A new resident of the City of the Pyramids!: Los
It’s a tricky one.
Yes I'm sure it is --- like all questions are that wouldn't immediately be locatable under Los's answers to FAQs. Maybe it's time to 'fess that you "DON'T KNOW" again? Or to quit while you're behind just like ignant666 suggested you do many pages back!
I think it’s Jim Eshelman who said that such old aeon “attainments” are equivalent to what we can now class as 5=6. That’s why they are lacking.
Er --- "Where is that lifted from exactly?" I find it hard to imagine on what basis Mr Eshelman might write such a thing if indeed he did. Do you accept him as an 8=3 as well out of interest?
I know Los and Erwin don’t hold these trances in high regard but they value the practice as a form of training.
Ah yes, from their own personal experience I'm sure, where Los at least will no doubt have practiced them all assiduously for many long years (with lots of [what he thought were] "results") before he realized how stupid it was (and how dumb he was being).
Straight from the horses's mouth
"I know Los and Erwin don’t hold these trances in high regard but they value the practice as a form of training."
I guess they confused the Trances as a practice and a form of training for yoga.
But then again i don’t think they have high regard for anything except their system or spin.
What's the problem with not knowing something as of yet? I don't see what you're on about.
— “Mr Eshelman wrote about attainment on his forum. Is he 8=3? I don't know and how would anyone know?
What’s the problem with not knowing something as of yet? I don’t see what you’re on about.
No, I don't suppose you do.
Your posts are always more revealing about what they don't say as much as what they do.
— “Mr Eshelman wrote about attainment on his forum. Is he 8=3? I don’t know and how would anyone know?
I believe he made the claim in connection with his A.'. A.'. lineage somewhere, although similar to yourself I don't have exact references to hand.
Los wrote about attainment on his forum, as 8=3. Is he 8=3? You obviously think he is, but how would anyone know?
Has anyone else ever wondered if david/dom/williams is just S.'. H.'. Fra. Los when he is drunk?
It would explain the "same arguments made more ineptly" thing so many have noticed, and the fact that david/dom/williams never had a thought that S.'. H.'. Fra. Los (PBUH) didn't have first.
Could it be we have been having a "conversation" with, not the monkey, but the inebriated organ-grinder?
Has anyone else ever wondered if david/dom/williams is just S.’. H.’. Fra. Los when he is drunk?
I have considered various versions of the hypothesis that David is Los, yes. Whatever David's story is, it seems a sad one.
Arthur: Having a "conversation" with david/dom/williams' mentor & Goo-Roo, S.'. H.'. Fra. Los, was always rather like arguing with a particularly obtuse and annoying brick wall.
I have long held out hope for young david. He may be starting to notice the rather obvious cracks in the "I am a rigorous materialist reductionist, who also believes in metaphysical concepts like 'True Will' and 'The Abyss'", aka "Skeptical Thelema", position.
I thought his earlier rejection of Crowley, and indeed Los/"Skeptical Thelema", for promulgation of 1970's-style Dr. Tim Leary-at-his-most-nutty "Comet Kohoutek  Is A Message From the Space Brothers!" might have led to a new, reformed, and more thoughtful, david, but instead we have the new zealot dom persona.
Despite my several queries in this thread, he has not yet explained what brought him back from his "Space Migration" advocacy to re-adoption of his prior "Los Is My Goo-Roo" position.
A thing i have never understood is why folks, like S.'. H.'. Fras. Erwin, Los, and their disciple/sock puppet/alter ego david, with inclinations towards kneejerk "I am a rigorous materialist reductionist" "skepticism" would seek to clothe their rather trivial "just be yourself" advice in so much "transcendentalist" regalia, or would be attracted to AC's work in the first place.
"A thing i have never understood is why folks, like S.’. H.’. Fras. Erwin, Los, and their disciple/sock puppet/alter ego david, with inclinations towards kneejerk “I am a rigorous materialist reductionist” “skepticism” would seek to clothe their rather trivial “just be yourself” advice in so much “transcendentalist” regalia, or would be attracted to AC’s work in the first place."
My guess is this: while it is quite impossible to claim a "professor" or "doctor" title in real science, it is indeed quite easy to claim advanced and spurious titles in the occult world. Which seems - to me - a very important thing for them. Because I never heard of a thelemite of any kind except the "Skeptics" who ever claimed he's got it all right, and all others got it wrong. It is kind of defining them. The fancy picture of being right. I guess it must be pretty troubling for them, being attracted in some way to this supernatural stuff while unable to accepting it for what it is. Beyond our comprehension but still somehow real.
At this momemt in time - judging from what goes online - they are more marginal than your average Chtulhu Cult. But always waiting for science to back them up some day.
I have long held out hope for young david. He may be starting to notice the rather obvious cracks in the “I am a rigorous materialist reductionist, who also believes in metaphysical concepts like ‘True Will’ and ‘The Abyss'”, aka “Skeptical Thelema”, position.
Yeah I accept the fact that Crowley made a lot of statements that do not fit the materialist view. As you say /he said it's immaterial if (planes etc) exist of not. I admit that maybe it is confirmation bias to force his materialist quotes into being his all pervasive philosophy.
I thought his earlier rejection of Crowley, and indeed Los/”Skeptical Thelema”, for promulgation of 1970’s-style Dr. Tim Leary-at-his-most-nutty “Comet Kohoutek  Is A Message From the Space Brothers!” might have led to a new, reformed, and more thoughtful, david, but instead we have the new zealot dom persona.
No it was the 8 brain-circuit model I was more interested in not the ESP group. You won't find any enthusiastic posts of mine about Starseed.
Despite my several queries in this thread, he has not yet explained what brought him back from his “Space Migration” advocacy to re-adoption of his prior “Los Is My Goo-Roo” position.
You're misrepresenting me but anyway....
A thing i have never understood is why folks, like S.’. H.’. Fras. Erwin, Los, and their disciple/sock puppet/alter ego david, with inclinations towards kneejerk “I am a rigorous materialist reductionist” “skepticism” would seek to clothe their rather trivial “just be yourself” advice in so much “transcendentalist” regalia, or would be attracted to AC’s work in the first place.
I have seen through my own knee-jerk "sceptical" tendencies. Maybe angels and spirits do exist for example. It's immaterial if they exist or not as by doing certain things certain things happen.
Yeah I accept the fact that Crowley made a lot of statements that do not fit the materialist view. As you say /he said it’s immaterial if (planes etc) exist of not. I admit that maybe it is confirmation bias to force his materialist quotes into being his all pervasive philosophy.
It's good to have this acknowledgement from you, dom. As an occultist, I have long been aware of the sceptical elememnts that co-exist with Crowley's mystical and magical outlook. Similarly, I have a great admiration for Nietzsche, in particular his later work ('The Dawn' onwards, culminating in 'Zarathustra'), but there are areas of his work which do not interest me and from which I take nothing. To an extent we're all magpies, taking inspiration from a variety of sources and synthesising it through our own experience to arrive at our own understanding.
MS: To an extent we’re all magpies, taking inspiration from a variety of sources and synthesising it through our own experience to arrive at our own understanding.
Now this ^ is a pretty good statement that sums up the whole matter is a very realistic manner.
Double post due to time-stealing Archons who delay a post by routing it through a time-warp tunnel, causing the poster to repost, and then editing down to this ridiculous explanation of time-delay.
Could I be the only person to have had the thought this thread is becoming a bit more like the old "Babble-on Box"?
I have seen through my own knee-jerk “sceptical” tendencies. Maybe angels and spirits do exist for example.
Maybe scientifically speaking, they might be some sort of "Boltzmann brains" for instance?
It’s immaterial if they exist or not as by doing certain things certain things happen.
Not for certain though (because of Heisenberg etc). And since "there is no certain test"....
Has anyone else ever wondered if david/dom/williams is just S.’. H.’. Fra. Los when he is drunk? It would explain the “same arguments made more ineptly” thing so many have noticed, and the fact that david/dom/williams never had a thought that S.’. H.’. Fra. Los (PBUH) didn’t have first. Could it be we have been having a “conversation” with, not the monkey, but the inebriated organ-grinder?
An interesting conjecture, although there have been consecutive posts where Los seemed to have taken exception at certain views expressed by david at the time.* So, unless Los is engaging in some weird split personality shit, it seems unlikely: a pity, as it was rather an attractive theory although I'm sure Paul would have rumbled it by now as well, if that were the case.
a new, reformed, and more thoughtful, david, but instead we have the new zealot dom persona.
Yes, I found the old david persona more approachable and dare I say it humorous than dom, who seems to be a bit dour & bolshy in his attitude and to have more cognitive instability by comparison. And to be about twenty years older?!
* For example, I could never in a million years see Los countenancing david/dom's most recent fession from #100953:
I admit that maybe it is confirmation bias to force his [A.C.'s] materialist quotes into being his all pervasive philosophy.
Ye gods, from him that'd almost qualify as a gotcha!
Unless i entirely misunderstand his last post, Jamie, i think young david has renounced "Losianity", and joined the ranks of "Gullible Thelema", and acknowledged that the transcendental, the mystical, and the metaphysical, are integral to AC's work.
Kudos to you, david, for your willingness to think for yourself and use those critical thinking skills.
Now can we return to the OT, the ludicrousness of a claim of having "Crossed The Abyss" by a person like S.'. H.'. Fra. Los, one who poses as a "skeptical", "just the facts, ma'am", materialist, who doesn't accept the evidence for "ooky-spooky" things unknown to science, like "goblins". "spacemen", "True Will", and "The Abyss"?
Unless i entirely misunderstand his last post, Jamie, i think young david has renounced “Losianity”, and joined the ranks of “Gullible Thelema”, and acknowledged that the transcendental, the mystical, and the metaphysical, are integral to AC’s work.
Unfortunately I cannot totally share your optimism that 'young david' has had some road to damascene type of change of mind, ignant666, as there's been mercurial shifts in stance with him before (admittedly though not quite so apparently large) ---- although if that were to really happen it would be splendidly wondrous and inspirational to us all, of course. And even if dom/david does go some way towards this, it still leaves a lot of questions unanswered and in the air as to just how closely this new perspective could fit in with his older one via-a-vis Losianity, which isn't really closely at all when it comes down to it. But if there is a middle ground, perhaps he can inform us more about it.
The thought's just occurred to me while writing: that incredibly enough, there are other things going on on the planet at the time of writing.
Now can we return to the OT, the ludicrousness of a claim of having “Crossed The Abyss” by a person like S.’. H.’. Fra. Los, one who poses as a “skeptical”, “just the facts, ma’am”, materialist, who doesn’t accept the evidence for “ooky-spooky” things unknown to science, like “goblins”. “spacemen”, “True Will”, and “The Abyss”?
Is there any more to discuss? You practically nailed it on the head there with your apt word "ludicrousness". Anything else is just froth. And anyway, I thought this was actually the 'Let's see if we can get to know David/Dom (better)' thread now, and had been for some time?
Momentarily under a misapprehension
Jamie J Barter: "And anyway, I thought this was actually the ‘Let’s see if we can get to know David/Dom (better)’ thread now, and had been for some time?"
For a while wondering what the point of this thread is now, I am grateful for JJB pointing this out.
Ignant, I've also held out some hope for David. I had hoped in these more recent interactions, as with my interactions with him in the past, to engender in him at least some small respect for the limits of his knowledge. Moreover, I had hoped that it would be encouraging- primarily in the sense that he might seek toward learning rather than continuing to pursue a naive fervor for simply being right. Ultimately, I'd just like him to think for himself and approach Crowley's works on their own terms, not through the lens of "Skeptical Thelema", which gets not only Crowley so very wrong, but nearly every topic its members approach. Perhaps this was to have too much confidence in myself.
As for what has attracted these lazy skeptico-materialists to Crowley's work, I can only guess at. I imagine an interest in Crowley came before the materialism. As a cultural point I would note the popular lazy atheism/materialism that seems to permeate western culture among those that were reared on Sagan, Dawkins, Neil deGrasse Tyson, et al. The 'Skeptical Thelemites' are quite clearly among this group. Lacking in both the rhetorical and analytical skills, which are, save in early Dawkins perhaps, scarce among these proselytizers, it strikes me as little wonder that Erwin and his followers would try to emulate their behavior among the Thelemic community. You may recall some time ago on these fora Los parroting Feynman's well-known address, 'Cargo Cult Science', by applying it to Thelemites, for instance. One can only assume that their work, poor as it is, would never find traction among the broader community of Sagan and Dawkins fans. That would leave the veneer of superiority off the table, I imagine. This has been my take for a while, anyway.
Arthur: As for what has attracted these lazy skeptico-materialists to Crowley’s work, I can only guess at. I imagine an interest in Crowley came before the materialism.
Your imagination is in sync with the reality. Erwin converted Los (who was reported as being an "ok guy" in the first place) to hard-line material skepticism. I understand Los, because I have dueled with him. I do not understand Erwin as I have not interacted with him. I have visited his website and found nothing memorable enough to remember. D is right here in front of us ("with us" in our digital samadhi), and as JB points out, "mercurial."
This thread is interesting as it resembles a certain conversation from the Xth Aethyr. *see Liber 418.
I understand Los, because I have dueled with him. I do not understand Erwin as I have not interacted with him.
I remember interactions with Erwin from my earlier days on LAShTAL. There's little difference beween the two, though I recall Erwin as being the more pugilist. When Los first washed up these boards, some thought he was Erwin under a different identity, though I don't think he was.
Mind you, some say that we're all sock-puppets of Brahma.
Michael: Mind you, some say that we’re all sock-puppets of Brahma.
Yeah. And Brahma has those four faces looking in four directions. That would allow for four primary viewpoints on creation/reality, one of which must be the earth-element, materialistic, ultra-super-skeptical school of thought. It does seem to have an aggressive, condescending tone when expressed in philosophical combat.
Well, here it is: the saddest thread I've ever seen on Lashtal.com.
I'm not sure whether I should be flattered, feel sorry for you all, or chuckle at how many of you still misunderstand my positions despite an apparent obsession with me (Incidentally, it's hard for me to pick which one of the misunderstandings is my favorite. It's a toss up between "Los claims Crowley was a materialist atheist!" and "Los believes logical argument is the be-all and end-all!").
I haven't read all 25 pages of this nonsense thread, but has anybody even bothered to quote what it says in "One Star in Sight" about the grade of Master of the Temple? Has anyone started a discussion on what the A.'.A.'. is and how it is related to the terrestrial groups that call themselves by that name? Has anyone begun a technical conversation on what exactly it means to "annihilate" the personality?
If none of those topics have been raised, then why not? I can venture some guesses, none of them terribly flattering to the participants in this thread.
If you're really dying to know why I claimed my grade publicly -- on reddit, of all the most laughable places -- I will give you an answer: Mu.
The S .'. H.'. Pile of Dust himself! How we've missed you!
Los: [...] has anybody even bothered to quote what it says in “One Star in Sight” about the grade of Master of the Temple?
Yes, many posters have.
Los: Has anyone begun a technical conversation on what exactly it means to “annihilate” the personality?
No, we have been too busy laughing at your very sad 8=3 claim, which i notice you don't include in your signature here as you do at reddit- any reason?
ignant666: "The S .’. H.’. Pile of Dust himself! How we’ve missed you!"
In case anyone wonders, S.'.H.'. stands for "Supremely.’. Honored.’.", according to "Jim Eshelman » Fri Apr 21, 2006 11:16 am" (another Supremely.’. Honored.’. Master of the Temple?), in the following source: http://www.heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?t=339 - thread titled "8=3 Magister Templi"
In case anyone wonders, S.’.H.’. stands for “Supremely.’. Honored.’.”
Formerly G.'. R.'. (Greatly Revered) --- take care not to embarrass yourself by the faux pas of being out-of-date. It is so important to get these terms right for when one might need to address "Magisteri", isn't it.
How we've missed you
Yes indeed. Has life seemed strangely incomplete lately, lacking a certain something? Well now we all know what it was!
I haven’t read all 25 pages of this nonsense thread,
Not even skimmed through it? Yeah, sure. Pull the other one big boy, it goes ting a ling...
Has anyone begun a technical conversation on what exactly it means to “annihilate” the personality?
Well whatever it does mean, it seems apparent you haven't done it!
I will give you an answer: mu.
And I will give you a reply, which is: meh, or even, "bah" (sheep and cattle, cattle and sheep...)
Yours skeptically in Thelema,
While you're still here: Yes, I have read "One Star in Sight" and I also thought about "the A.A. and its relation to terrestrial groups", but I still did not find any answer to WHY an ego-annihilated 8=3 would boast about this title in one of the most laughable places. That's all what interested me about this thread (you did not follow, I know), there is really nothing about what you think you have achieved, or not, or for whatever reasons you think or believe so, that could arouse any real interest in me. I have read too much about others probably. But while you're here: why boasting about it on - of all places - Reddit?
Care to answer? We discussed some theories here, but of course these were only theories.
P.S. I guess you feel flattered no matter what... the sorry-feeling and chuckling will probably follow...
P.S. Is it funny only to me that at the exact moment we are talking to dom alone and not about you, you care to show up?
S.'. H.'. Fra. Los:
Further as to your curiosity as to whether any posters have "even bothered to quote what it says in 'One Star in Sight' about the grade of Master of the Temple", I thought you, as a person who has not read this thread (Har-De-Har-Har-Har; Jamie B puts it in more English terms above), would be interested to know that, on the very first page of this thread, i quoted one of the tests you must have passed long ago, as an 8=3 Magister Templi:
[T]he “fruit” of Los’ “attainment” i would be most interested to see would be a public demonstration where his
[…]power to make and “charge” talismans is tested as if they were scientific instruments of precision, as they are [“One Star In Sight”]
since he passed “strict and severe” objective tests in this skill long before 8=3. It should be trivially easy for Los to, eg, charge a talisman “To find a great treasure”, and then do so.
I think the old “skeptical” Los we all knew and loved here at Lashtal would rightly say that anyone making the “extraordinary claim” of 8=3 attainment, and unwilling or unable to provide evidence of the skill of a mere Adept, ought to be ridiculed as an “ignorant and dishonest quack”.
Do you think you could do this soon for us? Another thing that it would be cool to see is if you could provide results from
[...] divination, [that are] as precise as a scientific thesis, and as accurate as an audit [...] [“One Star In Sight”]
These tasks should be mere kid stuff to an Exalted High Initiate like yourself.
Or perhaps you will decline to do these things, what with your ego and personality having been annihilated and all.
"His Angel shall lead him anon to the summit of the Order of the R. C. and make him ready to face the unspeakable terror of the Abyss which lies between Manhood and Godhead; teach him to Know that agony, to Dare that destiny, to Will that catastrophe, and to keep Silence for ever as he accomplishes the act of annihilation. [...] The outline given of the several successive steps is exact; the two crises – the Angel and the Abyss — are necessary features in every career (source: One Star in Sight sub figurâ CDLXXXIX - https://hermetic.com/crowley/libers/lib489#fnt__7) ."
S.’. H.’. Fra. Los, are you now that you have crossed "the Abyss which lies between Manhood and Godhead", able to recognize if another person really has done something similar? Can you now detect if another person also really is a 8=3?
How we’ve missed you!
Well, you've certainly missed me, it seems. You evidently can't resist the urge to talk about me, even when I'm not here. It's weird, to say the least.
i quoted one of the tests you must have passed long ago
If you think someone must have passed a test in making talismans in order to become an 8=3, then you must not have read "One Star in Sight" very carefully.
I still did not find any answer to WHY an ego-annihilated 8=3 would boast about this title in one of the most laughable places
I suppose I could be cute and remind you that I gave you an answer to this question already ("Mu"). I'm not kidding when I say that this answer is full and complete. At the same time, I am kidding when I say that.
If I were to be less playful, I would say that your question makes at least these assumptions:
-that someone who is "ego-annihilated" would not boast
-that someone who is "ego-annihilated" would (especially?) not boast about his grade
-that what I'm doing over at reddit is boasting
Is it possible that some or all of these assumptions are in error?
What exactly do you think an 8=3 is? Crowley claimed the grade. Is it your contention that he never, ever boasted? Is it even "boasting" to put numbers after your name?
I think you'll find that reflecting on these questions will yield far more insights than any answer I could give.
Then it's MU.
You're assumption that my questions "makes at least these assumtions" is wrong.
I never held the contention that AC never boasted or that an 8=3 wouldn't. Nor do I need to reflect about "these questions", becasue that's not what I asked.
Page 19 Los, Arthur Emerson has apparently shot holes in your Schrödinger’s cat analysis used by you in your blog essay on Thelema and the laws of logic. I have also asked Arthur to give details of how your arguments are generally "specious" full of "battering of low hanging fruits" but I'm still waiting for a fuller reply.
S.'. H.'. Fra. Los:
My careless reading of One Star In Sight, which you say is authoritative on these matters, had led me to think that this passage might be relevant:
Every Member of the A.·.A.·. must be armed at all points, and expert with every weapon. The examinations in every Grade are strict and severe; no loose or vague answers are accepted. In intellectual questions, the candidate must display no less mastery of his subject than if he were entered in the "final" for Doctor of Science or Law at a first class University.
In examination of physical practices, there is a standardised test. In Asana, for instance, the candidate must remain motionless for a given time, his success being gauged by poising on his head a cup filled with water to the brim; if he spill one drop, he is rejected.
He is tested in "the Spirit Vision" or "Astral Journeying" by giving him a symbol unknown and unintelligible to him, and he must interpret its nature by means of a vision as exactly as if he had read its name and description in the book when it was chosen.
The power to make and "charge" talismans is tested as if they were scientific instruments of precision, as they are.
In the Qabalah, the candidate must discover for himself, and prove to the examiner beyond all doubt, the properties of a number never previously examined by any student.
In invocation the divine force must be made as manifest and unmistakable as the effects of chloroform; in evocation, the spirit called forth must be at least as visible and tangible as the heaviest vapours; in divination, the answer must be as precise as a scientific thesis, and as accurate as an audit; in meditation, the results must read like a specialist's report of a classical case.
By such methods, the A.·.A.·. intends to make occult science as systematic and scientific as chemistry; to rescue it from the ill repute which, thanks both to the ignorant and dishonest quacks that have prostituted its name, and to the fanatical and narrow-minded enthusiasts that have turned it into a fetish, has made it an object of aversion to those very minds whose enthusiasm and integrity make them most in need of its benefits, and most fit to obtain them.
It is the one really important science, for it transcends the conditions of material existence and so is not liable to perish with the planet, and it must be studied as a science, sceptically, with the utmost energy and patience.
But all that stuff probably only applies to the "terrestrial A.'. A.'.", right? Or maybe Crowley was being "No True Thelemite" once again in this passage?
You are right that it is difficult to avoid talking about you (and especially your recent "attainment"), much as it is difficult to look away from a car crash. Also, your claim is one of the funniest things i've heard recently, and i thought others here at the ACS might find it as funny as i did; i was correct, from the many folks who joined in the laughing and pointing.
To be accurate it was Arthur's accusation of your posts being filled with "terrible arguments, specious textual analysis, and the battering and the other specters we’ve come to associate with his s(c)eptic pool of thought" as follows. I'd be interested to hear your views on Arthur's points....
Page 19 Arthur Emerson wrote.....
......Now, this is of course not sufficient to render Los’s other claims, whatever they may be, null and void. But I should think it at least sufficient to raise one’s eyebrows with respect to Los’s analytic abilities. In fact, if one bothers to read his writings (I urge them not to waste their time), of low hanging fruit, such as “believers”they are rife with terrible arguments, specious textual analysis, and the battering and the other specters we’ve come to associate with his s(c)eptic pool of thought. I can’t imagine anyone acquainted with Crowley’s writings can see in Los’s work, but I suppose that’s none of my business. That is until they come to proselytize on their behalf on this forum.
Arthur entered the thread fully on page 16 here disputing Crowley's Liber Aleph quote on logic as being the codification of the laws of thought....
But enough of beating that particular drum. Let’s talk briefly about the Crowley quote you take to be definitive of your own use of the term “logic”. Crowley states, quite erroneously, that logic is a codification of the laws of thought. While this was a popular view up until the 20th century, it is now properly antiquated. For one thing, there is no “logic” in the singular, strictly speaking. There are in fact many logics available to us, from the first and second order calculi, modal logic (of which there are over two dozen formulations), relevant logic, paraconsistent logics, to name only a few. We may choose from these depending on what systems we are studying or what we take our metaphysical commitments to be. If none seem to our liking, we may invent our own, as David Lewis has done with his theory of counterparts. But there is no unified logical system that captures all of these. To suggest that any of these describes some set of so-called laws that govern thought is misleading at best. Just consider the fact that people violate even the most basic rules of formal logic in their everyday thinking, as your posts robustly demonstrate.
The above is just an attempt to instill in yourself an appreciation for the difficulty and nuance of the questions you try to tackle with your so-called practical argumentation. It is also meant to suggest that Crowley should not be taken at face value. Not only has a great deal of ground been covered in both scientific and philosophical research, but Crowley’s understanding of both of these, even for his day, seems to me rather impoverished. Not that this will have probably done any good, for something as simple as distinguishing between formal and informal logic is for you “pie in the sky”. A peculiar notion for someone that reads Crowley, a man who references both Poincaré and Bertrand Russell multiple times throughout Magick in Theory and Practice.
..and then on page 18 Arthur said...
The salient part of my response to David is this, “Crowley states, quite erroneously, that logic is a codification of the laws of thought. While this was a popular view up until the 19th century, it is now properly antiquated. For one thing, there is no “logic” in the singular, strictly speaking. There are in fact many logics available to us, from the first and second order calculi, modal logic (of which there are over two dozen formulations), relevant logic, paraconsistent logics, to name only a few. We may choose from these depending on what systems we are studying or what we take our metaphysical commitments to be. If none seem to our liking, we may invent our own, as David Lewis has done with his theory of counterparts. But there is no unified logical system that captures all of these. To suggest that any of these describes some set of so-called laws that govern thought is misleading at best. Just consider the fact that people violate even the most basic rules of formal logic in their everyday thinking, as your posts robustly demonstrate.”
Firstly, I would like briefly state that I don’t know what Crowley means in epistle 64 of Liber Aleph. Like much of Crowley’s writing it is unclear, and admits of multiple interpretations. It wasn’t my intention to offer a monolithic reading of this epistle but merely to engage our naïve interlocutor in a discussion that would for once and all demonstrate his logical ineptitude to himself. Understanding that a self-reflexive light of understanding is unlikely to shine in David, I nevertheless continue.
The main contention of my post was to deny Crowley’s identification of the laws of logic with the laws of thought. I had in mind the Fregean/Husserlian notion that the laws of logic do not govern thinking in the way the physical laws govern events in the external world. My argument against the conception that they do was twofold. Firstly, I appealed to the “competing logics” problem. There are many formal logics, or formal logical systems, if you like. Any of these may be candidates for the codification of the laws of thought. The problem is determining which one of them is that codification. It’s worth pointing out that this notion presupposes that there are any such laws at all. Secondly, I appealed to the empirical, contingent fact that human beings violate the laws of logic in a way that, say, anything with mass cannot but have weight. I specifically had in mind cognitive psychology’s observation that human beings have a tendency to affirm the consequent, a well-known fallacy.
..., there was a lively debate near the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries that involved the proponents of psychologism on one side and those of antipsychologism on the other. Psychologism was, very simply put, the view that the laws of the logic were just the laws of thought. The antipsychologists disputed this notion. We need not here enter into a detailed discussion of a well-documented historical episode; to put it shortly, the psychologists lost unceremoniously and the door to that debate was firmly closed. As an historical observation this is as uncontroversial as it gets.
......Dom is, after all, a student of someone who claims that alive and dead do not together comprise a dichotomy. .
....Curiously, he (Dom) seems to think that the competing logics I mentioned can be reduced to mere disavowals of “formal logic”, however he understands this term, and summarily dismissed. Specious reductions that fall in the scope of some dismissive pejorative referring term is a move highly characteristic of David’s Master, note. Charitably, I’ll interpret his usage of “formal logic” in the context of disavowal as referring to the three classical laws of logic: the law of bivalence, the law of excluded middle, and the law of non-contradiction. In short, this is bizarre, incredibly misleading, and abjectly wrong, but to see why we will have to turn our discussion toward terminological clarity.
First let’s just get clear on what formal logic is. I will attempt to keep this as simple and concise as possible. Formal logic is the study of structure, the science of the necessary relation of consequence. Formal logic uses schematic language to study the occurrent structure between sentences that together comprise an argument with the aim of the preservation of truth. Arguments are composed of sentences that, taken to be true (premises), cannot lead to another false sentence. That is to say that they comprise a structure in which truth is necessarily preserved. Formal logic is the study of the form, or structure, of necessary truth preservation.
Formal logic, then, need not be synonymous with any particular set of logical rules, such as the three classical laws discussed above. Indeed, many non-classical logics deny one of these classical laws. Some dialetheic logics, for instance, deny the law of the excluded middle. This does not mean that they are not formal; they are in point of fact formal insofar as they define a formal structure. It is worth pointing out here that Aristotle was himself skeptical of the law of bivalence (that some sentence P must be assigned one and only one of the two truth-values, true or false). The above is just to say that formal logical systems do not all comprise some common base, as David suggests in his responses.
I would like to briefly make the observation that Aristotelian logic is not, as David also claims, in any way Mathematical logic. Math logic, discovered by Boole in the middle of the 19th century would not fully mature until the beginning of the 20th century, marked by the publishing of Russell and Whitehead’s Principa Mathematica (1903). Furthermore, it is almost certainly not Aristotelian logic that Crowley is referring to in epistle 64, but rather the Mathematical logic just spoken of. The terminology “laws of thought” suggests he had Boole in mind, though it is clear from his references in Magick in Theory and Practice that Crowley was acquainted with Russell’s work. Although, it may be germane to this discussion to point out that Russell also thought the terminology “laws of thought” was specious.
Dom/david, wouldn't it have been better to have started a fresh thread on this as Tiger has thoughtfully done with the two on the A.'. A.'., both of which are arguably of more relevance to the original topic than this logic diversion?
Also, does the sudden reappearance of Los after all this time "as if by magic" mean that you are now abdicating active participation & bowing out backwards in favour of l'organ grindeur? We were just getting to the point when you were about to reveal whether you had actually jacked in his 'Thelemic Skepticism' belief system after all, as ignant666 had optimistically supposed... Or not!?
And while the Los-bot seems to have recovered some functionality on this forum and is presently in answering mode, maybe he might see fit to address the contention raised by david/dom that "faking it" is a viable & central magical technique, and particularly so when taken in regard to his own vaunted 8=3 claim? And perhaps addressing the query (was it from Chris originally? I can't recall without trailing back through 25, no 26 pages...) concerning what results there have actually been from his masterly "tending his garden"? (For, as didn't Joni Mitchell once say, we've got to get ourselves back to [the issue of] the garden,)
Let us just get rid of my "boasting", and just have a look at what you have done: "Claiming" this grade. Now we all have read lots of Crowley here and are all aware of the fact that he wrote that initiation does happen every now and then - or even constantly - outside the A.A. system. As ignant666 said in another thread, the possibilty that anyone "attaining" to this level would let know people about this attainment in "A.A. terms" is not very high.
You assumed that I assumed something when asking my question, which centers all around "what is boasting anyway?" or "Are 8=3 not allowed to boast?", so I will not call it "boasting" anymore. Someone here said - and I don't know if it's true - that you are not a member of any A.A. group (terrestrial-wise). So when not, what was your motivation to let the Reddit people (of all people!) know about it? There are quite a lot of assumptions I could have about that, so it might be easier to let us know. WHY would anyone claim such a grade on a forum he obviously despises? This is not about OSIS or any other "whatever manual about" WHAT this grade means. It's just a plain and simple question from a simple person: Why let those suckers know?
Dom/david, wouldn’t it have been better to have started a fresh thread on this as Tiger has thoughtfully done with the two on the A.’. A.’., both of which are arguably of more relevance to the original topic than this logic diversion?
Smashing good idea, Jamie! While you're at it, David, if you do decide to do this, why don't you try quoting me correctly. While you've ostensibly copied and pasted my words, you've remarkably managed, in at least one case that I can see at a cursory glance, to have bungled the job and left some words out. (It's hard to believe that incompetence of this kind can be anything other than feigned.) Also, considering that one of my responses contained a "mini essay", it would seem pertinent to me to capture the whole of my argument, not part of it. I know that must be difficult to do when you don't know what an argument is, so I'll give you a hint: it means copying the holy bloody thing.
I only provide this advice, mind you, because I can't stop you from carrying out this procedure. If I had my druthers, however, we'd all just move on. I know undergraduates in philosophy that could run Los's silly essay through the ringer. Say, there's an idea...
Yes, Arthur, you make an important point: it is painfully obvious that S.'. H.'. Fra. Los has never taken even one undergraduate philosophy course, or any sort of science course at all. This has actually been pointed out many times years ago.
Both you and i noticed this deficit in young david, and recommended he try remedying this deficit, very evident in him as well. He reacted much better when you did so- maybe he will give it a try. After all, it's not like he's middle-aged like us.
Yes I know what an argument is. It's about reasonable people coming together to attempt to discuss why particular propositions and statements are fallacious or unworkable. An argument is not a bar-room brawl, does not involve proselytising or knee-jerk reactions, personal insults or the need to be right.
Arthur yes, seeing as you assumed the premise I would like you to start a new thread somewhere along the lines of (your words) "(Why) Los's essays/posts are rife with terrible arguments, specious textual analysis, and the battering (of low hanging fruits). As follows....."
If I may also select some of Los's blog essays for you to shoot holes into as follows;
Perhaps you could gather some philosophy undergraduates to join in.
We were just getting to the point when you were about to reveal whether you had actually jacked in his ‘Thelemic Skepticism’ belief system after all, as ignant666 had optimistically supposed… Or not!?
I received good advice here yes. Critical thinking should hold sway over all differing positions on this forum over and above the need to be right for the sake of being right and it is by definition free of knee jerk reactions. This is scepticism.
david: You realize that you have just confirmed that Arthur is right, and that you do not know what an argument is?
Perhaps this will help:
Glad to see from your last paragraph that you have begun to understand what is meant by the word "skepticism", as opposed to the belief system known as "Skeptical Thelema".
Welcome to the wonderful world of "Gullible Thelema"!
As ignant666 said in another thread, the possibilty that anyone “attaining” to this level would let know people about this attainment in “A.A. terms” is not very high.
What would he know about it?
Someone here said – and I don’t know if it’s true – that you are not a member of any A.A. group (terrestrial-wise)
Just to be clear, yes, that's correct.
So when not, what was your motivation to let the Reddit people (of all people!) know about it...Why let those suckers know?
To a Master of the Temple, the question is equally "why not?"
Arthur Emerson has apparently shot holes in your Schrödinger’s cat analysis used by you in your blog essay on Thelema and the laws of logic
Who cares what "Arthur Emerson" thinks about an essay?
it difficult to avoid talking about you
Your weird obsession with me is getting weirder by the day.
this passage might be relevant
Here's a hint: try reading what the document says about the attainment that we're discussing.
To a Master of the Temple, the question is equally “why not?”
This may very well be, but your answer in this form suggests after everything a deliberately coy & teasing way of confirming the assertion that you are yourself, by its inference, a "Master of the Temple" (in A.'. A.'. terms.)
Come on now, Los, this is no time to be suddenly bashful. You sign yourself quite openly "8=3" on reddit, but here it (this "boastfulness"?) suddenly vanishes. I don't get it. (But maybe that's because there's nothing to get?)
The whole game-playing scenario is reminding me of that old adage, 'Put up or shut up'. If you would be so good as to
PS Isn't triple posting meant to be "frowned upon"?!? 🙁
Who cares what “Arthur Emerson” thinks about an essay?
Now that sounds more like the Los we know of old! He'll be calling someone an idiot or a clown next.
“Who cares what “Arthur Emerson” thinks about an essay?”
my gosh Los your beginning to remind me of dom and the way he collects data and analyzes it.
“that sounds more like the Los we know of old”
It wasn’t annihilated, he’s probably using the ordinary aspect of his being in order to interface with the ordinary level of mind .
Others who have attained 8=3 have offered accounts of their attainment as a guide to those who follow them. I wonder if S.'. H.'. Fra. Los will do the same.
I think it would be useful to have an account of how our esteemed Frater came to say "Hey! I am now NEMO! I am now a dolphin's tooth, and a ram's horns, and the hand of a man that is hanged, and the phallus of a goat! I have beheld the face of God!" [Liber 418, "Cry of the 13th Aethyr", "The Garden of NEMO. The Work of the Magister Templi.")
That much vaunted atheism must gave gone by the wayside, after such an experience. I await S.'. H.'. Fra. Los' post scoffing at the idea that achieving 8=3, and being "preeminently the Master of Mysticism", mean he has seen the face of God, and explaining that AC was "No True Magister Templi" when he wrote his extensive account (in Liber 418) of how becoming 8=3 involved exactly that.
Also, i don't understand how it is that S.'. H.'. Fra. Los can be "in full possession of the Formulae of Attainment, both mystical or inwardly-directed and Magical or outwardly-directed [and] have full experience of attainment in both these paths" [OSIS], and yet admits he is unable to charge a simple talisman "To Find A Great Treasure" and then use it to find a great treasure. This, according to OSIS, is the testable skill of a far less advanced initiate, who lacks "full experience of attainment" and "full possession of the Formulae of Attainment" in Magick.
Great treasure? What? Physical treasure that one can bury in a field or the types of treasures that Christ spoke of which moth nor rust can corrupt?
This thread, and those it's spawned are like car crash tv.. I've been following them, wincing, for what seems like an aeon.. but I can't look away.
Hey, Dom, didn't we have a kids tv show together?