (back when that was still sort of legal). There are two peer-reviewed articles that i know of (one a 20 year (or so) follow-up); Leary was on the guy's PhD dissertation committee as i recall.


ReplyQuote
obscurus
(@obscuruspaintus)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 315
03/07/2015 5:34 am  

Talking, thinking and talking and writing, more words, more thinking and talking and writing round and round we go eventually we reach what the economist calls "point of diminished returns". Some things cannot be taught no matter how hard we try. The capacity to understand is present or is not. But carry on. Isn't pointlessly chasing our tails part of the process, the path? All will pass? Drive on! and good night.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
03/07/2015 11:40 am  

Leary even described the term "neuroses" as "metaphysical jabberwocky".  Come on he was a scientist.  He would've sided with the a-leprachaunist position.    Would love some evidence that challenges this.

My source is RAWilson"s "Cosmic trigger" where RAW interviews him for first time if I'm not mistaken.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
03/07/2015 12:51 pm  

I’m confused – perhaps someone can help advise what this thread is now meant to be about, or is it a general “free-for-all”? (I don’t believe there is particular piece of lashtal jargon for that, but it will do for the interim).

According to individuals’ definitions, david may or may not be a troll.  He does, as Tao puts it, certainly “break the normal flow of debate/discussion” from time to time; sometimes this may even “disrupt the smooth operation of the site”, but if anything is guilty of “making itself the main topic of interest or discussion” then surely it is the brand of Scepticism chiefly put forward by Los over time.  I will go out on a limb and add that I don’t think david is doing what he does with malice aforethought to generally bugger things up as in the main he seems sincere (albeit occasionally mischievous and/or naïve, although that’s no crime) to me, and it appears that at least ignant666 is in agreement with this notion.  But what do I know, perhaps we're mistaken and out of touch with the general sentiment.  Maybe we should have a poll!?

N Joy


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
03/07/2015 3:01 pm  
"Tao" wrote:
You have poured the full depth and breadth of your creative soul into two poetic concretisations of your feelings about Radical Honesty and the perceived unfairness of others' response to it, posted it on a page specifically established to elicit notice and review, and now you want to brush it off as trivial and non-constructive? After a mere two days?

The explanation for this sudden mercurial shift would appear to be clear from the response given:

Reply #16 by david on: Yesterday at 12:18:49 am:

Quote from: Los on July 01, 2015, 11:41:04 pm
“In the spirit of force and fire, let me give you this advice: Get over it. RH is stupid.”

haha!  I did.

Clearly david is unwilling to continue in view of the fact that Los considers the whole idea of it to be stupid, and doesn’t wish to go against the word of his “guru”.  Talking of whom, there is clear evidence here:

Reply #21 on: Yesterday at 03:11:08 pm:

Quote from: Los on July 01, 2015, 11:44:40 pm:
“For what it's worth -- and I'll speak for me here, not for a "camp" -- I would not deny that AC's work is fundamentally about mysticism.”

"However", in view of Los's later words:

Quote from: Los on Yesterday at 12:13:09 am:
"Depends on what you mean by "mysticism.""

his statement doesn't seem to be terribly “worth a lot” here, then!

that Los was (somewhat hypocritically) doing just what he frequently criticises others in other threads (often Azidonis, I have noticed) as doing - i.e., practising “furious back peddling” – or here in this same thread with ignant666 as:

"Los" wrote:
Your claim that Thelema is "fundamentally about mysticism" is a claim of this sort, and whether or not it's true depends on what you mean by it. Which is why I invited you to explain it.

It actually is extremely amusing to see you do your damndest to avoid having to explain yourself. And I don't blame you: your optimal strategy in this discussion is to retreat at full speed, with enough bluster thrown in to try to distract people from the fact that you can't defend the things you say.

More (mere?) words,
N Joy


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
03/07/2015 3:16 pm  

Actually Jamie, no that's wrong.  I do not want to discuss RH now because the moderator locked the thread and the subject seems to cause unnecessary discord.  If people want to discuss it they could pm me but I'd rather give it time so I can contemplate just what got me interested, at that time, in RH and it's possible similarities to Thelemic philosophy.

I was saying to Los that I got over the insults by the way.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
03/07/2015 4:27 pm  
"david" wrote:
Actually Jamie, no that's wrong.  I do not want to discuss RH now because the moderator locked the thread and the subject seems to cause unnecessary discord.  If people want to discuss it they could pm me but I'd rather give it time so I can contemplate just what got me interested, at that time, in RH and it's possible similarities to Thelemic philosophy.

That does seem to be sound policy there, david.

"david" wrote:
I was saying to Los that I got over the insults by the way.

That also seems sound policy.  Mayhap you might eventually come to review and "get over" your outlook towards Los’s approach to scepticism as a whole, too  😀

N Joy


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5034
03/07/2015 4:30 pm  
"obscuruspaintus" wrote:
... eventually we reach what the economist calls "point of diminished returns".

Um ... that was about three days ago.

"jamie barter" wrote:
I’m confused – perhaps someone can help advise what this thread is now meant to be about ...

That's because we have reached the "point of diminished capacity." Pay attention to the high points please:
(1) The title of this thread is TROLL. Who the Troll is, is undetermined ... but the thread was started by Oh, Him.
(2) The content of this thread is about anything that deflects from identifying the title with the original poster.
(3) The division hither homeward is about assorted gobbel-dee-gook that always springs up in any thread that continues for more than three posts, and which involves the concept that you don't know what yo're talking about and please define your terms.

Now, does that clear things up for you?

ADDITIONALLY, this thread is a form of a cesspool where fragments of locked threads and flotsams of unresolved antagonisms have gathered together to ferment. I think this thread should be sub-titled "The Skeptic Tank." ;D


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
03/07/2015 5:21 pm  
"Shiva" wrote:
"jamie barter" wrote:
I’m confused – perhaps someone can help advise what this thread is now meant to be about ...

That's because we have reached the "point of diminished capacity." Pay attention to the high points please:
(1) The title of this thread is TROLL. Who the Troll is, is undetermined ... but the thread was started by Oh, Him.
(2) The content of this thread is about anything that deflects from identifying the title with the original poster.
(3) The division hither homeward is about assorted gobbel-dee-gook that always springs up in any thread that continues for more than three posts, and which involves the concept that you don't know what yo're talking about and please define your terms.

Now, does that clear things up for you?

Er – a little bit! (he said diplomatically) 😉

Incidentally, while we're discussing allsorts here, I was mulling over this matter of material being described as “boring” (- I can’t think why!) & it struck me that although boring can describe that which is monotonous or repetitious, in this context it seems to be mainly something which is insufficiently stimulating in terms of getting something worthwhile back for one’s original engagement or input.

Someone is of course bound to disagree.  (But whether they can overcome their lethargy & be bothered to post is another business...)

N Joy


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
03/07/2015 5:35 pm  
"Michael Staley" wrote:
I don't see any "retreat at full speed" - this is yet another of your self-aggrandising "fancy pictures", similar to an earlier remark of yours that some here were "running scared" of you.

A post from Michael Staley that adds absolutely nothing to the conversation.

Drink!


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
03/07/2015 5:43 pm  
"ignant666" wrote:
This "conversation" that you want to have ... has become tedious

Then stop responding to me. Don't you have any self-control whatsoever?

Nobody is making you read my posts, and nobody is forcing you to respond to them. I'm not sure what kind of "button" my posts press inside you, but my positions seem to agitate you. Maybe your inability to respond to my arguments infuriates you. Who knows?

It's awfully entertaining, though. If you keep it up, maybe you'll succeed in distracting a few people -- perhaps even yourself -- from the fact that you cannot defend your positions. How about you say the words "No True Scotsman" one more time? The fact that you evidently don't know what they mean is pretty damn funny. Or here's one: how about you make a statement and then refuse to explain what you mean -- not because you're incapable of explaining yourself (oh no, it couldn't be that....) but because the whole conversation is "tedious" (so tedious that you have a compulsive need to respond to me)?

What a knee slapper! Do you also do weddings and bar mitzvahs?


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 3139
03/07/2015 6:54 pm  

It is wonderful to be offered such intimate insights into your rather delusional self-image, Los.
As to who is resorting to "bluster" in the face of inability to back up "claims", the record in this thread (and elsewhere) is pretty clear. Readers will form their own judgements; a number have already posted agreeing with me that you are a dull and disruptive monomaniac.
As I will likely be busy over the next couple days, happy Independence Day to any in the US patient enough to read this far.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
03/07/2015 8:01 pm  
"ignant666" wrote:
With all due respect to your touching belief in "reality", Los, this is the "Aleister Crowley Society" here, not the "Reality (As Seen by Los) Society"; your (or my) views as to the nature of "reality" (or how we  might best argue "factual claims") are of little interest to those who post here, as we are here to discuss the life and legacy of a long-dead British poet, mystic, occultist, and mountaineer.
BTW, nicely played putting "conversation" in quotes, indicating a bit of a sensayuma about your persona here.

But we have a  “Magick” section and a  “Thelema”  section on the forum, as well as sections for AC’s chess interests, art and so on.  As it says in the introduction to the Thelema section;....................
.       

Thelema
What is Thelema? What are the Lion and the Eagle? What is the acrostic of one of Crowley's lady friends doing inside a Holy Book?!

Just in case anyone missed it, it says What is Thelema?

That is, "What?" i.e. question the definition of Thelema, discuss and analyse it and reason it out.  With that said, this attempt to shout down Los’s attempts for clarity as to what Thelema is, is very flawed and myopic.  Imo, I am dissappointed in you and I was genuinely looking forward for your definition of “mysticism”.  From where I am and I don't know if your conscious of it or not, you really do look like you are trying to wriggle out of a definition of mysticism.  This is not a personal insult at all.  I am being totally sincere. 

"ignant666" wrote:
As to who is resorting to "bluster" in the face of inability to back up "claims", the record in this thread (and elsewhere) is pretty clear. Readers will form their own judgements; a number have already posted agreeing with me that you are a dull and disruptive monomaniac.

Bluster aside, your committing the argumentum ad populum fallacy here. I challenged this fallacy earlier with the facts about every major scientific breakthrough that ever happened.  Pay  particular attention to such breakthroughs involving Galileo, Edison, the Wright brothers and Marconi.  In such cases the majority were, eventually proven wrong.  The vast majority of posters here think Los is barking up the wrong tree?  So what?  That fact doesn't really provide any useful information in terms of contributing to a serious study of AC's legacy nor to a definition of Thelema.

Furthermore, this idea that the "sceptics" are a minority who hold no academic status.  Within the newage community yes!.  Within proper academic and scientific circles...no!  That's to be expected. 


ReplyQuote
Tao
 Tao
(@tao)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 316
03/07/2015 9:00 pm  
"david" wrote:
Leary even described the term "neuroses" as "metaphysical jabberwocky".  Come on he was a scientist.  He would've sided with the a-leprachaunist position.    Would love some evidence that challenges this.

Yet another troll. You brought Leary into the discussion on very tenuous grounds and those grounds have been questioned. The burden is on you to provide the evidence. "Surely he would have sided with me" means less than nothing. What you are doing here (just as you did with your RH=Jugorum, somebody prove me wrong BS) is tossing a half-baked pseudo-idea in the water as bait in hopes that some little fish will bite after which you can drag them the full length of the canal. Trolling.

"david" wrote:
My source is RAWilson"s "Cosmic trigger" where RAW interviews him for first time if I'm not mistaken.

The last time you relied on your memory of CT, you were trying to prove that RAW was anti-Crowley. I'm not digging in to my copy this time to provide you the correct reference. If you want to cite a book, then cite it.

My question was: What does "anti metaphysical" have to do with a study of mysticism specifically as it relates to Leary and his career?


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
04/07/2015 12:08 am  

I'll ignore your hostility and get to the heart of the matter.  You ask

"Tao" wrote:
What does "anti metaphysical" have to do with a study of mysticism specifically as it relates to Leary and his career?

Very good question and thankyou for enquiring.  However, we have a communication problem here, and Los noticed it also.  Let me explain via a simple recap. 

Initially, I had said in Reply #9 ;

I think the problem is that there are two camps here in relation to what AC meant in his writings.  I hate to describe it as such.  There  are the Dawkinsesque  a-leprachaunist, a-fairy-ist a-theist camp  who approach magick "without recourse to mysticism". 
 

Ignant apparently agreed and he responded in Reply #10 with;

david is of course correct as to there being "two camps" here: there are on the one hand the (two) partisans of "Thelemic skepticism" (Los and david, and the occaisional drive-by), and, on the other hand, the "camp" that is of course in the majority here, who acknowledge that AC's work is fundamentally about mysticism; the latter camp also includes every published academic who has ever written about AC's work and the authors of all published AC biographies (even Symonds never doubts this as AC's central obsession), every person who knew AC while alive, and every student and disciple who studied under him.

So you see what happened?  I assumed everyone would recognize that I was using the term "mysticism" as defined by the dictionary, "vague or ill-defined religious or spiritual belief, especially as associated with a belief in the occult" and naturally I also identify the term "metaphysical" as being of the same ilk.  Don't you?

If I have you right, you seem to think it's "tenuous" to reference Dr Leary as a sceptic (what I could call "anti-mystic") because he rails against the term "neuroses" in Cosmic Trigger as "metaphysical jabberwocky" i.e "mystical", vague and unscientific.  Now do you see what happens when we don't define what mysticism is? 

In short , Ignant, although he identified "mysticism" as being dichotomous to scepticism,  he never provided his precise definition of the term "mysticism" to Los et al, hence your present confusion in the matter.  He seemed, however, to be in total agreement with my (albeit assumed dictionary) definition as he continued my earlier point about "mystical thought".     

To clarify, my further subsequent response to Ignant was;

What about Erwin Hessle and academic, Dr Timothy Leary?  The latter was also anti metaphysical,  scientific and a rigorous thinker......well, apart from the early 1970s ESP alien-transmission comet nonsense. 

So I have hopefully clarified that matter for you and it would be nice if you could provide an apology for accusing me of being "a troll" which I might add is  vague, subjective  and a paranoid term, a buzz-word, a hat with which we can shove all of our nasty shadow projections into.  Don't you think?

I'm reminded about Crowley's definition of the word "devil" in Magick, something along the lines of, the devil is just the enemy we are at war with at any given time. 


ReplyQuote
Page 1 / 5
Share: