Book of the Law com...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Book of the Law commentary by James Eshelman

Page 1 / 2

David Dom Lemieux
(@david-dom-lemieux)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 3209
Topic starter  

Book of the Law commentary | Thelemistas  

https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline


adam liked
Quote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 6195
 
 The Book of the Law
 Crowley's old comment, written 1912 e.v.
 Crowley's new comment, written about 1921 e.v.
 Crowley's 'Djeridensis' comment, written about 1923 e.v.
 Commentary by James Eshelman
 Commentary by 'The Scarlet Sisterhood'
 Commentary by Marcelo Motta

I thought people who discussed the contents of this book were to be shunned as Centers of Pestilence. Lookit all the folks who wish to explain it (the book) to us.


adam and magimaat liked
ReplyQuote
christibrany
(@christibrany)
Yuggothian
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2918
 

@shiva 

 

@michael-staley

 

Does anyone know if 'Magical and Philosophical Commentaries on the Book of the Law' contains all of Crowley's comments, or only the first two?

 

I have a copy but I have as of yet only perused it.   I guess if it only has the first two it would only be missing the Djerdiendiendiendiendinnesis comment. 


adam liked
ReplyQuote
David Dom Lemieux
(@david-dom-lemieux)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 3209
Topic starter  
Posted by: @shiva
 The Book of the Law
 Crowley's old comment, written 1912 e.v.
 Crowley's new comment, written about 1921 e.v.
 Crowley's 'Djeridensis' comment, written about 1923 e.v.
 Commentary by James Eshelman
 Commentary by 'The Scarlet Sisterhood'
 Commentary by Marcelo Motta

I thought people who discussed the contents of this book were to be shunned as Centers of Pestilence. Lookit all the folks who wish to explain it (the book) to us.

You're putting James in the same category?  

https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline


adam liked
ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 6195
 
Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

You're putting James in the same category? 

All of them. Anyone. Inclooding myself. I hope to reform/repent myself.


adam and christibrany liked
ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 4193
 
Posted by: @christibrany

Does anyone know if 'Magical and Philosophical Commentaries on the Book of the Law' contains all of Crowley's comments, or only the first two?

It contains the Old and New Comments, plus the Djeridensis Comment.


adam and kidneyhawk liked
ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 4193
 
Posted by: @shiva

I thought people who discussed the contents of this book were to be shunned as Centers of Pestilence.

I've always thought this stricture an absurd one, and recently came across a letter by Kenneth Grant in July 1952 to an Order applicant, in which he wrote of this:

"I once asked A.C. personally why “the study of this Book is forbidden”, and his reply was to the effect that if a man was fool or coward enough to obey such instructions without endeavouring to wrest the priceless treasure of Ecstasy and Peace from the Book itself, then the Gods would despise him anyway and he might as well be rid of the matter straight away. This quotation (which you mentioned in your letter) is the Comment printed at the back of AL, and was not written by A.C., but by Ankh-f-n-Khonsu, a different matter altogether, and a matter with which you need not concern yourself until you are admitted to the Order. The extensive Commentary (as opposed to the Comment) of each verse and chapter is (or rather, was) written by A.C., and as such represents his own particular interpretation of the Book. It is very important for you to realize this, since you will soon be asked to read this Commentary. Remember that this latter is and can only be A.C.'s personal view-point – it need not necessarily coincide in part or in whole with either your or my particular viewpoint. Once this is perfectly understood you will appreciate the value of the document, which is that it will indicate – even if only tentatively – a possible line of approach which you may adopt when it comes to the matter of your own particular exegesis. According to your present viewpoint and interior development, so must you interpret each line of AL in your own peculiar and unique way and you must determine to live in accordance with that interpretation. Only then will the Book become a living Idea to you and will assume an importance in your life which it is almost impossible to describe in words. Meditate constantly on the Book, and bear in mind that the first Chapter is the Word of Nuit; the second Chapter the Word of Hadit, and the third the Word of Ra-Hoor-Khuit – the Child of these twin concepts of Infinite Space and the Omnipresent Point or Bindu of Almighty Potential. Try to get inside the Book. The only way to begin to do this is to decide for yourself what such and such a verse means and live it out, for what is true for you at this stage of your development is the specialized magical formula of your being. New and vibrant will be the Life that flows into and through you once you link yourself consciously (by endeavour, study, meditation and earnest aspiration) to this all-powerful reservoir of Infinite Force and Fire."

 


herupakraath, thearthuremerson, adam and 3 people liked
ReplyQuote
David Dom Lemieux
(@david-dom-lemieux)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 3209
Topic starter  
Posted by: @michael-staley
Posted by: @shiva

I thought people who discussed the contents of this book were to be shunned as Centers of Pestilence.

I've always thought this stricture an absurd one, and recently came across a letter by Kenneth Grant in July 1952 to an Order applicant, in which he wrote of this:

"I once asked A.C. personally why “the study of this Book is forbidden”, and his reply was to the effect that if a man was fool or coward enough to obey such instructions without endeavouring to wrest the priceless treasure of Ecstasy and Peace from the Book itself, then the Gods would despise him anyway and he might as well be rid of the matter straight away.

The read and burn instructions?  Yeah it reminds me of builders who send the new guy out to buy striped paint on his first day. 

https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline


adam liked
ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 2042
 
Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

The read and burn instructions?  Yeah it reminds me of builders who send the new guy out to buy striped paint on his first day. 

Dom, I'm sure you've seen this before-but it's worth a revisit in context of your comment (which WAS strictly forbidden 😉 )

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

I always did like this story as I've had my own share-and then some-of misadventures along the Path. 

The letter from Grant is pure gold.

I especially love the part where he says:

Posted by: @michael-staley

According to your present viewpoint and interior development, so must you interpret each line of AL in your own peculiar and unique way and you must determine to live in accordance with that interpretation.

This cuts beyond so much speculative chatter (fun and even rewarding or insightful as it may be) and demands that the ideas we hold and may choose to put forth have been built into our very flesh.

 

 

 

 


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 6195
 
Posted by: @michael-staley

I've always thought this stricture an absurd one

Me, too. Every one of us in Solar lodge thought it was the greatest of jokes, placed up front (right after anyone read the book). Ankh himself discussed the book ad infinitum.

None of this matters. Personally, I read it many times, discussed it, became a center of pestilence, burned it, and moved from pestilence to just being a pest.

Posted by: @michael-staley

"... if a man was fool or coward enough to obey such instructions without endeavouring to wrest the priceless treasure ..."

This is exactly my understanding, and I never read that letter before.

Posted by: @michael-staley

the Comment printed at the back of AL, and was not written by A.C., but by Ankh-f-n-Khonsu

Well, okay, if one wanted to make the difference and cite the characteristics of a multiple personality syndrome. AC, Perdurabo, O.S.V., O.M., V5, Therion Aiwass, Ankh - who can tell the difference between these variations and the imp Crowley?

Posted by: @kidneyhawk
Posted by: @michael-staley

According to your present viewpoint and interior development, so must you interpret each line of AL in your own peculiar and unique way and you must determine to live in accordance with that interpretation.

This cuts beyond so much speculative chatter (fun and even rewarding or insightful as it may be) and demands that the ideas we hold and may choose to put forth have been built into our very flesh.

Now we get down to the nitty-gritty. Self interpretation. My point was about people explaining AL to others. There is a further viewpoint, uttered by Ankh Therion himself: He suggested people read the book, and if they come across any part(s) that they feel applies to them, the should embrace it and follow it out. Any part(s). Not the whole book. Not every line.

 

 


ReplyQuote
hadgigegenraum
(@hadgigegenraum)
Member
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 357
 

@michael-staley 

Much thanks for presenting this letter from Mr. Grant...with a great quote from AC!

For some reason it seems to me as being very familiar, as though I have read it before... (Well the waning full moon did get me up around three)... Though the better explanation for the familiarity of the quote and letter is that it does resonates with my own experience and understanding of the very archetype of freedom so demanded by the text...besides reading lots of Crowley and Grant.

HG

 


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 4193
 
Posted by: @shiva

There is a further viewpoint, uttered by Ankh Therion himself: He suggested people read the book, and if they come across any part(s) that they feel applies to them, the should embrace it and follow it out.

That's pretty much my own approach. Can you recall where you came across Crowley saying this?


adam liked
ReplyQuote
David Dom Lemieux
(@david-dom-lemieux)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 3209
Topic starter  

@shiva

 

So it's now a 'read and burn' thread.

How'd that happen Shiva? 

https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline


adam liked
ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 4193
 
Posted by: @hadgigegenraum

For some reason it seems to me as being very familiar, as though I have read it before... (Well the waning full moon did get me up around three)... Though the better explanation for the familiarity of the quote and letter is that it does resonates with my own experience and understanding of the very archetype of freedom so demanded by the text...besides reading lots of Crowley and Grant.

The letter comes from Volume 1 of The Selected Letters of Kenneth Grant. This first volume has been in preparation for a while now but  I hope to publish it in Spring next year. You won't have seen the letter before. The sense of familiriaty arises because it's in line with the sentiments of his published work, and it resonates with the outlook of I think many, partularly those of us not enthralled with what my mum used to refer to as "this Prophet stuff".


ReplyQuote
David Dom Lemieux
(@david-dom-lemieux)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 3209
Topic starter  
Posted by: @kidneyhawk

Dom, I'm sure you've seen this before-but it's worth a revisit in context of your comment (which WAS strictly forbidden 😉 )

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

Yes that was where I got that info.  

https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline


adam liked
ReplyQuote
Sanguine Chuck
(@sangewanchuck56)
Member
Joined: 9 months ago
Posts: 467
 
Posted by: @shiva

I thought people who discussed the contents of this book were to be shunned as Centers of Pestilence. Lookit all the folks who wish to explain it (the book) to us.

Well, this thinking goes both ways, because by you taking the "face value" interpretation of the comment as literal, you are also "forcing" your interpretation on everyone who discusses Liber al Vel Legis, because the instruction to "shun" comes from the comment on Liber al Vel Legis.

So why are you forcing your literal interpretation on the community?

Posted by: @michael-staley

"I once asked A.C. personally why “the study of this Book is forbidden”, and his reply was to the effect that if a man was fool or coward enough to obey such instructions without endeavouring to wrest the priceless treasure of Ecstasy and Peace from the Book itself, then the Gods would despise him anyway and he might as well be rid of the matter straight away.

Thank you for posting this!

For me, the comment itself BEGINS with:

DO WHAT THO WILT and ends with THERE IS NO LAW OTHER THAN DO WHAT THO WILT

so the contradiction to me was always like an obvious joke and riddle to either think for yourself, or think like the normal religious orthodoxy by interpreting everything literally.

Posted by: @michael-staley

Meditate constantly on the Book, and bear in mind that the first Chapter is the Word of Nuit; the second Chapter the Word of Hadit, and the third the Word of Ra-Hoor-Khuit – the Child of these twin concepts of Infinite Space and the Omnipresent Point or Bindu of Almighty Potential. Try to get inside the Book. The only way to begin to do this is to decide for yourself what such and such a verse means and live it out, for what is true for you at this stage of your development is the specialized magical formula of your being. New and vibrant will be the Life that flows into and through you once you link yourself consciously (by endeavour, study, meditation and earnest aspiration) to this all-powerful reservoir of Infinite Force and Fire."

 

Love this!

Posted by: @shiva

Now we get down to the nitty-gritty. Self interpretation. My point was about people explaining AL to others. There is a further viewpoint, uttered by Ankh Therion himself: He suggested people read the book, and if they come across any part(s) that they feel applies to them, the should embrace it and follow it out. Any part(s). Not the whole book. Not every line.

My personal belief through the approach to the text that I have taken is that the process of "self interpretation" is not just a lonely adventure, but even a collaborative one.

Posted by: @shiva My point was about people explaining AL to others. 

Well glad you recognize that as "your point" and that point has nothing to do with the actual text or arrived at via the text itself.

Change the words from "explaining to others" to "sharing what we gather as individuals with others while they do the same."

@Dom, you posted Jim Eschelman's interpretation. I've learned a lot from that guy, I find him to be one of the brighter minds, and even though his is not identical to mine own, his was a step on my own journey.

I think the act of comparing notes, even "bickering" about the mystery of the text is actually covered in the actual text, and a process with which we can do this as a collaborative effort that renews the collective as well as the individual.

Thanks for posting this thread, and Michael thanks for that great share! 

"If you have come to help me, then you are wasting your time, but if you are here because your liberation is bound together with mine, then let us work together." Lilla Watson


adam liked
ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 2042
 

“Soon you will be asked to read this Commentary. Remember that this latter is and can only be A.C.'s personal view-point – it need not necessarily coincide in part or in whole with either your or my particular viewpoint. Once this is perfectly understood you will appreciate the value of the document, which is that it will indicate – even if only tentatively – a possible line of approach which you may adopt when it comes to the matter of your own particular exegesis. According to your present viewpoint and interior development, so must you interpret each line of AL in your own peculiar and unique way and you must determine to live in accordance with that interpretation. Only then will the Book become a living Idea to you and will assume an importance in your life which it is almost impossible to describe in words. Meditate constantly on the Book.”

 

I know I already cited a portion of this quotation but I think it is too good not to discuss further.

 

What Grant is describing here is a type of profound Biblioyoga. This is in contradistinction to several other approaches we've seen with regards to AL:

 

One approach is cypher-solving. This requires knowledge and skill, of course-but it remains largely a left brained activity. I'm not simply speaking of the “riddle” (2:76 etc) but of AL in its totality as a book expressing concrete ideas with secret subtexts, both of which evoke such commentary. I'm not suggesting that such approach is devoid of any emotional or poetic interface. After all, we are not only forbidden to discuss the Book, we can't deny its beauty, either! (3:68). But the gist here is presenting an organized and “understood” exegesis on the cryptic content. We might observe such an individual hovering over the book like one who has solved (or is solving) a complex puzzle.

 

Another approach is to deconstruct and deny the Book. We've seen this relatively recently with RTC's investigations. I bring this up as there can then follow a dismissal of the content. I personally think Richard had some valid points of criticism. Enough so that I tend to view Crowley as definitely “fiddling” with AL and quite likely having put more “conscious creation” into it than any of his “authoritative texts” would ever admit. Of course, there remains a hell of a lot of MYSTERY around the whole thing and I don't think what I just said need be at odds with something Faustian once offered regarding the nature of the “Author(s).” Nor is it anything I could definitively or forensically prove. So, for myself, AL is a book which exists in both/and territory before it launches into “ultimate sparks of the intimate fire.”

 

AL is a very curious scripture and calls to my mind, anyhow, the persistently self-referential Lotus Sutra, a book which talks about itself as it claims to be the final revelation of Shakyamuni Buddha. The Lotus Sutra is also as shocking and dramatic and cryptic and beautiful as AL. It bears many of the same characteristics as opposed to “ordinary books” (and even Sutras).

 

This makes AL ripe for the Biblioyoga Grant describes. What Grant indicates doesn't hinge on whether I have analyzed AL to my intellectual satisfaction OR what my suspicions are as to a dubious origin. The approach he describes would regard either such “concern” as irrelevant to positioning ourselves in such a fashion that the book now becomes a LIVING IDEA. In the Biblioyoga, we become ONE with this (through our interpretation and actual EMBODIMENT or LIVING of the interpretation).

 

 


ReplyQuote
adam
 adam
(@adam)
Member
Joined: 4 months ago
Posts: 12
 

WOW but you ALL (AL?) gave me so much insight - really splendid comment by KG!!

I now realize that noone should comment on this book as the only valid comments are the ones you make yourself!

This was an eye-opening thread! Thank you so much for all this insight!

PS The Lon video was cool, too. I really love this guy, a lot.

 


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 4193
 
Posted by: @sangewanchuck56

So why are you forcing your literal interpretation on the community?

I don't think he is, Sanguine. Much in line with the spirit of the paragraph by Kenneth Grant, he is merely making suggestions which anybody is free to ignore or follow-up as seems appropriate to them. I approach Crowley's commentaries in much the same manner - it's all grist to the mill.


ReplyQuote
William Thirteen
(@williamthirteen)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 1096
 

Thanks for citing KG's letter.  Looking forward to the collection when it arrives!


ReplyQuote
Sanguine Chuck
(@sangewanchuck56)
Member
Joined: 9 months ago
Posts: 467
 
Posted by: @kidneyhawk

This makes AL ripe for the Biblioyoga Grant describes. What Grant indicates doesn't hinge on whether I have analyzed AL to my intellectual satisfaction OR what my suspicions are as to a dubious origin. The approach he describes would regard either such “concern” as irrelevant to positioning ourselves in such a fashion that the book now becomes a LIVING IDEA. In the Biblioyoga, we become ONE with this (through our interpretation and actual EMBODIMENT or LIVING of the interpretation).

 

1000%!

What a perfect phrase "biblioyoga"

maybe that is a better word than paralanguage, lol

I do believe Libel al Vel Legis is initiating this new form of "tantra", a tantra that uses writing and all things to do with writing.

I forget where I learned this, but someone once said that to understand "tantra", cabbala, or any twilight language based text from thousands of years ago, we need to understand "weaving", as textiles, clothes, blankets and how weaving was intrinsic to our daily lifestyle thousands of years ago.

That was the old aeon, literally. In this day and age, the 1% of the world (which is everyone making over $30k per year) cannot relate to this reality of weaving rugs and making clothes, but now in the 21st century we do relate to writing as a daily continuous activity even.

Text and writing is now almost ubiquitous, as mobile devices have spread to third world (I hate that phrase not sure how to replace) countries, who still DO weave, as well.

Even "The Comment" itself in Liber Al vel Legis is the first piece of media in history to ever request a comment and provide a comment section, another ubiquitous feature of online media today.

The global mind has changed it relationship to text, and Liber al Vel Legis is somehow the mysterious predictor of this? I really see no other rational way to view it.

Also, I am super ignorant on all Grant. I've yet to read any of his work and if all of this is just derivative on my end, apologies  🙂

 

Posted by: @michael-staley

I don't think he is, Sanguine. Much in line with the spirit of the paragraph by Kenneth Grant, he is merely making suggestions which anybody is free to ignore or follow-up as seems appropriate to them. I approach Crowley's commentaries in much the same manner - it's all grist to the mill.

Okay Michael, thanks for the heads up!

"If you have come to help me, then you are wasting your time, but if you are here because your liberation is bound together with mine, then let us work together." Lilla Watson


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 6195
 
Posted by: @michael-staley

Can you recall where you came across Crowley saying this?

Sorry. It was decades ago. I have no idea where. But the message was very clear and it became engraved upon my memory-mind, which was not difficult because it made perfect sense.

Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

So it's now a 'read and burn' thread. How'd that happen Shiva? 

It seems the Read and Burn part has been superceded by about ten posts. Anything that happens can be traced by "keeping up," a phrase you like to utter frequently.

Posted by: @michael-staley

I don't think he is, Sanguine. Much in line with the spirit of the paragraph by Kenneth Grant, he is merely making suggestions which anybody is free to ignore or follow-up as seems appropriate to them.

Of course I'm not ("forcing"). It takes from three to seven years to catch on to my witless witness wit, which is often the exact opposite of what is intended. Anyone who catches on faster than three years get an engraved, full-color Hermit certificate. Anyone who fails to catch on can leave the room without penalty.

 


ReplyQuote
Sanguine Chuck
(@sangewanchuck56)
Member
Joined: 9 months ago
Posts: 467
 
Posted by: @shiva

It takes from three to seven years to catch on to my witless witness wit, which is often the exact opposite of what is intended.

Likely due to the fact that "wit" is usually considered to be funny.

😜

"If you have come to help me, then you are wasting your time, but if you are here because your liberation is bound together with mine, then let us work together." Lilla Watson


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 6195
 

Correction (errata; substitution): Replace (t)wit with sarcasm.

"the use of remarks that clearly mean the opposite of what they say, made in order to hurt someone's feelings or to criticize something in a humorous way."


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 2042
 
Posted by: @sangewanchuck56

My personal belief through the approach to the text that I have taken is that the process of "self interpretation" is not just a lonely adventure, but even a collaborative one.

I think this is an intriguing statement. I gather from this and other comments you've made that you're quite fond of the “collaborative work.” I don't think we can avoid it. Even if I say “I'm gonna do this Book of the Law thing all by myself and solicit NO opinion or POV from any of these Crowleyites,” I will STILL, despite all my rugged individualism, receive input (and collaboration) from a multitude of sources. I can't escape it. And this is, I believe, what Trungpa pointed toward when asked who he regarded as a Living Guru. He replied: “Situations are my Guru.” Conversely, if we get all entangled with the “group project,” we will need to eventually hit that point of realization where we see all of the “without” as really just a projection of our own mind upon the screen. WE are the director, the leading role, supporting actors, wardrobe and the poor sound effects dude who makes it all come together although nobody remembers his name. We are all things at once. We are Alone (like Hadit) and we are ALL (like Nuit). Ra Hoor is the Individuation (Sh-T) of the AL-LA Loveplay. And after a previous thread where the theme of Sh-T was belabored, I DO think Crowley was quite aware and amused as to the reference to shit.

 

Never the less, all naughty humor aside, I think we do have a threefold formula here of great importance. Between NOTHING and EVERYTHING, there is a third factor-and this is rippling with magical potential. Without it, we would not be having this conversation, we would not “exist.”

 

As a side note, thanks to Michael Staley and Starfire Publishing, the works of Kenneth Grant are now available like never before. I don't where you are located, Chuck, but, as an Midwestern American, these books were not easily obtained until relatively recently. You have a treasure trove awaiting you now. Get them in any order you can. I am partial to Outer Gateways. Also, if you can score a copy of AT THE FEET OF THE GURU, grab it! This book shines like a diamond and throws Supernal Light over and through the Trilogies!


ReplyQuote
David Dom Lemieux
(@david-dom-lemieux)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 3209
Topic starter  
Posted by: @shiva

It seems the Read and Burn part has been superceded by about ten posts. Anything that happens can be traced by "keeping up," a phrase you like to utter frequently.

You won't find a post where I say 'keep up', not in the last 3 years at least if even that.   Do the math and someone needs to report the thread derailment here, it's called Book of the Law commentary by James Eshelman.  The forum has rules as you keep telling all. 

https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 2042
 
Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

Do the math and someone needs to report the thread derailment here, it's called Book of the Law commentary by James Eshelman.  The forum has rules as you keep telling all. 

Derailment? You posted a link with ZERO comment.

We're doing our best here.Talking about the Book of the Law which, apparently, is what Jim is talking about.

What do you want us to be talking about here?  


ReplyQuote
Sanguine Chuck
(@sangewanchuck56)
Member
Joined: 9 months ago
Posts: 467
 
Posted by: @shiva

Correction (errata; substitution): Replace (t)wit with sarcasm.

😆 😆 😆 🤣 🤣 🤣 

That one was funny, I'll give it to ya

Posted by: @shiva

"the use of remarks that clearly mean the opposite of what they say, made in order to hurt someone's feelings or to criticize something in a humorous way."

How did that wind up working out?

Posted by: @kidneyhawk

I gather from this and other comments you've made that you're quite fond of the “collaborative work.” I don't think we can avoid it.

Oh yes, indeed, and especially within the "non-dual" perspective, group work can take on profound meaning, because "collective intelligence" is far more intelligent than each of us as individuals, and there is a special "alchemy" that happens within a group, and this is a phenomenon I am just barely scratching the surface with in my own work and research.

I applied this type of non-dual group conversation principle since the "discrepancies" thread (which is right around the time people began to find my personality off-putting or entertaining) because it was so recursive to do so as the conversation was leading into "non-duality" and Thelema, and look what came from this chemistry as a group? The discovery of the naughty and secret word that cannot be saidith or spokenth.

I know most here do not accept this or see that, but it is true, magick happened in these conversations, and a child was produced and we all did it together, I was just the placeholder for the ternary exchange, that's all.

Posted by: @kidneyhawk

I will STILL, despite all my rugged individualism, receive input (and collaboration) from a multitude of sources. I can't escape it.

Exactly, "individual" and "collective" are "twin concepts", they cannot and do not exist in isolation, it is impossible, and through the work of the collective we discover the "true will" of the individual when we take on the "great work" of being in service to the other, being in service to the collective is the discovery of the individual joy.

We would not even know we exist at all were it not for each other. This is where duality and samsara play an important role in Buddhist non-duality.

They only become complimentary within this "third" force or value, and without the ternary, ouch, guaranteed war, guaranteed conflict, guaranteed misunderstanding.

However, in duality, and in politics 2021, we see how there exists a tension between "individuality" and "collectivism" play out ideologically as if these are warring opposites instead of complimentary opposites.

The tragedy is the entire political conversation is all over misunderstanding, just like the misunderstanding that derailed conversations here 🙁

Posted by: @kidneyhawk

Ra Hoor is the Individuation (Sh-T) of the AL-LA Loveplay.

Where ya been my whole life? 🤗 

Posted by: @kidneyhawk

As a side note, thanks to Michael Staley and Starfire Publishing, the works of Kenneth Grant are now available like never before. I don't where you are located, Chuck, but, as an Midwestern American, these books were not easily obtained until relatively recently. You have a treasure trove awaiting you now. Get them in any order you can. I am partial to Outer Gateways. Also, if you can score a copy of AT THE FEET OF THE GURU, grab it! This book shines like a diamond and throws Supernal Light over and through the Trilogies!

Yes I get this now, a huge gem this community has provided me, the works of Grant himself 😍 😍 😍 So many similarities within the Typhonian channel I never realized before now.  Very curious indeed.

I truly walked away from Thelema years ago, until this discovery about the Typhonian tradition, and the relevance of the eastern star dissolving into the west, Thelema I believe has barely started and has a lot in store for it ahead.

I was going to sell my old library too, only because I don't need it any more and it just takes up space. I was hoping to never have to buy another book again lol and here we go, sheesh I'm gonna have to cough up a few grand 🙂

"If you have come to help me, then you are wasting your time, but if you are here because your liberation is bound together with mine, then let us work together." Lilla Watson


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 2042
 
Posted by: @sangewanchuck56

here we go, sheesh I'm gonna have to cough up a few grand

Thanks to Mick reprinting Grant, you won't have to! Starfire's books are affordable and they are really great editions, amplified, in fact, from the first printings. As I said, Outer Gateways is my personal favorite but they are all brilliant and I found Aleister Crowley and the Hidden God to be very helpful during a time of personal spiritual crisis. 

I will look forward to your thoughts on Grant when you get some of these books-or even one of them!

Welcome to your Nightmare! 🙂

 


ReplyQuote
David Dom Lemieux
(@david-dom-lemieux)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 3209
Topic starter  
Posted by: @kidneyhawk

 

Derailment? You posted a link with ZERO comment.

We're doing our best here.Talking about the Book of the Law which, apparently, is what Jim is talking about.

What do you want us to be talking about here?  

Haha I guess Jim is yes. 

https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 6195
 
Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

it's called Book of the Law commentary by James Eshelman. 

I notice nobody so far, after a lotta posts, nobody has mentioned Eshelman. This is possibly because nobody cares. J.E. has invoked his 9=2 overcoat and decided to explain AL to us.

But he has already shown colors darker than white, so why should anyone be interested? Your announcement is worthy of a News notice, but apparently not for a discussion. Perhaps you will start the discussion and the thread will come back on the track?

 


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 2042
 
Posted by: @shiva

Perhaps you will start the discussion and the thread will come back on the track?

It's not a bad thread, as things go. We're talking and there are some interesting ideas. I just don't know what the central theme is supposed to be aside from AL itself. Dom alludes to JE but without any particular point or focus. So I think the onus is on hm to let us know what we are supposed to be talking about. 


ReplyQuote
David Dom Lemieux
(@david-dom-lemieux)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 3209
Topic starter  
Posted by: @kidneyhawk

 

It's not a bad thread, as things go. We're talking and there are some interesting ideas. I just don't know what the central theme is supposed to be aside from AL itself. Dom alludes to JE but without any particular point or focus. So I think the onus is on hm to let us know what we are supposed to be talking about. 

I have one of Jim's books, he is a professional astrologer and an expert on Gematria and the Kabbalah and how AC's world view was informed by the latter  so I'm looking forward to going through his commentary. 

https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 6195
 
Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

I'm looking forward to going through his commentary.

Okay. When you find something interesting, let us know. We'll just be hanging around here and there, trying to stay in range of the topic, chatting and arguing as usual.


ReplyQuote
Sanguine Chuck
(@sangewanchuck56)
Member
Joined: 9 months ago
Posts: 467
 
Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

I have one of Jim's books, he is a professional astrologer and an expert on Gematria and the Kabbalah and how AC's world view was informed by the latter  so I'm looking forward to going through his commentary. 

I don't mind making a comment about Jim and his comment.

I don't know any details about Jim in terms of his reputation in his order. I understand there were a few events years ago, but I am not speaking to those nor am I aware of exactly what they were.

I'm assuming he is a flawed guy like all of us, and like all of us, he fucks up on occasion, misinterprets a rune here or there, can fall or climb.

I've always enjoyed Jim, truthfully.

I learned a lot from him in my early years.

I don't think anyone will suffer at all from learning from him.

I think his comments and interpretations (I love 776 1/2) are a wonderful preservation and guide.

I'm surprised he is not already a member of this community.

I love being exposed to various interpretations and teachings of Thelema.

This website that is linking all the comments of liber al vel legis, who owns that site anyone know?

I think there could be something just like that, but editable (not edible, hehe) and using the process that can be discovered in Liber Al vel legis, it is conceivable that the Thelemic community could also sponsor or edit a collaborative online document, a gymnasium where those interested could participate in creating or synthesizing commentary around Liber al Vel Legis.

"If you have come to help me, then you are wasting your time, but if you are here because your liberation is bound together with mine, then let us work together." Lilla Watson


ReplyQuote
David Dom Lemieux
(@david-dom-lemieux)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 3209
Topic starter  
Posted by: @shiva
Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

I'm looking forward to going through his commentary.

Okay. When you find something interesting, let us know. We'll just be hanging around here and there, trying to stay in range of the topic, chatting and arguing as usual.

 
The following is a good example of Jim using the Kabbalah and Gematria to shed light on his points;
 
 
 
2:10.
O prophet! thou hast ill will to learn this writing.

James Eshelman

The historical relevance of these verses is well recorded. Crowley, on 4/9/04 e.v., was a confirmed Buddhist. He seriously held that all is Sorrow. His ego rejected the teachings of v. 9, and fought mightily against them. But the Way of Hadit, of ecstasy and joy, was greater. The ego could not prevail against the deepest Seed of Self, nor the personality's obstinacy against True Will.
The basic message is that Hadit — our Hidden Self — is the fulcrum of all leverage, the mighty Source, the inescapable Truth. From such a place we are invulnerable and all-potent; against it, the personality that we mistake for ourselves is impotent.
In v. 11 (v. 77 of the entire Book), note "hand" refers, by a pun, to Yod or Hadit as well. "stronger" is OZ, 77 (or XI, "Strength").
v. 12 (v. 78): The "me in Thee" corresponds to 78 in multiple ways — one of which is that 78 is Sum(1-12), the Mystic Number of the Path of Beth, Mercury. 78 is also the value that AC mistakenly gave to the name "Aiwass" (as AYVAS) for several years.
v. 13 (v. 79): AC is Hadit, who is "the knower;" and so are we each. More deeply, this entire Book has been dictated by AC's HGA, of whom all these things are true as well. The strange grammatical use of "me" rather than "I" probably means that AC was MH, "Not" — that is, of the Zero rather than of the One ("I"). This, then, serves to clarify the correct interpretation of the prior verse which might otherwise have been missed: "Because of MH in Thee which thou knewest not." (7/5/95 EV; tweaked 12/15/07 EV)

https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 6195
 
Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

The following is a good example ... 

Okay. So Jim took a few lines from AL and explains it in five long paragraphs to someone who apparently knows nothing. What happened to the original "each for himself" or "by appeal to my writings?"

I also note the list of Commentaries includes the Motta presentation. Why are these people explaining AL to us (or at least others)? 

I guess it's a matter of vertical vs horus-zontal. That is, a solo lineage thread vs group instruction. 

I didn't notice anything new in the quoted text. Maybe you can locate something that is new, practical, or at least abstractly interesting?


ReplyQuote
Sanguine Chuck
(@sangewanchuck56)
Member
Joined: 9 months ago
Posts: 467
 
Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux
The following is a good example of Jim using the Kabbalah and Gematria to shed light on his points;
 

Jim has an incredible knowledge of western magick, from gematria to tarot to cabala.

Posted by: @shiva

So Jim took a few lines from AL and explains it in five long paragraphs to someone who apparently knows nothing.

That's where Jim can be excellent, because who has knowledge of Gematria or Cabala at that level, especially when they are starting out. Giving an interpretation of a text using gematria, cabala and tarot, including many archetypes, is giving an education in those very systems by applying it to Liber al Vel Legis.

Posted by: @shiva

What happened to the original "each for himself" or "by appeal to my writings?"

"each for himself" is obviously incomplete, what happened to the female? Can she learn?

"appeal to my writings" is from the comment, and if you choose to interpret that literally, and then become outspoken like you are, you are holding others to your interpretation, contradicting yourself and your own interpretation of the text.

It's simply not possible to do it alone, just like it is not possible to only do it as a "Group".

Also, its fun to think and chat about the text.

It is a mysterious text, which claims to explain the universe, predict the coming times, and therein be secret codes and secret words that will be discovered and cyphers and layers and layers of meaning.

The book is literally begging for multiple interpretations.

 

Posted by: @shiva

Why are these people explaining AL to us (or at least others)? 

I guess it's a matter of vertical vs horus-zontal. That is, a solo lineage thread vs group instruction. 

What if the solo person is not very bright? What if they get stuck? or worse, what if they hold an interpretation so absurd (Like Donald Trump being the Rich Man in the West or something to the effect) that it creates more delusion instead of liberation, and thus held in isolation, festers?

What is the value of that?

It is an extraordinary exercise to interpret a text. Sharing an interpretation is not "explaining" liber al vel legis, it is explaining an interpretation.

Imagine someone highly skilled in tarot can find meaning one way, another skilled in gematria, psychology or astrology another, so many views and no reason why they cannot share and learn from the text and each other.

 

 

"If you have come to help me, then you are wasting your time, but if you are here because your liberation is bound together with mine, then let us work together." Lilla Watson


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 6195
 

Did anyone else enjoy the twisting, the spin, the evangelism?


ReplyQuote
David Dom Lemieux
(@david-dom-lemieux)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 3209
Topic starter  
Posted by: @shiva
Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

The following is a good example ... 

Okay. So Jim took a few lines from AL and explains it in five long paragraphs to someone who apparently knows nothing. What happened to the original "each for himself" or "by appeal to my writings?"

I also note the list of Commentaries includes the Motta presentation. Why are these people explaining AL to us (or at least others)? 

I guess it's a matter of vertical vs horus-zontal. That is, a solo lineage thread vs group instruction. 

I didn't notice anything new in the quoted text. Maybe you can locate something that is new, practical, or at least abstractly interesting?

What's Gematria for 'jealousy"?  Haha. 

I'm kidding.  What's your problem with Jim?

 

https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 6195
 
Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

What's your problem with Jim?

I have already cited the "problem," twice, in minute and secondhand detail, somewhere here, on two separate threads. No need to go into that again, but I might add (to the non-response) that the titles of skilled Qabalist, a German Gemantrist no less, a professional astrologer, etc, have no bearing on anyone's level of "attainment" or their moral integrity.

QBL competence is found at Hod. Astro is mastered at the Moon. I see these entry-level, outer order qualities being supplied in support of someone who is explaining AL to people. What ever happened to "Argue not? Convert not? Talk not overmuch? Just give 'em the book and let them decide."  Decide what? Why, to ask for explanations, definitions, or "more" in any format, including a demand for initiation. "Let me in, wee-ooh?"

What does it mean when Therion says he was mistaken about writing the Commentary (-ies), and that the Comment was the true revelation?

Since I'm vacationing, I left my soap box behind (on a locked thread where I can't get to it), and have merely offered ?s for consideration.


ReplyQuote
Sanguine Chuck
(@sangewanchuck56)
Member
Joined: 9 months ago
Posts: 467
 
Posted by: @shiva

QBL competence is found at Hod. Astro is mastered at the Moon. I see these entry-level, outer order qualities being supplied in support of someone who is explaining AL to people.

That's like asking what good is an english speaker translating Liber al Vel Legis into Italian and French.

Liber al Vel Legis is a book that declares itself to be encrypted in symbolism, and this symbolism is cabalah, gematria, tarot, etc.

Gematria is a type of language, astrology is a type of language, archetypes are also a type of language. Obviously expertise in those languages can assist in a translation from one language into another language.

Liber al Vel Legis is written in "twilight" language. Obviously those who are versed in twilight language would help transcribe the text from twilight language into common language.

Posted by: @shiva

"Argue not? Convert not? Talk not overmuch? Just give 'em the book and let them decide."

Why would you replace one half of that phrase with your own interpretation? Isn't that dishonest thinking?

Another interpretation, one that is falsifiable, shows [argue not, convert not, talk not overmuch...] to relate more to communication between mathematical "minds", "mathematical proofs" than drunks arguing over politics and religion at a bar.

Completely rational communication requires neither argumentation nor conversion, merely explanation of how a rational language, sequencing, or process works.

Do mathematicians ever argue? No, not once. There is perfect agreement, requiring zero further explanation, and the decision is final, like the cut of a sword.

Mathematical thinking, i.e. hyper-rational thinking, is purely honest thinking. That is the key word there, honesty. Honesty has to do with how we greet reality and our relationship to reality.

This type of communication seeks to use the smallest amount of words to express the largest amount of complexity.

Posted by: @shiva

What does it mean when Therion says he was mistaken about writing the Commentary (-ies), and that the Comment was the true revelation?

What all contradictions made by Therion mean, 0.

Completely unknown,  until each of us figure out how to resolve them.

Contradictions are unsettling to the mind. They cannot be resolved in the unconscious, and until they are resolved, all "will" stops and does naught.

They can only be resolved by the conscious mind.

The conscious mind, isolated from others, easily falls into delusion and self deception.

We can decide/think for ourselves using two methods, two concepts.

We can decide for ourselves by making "true" whatever  concept is to emerge in our minds that we "feel" is true and react to it, or we can decide for ourselves by beginning in unknown, mystery, follow the path laid down as "certainty, not faith", a perspective of total self honesty, and begin a critical  conversation, with ourselves as individuals as well as with others, all as equals ("honest communication is only possible among equals" - RAW), outside of any type of hierarchy, unassuaged of results.

 

 

"If you have come to help me, then you are wasting your time, but if you are here because your liberation is bound together with mine, then let us work together." Lilla Watson


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3651
 
Posted by: @sangewanchuck56

Do mathematicians ever argue? No, not once. There is perfect agreement, requiring zero further explanation, and the decision is final, like the cut of a sword.

Kind of adorable in its ignorance! FYI, mathematicians are just as disputatious, and just as prone to argument, ego issues, pig-headedness, etc, as the folks in any other academic department

Since you have evidently never had any contact with any mathematicians, perhaps better to leave your beliefs about their disputatious-ness, or lack thereof, out of your bullshitting?

But i suppose that if you only discussed topics where you had some idea what you were talking about, it might cut into your daily posted word-count.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 6195
 
Posted by: @ignant666

mathematicians are just as disputatious, and just as prone to argument, ego issues, pig-headedness, etc, as the folks in any other academic department

Plus the political, religious, philosophical, and pipeline departments. Please add any departments not mentioned. Now that we've woken up and realized we're in Hell, and that any department of any persuasion is staffed by at least two people who disagree, then we come to the conclusion that ... [insert your own conclusion].

Math, in particular and specially held-forth, is currently swamped with quantum/scalar concepts that even those on the leading edge are confused. Nothing is certain ... except the sky is falling (I saw it).

image

Moving back on topic: JE and his Commentary. What's new?

 


ReplyQuote
Sanguine Chuck
(@sangewanchuck56)
Member
Joined: 9 months ago
Posts: 467
 
Posted by: @ignant666

FYI, mathematicians are just as disputatious, and just as prone to argument, ego issues, pig-headedness, etc, as the folks in any other academic department

🙄

Really?

Did you really think I meant "ego, personality, human nature, psyche" when I used the word mathematician?

Really?

Did you run off in that misdirection and misinterpretation again? Twice now in our conversations?

Really?

Do you really believe mathematicians argue over 1 + 1 = 2?

Do they now?

Are you actually suggesting that formulas and proofs are not actually formulas and proofs, and they themselves are objects of much division within the field of mathematics, as if it was Law or something?

Really?

If you want to try and argue that math is not a universal language that has perfect consensus amongst mathematicians, please go for it, I look forward to that rich argument and rich life history that lead you to that daft conclusion.

Posted by: @ignant666

Since you have evidently never had any contact with any mathematicians, perhaps better to leave your beliefs about their disputatious-ness, or lack thereof, out of your bullshitting?

 

Is that really true about me, that I've not even "met" a mathematician, much less ever worked with them or around them or even consulted with them?

I assure you I am quite the expert on myself and you're not yet even close on the subject.

"Bullshit", if we are to approach this logically, would imply that I must be making some contradictions, any kind of contradiction.

Kindly show me where I am making a contradiction, please so i can immediately correct it and liberate myself from this delusion.

In advance, thanks!

SC

"If you have come to help me, then you are wasting your time, but if you are here because your liberation is bound together with mine, then let us work together." Lilla Watson


ReplyQuote
David Dom Lemieux
(@david-dom-lemieux)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 3209
Topic starter  
Posted by: @sangewanchuck56

 

Do you really believe mathematicians argue over 1 + 1 = 2?

Do they now?

Are you actually suggesting that formulas and proofs are not actually formulas and proofs, and they themselves are objects of much division within the field of mathematics, as if it was Law or something?

Really?

If you want to try and argue that math is not a universal language that has perfect consensus amongst mathematicians, please go for it, I look forward to that rich argument and rich life history that lead you to that daft conclusion.

The calculus controversy (German: Prioritätsstreit, "priority dispute") was an argument between the mathematicians Isaac Newton and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz over who had first invented calculus. ... Leibniz had published his work first, but Newton's supporters accused Leibniz of plagiarizing Newton's unpublished idea

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leibniz%E2%80%93Newton_calculus_controversy

 

Check this out;

 

Pythagorean Theorem and Its False Proofs (cut-the-knot.org)

https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline


ReplyQuote
Sanguine Chuck
(@sangewanchuck56)
Member
Joined: 9 months ago
Posts: 467
 

@david-dom-lemieux 

Formulas can contain mistakes, which can be revealed in a "proof" which requires no argument, just math. So a false proof is just a proof with a mistake, i.e. it is not a proof at all, just looks like one 🙂

Of course mathematicians as people can argue who did what first, who gets what kind of credit, etc, however, they do not argue over proven proofs, that language speaks for itself.

There is a certain kind of language, math, logic, and then it descends, empiricism, rationality, reason, science, law, etc which allows us to arrive at "truth" in such a way that it speaks for itself, is self evident if, and only if, you speak the language.

Yet as hyper rationality descends from maths and logic and enters philosophy and dialogue, it becomes "mixed" with our intuitive symbolic mind more and more in communication, yet the inherent tautological form still exists.

Tautology, a good word to apply.

Tautology means "truth by definition" and all math and logic and science defines itself and all the properties it is applying, requiring words, language and symbols.

99.9999999999999 of all truth is just "truth by definition", a sort of formal mathematical "magick" where we apply rules and laws that are consistent to us yet amendable by us.

Wanna hear something strange?

There is only ONE truth, one true statement in all of math and logic and philosophy that is not tautological, and you know what statement that is?

"I Am"

That is the only certain truth, which is equal to the certainty of all math and logic proofs,  that is TRUE by experience directly and not based on the form or structure of its expression, requiring no math.

And we have certainty, 100% certainty, that we exist.

That perfect certainty we can extend using extreme honesty, math and logic.

Anything less than that is "uncertainty", unknown.

Wanna know how to obtain mathematical certainty in the face of the unknown?

"I Don't Know" (Socrates, I know that I do not know)

When we acknowledge to ourselves that we do not have certainty, we maintain certainty.

This is a fun resolved paradox, the paradox of certainty and uncertainty.

Never step outside of certainty, even in the face of uncertainty.

We can always be perfectly certain we exist and that we do not know.

That is the perfect standard all other "certain truths" need to follow.

 

 

"If you have come to help me, then you are wasting your time, but if you are here because your liberation is bound together with mine, then let us work together." Lilla Watson


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3651
 

So fortunate that lashtal is "not a teaching site", or we might have to put up with being preached at, in endless long, pointless, incredibly banal, OT posts, by every bullshit artist who comes along and registers an account.

It is amusing to learn that some imagine that mathematical proofs are inevitably immediately accepted. It is indeed correct that mathematicians do not argue (much) over "proven proofs", but speaking of tautologies...

 


ReplyQuote
Sanguine Chuck
(@sangewanchuck56)
Member
Joined: 9 months ago
Posts: 467
 
Posted by: @ignant666

So fortunate that lashtal is "not a teaching site", or we might have to put up with being preached at, in endless long, pointless, incredibly banal, OT posts, by every bullshit artist who comes along and registers an account.

 

Translation: I can't argue with you mate, but you really drive me nuts.

To which I can only reply, I know, I know.

It will pass 🙂

Posted by: @ignant666

It is amusing to learn that some imagine that mathematical proofs are inevitably immediately accepted.

Not nearly as amusing to watch you dive in 100% into your personal interpretative land of uncertainty again.

"inevitably immediately accepted" is itself a contradiction, who suggested that?

All math proofs are accepted immediately upon doing the proof, i.e. it is self evident if you speak the language, and if you speak the language, there is no argument.

Define my terms? By argument here I mean "fighting", emotional, going nuts, etc etc

Doing the proof is the proof.

If there is a mistake in the proof, there is a contradiction in the proof.

If there is bullshit in the proof, there is a contradiction in the proof.

Keyword: Contradiction

ex:

The word at the end of this sentence is the word cat.

The word at the end of this sentence isn't the word cat.

Did you do the proof? Is the agreement embedded in the text?

Can you get over it now?

🙂

"If you have come to help me, then you are wasting your time, but if you are here because your liberation is bound together with mine, then let us work together." Lilla Watson


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3651
 

To imagine that you "really drive [me] nuts" is yet another sign of your well-inflated ego.

I think you are a silly pontifical windbag, who daily makes an ass of himself with his posts, but you are not the first, nor will you be the last, to imagine lashtal is here as a platform for his revelations.

I mostly ignore your inane screeds but every now and then a howler (like your  current ongoing demonstration that you have never known any mathematicians, and understand little about what is meant by the term "mathematical proof") compels some mild ridicule. You then howl like a scalded cat in response, as above.

Preach on.


ReplyQuote
Page 1 / 2
Share: