Notifications
Clear all

Troll  

Page 2 / 5
  RSS

Tao
 Tao
(@tao)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 316
04/07/2015 6:02 am  
"david" wrote:
However, we have a communication problem here, and Los noticed it also.

I'd say it's been at the core of my posts as well but, go on...

"david" wrote:
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"

Interesting. When I type "mysticism" into Google, the first definition that pops up is:

1. belief that union with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or the spiritual apprehension of knowledge inaccessible to the intellect, may be attained through contemplation and self-surrender.

Wikipedia begins with:

Mysticism is "a constellation of distinctive practices, discourses, texts, institutions, traditions, and experiences aimed at human transformation, variously defined in different traditions."[web 1]
The term "mysticism" has Ancient Greek origins with various historically determined meanings.[web 2][web 1] Derived from the Greek word μυω, meaning "to conceal",[web 1] mysticism referred to the biblical liturgical, spiritual, and contemplative dimensions of early and medieval Christianity[1] During the early modern period, the definition of mysticism grew to include a broad range of beliefs and ideologies related to "extraordinary experiences and states of mind".[2]
In modern times, "mysticism" has acquired a limited definition,[web 2] with broad applications,[web 2] as meaning the aim at the "union with the Absolute, the Infinite, or God".[web 2] This limited definition has been applied to a wide range of religious traditions and practices.[web 2]
Since the 1960s, a scholarly debate has been ongoing in the scientific research of "mystical experiences" between perennial and constructionist approaches.

The OED begins with:

1. Belief that union with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or the spiritual apprehension of knowledge inaccessible to the intellect, may be attained through contemplation and self-surrender.

In fact, your chosen definition is at best second but usually 3rd or 4th on every reference I've checked with the sole exception of the Ayn Rand Lexicon. So tell me: are we meant to be filtering all of your writing through an Objectivist lens in order to understand your meaning? Because that could get quite tiresome.

...and naturally I also identify the term "metaphysical" as being of the same ilk.  Don't you?

No, actually, I don't. I tend to understand metaphysics in its academic sense rather than the populist smear that you prefer. However, I was fully aware of that usage on your part and, though it may be "of the same ilk" as your preferred usage of "mysticism", it is not interchangeable nor are either of these terms well-defined by you if you are interested in engaging in a discussion about Leary. Leary's mysticism was of the non-Ayn Rand variety and therefore my question still stands: what do the two have to do with one another as used in reference to him?

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")...

As is usual, you do not have me right, whether through design or density is anyone's guess. I found it to be tenuous of you to have brought Leary into the conversation at all as someone who does not "acknowledge that AC's work is fundamentally about mysticism" and tried to justify it by this presumed "anti metaphysical" stance. I'm still waiting for any sort of evidence that Leary did not believe Crowley's work to be about mysticism.

...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?

Indeed. It would have been best for you to have defined up front what you meant by the term "mystical" so that the response could have been much more blunt: You appear to have no grasp of Dr. Leary's work, his relationship with mysticism, or how that evolved from Crowley's work on mysticism. You have yet to provide a citation of this claim from CT or give any justification of how Leary would consider it to be anti-mysticism. I know the quote you're referring to and I can guarantee you it has nothing to do with Leary's understanding of mysticism. If you'd like to try to prove otherwise, be my guest. But actually do the work. If not... this is just more trolling for little fishies.

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".

Given the preponderance of the evidence cited above, I'm going to have to hand ignant the win on utilising mysticism in its primary dictionary definition. As this is also the definition used by Crowley (as far as I've read), I'd say the burden is on anyone who wants to use it differently on this site to make that known.

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?

You have yet to provide any evidence that Leary's "anti metaphysical, scientific and... rigorous" thinking in any way makes him anti-mysticism or that that somehow means that he understood Crowley's work to not be about mysticism.

On the other side of the scales, we have:

  • The Good Friday experiment, already cited by ignant
  • "The Psychedelic Experience" co-written by Leary (introduction):

    The Basic Trusts and Beliefs. You must be ready to accept the possibility that there is a limitless range of awareness for which we now have no words; that awareness can expand beyond range of your ego, your self, your familiar identity, beyond everything you have learned, beyond your notions of space and time, beyond the differences which usually separate people from each other and from the world around them.

    You must remember that throughout human history, millions have made this voyage. A few (whom we call mystics, saints or buddhas) have made this experience endure and have communicated it to their fellow men.

  • Actual quotes from "Cosmic Trigger" (New Falcon paperback, 2002. 103-4):

    Yes, G.I. Gurdjieff is my direct successor. I have never doubted that his baraka was transferred to me... perhaps by some intermediary. I love Him and I resonate to his wisdom more than anyone else's

    Crowley... the coincidences-synchronicities between my life and His are embarrassing. Brian Barritt and I had a visionary experience Easter Sat-Sun in Bou Saada, the Algerian town where C. had his."

    Are you in touch with teachings, methods, teachers, etc. that transmit Higher Intelligence. That you are totally hooked into?
    ...
    I believe that Higher Intelligence can be contacted and have described how to do it and what They transmit, etc.
    ...
    You mention that Crowley, G[urdjieff] and Rasputin may have had contact with some Sufi lodge. Do you think this "lodge" actually exists in the human sense of Masters in the Middle East who send G and C and R out as emissaries? This is the most exciting idea I've puzzled over for ten years.

  • The aforementioned Starseed Transmissions

Apologies will be given if and when they are earned. As soon as you stop mucking up the internet with pseudo-thinking and fish bait, I'll stop calling you out as one who trolls.

Also...

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

Seriously? Seriously??? How in hell does that follow from this:

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

haha!  I did.

I mean... now you're just making shit up.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
04/07/2015 12:08 pm  
"Tao" wrote:
As is usual, you do not have me right, whether through design or density is anyone's guess. I found it to be tenuous of you to have brought Leary into the conversation at all as someone who does not "acknowledge that AC's work is fundamentally about mysticism" and tried to justify it by this presumed "anti metaphysical" stance. I'm still waiting for any sort of evidence that Leary did not believe Crowley's work to be about mysticism.

Ok, fair enough we were getting our neuro-semantic wires crossed by interchangeable use of the term "metaphysics" and "mysticism".  Well done you are exploring definitions of mysticism, that's good.  To recap how we got here then, Ignant says Thelema is fundamentally about mysticism. Los disagrees, he says that Thelema is fundamentally about discovering True Will.  However, before Los can fully have a proper conversation with Ignant on the matter , he wants Ignant's definition of mysticism, which up to now, has not happened.

Yes, of course sceptics Crowley, Dr RAWilson and Dr Leary were involved in inducing "mystical states" but for Crowley and RAWilson these were only a bi-product of the ultimate aim of discovering the True Will.  I would say that Dr Leary as a cohort of the former would agree with this statement as he found the phrase "Do what thou wilt" to be central to his assessment of Crowley's contributions to society.  He even stated so on a TV programme.  Would you agree that mysticism then, for Crowley was ultimately a mere tool to discover True Will?  I do, as did Dr RAWilson.  Now, I could quote the entire RAWilson introduction to the "Eye in the triangle" to back this statement up.  I don't have CT any more I donated it to charity but it's mostly all lodged in my memory banks.

As scientists, Leary and Wilson would not entertain the notion of reincarnation at all.  They didn't like vague Oriental mystical terms such as "Samadhi" or "satori" hence, presumably this was one of the reason for the development of the scientific-materialistic 8 circuit neurological model of consciousness.  They applied scepticism to mystical and magickal experiences so I see one of your quoted definition of mysticism involved the term "deity" which I would propose Leary would also describe as "metaphysical jabberwocky" in the same vein which he described the term "neuroses".

"Neuroses" for him was merely a term for someone who was confused about the rules of social games and had their boundaries and self-Id all out of whack.  By the way, you are not the forum troll-police.  Paul is.     


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
04/07/2015 1:00 pm  
"david" wrote:
[...T]his 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.

For further clarification, below is where Los agrees with ignant666 that AC’s work is “fundamentally about mysticism”:

Reply #10 by ignant666 on: July 01, 2015, 11:40:25 pm:

Quote from: david on July 01, 2015, 11:02:20 pm
“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".”

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.

where he then quoted the part in bold by ignant666 above, and remarked:

Reply #12 by 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.

This is Los's first actual reference to mysticism in this thread, and he did not choose to hedge it about with any qualifications that "mysticism means this or that" at that time.  It is only (a few hours) later on, after he has had time to reflect, he apparently realized that he may have let himself in for a heap of trouble in the future by so generous an agreement, and then tried to back-track and back-peddle.  ("Furiously".  Far too late for him to be able to delete! delete! though, unfortunately!...)

Leaving aside Leary as an unnecessarily complicating factor regarding this part of the discussion, it is clearly apparent that the onus is upon Los (since he originally agreed unequivocally that - and I'll repeat it again - A.C.'s work is fundamentally about mysticism) rather than ignant666 to carry out any further explanation here.  Isn't it?!

N Joy


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 3139
04/07/2015 4:44 pm  

A quick 4th of July drive-by post:

1) I can confirm that when I used the term"mysticism" i meant it in the common dictionary-definition sense cited by Tao. Note that when Los initiates "conversations", equivocation/quibbling around the definitions of common words is his standard first move.

2) As to this Tim Leary digression, the idea that his work was not primarily religious in nature could only be the result of a very confused second-hand acquaintance with that work, but then there are people who think AC was primarily interested in helping people find out if they really like coffee. For those in doubt as to Dr Tim's theistic, mystical and religious orientation, in addition to The Psychedelic Experience as mentioned by Tao, i'd recommend his first auto-biography High Priest.
Two resources available online that ought to make it clear that his work was religious in nature are
"The Seven Tongues of God" (1964), available at http://www.luminist.org/archives/7tongues.htm
and
"Start Your Own Religion" (1966), available at http://www.luminist.org/archives/start_your_own.htm


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
04/07/2015 6:14 pm  
"ignant666" wrote:
A quick 4th of July drive-by post:

1) I can confirm that when I used the term"mysticism" i meant it in the common dictionary-definition sense cited by Tao. Note that when Los initiates "conversations", equivocation/quibbling around the definitions of common words is his standard first move.

2) As to this Tim Leary digression, the idea that his work was not primarily religious in nature could only be the result of a very confused second-hand acquaintance with that work, but then there are people who think AC was primarily interested in helping people find out if they really like coffee. For those in doubt as to Dr Tim's theistic, mystical and religious orientation, in addition to The Psychedelic Experience as mentioned by Tao, i'd recommend his first auto-biography High Priest.
Two resources available online that ought to make it clear that his work was religious in nature are
"The Seven Tongues of God" (1964), available at http://www.luminist.org/archives/7tongues.htm
and
"Start Your Own Religion" (1966), available at http://www.luminist.org/archives/start_your_own.htm

But I never said that Leary never had a "mystical and religious orientation".  I said;

Yes, of course sceptics Crowley, Dr RAWilson and Dr Leary were involved in inducing "mystical states" but for Crowley and RAWilson these were only a bi-product of the ultimate aim of discovering the True Will.  I would say that Dr Leary as a cohort of the former would agree with this statement as he found the phrase "Do what thou wilt" to be central to his assessment of Crowley's contributions to society.  He even stated so on a TV programme.  Would you agree that mysticism then, for Crowley was ultimately a mere tool to discover True Will?  I do, as did Dr RAWilson.  Now, I could quote the entire RAWilson introduction to the "Eye in the triangle" to back this statement up.  I don't have CT any more I donated it to charity but it's mostly all lodged in my memory banks.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
04/07/2015 7:18 pm  
"ignant666" wrote:
I can confirm that when I used the term"mysticism" i meant it in the common dictionary-definition sense cited by Tao.

Sure you did. How convenient that you wait for someone else to provide a definition before you finally get around to saying what you meant.

But we'll set aside for a moment your apparent complete inability to discuss this subject. Tao posted a few definitions. One definition of mysticism is this: ""a constellation of distinctive practices, discourses, texts, institutions, traditions, and experiences aimed at human transformation, variously defined in different traditions."

Well, I obviously agree that Thelema is "about" this kind of mysticism because this kind of mysticism is so broad that it could encompass almost anything. Remember, Thelema is "about" discovering and carrying out the True Will, and to the extent that doing so involves self-transformation, it necessarily involves "practices, discourses, texts, institutions, traditions, and experiences aimed at human transformation."

But by this definition, reading a self-help book is equally "mysticism," so it's not a very useful definition. The more specific definition cited by Tao is more useful for our purposes here: "belief that union with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or the spiritual apprehension of knowledge inaccessible to the intellect, may be attained through contemplation and self-surrender."

Now, is Thelema "about" this kind of mysticism? Depends on exactly what is meant by many of the terms in the definition. For example, if by "union with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute," one means "union with one's True Self," which amounts to "discovering the True Will," then yes, Thelema is absolutely "about" this kind of mysticism because one would be defining this kind of mysticism as a rough synonym for discovering the True Will. But if by "union with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute," one means that there actually exists some separate "Deity" entity into whom an individual can actually become "absorbed" into in some way (?)...well, it would have to be better explained, but as it stands, no, Thelema's not "fundamentally about" that at all because Thelema is fundamentally about discovering one's True Will and doing it.

This is why definitions matter. Depending on what one means by a set of words, they might be accurate or they might not be. But don't expect people with no knowledge, talent, or ability to be able to explain this.

Note that when Los initiates "conversations", equivocation/quibbling around the definitions of common words is his standard first move.

This is rich. The Wikipedia entry even notes that the term mysticism is "variously defined in different traditions." People can mean lots of things by "mysticism," so it's not clear exactly what you mean by the word when you use it.

Trying to establish clarity in communications is the opposite of equivocation, which you *should* know, but I'm glad you don't because it helps to make your posts unintentionally hilarious.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4053
04/07/2015 7:28 pm  
"Los" wrote:
But don't expect people with no knowledge, talent, or ability to be able to explain this.

Don't be so harsh on yourself, Los.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
04/07/2015 7:31 pm  
"Michael Staley" wrote:
"Los" wrote:
But don't expect people with no knowledge, talent, or ability to be able to explain this.

Don't be so harsh on yourself, Los.

Drink!


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5026
04/07/2015 7:39 pm  

By the way, a few years back the site was overwhelmed by trolls, and the moderator, troll-policeman Paul deputized all of us to help keep order. Now we weren't deputized to condemn trolls into pre-moderation, nor were we authorized to lock threads or terminate memberships ... so our deputization is/was merely a call for assistance and our only weapon was common sense within the written word. Anyway, we all know that Paul is watching and some trolls are still with us because they have just enough intelligence to stay barely inside the circle of deniability, even if they are in the choron-zone (the very outer edge of the circle where babble and bluff rule).

"ignant666" wrote:
I can confirm that when I used the term"mysticism" i meant it in the common dictionary-definition sense ...

Oh hell, we all know that mysticism refers to the inner work, and magick is the outward reflection.  Almost every thread is now being captured by the [s:2bvtkeh8]septic[/s:2bvtkeh8], er, skeptic camp, and can be identified by their asking you to "please define the meaning of your commonly-understood term." i.e., please define your meaning of "wood," ... followed by a post that says, "I disagree. Wood is really not wood, but is something other than wood." >:(


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
04/07/2015 7:47 pm  
"Shiva" wrote:
Oh hell, we all know that mysticism refers to the inner work, and magick is the outward reflection.

Oh, of course! We all know that!

That must have been what ignant666 meant -- he must have meant that I don't think Thelema is fundamentally about inner work....

Right, ignant?

Or...could it be that this one word has lots and lots of definitions, making it important to clearly define what we're talking about?

Almost every thread is now being captured by the [s:hp2tti87]septic[/s:hp2tti87], er, skeptic camp

Uh huh, sure thing. Please go back to telling stories about the 60s, singing the praises of some Indian guy, pretending you can heal people with "energy," and promoting your books.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4053
04/07/2015 7:57 pm  
"Los" wrote:
Uh huh, sure thing. Please go back to telling stories about the 60s, singing the praises of some Indian guy, pretending you can heal people with "energy," and promoting your books.

Why should he? I find his posts a damn sight more interesting than yours, profound though you clearly imagine your every syllable to be.


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 3139
04/07/2015 8:06 pm  
"Los" wrote:
"ignant666" wrote:
I can confirm that when I used the term"mysticism" i meant it in the common dictionary-definition sense cited by Tao.

Sure you did. How convenient that you wait for someone else to provide a definition before you finally get around to saying what you meant.

Weak beyond weak- Tao supplies definitions from the OED etc. of the commonly-understood definition of this word that is surely familiar to everyone who has read AC (since it is one of his favorite words), I confirm that, yes, i did indeed mean "mysticism" in this commonly-understood sense, not some tendentious personal definition (the kind Los prefers), and this is the best you can come up with?

It's stuff like this that leads some to believe you are trolling, rather than being the monomaniac crank with delusions of adequacy that you portray in your posts.


ReplyQuote
Tao
 Tao
(@tao)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 316
04/07/2015 9:45 pm  
"david" wrote:
Yes, of course sceptics Crowley, Dr RAWilson and Dr Leary were involved in inducing "mystical states" but for Crowley and RAWilson these were only a bi-product of the ultimate aim of discovering the True Will.

Please provide a citation wherein RAW suggests that mystical states are only a by-product of discovering "True Will" and that "True Will" is "the ultimate aim".

I would say that Dr Leary as a cohort of the former would agree with this statement as he found the phrase "Do what thou wilt" to be central to his assessment of Crowley's contributions to society.  He even stated so on a TV programme.

Why, in your mind, does Leary affirming that the Rabelaisian phrase "Do what thou wilt" was central to his assessment of Crowley's contributions to society lead to this presumed belief that he believed mystical states to be only a by-product of the search for "True Will"?

Would you agree that mysticism then, for Crowley was ultimately a mere tool to discover True Will?

No, as evidenced by the numerous mystical practices prescribed by Crowley for initiates in his orders for the grades beyond those focused on discovering the "True Will".

I do, as did Dr RAWilson.

Citation, please.

Now, I could quote the entire RAWilson introduction to the "Eye in the triangle" to back this statement up.

How about if you just find one, on-topic quote that demonstrates that RAW believed "True Will" to be the "ultimate aim" and/or that mystical states are just a by-product of that aim.

I don't have CT any more I donated it to charity but it's mostly all lodged in my memory banks.

Yes. We've all had numerous demonstrations of the accuracy of your memory banks.  ::)

As scientists, Leary and Wilson would not entertain the notion of reincarnation at all. 

Unfounded speculation.

They didn't like vague Oriental mystical terms such as "Samadhi" or "satori" hence, presumably this was one of the reason for the development of the scientific-materialistic 8 circuit neurological model of consciousness. 

On page 213 of Cosmic Trigger, RAW defines the individual experience of Circuit VIII as "Satori".

As to Samadhi: a description of an LSD assisted Invocation of the HGA, using Crowley's ritual, from Cosmic Trigger (New Falcon paperback, 2002. p84):

The Yogi [RAW] entered Samadhi and believed, at last, that the wisdom of the adept is truly beyond the floating body-rapture of mere Hatha Yoga. Based on understanding of and participation in a planet-wide Consciousness, Samadhi opens tht neuro-atomic memory which is in all living beings, and in that dancing quantum energy mistakenly called "dead matter."
...
The Shaman [RAW] laughed merrily at Crowley's joking seriousness in telling one disciple, Frank Bennett, that the Holy Guardian Angel invoked in this ritual is merely "our own unconsciousness" and meanwhile telling another disciple, Jane Wolfe, that the Holy Guardian Angel is "a separate being of superhuman intelligence." It is both/and; it is the "bornless one," as Egyptian Priests said.
...
The Shaman [RAW] lost all fear of death, knowing it to be literally impossible. He understood the wit of Yeats's fine line, "Man has created death."
The Skeptic [RAW] was whacked out of his skull.

They applied scepticism to mystical and magickal experiences so I see one of your quoted definition of mysticism involved the term "deity" which I would propose Leary would also describe as "metaphysical jabberwocky" in the same vein which he described the term "neuroses".

This once again reveals your lack of understanding of Leary's work.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5026
04/07/2015 10:41 pm  
"Tao" wrote:
Why, in your mind, does Leary affirming that the Rabelaisian phrase "Do what thou wilt" was central to his assessment of Crowley's contributions to society lead to this presumed belief that he believed mystical states to be only a by-product of the search for "True Will"?

Connect the dots, you silly person >:(  Oh wait ... there are some missing dots. I guess those are called "logical assumption points of reference" composed of "wishful thinking matter." ???

... participation in a planet-wide Consciousness, Samadhi opens tht neuro-atomic memory which is in all living beings ...

OMG. That's (more or less) just like than U.G. spiritual terrorist character described it. One mind, contained in a sphere ("plane") that everyone has an "antenna" for, with every possible thought already present and ready for pickup. [my paraphrase]

[/align:1wmfe1ew]


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
04/07/2015 11:55 pm  
"Tao" wrote:
Why, in your mind, does Leary affirming that the Rabelaisian phrase "Do what thou wilt" was central to his assessment of Crowley's contributions to society lead to this presumed belief that he believed mystical states to be only a by-product of the search for "True Will"?

Because Crowley thought the same as did RAWison.  More on this soon.

"Tao" wrote:

Would you agree that mysticism then, for Crowley was ultimately a mere tool to discover True Will?

No, as evidenced by the numerous mystical practices prescribed by Crowley for initiates in his orders for the grades beyond those focused on discovering the "True Will".

Yet again you insist on quibbling.  Let me rephrase that then to "Would you agree that mysticism then, for Crowley was ultimately a mere tool

a) Firstly, to discover True Will and

b) Secondly, for the process that follows this?"

"Tao" wrote:

I do, as did Dr RAWilson.

Citation, please.

In RAW's intro to Regardie's Eye in the triangle, ( New Falcon Publications 2011) page XIII he describes Crowley's involvement with "the perennial problems of mysticism" ie "the abolition of ego".  He continues on page XIV saying that Crowley "succeeded well enough" in this task.  He continues with this theme of dealing with "the tyrannical ego" on page XV in the sub-title/explanation of DWTWSBTWOTL describing "the hierarchy of selves" and their emerging "resolution of forces...he then says "if one is true to one's total psyche and does not tailor everything to the tyranny of the socially conditioned mechanical ego..this one force that is resultant of all inner selves is the True Will"     

There you have it in RAW's words and for all to see; ego-problem, mysticism-solution and then True Will and beyond.
...

"Tao" wrote:

As scientists, Leary and Wilson would not entertain the notion of reincarnation at all. 

Unfounded speculation.

Is it?  have you actually read CT all the way through?  In it, near the end he describes the notion that his daughter's murder was karma for what white Americans did to the Indians but only in a Newtonian karmic sense not in a wacky metaphysical sense.  As reincarnation and karma necessitate each other then this shows RAWison's view on the matter.  If I'm, not mistaken he also describes his dislike of his daughter's acceptance and lack of scepticism towards such matters as reincarnation and astrology.   

"Tao" wrote:
On page 213 of Cosmic Trigger, RAW defines the individual experience of Circuit VIII as "Satori".

As to Samadhi: a description of an LSD assisted Invocation of the HGA, using Crowley's ritual, from Cosmic Trigger (New Falcon paperback, 2002. p84):

Here's my proof that those Oriental terms of attainment were inadequate.  Go to this link for an interview with Leary

www.offiziere.ch/trust-us/habi2/130_timothy_leary.html

where he is asked

In retrospect, what was the significance of the Sixties drug culture?

and he answers;

There is a strong taboo discouraging experimentation with the human brain. Before the Renaissance, there was a strong religious taboo against discovering how the body worked. This held back progress in medicine and biology for centuries. Today a similar challenge faces the human species. We must learn how the brain works. That's what we were doing at Harvard and Millbrook during the 1960s. The psychedelic movement was a mind-exploration movement. None of us really understood what was happening when we took psychedelic drugs, because we had to use the mystical language of the past - Hindu terms like satori and samhadi, occult terms like illumination and trancendental. We didn't have the scientific metaphors to understand what we were discovering

..............hence the formulation of the evolutionary informed scientific 8-circuit model of consciousness involving left lobe-terrestrial and right-lobe extra terrestrial processes.

I'm surprised you missed this, what with you being a Leary expert.

By the way you never quoted the neuro atomic circuit description which is a totally sceptical testimony.  Note the abbreviations for "past lives" and "reincarnation".   

VII. THE NEUROGENETIC CIRCUIT
The seventh brain kicks into action when the nervous system begins to receive signals from WITHIN THE INDIVIDUAL NEURON, from the DNA-RNA dialogue. The first to achieve this mutation spoke of "memories of past lives," "reincarnation," "immortality," etc. That these adepts were recording something real is indicated by the fact that many of them (especially Hindu and Sufis) gave marvelously accurately poetic vistas of evolution 1,000 or 2,000 years before Darwin, and foresaw Superhumanity before Nietzsche.
      The "akashic records" of Theosophy, the "collective unconscious" of Jung, the "phylogenetic unconscious" of Grof and Ring, are three modern metaphors for this circuit. The visions of past and future evolution described by those who have had "out-of-body" experiences during close-to-death episodes also describes the trans-time circuit VII tunnel-reality

Ho hum.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
05/07/2015 12:28 am  

Sorry, neuro-genetic circuit that is.  In other words such visions are a "mere" tuning in of the internal processes of the CNS as it interprets the "plan" that DNA has always had since it emerged on this planet.  Those who achieve this mutation may speak of past lives, reincarnation, immortality etc.  In other words hallucinatory experiences not real verifiable proof that transmigration/reincarnation is real.

Circuits, grey matter "portions of the brain".  Anything else would be "metaphysical jabberwocky" as Leary said.

Now what was that about my ignorance of Leary's ideas? 


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 3139
05/07/2015 1:18 am  

david: It is more than clear you have never read any of Leary's work, and that your ignorance of his ideas is near total.
You would not be citing a book by someone else you read once and an interview from 20 years past his heyday if you had any familiarity with the published writings- you would cite that actual work.
The Leary-Crowley link certainly exists but is pretty tenuous. Note that nothing you have quoted about Leary provides any support for the claim you are making.
Please read the two mid-60s documents i linked to before before you post more nonsense about Dr Tim.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
05/07/2015 1:31 am  
"ignant666" wrote:
david: your ignorance of his ideas is near total.

No, that's a bunch of nonsense.

I actually used to own What WoMan wants so you are wrong Ignant.  I have demonstrated that I have a knowledge of Leary's neurological 8 brain circuits and I have read RAWilson's Cosmic Trigger and Schrodinger's Cat.  RAWilson's work is massively informed by DR Leary.  I also have the Illuminatus Trilogy and my copy of The Illuminati Papers is presently in my cabinet.  I've also read and watched interviews with and documentaries about Dr Leary.  I think your wrong : don't believe the hype about me and carefully read my response to Tao through a non prejudicial eye. 


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 3139
05/07/2015 3:49 am  

So you have read a total of one atypical late work, and none of the work that made his name, and can't even be bothered to read some when i spoonfeed it to you? Do you realize how lame you sound claiming an understanding of his work based on secondary sources?
Sounds like near total ignorance to me, and willful ignorance to boot.
For example, you appear to believe that Leary thought that psychedelics cause people to experience "hallucinations" (see your post #65, 3d sentence, first paragraph)- this ludicrous claim alone is enough to make clear you have literally no clue about Leary's ideas.


ReplyQuote
Tao
 Tao
(@tao)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 316
05/07/2015 7:24 am  
"david" wrote:
Because Crowley thought the same as did RAWison.  More on this soon.

Leary's assertion that DWTW is central to Crowley's contribution to society proves that he believed mystical states to be a by-product of a search for TW because Crowley thought the same as RAW? Are you drunk or stoned?

Yet again you insist on quibbling.

 
Not quibbling at all. You are making extremely broad generalisations without sufficient evidence. I am pointing out the obvious weaknesses.

Let me rephrase that then to "Would you agree that mysticism then, for Crowley was ultimately a mere tool
a) Firstly, to discover True Will and
b) Secondly, for the process that follows this?"

I would... in that everything is a tool ("mere" is an unnecessary qualifier here). Where does that get you? Mysticism is a tool. That seems self-evident from any correct understanding of what mysticism is.

In RAW's intro to Regardie's Eye in the triangle, ( New Falcon Publications 2011) page XIII he describes Crowley's involvement with "the perennial problems of mysticism" ie "the abolition of ego".  He continues on page XIV saying that Crowley "succeeded well enough" in this task.  He continues with this theme of dealing with "the tyrannical ego" on page XV in the sub-title/explanation of DWTWSBTWOTL describing "the hierarchy of selves" and their emerging "resolution of forces...he then says "if one is true to one's total psyche and does not tailor everything to the tyranny of the socially conditioned mechanical ego..this one force that is resultant of all inner selves is the True Will"

All of the above is RAW's description of Crowley's work, not of his own beliefs. Further, I see nothing in the intro that equates "the perennial problems of mysticism" with "the abolition of ego"; is this your gloss?

Once again, my request was: How about if you just find one, on-topic quote that demonstrates that RAW believed "True Will" to be the "ultimate aim" and/or that mystical states are just a by-product of that aim.

"Tao" wrote:

As scientists, Leary and Wilson would not entertain the notion of reincarnation at all. 

Unfounded speculation.

Is it?

Yes.

have you actually read CT all the way through?

 
Many times. I have all three volumes on my bookshelf as we speak. Do you?

In it, near the end he describes the notion that his daughter's murder was karma for what white Americans did to the Indians but only in a Newtonian karmic sense not in a wacky metaphysical sense.

The interesting thing about having the book on my bookshelf is that I can open it up, skim to the back, and discover that he says no such thing.

As reincarnation and karma necessitate each other then this shows RAWison's view on the matter.

There is no necessary connection between reincarnation and karma (see: early Xtian beliefs in reincarnation in a culture ignorant of the doctrine of karma).

If I'm, not mistaken he also describes his dislike of his daughter's acceptance and lack of scepticism towards such matters as reincarnation and astrology.

You are mistaken. In fact, his extended eulogy at the end of CT begins with: "Luna--she who had perhaps levitated once, and who had most certainly taught me much about the Wheel of Karma..."

Half a page later, in response to receiving the news of her murder: "It has occurred to me that, because I never nap in the afternoons normally, my unconscious might have known and was preparing me with extra rest."

RAW was a sceptic; just not your brand of sceptic.

For the rest, your understanding of Leary continues to be a mess. I'll leave that one to ignant, though. Cleaning up your complete hatchet-job of RAW is more than enough to keep me occupied.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
05/07/2015 8:02 am  
"ignant666" wrote:
So you have read a total of one atypical late work, and none of the work that made his name, and can't even be bothered to read some when i spoonfeed it to you? Do you realize how lame you sound claiming an understanding of his work based on secondary sources?
Sounds like near total ignorance to me, and willful ignorance to boot.
For example, you appear to believe that Leary thought that psychedelics cause people to experience "hallucinations" (see your post #65, 3d sentence, first paragraph)- this ludicrous claim alone is enough to make clear you have literally no clue about Leary's ideas.

The so called "latter work" is the real work.  Are you aware that, apart from the work on academic psychology which some say inspired the group therapy technique, he saw those early psychedelic works as mere stepping stones and tools for the real important stuff which involve SMI2LE and the 8 circuit model?  Have you even read RAW's Cosmic Trigger?  Don't get hung up on the early psychedelic era Leary you miss his point.  He evolved from mere masturbatory "tripping". 

Be honest.  Have you even read "Cosmic Trigger"?


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
05/07/2015 8:20 am  
"Michael Staley" wrote:
I find his posts a damn sight more interesting than yours

Well, there's a ringing endorsement.

Oh, and: drink!


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
05/07/2015 8:27 am  
"ignant666" wrote:
"Los" wrote:
"ignant666" wrote:
I can confirm that when I used the term"mysticism" i meant it in the common dictionary-definition sense cited by Tao.

Sure you did. How convenient that you wait for someone else to provide a definition before you finally get around to saying what you meant.

Weak beyond weak

Exactly -- your posts are weak. They seem to be weak attempts at concealing the fact that you are incapable of having a conversation on these subjects. That's what makes them so funny.

Honestly, you've got a career waiting for you in comedy.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
05/07/2015 10:41 am  
"Tao" wrote:
Leary's assertion that DWTW is central to Crowley's contribution to society proves that he believed mystical states to be a by-product of a search for TW because Crowley thought the same as RAW? Are you drunk or stoned?

Hehah you're funny.  Crowley thought the same about DWTW, as did RAW think the same about DWTW. 

"Tao" wrote:
All of the above is RAW's description of Crowley's work, not of his own beliefs. Further, I see nothing in the intro that equates "the perennial problems of mysticism" with "the abolition of ego"; is this your gloss?

"not of his own beliefs"  "gloss".  I just reproduced chunks of RAW's writings directly, as he sings Crowley's praises on developing True Will out of mystical practice  and you're still not having it.  Y'see what I'm up against here?

What is the actual problem you have?  It's no big radical shake-up. It's basic stuff; we can use mystical practices to discover True Will if we haven't discovered True Will.

"Tao" wrote:

As scientists, Leary and Wilson would not entertain the notion of reincarnation at all. 

Unfounded speculation.

Is it?

Yes.

Once again I just reproduced direct evidence of RAWs and Dr Leary's attitude to "reincarnation" and you push it out of the way.  You don't want to hear about it.

"Tao" wrote:
The interesting thing about having the book on my bookshelf is that I can open it up, skim to the back, and discover that he says no such thing.

Look harder.  If you can be arsed.

"Tao" wrote:
You are mistaken. In fact, his extended eulogy at the end of CT begins with: "Luna--she who had perhaps levitated once, and who had most certainly taught me much about the Wheel of Karma..."

Yes , metaphor for explainable processes in Nature don't ya know?

RAW was a sceptic?  Yes of course, scientists are by dint of their profession.

"Tao" wrote:
just not your brand of sceptic.

Admittedly RAW does criticise Aristotelian logic as being inadequate in, this,  as he puts it "non Aristotelian scientific age".  Is this what you mean by flawed scepticism? 


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
05/07/2015 11:13 am  
"ignant666" wrote:
For those in doubt as to Dr Tim's theistic, mystical and religious orientation, in addition to The Psychedelic Experience as mentioned by Tao, i'd recommend his first auto-biography High Priest.
Two resources available online that ought to make it clear that his work was religious in nature are
"The Seven Tongues of God" (1964), available at http://www.luminist.org/archives/7tongues.htm
and
"Start Your Own Religion" (1966), available at http://www.luminist.org/archives/start_your_own.htm

Yes I did briefly scan that link and it looks really good.  Thanks, I will get around to it soon. I'm a bit preoccupied with Terence McKenna youtube interviews at the moment.


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 3139
05/07/2015 1:57 pm  

My apologies for such brief posts during the Independence Day holiday; the ribs and the fireworks were both splendid, and i now return to more regular service.

david: as to your mention of "mere masturbatory 'tripping'" as being what Leary's 60s work (when he was still a scientist) was about: a) this again makes it clear you have no actual acquaintance with his extensive writings during this period; and also b) makes it seem pretty likely you have never taken strong psychedelics. Given your interests (while not advocating that you violate any laws), you might want to remedy this. Note that the "circuit model" (which you seem impressed by) is a product of that 60s work; see The Seven Tongues of God.

Leary's later, post-re-imprisonment work can hardly be referred to as "skeptical" in any sense- you might want to read the very cuckoo Starseed material before claiming this. In any case he was certainly not a scientist during this period- "prison inmate" would be more accurate.

Yes, I have read Cosmic Trigger, Illuminatus!, etc. As Tao has said, RAW doesn't support your "skeptical" ideology very well either. One small note: you appear to believe RAW was a "scientist". While it is true he had a "PhD" from an unaccredited institution, he never published (or did) any scholarly/scientific work in his life; better descriptors would be "journalist" and "novelist".

As far as your new interest in McKenna, I have only a superficial knowledge of his work but am certain he didn't think psychedelics cause "hallucinations" either.

Los: Keep living the dream! Most adults have passed beyond the point of thinking "I know you are but what am I?" a witty comeback.


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 3139
05/07/2015 2:24 pm  

Wikipedia includes my favorite story about Dr Tim, providing an interesting insight into his transition from "scientist" to "prison inmate" roles:

On his arrival in prison, he was given psychological tests used to assign inmates to appropriate work details [and, more importantly, classification to max/medium/minimum security facilities]. Having designed some of these tests himself (including the "Leary Interpersonal Behavior Test" [sic- actually "Leary Interpersonal Behavior Inventory", not "Test"]), Leary answered them in such a way that he seemed to be a very conforming, conventional person with a great interest in forestry and gardening.As a result, he was assigned to work as a gardener in a lower-security prison from which he escaped in September 1970...


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 3139
05/07/2015 4:43 pm  

With apologies for triple posting, catching up after my partial holiday hiatus:

Anyone interested in psychedelics and the Great Work could do a lot worse than our own Shiva's recent Coruscatio: The Book of Libation, since he is probably too modest (or disgruntled with this thread) to mention it.

While "skeptics" will certainly find much to provoke the bees in their bonnets there, it is very clear that he has Been There (often); his practical advice as to managing "libation" is superb, the best i've ever seen.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5026
05/07/2015 6:00 pm  
"ignant666" wrote:
Anyone interested in psychedelics  ... etc

Thanks for your recommendation and your opinion. I believe you're right ... there isn't anything else available in the field covered by Coruscatio, that is, the field(s) of libation and magick (combined). Not Leary, not Wilson, not McKenna, although they all had much to contribute, have hit the stride of "The Magical Cactu Vouce," possibly because something was missing. What possibly could have been missing? Initiation? Ritualistic Application?

Anyway, I would never have thought to re-introduce that text in a thread called Troll, even if Leary, Wilson and McKenna were mentioned. I mean, what does Troll have to do with Psycheledia? And what does libation have to do with derailed threads? 😀

I'm an old man now, and it's been a while since I used any libation. Even the book suggests that these substances allow Previews of Coming Attractions, and once you've seen the preview then you're supposed to live the full movie, and behold, there is need no more. Which was good advice, because when the book was written (2011 - not so long ago), there were many legal substances available by internet and mail order.
Not no more, no more, no more, no more.

The book said ...

"Should these transcendental catalysts become unavailable or
illegal, there are numerous other members of the 2C family
available. However, there is currently a political movement
tending towards banning the entire 2C family as a class."[/align:ierkvvad]

"The Establishment will do anything in its power to prevent
its citizens from visiting other dimensions, especially when the
initiates and the psychonaughts return with unnecessary
information
, such as insights into the manipulation of "reality"
by the Lords of Materialism."[/align:ierkvvad]

And that's what they did. You can't find anything anymore ... except maybe for China, and importation of subtle substances from foreign countries is risky and probably illegal anywhere in the West. The good ol' legal days of the 60s are certainly gone by, and the legal daze of "designer drugs" have also come to a close.


A laughing Tim Leary is captured by The Men In Black
at the end of The Dawn of the Age of Aquarius in 1972[/align:ierkvvad]


ReplyQuote
Tao
 Tao
(@tao)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 316
05/07/2015 7:59 pm  
"david" wrote:
What is the actual problem you have?

The actual problem I have have is that you regularly create new half-witted arguments out of whole cloth and then pull in various authorities as support. This support is never correctly cited and, as the record shows, is somewhere between 90 & 100% mis-remembered, misattributed, badly analysed, or just downright wrong.

If you're going to make shit up then fine, make shit up. Just don't try to polish it with names like Leary and Wilson when you clearly have such little understanding of their work.

Why don't you just stick to that Hessle guy. As far as I can tell, he's pretty safely in your preferred tunnel-reality. And he appears to be little more than an occasional blogger so there shouldn't be too much information for you to keep track of if you actually do want to cite something as supporting evidence.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
05/07/2015 10:16 pm  
"Tao" wrote:
.

If you're going to make shit up then fine, make shit up.

Hey you're misrepresenting me and ruining the psychedelic group-hug.

I'm neutralizing your circuit 2 shennanigans here.  You make use of anal-territorial semantics for the second time with me in this thread which is interesting ie "shit" this and "shit" that.  I'm not trying to catch you out.

"Tao" wrote:
Why don't you just stick to that Hessle guy. As far as I can tell, he's pretty safely in your preferred tunnel-reality. And he appears to be little more than an occasional blogger so there shouldn't be too much information for you to keep track of if you actually do want to cite something as supporting evidence.

Anyway, Hessle!!  Hey he's trippier than you think.  Check out his  www.erwinhessle.com/writings/scottframe.php  Quabbalsitic framework essay where he postulates that linear time itself possibly never even had a start point.

These problems do go away if we abandon the whole idea of creation, however. If we consider the possibility that (and here use of terminology inevitably becomes confusing) the universe has “always” existed, and that time is merely a property of it, then we no longer have to consider the idea that something came before it (because we abandon our idea of linear time) and we no longer have to consider the idea that there is something outside of it (because we abandon our idea of creation). This idea simply renders invalid the concerns on which those questions are based, although it may well raise new questions of its own. Answering questions of this kind may ultimately allow us to rend the negative veils, and expose the mysteries of creation which were apparent to the inventors of the Qabalah.

If I'm not mistaken Terence McKenna said the very same thing about time in an interview I was watching the other night.    When I re watch it I will dig out the link.  Now that is truly  far out and well gone. 


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
05/07/2015 10:21 pm  
"ignant666" wrote:
My apologies for such brief posts during the Independence Day holiday; the ribs and the fireworks were both splendid, and i now return to more regular service.

david: as to your mention of "mere masturbatory 'tripping'" as being what Leary's 60s work (when he was still a scientist) was about: a) this again makes it clear you have no actual acquaintance with his extensive writings during this period; and also b) makes it seem pretty likely you have never taken strong psychedelics. Given your interests (while not advocating that you violate any laws), you might want to remedy this.

Whoa! DWTWSBTWOTL.  That is, some of us don't need to ingest this or that for purposes of discovering True Will.........or do we? 


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 3139
05/07/2015 10:55 pm  

As you say, david, DWTW. Some people love to read travel guides, but never take a trip.

As to a possible "need" for "strange drugs", and also Shiva's comments about "coming attractions", see Art Kleps (Millbrook-era Leary associate, who broke with Leary over Leary being too into "metaphysical jabberwocky"):

Acid is not easier than the traditional methods, it's just faster and sneakier.
[The Boo Hoo Bible (1971), Toad Books, p.19]


ReplyQuote
Tao
 Tao
(@tao)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 316
05/07/2015 10:59 pm  
"david" wrote:
I'm neutralizing your circuit 2 shennanigans here.  You make use of anal-territorial semantics for the second time with me in this thread which is interesting ie "shit" this and "shit" that.  I'm not trying to catch you out.

Yes, well... when someone sets off my bullshit detector as often as you do, it doesn't make much sense not to call it what it is.

"david" wrote:
Anyway, Hessle!!  Hey he's trippier than you think.

I don't have any thoughts one way or the other re: Hessle's trippiness. Nor was that a part of this conversation until this introduction by you, intended to redirect conversation away from topics you find uncomfortable and back towards... spotlight on yourself.

"david" wrote:
Check out his  www.erwinhessle.com/writings/scottframe.php  Quabbalsitic framework essay where he postulates that linear time itself possibly never even had a start point.

These problems do go away if we abandon the whole idea of creation, however. If we consider the possibility that (and here use of terminology inevitably becomes confusing) the universe has “always” existed, and that time is merely a property of it, then we no longer have to consider the idea that something came before it (because we abandon our idea of linear time) and we no longer have to consider the idea that there is something outside of it (because we abandon our idea of creation). This idea simply renders invalid the concerns on which those questions are based, although it may well raise new questions of its own. Answering questions of this kind may ultimately allow us to rend the negative veils, and expose the mysteries of creation which were apparent to the inventors of the Qabalah.

If I'm not mistaken Terence McKenna said the very same thing in an interview I was watching the other night.    When I re watch it I will dig out the link.  Now that is truly  far out and well gone. 

Oh honey, where to begin. You honestly believe that the realisation of non-linear eternity "is truly far out and well gone"? These are the basics. This is the foundation on which all of this discussion of mysticism rests. If you're still getting there, that's great and all, but you need to get there before you can hope to converse mindfully on these topics. Months ago on another thread I offered you the thought experiment of the scale comparison of a molecule of gold and our solar system. Did you pursue that at all? Have you worked through the fundamental fact of science that no two atoms or atomic particles ever "touch" and that therefore this idea that reality is what we can "knock up against" is a falsehood right down to the core? Have you ever actually pursued a series of infinite regress (as we also tussled on another thread) beyond the point of the "beginning of time" and found something on the other side? Your amazement at Hessle and McKenna suggests that you haven't yet tried any of these.

Whether with a libation or without (and the history of mystical and magical literature, right down to Crowley and beyond, suggests that with is the way to go, at least to unlock the first few gates) these are your starting blocks. From personal experience, I can offer the guidance that pondering these questions without a libation will create a lot more questions, all of them valid and important; pondering them with a libation will mainline you straight to the answers... and more questions.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5026
06/07/2015 6:51 pm  
"Tao" wrote:
... pondering them with a libation will mainline you straight to the answers... and more questions.

This in the case of failure. It is my experience that with proper set, setting, amount, and (perhaps most important) with the use of ritual leading up to active-passive meditation-yoga, that one "attains" to a state wherein there are no further questions, because the "mind has suffered an absolute knockout blow" (paraphrase of AC referring to dhyana).

To be sure, there are plenty of obstacles and ordeals to confront, but (as cited above in a previous post) the process is "speeded up" ("faster"). For the person who is able to simply relax and take it as it comes, their "ascension" is easy.
Note: ascension - "the act of rising to a ... higher level."
But this can be tricky. I've seen folks who easily ascended to a "higher level" (probably netzach or tiphareth), and who were obviously "at ease." But when the stuff wore off, and they descended back to good ol' malkuth, their persona had become warped. Well, it was probably those repressed complexes that got over-ridden by libation ... but stirred up and exposed in the process.

Then there's the folks who had no easy, relaxed path in their earlier travels. Veils and struggles and confrontations arise (just like they would without libational support - but faster; much, much faster; compare ten years to two hours, for example). But the results seem to be "higher." Apparently, if one can sink the 10-ball (or is it the 1-ball?), then there are no residual questions. Not even after returning to "normal" consciousness.

But those would be questions of a knowing faith, of awareness at certain levels, of assorted doubts and fears being raised and, yes, dealt with, to a greater or lesser degree, and they are often wiped out. The primary question remaining after a libation-induced satori is: How can I get back there without the stuff?

Well, with that question in mind (dharana), one can return via libation several times. Instead of being passive, one takes it one step at a time, like an explorer who is also making maps as he/she goes again and again (in order to experience assorted variations) and ultimately learns when to be passsive and when to be assertive.

Is this stuff dangerous? It can be. I have seen aspirants reduced to hysterical schizophrenia, and they "returned to normal" in about the same time frame as those who "made it" (to the knockout), but they never benefitted from the experience (apparently, at least). Oh ... they also quit and never came back.

Those who became schizo, but then "broke through to the other side" rarely quit. They came back for more. [see: separation of sheep and goats] 😀


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
06/07/2015 10:35 pm  
"ignant666" wrote:
As you say, david, DWTW. Some people love to read travel guides, but never take a trip.

As to a possible "need" for "strange drugs", and also Shiva's comments about "coming attractions", see Art Kleps (Millbrook-era Leary associate, who broke with Leary over Leary being too into "metaphysical jabberwocky"):

Acid is not easier than the traditional methods, it's just faster and sneakier.
[The Boo Hoo Bible (1971), Toad Books, p.19]

These 8 circuits are not necessarily only opened by chemicals. 

Besides what and how do these 8 circuits actually have to do with True Will?


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
06/07/2015 10:48 pm  
"Tao" wrote:
Oh honey, where to begin. You honestly believe that the realisation of non-linear eternity "is truly far out and well gone"?

For someone like Hessle, yes I did.

"Tao" wrote:
These are the basics. This is the foundation on which all of this discussion of mysticism rests. If you're still getting there, that's great and all, but you need to get there before you can hope to converse mindfully on these topics. Months ago on another thread I offered you the thought experiment of the scale comparison of a molecule of gold and our solar system. Did you pursue that at all?

That's what the Cabbalistic Cross is like, if done properly, a consciousness of our place in the cosmos.  Answer is no though, to be frank.

"Tao" wrote:
? Have you worked through the fundamental fact of science that no two atoms or atomic particles ever "touch" and that therefore this idea that reality is what we can "knock up against" is a falsehood right down to the core?
"Tao" wrote:
Have you ever actually pursued a series of infinite regress (as we also tussled on another thread) beyond the point of the "beginning of time" and found something on the other side?

You seem to be talking about visualization exercises here. 

"Tao" wrote:
Whether with a libation or without (and the history of mystical and magical literature, right down to Crowley and beyond, suggests that with is the way to go, at least to unlock the first few gates) these are your starting blocks. From personal experience, I can offer the guidance that pondering these questions without a libation will create a lot more questions, all of them valid and important; pondering them with a libation will mainline you straight to the answers... and more questions.

and discovery of True Will?  Anyway, I appreciate your opinion.  Crowley and Liber Al does make such recommendations.  Liber Had specifically.

We can look at Cartesian digital either-or logic as a mere function of the terrestrial left-lobe.  We could OTOH view all right lobe visualization trips as mere imagination.  Someone like Terence McKenna or Leary it doesn't take much to realize that it's very likely that both their extended chemical experimentations were part of their respective True Wills.  But, EMAWIASTAR and we discussed this in the Thelemic Practice thread.  Psychedelic trips are like meditation, it's just a transitory intoxicating private practice of isolation and that includes finding others to join you in the meditation.  That's fine but True Will is perennial, appropriate action is all encompassing wherever one is and at any time.       

I just watched a youtube talk by Terence McKenna  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iO00gjdYYSE

in which he said that an angel appeared to Descartes in a dream and inspired him to spearhead the (future) scientific revolution.....make of that what ye will.  I don't think Terence was joking either.  He may've been.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
06/07/2015 11:20 pm  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iO00gjdYYSE  6m25s by the way.


ReplyQuote
Tao
 Tao
(@tao)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 316
07/07/2015 2:13 am  
"david" wrote:
These 8 circuits are not necessarily only opened by chemicals.

Yes, that's exactly what The Boo Hoo Bible quote is saying.

"david" wrote:
Besides what and how do these 8 circuits actually have to do with True Will?

What an excellent question (masked within horrid grammar). You should probably ask david, though, as he's the one who brought them into the conversation as the end-all be-all of the Leary-Wilson crewe.

"david" wrote:
That's what the Cabbalistic Cross is like, if done properly, a consciousness of our place in the cosmos.

No, not really.

Answer is no though, to be frank.

Shocking.

You seem to be talking about visualization exercises here.

 
No, not really.

and discovery of True Will?

Depends on what you mean by it, I guess. But none of this tangent was about the discovery of "True Will", at least not as far as my interest went. It was about whether or not Leary was a legitimate authority in support of the non-mystical read of Crowley. I still contend that he wasn't and have yet to see any evidence otherwise.

Psychedelic trips are like meditation, it's just a transitory intoxicating private practice of isolation and that includes finding others to join you in the meditation. 

On what are you basing this conclusion?

That's fine but True Will is perennial, appropriate action is all encompassing wherever one is and at any time.

"Appropriate action" suggests to me the dreaded "should", but perhaps that's just crossed syntax.

On what are you basing this conclusion and in what way do you see this as inconsistent with the recommendations, by those who have been there, that psychedelic work is not "just a transitory intoxicating private practice of isolation" but is, rather, a high octane speed trip through the work that would take a non-psychonaut years to perform.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
07/07/2015 10:58 am  

"psychedelic work is not "just a transitory intoxicating private practice of isolation" but is, rather, a high octane speed trip through the work that would take a non-psychonaut years to perform"

Would love to have evidence for this.  Seems a bit woolly.


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 3139
07/07/2015 1:35 pm  
"david" wrote:
"psychedelic work is not "just a transitory intoxicating private practice of isolation" but is, rather, a high octane speed trip through the work that would take a non-psychonaut years to perform"

Would love to have evidence for this.  Seems a bit woolly.

Evidence? There is the testimony as the the efficacy of libation in spiritual work from AC, Aldous Huxley, Leary, Kleps, Richard Alpert (Baba Ram Dass), RAW, McKenna, Shiva, Tao, and me; the first nine on that list have published work on the topic. Of course there are many others aside from this quick list who will attest to the same thing.

All evidence in this area is innately "wooly", since it concerns the inner consciousness of others (you (david) are pretty wedded, i believe, to the idea that it is impossible to recognize spiritual advancement in another person, so what possible evidence could exist?). Given your claimed orientation, you might want to consider what possible evidence could convincingly falsify these very similar "claims", as well as what evidence might prove them.

You'll either have to take the word of others (or not) on this matter, or find out for yourself.

In addition to all appropriate legal due diligence as to local laws, I recommend checking out travel guides first. The two best are Shiva's Coruscatio (which as he points out is the only thing in the literature directly concerning magick and psychedelics, since AC's "Liber CMXXXIV THE CACTUS" is apparently lost or never existed in the first place), and Kleps' Boo Hoo Bible (you may appreciate the slogan of his Neo-American Church, "Victory Over Horseshit!" and their philosophical position of "solipsistic  nihilism"; excerpts here: http://www.okneoac.org/bhb/ ).

As far as the often-elusive OT here, Tao is right that Leary, RAW, and McKenna provide not the least shred of support for the claims about AC (or "reality") known as "Thelemic skepticism". That AC's work doesn't support the claims of "Thelemic skepticism" either is of course the meta-topic that all topics must converge on that Shiva and others have complained about.


ReplyQuote
obscurus
(@obscuruspaintus)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 315
07/07/2015 2:50 pm  

Drawing from with-out to travel with-in? Some "things" will most certainly push the door open but we are already equipped within the walls of our own skulls with what we need. The properly prepared for use of imagination within the stilled mind.


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 3139
07/07/2015 4:09 pm  

While it is certainly true that all the chemicals needed to experience gnosis/K & C of HGA/ the Abyss/The Holy Ghost/The Kingdom of Heaven/The O-Mind (and other popular movies) exist in the human brain (or else external agents would have no receptor/re-uptake sites to excite/inhibit), many have found the "faster and sneakier" route efficacious. Consult your lawyer, physician, and pastor, priest, rabbi, Skeptical Goo-Roo, or Will (as the case may be) before doing the same, of course, and do your homework first.

david- This last is something you have been (justly) criticized for being slapdash about in the past, and in the current thread. This, in addition to your "bull in a china shop" approach to the forum (which long pre-dates your embrace of "radical honesty"), are why you get called a troll. In the case of your Goo-Roo, it's that he has clearly read enough of AC's work to know his reading of that work is tendentious at best, and has been called on his lack of basic understanding of philosophy and science often enough that anyone working in good faith would remedy those deficiencies (instead of invoking the "common sense" that education dispels); additionally, "Los" is proud of lacking the cultural background necessary to understand western culture (including Blake, AC, and Nietzsche), as he thinks bible knowledge is silly.

I have to say (perhaps showing my age here) that one cause of your slapdash-ness and general lack of preparedness in discussion may be over-reliance on internet sources, and especially videos, as opposed to musty old books.

Since you are obviously just beginning to accumulate a physical library (stop getting rid of books!), a good university library (and university inter-library loan) would offer you access to all the primary sources that all those people are talking about on youtube, enabling you to make up your own mind (as a good "skeptic" surely ought to do), rather than being dependent on the pre-digested ideas of others.

If you aren't able to commit full time to study, look for a continuing education program, where you can usually sign up for a single course/term (i'd suggest "Intro to Philosophy" and "Intro to research methods" courses as a start), getting access to the library to pursue your own reading in addition to the coursework. Your student ID and a letter from a Faculty member would get you into the AC "mother lode" at Warburg Institute.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5026
07/07/2015 6:38 pm  
"ignant666" wrote:
... or find out for yourself.

[gasp][choke] Oh, no you don't!  Thou shalt not advise people to actually "find out for yourself." We all know that the truth of the matter (any matter) is found in quotations and references to websites and youTube videos.

"Seek ye first the audio-visual circus ... and then these other things will be opened unto you."

"Maybe."


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
07/07/2015 6:56 pm  
"Tao" wrote:
What an excellent question (masked within horrid grammar). .

"Reason is a whore". 

I hear that some of the great Zen masters (and probably most ancient Indian yogi masters) were illiterate, including Master Hui Neng (638–713).  What's your point?


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
07/07/2015 8:10 pm  
"ignant666" wrote:
While it is certainly true that all the chemicals needed to experience gnosis/K & C of HGA/ the Abyss/The Holy Ghost/The Kingdom of Heaven/The O-Mind (and other popular movies) exist in the human brain (or else external agents would have no receptor/re-uptake sites to excite/inhibit), many have found the "faster and sneakier" route efficacious. Consult your lawyer, physician, and pastor, priest, rabbi, Skeptical Goo-Roo, or Will (as the case may be) before doing the same, of course, and do your homework first.

david- This last is something you have been (justly) criticized for being slapdash about in the past, and in the current thread. This, in addition to your "bull in a china shop" approach to the forum (which long pre-dates your embrace of "radical honesty"), are why you get called a troll. In the case of your Goo-Roo, it's that he has clearly read enough of AC's work to know his reading of that work is tendentious at best, and has been called on his lack of basic understanding of philosophy and science often enough that anyone working in good faith would remedy those deficiencies (instead of invoking the "common sense" that education dispels); additionally, "Los" is proud of lacking the cultural background necessary to understand western culture (including Blake, AC, and Nietzsche), as he thinks bible knowledge is silly.

I have to say (perhaps showing my age here) that one cause of your slapdash-ness and general lack of preparedness in discussion may be over-reliance on internet sources, and especially videos, as opposed to musty old books.

Since you are obviously just beginning to accumulate a physical library (stop getting rid of books!), a good university library (and university inter-library loan) would offer you access to all the primary sources that all those people are talking about on youtube, enabling you to make up your own mind (as a good "skeptic" surely ought to do), rather than being dependent on the pre-digested ideas of others.

If you aren't able to commit full time to study, look for a continuing education program, where you can usually sign up for a single course/term (i'd suggest "Intro to Philosophy" and "Intro to research methods" courses as a start), getting access to the library to pursue your own reading in addition to the coursework. Your student ID and a letter from a Faculty member would get you into the AC "mother lode" at Warburg Institute.

Thanks, I'm already grounded, to an extent, in the entire history of western philosophy and eastern cultures.  The libation issue would need a thread in itself as it is a massive subject.  We buy books as we will.  Youtube and web links can be informative.  For example one of the youtube links was literally a lecture by a Philosophy professor.  Those  youtube McKenna discussions are also, literally lectures.     


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
07/07/2015 8:42 pm  
"david" wrote:
"Tao" wrote:
What an excellent question (masked within horrid grammar).

"Reason is a whore". 

I hear that some of the great Zen masters (and probably most ancient Indian yogi masters) were illiterate, including Master Hui Neng (638–713).  What's your point?

Whaghhff am neoyuil, reguyf cifghsl ewil putta! Celoff si bon, eczeswa anculf exima (if you know what i mean. ;D)

N Joy

PS.  Didn't his "colleague" Brian Barritt manage to make Timothy Leary look a bit like Ronald Reagan?


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 3139
07/07/2015 9:15 pm  

My advice is, "literally", that of a former professor of [?]ology, at a large research university (since i am one; name of department removed, and institution withheld, to protect the innocent and guilty alike).

Lectures are the 1/10 of the iceberg that is visible; the reading is the other 9/10, without which the lecture is a dry crust indeed. Note that in live classes (as opposed to youtube "lectures") one typically has the chance to ask questions, and for additional out-of-class discussion with faculty (this is how to curry that Warburg letter)).

Education is how you go from "grounded (to an extent)" (as is my little dog Fifi, to an extent) to knowing what you are talking about, and being taken seriously by others.

The hard part about trying to do it on your own is that you have no way of judging wheat from chaff as you start out; if you conclude that your professors are wrong about everything, they will be delighted to hear this (if they are any good), and will provide you with the tools to prove that they are wrong about everything, while picking apart your efforts (to your ultimate benefit) as you work to do so. This is more or less the point of the academy; for all its flaws, I recommend diving in.

Occult/mystical study prior to a good general and scientific education is likely to lead to obsession, crankery, forum-trolling, and worse, as AC warned often.


ReplyQuote
Tao
 Tao
(@tao)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 316
07/07/2015 10:07 pm  
"david" wrote:
"Reason is a whore".

What a strange non sequitur.

I hear that some of the great Zen masters (and probably most ancient Indian yogi masters) were illiterate, including Master Hui Neng (638–713).  What's your point?

My point is that you are neither a Zen master nor a yoga master, you are a modern individual of literate western civilisation attempting to communicate via the written word and you are doing a wretched job.

"Case, Paul Foster. Esoteric Secrets of Meditation and Magic. p7" wrote:
The function assigned to [cheth] is speech, and speech is the externalization of mental states through the medium of sound. Thus mastery of words plays a prominent part in exercises for developing skill in concentration. This mastery begins in very simple ways. He who would become adept in concentration must think of language as a field to be cultivated with utmost care. He must learn to say what he means, and must be careful to mean what he says....

One need not be a pedant or a precisionist in order to use speech aright; but whosoever wishes to succeed in practical occultism must address himself to the study of the dictionary. The spectacle of an aspirant sitting down to concentrate on the tip of his nose when his daily misuse of language makes two-thirds of his thought almost unintelligible is one which brings a weary smile to the lips of Those who Know. It may not seem to be "very occult" to look up words in a dictionary, but when one realizes that every misused word weakens the force of one's thinking, when one knows that slipshod speech wastes mental force, the desirability of the dictionary habit becomes almost painfully evident.


ReplyQuote
Tao
 Tao
(@tao)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 316
07/07/2015 10:14 pm  
"Tao" wrote:
"david" wrote:
These 8 circuits are not necessarily only opened by chemicals.

Yes, that's exactly what The Boo Hoo Bible quote is saying.

I just re-read this and would like to make an emendation for the record: The Boo Hoo Bible quote is saying that these 8 circuits are not necessarily only opened by ingested chemicals. All biological processes are chemical processes so the opening of the 8 circuits are necessarily chemical processes.


ReplyQuote
Page 2 / 5
Share: