Notifications
Clear all

Troll  

Page 5 / 5
  RSS

Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 4087
17/07/2015 1:28 pm  
"Los" wrote:
And I agree with all of this. The point I was making earlier in the thread -- to repeat it for those dense enough to have missed it -- is that there's no reason to think that mystical states give a person a more accurate view of reality.  . . . or, to be very technical, there's no reason to suppose that they are.

I disagree. It's my opinion that "mystical states" such as Samadhi or Dhyana do give a more accurate view of reality. Since by all accounts the subject-object dichotomy dissolves, it is difficult to see how there could be any "objective" evidence or intellectual analysis to support this.

"Los" wrote:
And yes, there are a few comments where Crowley suggests that Dhyana is "more real" than our usual perceptions of reality...to the extent that Crowley can be seen as making an actual claim there (and not just describing how the experience feels), I disagree with him on that point.

I agree with Crowley on this point. He appears to be basing his remarks on experience rather than intellectual analysis.


ReplyQuote
Tao
 Tao
(@tao)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 316
17/07/2015 9:42 pm  
"david" wrote:
Someone who meditates regularly can still be stressed at work so something's wrong.

Quite possibly, it's this presumption that stress is necessarily an evil to be avoided. I wouldn't want to insert scientific research into a perfectly anti-rational evangelism... but I do feel some persistent responsibility to truth, so:

http://blog.ted.com/could-stress-be-good-for-you-recent-research-that-suggests-it-has-benefits/
http://news.health.com/2014/08/18/5-weird-ways-stress-can-actually-be-good-for-you/
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-science-success/201303/how-you-can-benefit-all-your-stress
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/287388.php

We can't go about our business in a perpetual numb trance.

Y knot? DWTW, right?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vi7cuAjArRs


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 4087
17/07/2015 10:38 pm  
"Tao" wrote:
Quite possibly, it's this presumption that stress is necessarily an evil to be avoided.

I agree. Sometimes stress can be a positive force, urging us togreater efforts, taking us beyond our comfort zones.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
18/07/2015 3:37 am  
"Tao" wrote:
Not to mention the radiation, that silent poison against which our squishy bodies are so poorly evolved thanks to Gaia's (until recently) protective shield.

Gaia's (until recently) protective shield.  Yeah there's some great info on the Gaia hypothesis in Leary's "the game of life".  He was a proponent of Gaia as an alternative to the grim macho bleak Darwinian distortion of evolution.  That is, the Victorian biologists merely replaced the oppressive Judeo Christian myth with their own version.  See pages 232 and 251 for info on that particular issue.   


ReplyQuote
Tao
 Tao
(@tao)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 316
18/07/2015 5:04 am  

Gaia is simply the Greek name for Mother Earth. Her protective shield is our atmosphere which, as we decimate it through pollution, is less able to protect us from the full spectrum of cosmic radiations. No hypothesis or myth structure necessary.

And, once again for the slow learner: Provide the information you wish to reference as well as the page number. The page number is meant to offer the reader direction in case she wishes to research further into the context of the information cited; it is not meant to be used as a proxy for that information.

Then again, most trollz get their lulz by forcing otherz to waste their time so, I guess if you just want to keep providing evidence in support of that hypothesis, you're doing a bang-up job.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
18/07/2015 10:38 am  
"Tao" wrote:
Gaia is simply the Greek name for Mother Earth. Her protective shield is our atmosphere which, as we decimate it through pollution, is less able to protect us from the full spectrum of cosmic radiations. No hypothesis or myth structure necessary.

And, once again for the slow learner: Provide the information you wish to reference as well as the page number. The page number is meant to offer the reader direction in case she wishes to research further into the context of the information cited; it is not meant to be used as a proxy for that information.

Then again, most trollz get their lulz by forcing otherz to waste their time so, I guess if you just want to keep providing evidence in support of that hypothesis, you're doing a bang-up job.

That was a bit unfriendly wasn't it?  I suggest you reread the "compliance with guidelines" section.

For those interested, Leary's "The game of life" (1979 Printed in the United States of America by Peace Press, Inc.)
goes through each of the 24 circuits via Tarot card descriptions and the section on The Sun ATU addresses the Gaia hypothesis and evolution.  It's page 230 onwards.     


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
18/07/2015 10:48 am  
"Michael Staley" wrote:
"Tao" wrote:
Quite possibly, it's this presumption that stress is necessarily an evil to be avoided.

I agree. Sometimes stress can be a positive force, urging us togreater efforts, taking us beyond our comfort zones.

Stress is essential i.e. anxiety is essential.  If I was rescuing you from being trapped in a burning car then I wouldn't be able to do it without gearing myself up with anxiety and stress.  After I drag you out, then I could relax.  No, I wasn't talking about that sort of stress with regards to Shiva's flustered office worker.  Shiva's stressed out person was embroiled in psychological distortions and unnecessary and unbalanced stress.  Can you see the difference?  One stress is normal and healthy and the other sends people to Shiva so he can heal them with his energy therapy. 


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 4087
18/07/2015 11:39 am  
"david" wrote:
"Michael Staley" wrote:
"Tao" wrote:
Quite possibly, it's this presumption that stress is necessarily an evil to be avoided.

I agree. Sometimes stress can be a positive force, urging us togreater efforts, taking us beyond our comfort zones.

Stress is essential i.e. anxiety is essential.  If I was rescuing you from being trapped in a burning car then I wouldn't be able to do it without gearing myself up with anxiety and stress.  After I drag you out, then I could relax.  No, I wasn't talking about that sort of stress with regards to Shiva's flustered office worker.  Shiva's stressed out person was embroiled in psychological distortions and unnecessary and unbalanced stress.  Can you see the difference?  One stress is normal and healthy and the other sends people to Shiva so he can heal them with his energy therapy. 

Yes, david, from my own experience of dealing with stressful situations, I do know the difference. Thanks for rescuing me from the burning car, by the way.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
18/07/2015 5:19 pm  
"david" wrote:
"Tao" wrote:
Gaia is simply the Greek name for Mother Earth. Her protective shield is our atmosphere which, as we decimate it through pollution, is less able to protect us from the full spectrum of cosmic radiations. No hypothesis or myth structure necessary.

And, once again for the slow learner: Provide the information you wish to reference as well as the page number. The page number is meant to offer the reader direction in case she wishes to research further into the context of the information cited; it is not meant to be used as a proxy for that information.

Then again, most trollz get their lulz by forcing otherz to waste their time so, I guess if you just want to keep providing evidence in support of that hypothesis, you're doing a bang-up job.

That was a bit unfriendly wasn't it?  I suggest you reread the "compliance with guidelines" section.

For those interested, Leary's "The game of life" (1979 Printed in the United States of America by Peace Press, Inc.) goes through each of the 24 circuits via Tarot card descriptions and the section on The Sun ATU addresses the Gaia hypothesis and evolution.  It's page 230 onwards.     

"... Is it so fantastically hard to do, or are you just trying to be deliberately perverse and difficult?” 😉

N Joy


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
18/07/2015 5:42 pm  
"jamie barter" wrote:

"... Is it so fantastically hard to do, or are you just trying to be deliberately perverse and difficult?” 😉

N Joy

Pay attention more, maybe:  Reply #205


ReplyQuote
Tao
 Tao
(@tao)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 316
18/07/2015 9:11 pm  
"david" wrote:
No, I wasn't talking about that sort of stress with regards to Shiva's flustered office worker. 

Neither is the research.

"david" wrote:
Shiva's stressed out person was embroiled in psychological distortions and unnecessary and unbalanced stress.  Can you see the difference?

I see that you have labeled it "unnecessary and unbalanced" without justification.

"david" wrote:
One stress is normal and healthy and the other sends people to Shiva so he can heal them with his energy therapy.

Again, I will defer to the actual ongoing research by actual psychologists, actual bio-chemists, and actual practitioners of Eastern medicine.


ReplyQuote
Tao
 Tao
(@tao)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 316
18/07/2015 9:19 pm  
"david" wrote:
That was a bit unfriendly wasn't it?  I suggest you reread the "compliance with guidelines" section.

In what way do you feel I have run afoul of the "compliance with guidelines"? Please provide specific quotations with correct references to both the guideline violated and the offending passages so that either I or the webmaster can respond in an appropriate manner.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
19/07/2015 2:40 am  
"Tao" wrote:
In what way do you feel I have run afoul of the "compliance with guidelines"? Please provide specific quotations with correct references to both the guideline violated and the offending passages so that either I or the webmaster can respond in an appropriate manner.

How about I refuse to feed your ego?


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
19/07/2015 6:11 am  
"Michael Staley" wrote:
"Los" wrote:
And I agree with all of this. The point I was making earlier in the thread -- to repeat it for those dense enough to have missed it -- is that there's no reason to think that mystical states give a person a more accurate view of reality.  . . . or, to be very technical, there's no reason to suppose that they are.

I disagree. It's my opinion that "mystical states" such as Samadhi or Dhyana do give a more accurate view of reality. Since by all accounts the subject-object dichotomy dissolves, it is difficult to see how there could be any "objective" evidence or intellectual analysis to support this.

Yeah, it is difficult to see how there could be evidence or analysis to support it -- which is why I said that "there's no reason to think that mystical states give a person a more accurate view of reality."

You seem to be agreeing with me that there is no reason to think that mystical states give a person a more accurate view of reality. But if you actually do think that there's a reason, I'd sure be interested in hearing it.

"Los" wrote:
And yes, there are a few comments where Crowley suggests that Dhyana is "more real" than our usual perceptions of reality...to the extent that Crowley can be seen as making an actual claim there (and not just describing how the experience feels), I disagree with him on that point.

I agree with Crowley on this point. He appears to be basing his remarks on experience rather than intellectual analysis.

Describing an experience is not a reason to think that something is true. I have the experience of seeing crooked lines in an optical illusion, but that doesn't mean that the lines actually are crooked. Similarly, I have the experience of going to magic shows and watching the performer seemingly make an elephant disappear into thin air, but that doesn't mean that an elephant actually *did* vanish through paranormal means.

What you seem to be expressing is that you acknowledge that there's no reason to think that mystical states provide a more accurate view of reality, but you choose to think that they do because they feel that way. If it's not clear from what I've said already why that's a dumb idea, I'm not sure how much clearer I can make it.


ReplyQuote
Tao
 Tao
(@tao)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 316
19/07/2015 9:18 am  
"david" wrote:
How about I refuse to feed your ego?

What... You refuse to respond to a perfectly legitimate request for clarification from another of your unsupported posts? Specifically one where you've cast shade in my direction by implying that I've violated the guidelines of the site? Why that's totally unexpected. You've never done that before. ::)


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
19/07/2015 1:52 pm  
"Tao" wrote:
What... You refuse to respond to a perfectly legitimate request for clarification from another of your unsupported posts? Specifically one where you've cast shade in my direction by implying that I've violated the guidelines of the site? Why that's totally unexpected. You've never done that before. ::)

Anyone can see you were trying to  throw out a "slow learner" insult towards me.

"Tao" wrote:
And, once again for the slow learner: Provide the information you wish to reference as well as the page number. The page number is meant to offer the reader direction in case she wishes to research further into the context of the information cited; it is not meant to be used as a proxy for that information.
.

The thing is, now I'm going have to endure the pain of watching you back-pedal which is what I was trying to avoid.  It's embarrassing.  lol.  Furthermore I've got better things to do than feed your ego. 


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
19/07/2015 3:56 pm  
"david" wrote:
"jamie barter" wrote:
"... Is it so fantastically hard to do, or are you just trying to be deliberately perverse and difficult?” 😉

Pay attention more, maybe:  Reply #205

Providing you actually stick in future to your splendid commitment in Reply #63 of the "How does Leary’s 8 brain-model of evolution define Crowley’s idea of TW?” thread, david:

Reply #63 by david on: July 17, 2015, 08:18:49 pm:

You're right.  If I make a reference to something I once read, then I should make a direct and exact reference to the actual book's page number etc.

I’m not too bothered about quibbling about details here or raking over the minuitiae. (And don 't forget I also "winked" about the one in question. ;))

Re. the preceeding Reply here from Tao, what might “slow learner” or accusations of "ego feeding" have to do with asking for clarification about an alleged infringement of the Guidelines (which again seems reasonable enough to me)?

N Joy


ReplyQuote
Tao
 Tao
(@tao)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 316
19/07/2015 7:43 pm  
"david" wrote:
Anyone can see you were trying to  throw out a "slow learner" insult towards me.

'Twas not an insult unless you find honesty to be insulting (I wonder what that says about the  RH movement). I, and others, have patiently corrected your atrocious lack of consideration when citing sources on this, a supposedly erudite society, for months now and yet you have refused to put even the least bit of effort into mending your ways. As JB notes above, even you recently recognised your shortcomings and vowed to mend your ways but, alas... I can't imagine there is one reader left whose impression of you isn't diminished because of your complete lack of consideration toward your audience in any attempt at organization of your thoughts. As such, I utilized the most generous descriptor I could muster, one self-applied most famously by Thomas Pynchon to his early work, but one which has apparently hit a nerve. Heal thyself of your oft-noted malady and perhaps that nerve will no longer cause annoyance.

"david" wrote:
The thing is, now I'm going have to endure the pain of watching you back-pedal which is what I was trying to avoid.  It's embarrassing.  lol.  Furthermore I've got better things to do than feed your ego.

I am sorry that watching others backpedal causes you pain and that, rather than confronting that pain so as to balance your polarities, you'd prefer avoidance. However, as I am not wont to backpedaling, preferring rather to either defend my positions when unfairly attacked or amend them when properly corrected, I don't quite understand why this fear of yours was activated.

I am sorry also that this whole process brings you embarrassment; but then you are the individual who decided to vent your spleen via "poetry" so you must needs take some responsibility for this Hydra-headed beast of a thread/non-thread.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
19/07/2015 9:26 pm  

You didn't backpedal.

Well done.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
22/07/2015 6:13 pm  

I would like to express my astonishment that this thread of miscellaneous flotsam & jetsam, quite against the odds, has managed to sustain such a long life… and all from a so-called “poem”, too…

“'Clang Clang Clang' went the troll-ee ♫”
N Joy


ReplyQuote
christibrany
(@christibrany)
Yuggothian
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 2689
24/07/2015 5:03 am  
"Los" wrote:
"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:t6giukid]septic[/s:t6giukid], 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.

Los,

i don't post much on here, and i neglected to truly respond to your personal email about THELEMIC SKEPTICISM  because the more I read your posts, and your 3 page long email, the more tired I get. Hooray for ruining this forum.

I have nothing to defend, and most people here don't - and to be honest, while your bs adds replies to this forum, I have to wonder if with belittling mick with your horribly arrogant and inconsiderate 'drinking game,' your common repetitive tack of always winging about 'definitions' and then playing the victim by saying 'you just want people to be on the same page so we can have a "Real Discussion [ie one that you dictate]"' is some kind of sign of a huge inferiority complex.  Not just Mick but Siva, you just insult.  That is all you really do.  Whether it is in a pseudo intellectual way whining about dictionaries or your own view of what is true Reality, or whether its even lower and making fun of peoples professions, you really need a lot of emotional help. 
I am just saying this one post to your 50 because I am amazed, in a very very sad way.
I really hope you are not indicative of the next wave of 'evolution'
Carry on everyone. 


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
24/07/2015 6:35 am  
"christibrany" wrote:
the more I read your posts, and your 3 page long email, the more tired I get.

So what do you want, a medal for being intellectually lazy?

Hooray for ruining this forum.

Posting critical questions and careful discussion is not "ruining" a discussion forum.

I have to wonder if [Chris' wildly selective mischaracterization of Los' forum activity] is some kind of sign of a huge inferiority complex.

Spare us the psycho-babble. I've noted before that when people cannot respond to my arguments -- or, in this case, when they're too lazy to bother even reading them -- they become desperate to talk about anything except those arguments.

you really need a lot of emotional help.

 

Uh huh. Thanks for the wild speculation based on nothing but my posts to a web forum. Any time you'd care to address my arguments, feel free to.

you just insult.  That is all you really do.

For what it's worth, the level of respect I give to other people tends to be in proportion to that which they show me. People who don't insult me and don't adopt a hostile attitude toward me are rarely the subjects of my mockery. Perhaps you noticed that my earlier messages to you were kind and straightforward. Perhaps not -- noticing things doesn't seem to be your strong suit.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
24/07/2015 9:42 am  

To address Christi's comments, if you're objective you will see that Los is right about Michael's contributions.  I started paying attention to Michael's posts and lo and behold, I don't think I have ever seen one post which is a genuine contribution to any OP.  He just doesn't seem to be bothered about any of these subjects like the rest of us.  Its analogous to a football player who, during every game, just wanders about aimlessly, not giving a toss who wins or loses.  He may make the odd sly dig now and again but then he just scurries off into obscurity, so its like guerrilla warfare.  Its unfair to accuse Los of trolling when Michael gets away with such shit. 

I ask you, please go and find a Michael post where its a genuine contribution to the discussion at hand.  Please, if you can let me know but I think you've got a job on your hands.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
24/07/2015 8:41 pm  
"david" wrote:
To address Christi's comments, if you're objective you will see that Los is right about Michael's contributions.  I started paying attention to Michael's posts and lo and behold, I don't think I have ever seen one post which is a genuine contribution to any OP.

Well, that's not entirely fair to say: you're overstating the case. Perhaps you haven't seen Michael make genuine contributions -- you're still basically new here -- but I've seen Michael contribute to discussions before. In fact, earlier on this very thread, he made a point that was on topic, and you'll note that I gave him a full answer (Reply 213, above) and invited him to clarify his position...all without invective or insults, since I tend to respond to constructive and polite posts in kind. Whether he ever responds to my response is a different question, as Michael tends to avoid discussions, especially when it comes to Thelemic practice.

But the problem is that a large number of Michael's posts are just snide remarks. Certainly, that's been his primary mode of engaging with me for a few years now. And his genuine contributions are pretty much never contributions to technical discussions about practice. They tend to be contributions about books, publishing history, general observations about Grant and Spare, etc.

And of course that's fine for him to do. I don't particularly care about what Michael does, but if he's going to interact with me primarily in the form of snide comments, I'm going to point it out, and I'm going to respond from time to time in a manner that I feel he deserves. This includes having a group of people laugh at his posts and take a drink for every post that adds nothing to the conversation.

I do agree with David that "Its unfair to accuse Los of trolling when Michael gets away with such shit." This becomes especially apparent if one puts our posts side-by-side and evaluates which one of us actually contributes substantively to technical discussions about Thelema.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 4087
24/07/2015 9:20 pm  
"Los" wrote:
Well, that's not entirely fair to say: you're overstating the case. Perhaps you haven't seen Michael make genuine contributions -- you're still basically new here -- but I've seen Michael contribute to discussions before.

Thank you, Los.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5328
24/07/2015 9:46 pm  
"david" wrote:
Its unfair to accuse Los of trolling when Michael gets away with such shit. 

Thread locked and your account will be subject to pre-moderation until such time as you demonstrate familiarity with the Guidelines. I'm actually baffled that you would think a comment like this about any fellow site member could ever be appropriate.

Very disappointing, david. And I'm not massively impressed with Los for repeating the quote with approval. You could both do with 'getting over yourselves', to be honest.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
Page 5 / 5
Share: