Crowley and his usa...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Crowley and his usages of maths and formulas in Thelema

Page 4 / 5

ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3639
 

So let me see if if i've got this straight:  You are always Right, and thus any critique of Your pronouncements can only come from the psychological defects, and poor intellects, of your critics.

As i said, "totalistic". You are beyond criticism, and we as Your audience have one, and only one, appropriate response: adoring gratitude to you as Teacher for sharing your Wisdom with us trogs.

Engaging with you is pointless, so i won't bother. Have fun, and do enjoy all the "continuous praise and gratitude."


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 6158
 
Posted by: @ignant666

the psychological defects, and poor intellects

Yes, it's very embarrassing, this publick exposure of my/our mental disorders and the wasteland of the associated  mind(s),

image

 


ReplyQuote
Tiger
(@tiger)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1850
 

@ignant666
You seem to have a sound mind and a healthy psychological acumen that causes you to post well grounded view points.


ReplyQuote
Sanguine Chuck
(@sangewanchuck56)
Member
Joined: 8 months ago
Posts: 467
Topic starter  

@ignant666 

You're not being fair right now in this conversation, I mean really, after I took time to respond to all of your questions, you do not reply to mine, at all. You drift off who knows where in the convo, and then pop back in with all kinds of harsh words.

Posted by: @ignant666

So let me see if if i've got this straight:  You are always Right, and thus any critique of Your pronouncements can only come from the psychological defects, and poor intellects, of your critics.

Since you asked, NO. You have it skewed, for sure.

How many times have I specifically requested, "show me my delusion, please?"

I believe it is only through honest exchange with our peers where we discover our mistakes and delusions, and when I uncover a delusion I have, it is a treasure.

I am not afraid of making mistakes, obviously. I expect to be shown those mistakes to the ideas I propose.

I am not having a "right or wrong" conversation.

I am having a true, false, and unknown conversation, and a rational one at that.

However, if I am posting something that is rational, and proposing a new concept, I absolutely do find it odd that you ignore all of that work, and focus on the petty tit for tat with forum members with some sort of Yelp review about my personality?

C'mon man...that's not cool. I think it is fair for me to call you out on that.

Posted by: @ignant666

You are beyond criticism, and we as Your audience have one, and only one, appropriate response: adoring gratitude to you as Teacher for sharing your Wisdom with us trogs.

You even misinterpreted what i wrote. I said if you notice that MY communication is one of outpouring gratitude and praise TOWARDS all of you.

Do you see how it was your mind that ran with that false concept of what I communicated? Do you see how your reactive mind reversed my meaning? 

Am I not supposed to point that out to someone I acknowledge, admire, and respect?

I have specifically praised and expressed gratitude to this community and many members, including the ones having meltdowns about my participation here.

I am willing to resolve any issue any member has with me, work it through, at any time.

I expect new concepts I propose to be hit with hard critique. Please, show me my errors out of compassion, please. Sincere request.

If all I get from a member instead is the yelp review, over and over, and nada about what I am posting, yes I propose that is a psychological issue, outside of the bounds and topic of this conversation, until you or any one makes it one.

Posted by: @ignant666

Engaging with you is pointless, so i won't bother

Well you never have, so not possible for me to notice, but I take your word for it.

"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: 6158
 

Readers may wish to consult the primary reference for The Sermon of the Day, uttered or typed by myself, which is ...

https://www.sacred-texts.com/oto/418/aetyr10.htm

The Cry of the 10th Aethyr,
Which is Called ZAX


ReplyQuote
Sanguine Chuck
(@sangewanchuck56)
Member
Joined: 8 months ago
Posts: 467
Topic starter  
Posted by: @shiva

Readers may wish to consult the primary reference for The Sermon of the Day, uttered or typed by myself, which is ...

https://www.sacred-texts.com/oto/418/aetyr10.htm

The Cry of the 10th Aethyr,
Which is Called ZAX

Well good luck with that. Clearly, LAShTAL is not a teaching site, and the Vision and the Voice is all about Crowley and Mathematics?

In the meantime, this is off topic, while you promised us, as well as yourself, silence.

It might be a good idea to start developing some integrity with your words and actions if you're gonna go all in on "The Cry of the 10th Aether."

I'll continue to be your bogey man in the meantime, with love.

Cheers

SW

 

 

"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: 6158
 

Notice to any or all readers, if there are still any around: I am observing [Silence] in relation to certain, specific posters. This does not preclude my [Speech] to readers in general, or limit my responses to, say, Ignant666, or, say, HG, et al.

I don't remember taking an overall Oath of Silence, although I did imply that I would not talk to somebody in particular. Does anybody remember the "IGNORE" button? If you punched it, in relation to some specific poster, all of that poster's post would become invisible. Some people wanted it back, because sometimes people get into conflict and they'd like to repress the matter. But it, the button, never came back.

This is an example of the Crowley concept of 2=0.

But without the button it's a matter of 2=2, which it was in the first place, so at least any repression is reduced.

 


ReplyQuote
David Dom Lemieux
(@david-dom-lemieux)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 3196
 
Posted by: @sangewanchuck56
Ternary 

 

 Etc

So the entire Old Testament and the entire text of Liber Legis has a ternary code? 

Thus far wacky Stan found something for himself in the first verse of Genesis which led to the doughnut and it's related bendy metal-shadowgram-toy.

What about Liber Legis?  You claim that it gives clues to the existence of a "sacred" ternary code but wouldn't that be in the text itself somewhere similar to that verse which wacky Stan 'discovered'?  

More to the point, where's it leading?  What does this have to do with DWTWSBTWOTLaw?

Nada?

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


ReplyQuote
hadgigegenraum
(@hadgigegenraum)
Member
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 344
 

@david-dom-lemieux 

Perhaps Sanguine Chuck  would agree with you as to where the application of the "base three" matrix leads to "nada" though it might appear that your "nada" is an expression of mental laziness or incompetence as witnessed by your "wacky Stan" comment, which I suppose sums up the whole characteristic breakdown of discussions witnessed by what invariably becomes the "Shiva Show" with the [silence] "act"...but maybe he is out killing a pigeon which is a form of dove for ZAX to put in a triangle!

Actually the application of Tenon's work (if its all Tenon's?) is relevant, though it might be argued that Sanguine Chuck has sought to reduce everything to putting a Yod between Shin and Teth, but that is another story, for the story is that "math" can become both a cage and a temptation for the mind...to reduce all to an equation, a parlor trick that can get boring and lose the very "force and fire" through confusing the container with the contained that the dead dove becomes the oracular monster spit from the anus of Crowley while having been sodomized by Victor....and out of the donut hole it all comes...letters and all...

It was Dan Winter's claim regarding geometries that Tenon then sued Winter, and they probably both have legitimate claims to respective discoveries that seem to all be forgotten...all of which mirrors the inane bickering here...but at least the world now has a Finnegan's Wake audio book awaiting base three manipulations or tiring the mind into the naught after dream and before waking....

HG

 


ReplyQuote
David Dom Lemieux
(@david-dom-lemieux)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 3196
 
Posted by: @hadgigegenraum

@david-dom-lemieux 

Perhaps Sanguine Chuck  would agree with you as to where the application of the "base three" matrix leads to "nada" though it might appear that your "nada" is an expression of mental laziness or incompetence as witnessed by your "wacky Stan" comment, which I suppose sums up the whole characteristic breakdown of discussions witnessed by what invariably becomes the "Shiva Show" with the [silence] "act"...but maybe he is out killing a pigeon which is a form of dove for ZAX to put in a triangle!

Actually the application of Tenon's work (if its all Tenon's?) is relevant, though it might be argued that Sanguine Chuck has sought to reduce everything to putting a Yod between Shin and Teth, but that is another story, for the story is that "math" can become both a cage and a temptation for the mind...to reduce all to an equation, a parlor trick that can get boring and lose the very "force and fire" through confusing the container with the contained that the dead dove becomes the oracular monster spit from the anus of Crowley while having been sodomized by Victor....and out of the donut hole it all comes...letters and all...

 

HG

 

Happy bendy-toy shadowgramming.

Mental laziness? I analysed each wacky point and rigorously tore apart sanguine chuck's fantasy world.  I mean ok.its interesting in the same way that Graham Hancock's Aztec Codes are interesting. 

Bullshit can be interesting.

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


ReplyQuote
Sanguine Chuck
(@sangewanchuck56)
Member
Joined: 8 months ago
Posts: 467
Topic starter  
Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

So the entire Old Testament and the entire text of Liber Legis has a ternary code? 

 

I cannot speak to the old testament, other than what Stan Tennen has applied to the first verse.

But Liber AL vel Legis, yes it has a ternary structure. I am not sure if I would call it a code, but I guess that could work too.

Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

What about Liber Legis?  You claim that it gives clues to the existence of a "sacred" ternary code but wouldn't that be in the text itself somewhere similar to that verse which wacky Stan 'discovered'?  

More to the point, where's it leading?  What does this have to do with DWTWSBTWOTLaw?

 

As mentioned, I find it "interesting" that Stan also discovered a way to unlock the first verse and the method, through looking at the text as "self referential" and 012 base three counting allowed him to do that, and that I also apply a "self referential" method, what I call the naturally occurring paralanguage.

That the same ternary opening with the numbers 0, 1, and 2 occurred independently is highly highly interesting, and perhaps, perhaps I say, that one could be considered as a proof of the other.

Other than that NOTHING to do with Liber al Vel Legis.

Also, I have never used the word "sacred" ternary code.

And yes, as previously mentioned, it IS found within the text, this is what "self referential" means.

Wanna see something pretty?

That is the visual created by Stan's application. The teaching, that life contains itself, the seed of itself, is expressed through the Tube Torus.

The tree of life pattern that you see, as it curls itself, becoming its smallest point, to expanding itself, is what the Hebrew letters, matched up in pairs which was done by counting these pairs in base three, projects.

Beautiful to look at, no?

Posted by: @hadgigegenraum

for the story is that "math" can become both a cage and a temptation for the mind...to reduce all to an equation, a parlor trick that can get boring and lose the very "force and fire" through confusing the container with the contained that the dead dove becomes the oracular monster spit from the anus of Crowley while having been sodomized by Victor....and out of the donut hole it all comes...letters and all...

I agree with this, 100%.

Maths, like any polarity, must be combined with its perfect opposite, in this case, poetry, if and only iff by maths we are talking about the type of intelligence that produces "math" in our minds, is combined with our natural "intuitive and symbolic" intelligence that allow us to express.

It is not the formula itself, it is the mind that creates the formula that this "self reference" refers to. Not math and poetry as nouns or subjects, but math and poetry as "verbs" which express human truth.

Posted by: @hadgigegenraum

but at least the world now has a Finnegan's Wake audio book awaiting base three manipulations or tiring the mind into the naught after dream and before waking....

Base three self referential interpretations of Liber al Vel Legis are the least interesting things to do with this type of formula.

the most interesting thing to do with this type of formula is actually structuring a group conversation whereas the "bickering" you mention, normally and historically a burden on the historical conversation, can now be liberated into something productive and mutually resolving, at scale.

Transmuted, if you will.

See, bickering is just bickering when processed through a dualistic environment. This forum software does not support mutual resolution, just like all discussion forums, Reddit being the worst offender with "up or down" dualistic voting, horrible horrible!

However, running "bickering" through base three, we discover a very real psychological phenomenon and very natural human process that allows "win win" through disagreement.

That's cool!

I just find it odd this process is contained in a text from 1904!

Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

Mental laziness? I analysed each wacky point and rigorously tore apart sanguine chuck's fantasy world. 

Lol, you know, if you remove the words "wacky" and "fantasy", you will truly discover that the fantasy only exists in "rigorously tore apart" and without these descriptives, wacky and fantasy, you've provided virtually .....

 

wait for it....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nada 🙂

 

"rigorous" would imply that you show us "how" you arrive at your conclusions, and then allow those conclusions to also be tested, especially for contradictions.

You know, just having a concept in your mind that is "true" is not actually what makes it true for everyone, just you!

I ❤️ @david-dom-lemieux

Especially for the "good effort"

 

"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: 3196
 
 
Silly me I was trying to reason with a person who once said ( HADIT; Just say yes. – Page 2 – Thelema – LAShTAL.COM Forum     
 
 
 
 
Posted by: @hadgigegenraum 

Statistics of states of static such that such static can be so interpreted to create such violence against the human species who thus through projections of death rates from virus never isolated in a laboratory such that actual virus can be observed by other scientist did cause State induced violence against the peoples by various governmental authorities such that your Governor Cuomo should be charged with crimes against humanity as should Trump for approving the shot or the jab or what ever you want to describe that violent act which can not legally be called a 'Vaccine' and to which is part of a plan to completely de-violence humankind against taking out genocidal murderers intent on dropping the population of the planet by several billion...

Groomed riots as part of a coup called 'cancel culture' and 'great Reset' who seek to destroy humanity through the destruction of those first inalienable principles as documented in Declaration of Independence Bill of Rights.

Presently the installed Nazi's in the Ukraine, where Obama administration funded real Nazis in Maiden Coup, are waging water rationing war against the Crimean Peninsula while bomb bomb Biden pushes war in Syria once again...

violence may be going down as sperm rates drop, but the Nuclear War countdown clock has clicked a few seconds closer to thermonuclear violence...

That's not the sun that was the Tsarina!

Of course lawyers will argued that destruction of property is not violence., until their property gets busted up.

So back to topic did the herb dangerous in Crowley's time have a more balanced profile such that a sweet spot of Delta 9, Delta 8 and all the CBD's and CBG's could put humpty dumpty back together again?

Does Perique cured in rum mask the smell of ganja yah think~

 

 
@all
 
is this the guy who recently said that that bastion of Light, Love and Liberty the New York Times was a "yellow rag"?
 
Hey sanguinechuck you've got a wacky fanbase there lol.
 

 

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


ReplyQuote
Sanguine Chuck
(@sangewanchuck56)
Member
Joined: 8 months ago
Posts: 467
Topic starter  
Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux
Hey sanguinechuck you've got a wacky fanbase there lol.
 

Oh my goodness Dom, are you actually practicing yellow journalism, and then holding up language or a word or phrase and then using that word or phrase to actually define the utter mystery of a human being, judge them, pigeonhole them, define who they are for others?

Tsk tsk

Human Beings are mysterious, almost impossible objects.

Words cannot really define us well at all.

The map is not the territory

The Menu is not the meal

And the name of a person is NOT the person!

All of this is the mystery of "NOT", I really recommend contemplation on this profound truth.

"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." - Niels Bohr, some guy that used math and non-duality to become the father of quantum mechanics.

"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
hadgigegenraum
(@hadgigegenraum)
Member
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 344
 

@david-dom-lemieux 

Yes the New York Times is "yellow journalism" at it's haughty best, winning "The Yellow Cake Award" again and again for leading the world into perpetual war and cultural suicide...but then again the Sunday Magazine section back in the 1970's was impressive...


ReplyQuote
Sanguine Chuck
(@sangewanchuck56)
Member
Joined: 8 months ago
Posts: 467
Topic starter  
Posted by: @hadgigegenraum

for leading the world into perpetual war

From direct experience, I concur with this during the historical build up to the war in iraq (my first life experience at protest against war, before it started) and I was tracing the conversation around WMD, in good faith, not sure myself what was true or not true.

And in real time, I did see how NYTimes and mainstream media suppressed conversation around their "Unknown" existence, where as even George HW Bush SENIOR who questioned the veracity of WMD existence, itself was suppressed as a news story.

Discovering in real time that there was suppression around the very true "unknown" at the time of the existence of WMD, but rather all stories of their existence (all right and center positions), and some "Filler" stories declared they did not exist (all classic extreme to left positions) but TOTAL suppression of the "real" truth value at the time, which was "unknown", Period.

WMD in Iraq was a true "third" value problem we all failed to evaluate.

This is on topic, truly.

Consider, the third value in any search for truth, what is real. The third value is always "unknown, mystery, 0" yet our society could not maintain the third value in discussion, it was suppressed by our very dualistic natures which only allowed for a "true or false" outcome.

Ouch!

In a proper environment for critical conversation, the natural distribution of ternary truth values, which are TRUE, FALSE, and UNKNOWN, for rational consideration in an organic manner, and we could have avoided War in Iraq if we simply engaged the conversation acknowledging the third value, mystery, unknown, possibility, strange, etc etc.

Duality cowers before ternary non-duality, just like dualistic True or False conversations will always cower to war, and disappointment. 

No one ever wins in that reality.

 

"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: 3196
 
Posted by: @sangewanchuck56

 

"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." - Niels Bohr, some guy that used math and non-duality to become the father of quantum mechanics.

Physics eh?  Well Newton was privately obsessed with alchemy and hidden codes in The Bible but that was his vice (read as dumb hobby).  You think someone like Bohr would lend an ear (on a professional scientist level) to someone like wacky Stan and his ideas?  

 

Anyway, happy creative pattern-finding and shadowgramming each Hebrew letter on your wall with Stan's bendy metal curvy-thing.   Ever thought of aligning constellations with various temples of antiquity? 

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


ReplyQuote
Sanguine Chuck
(@sangewanchuck56)
Member
Joined: 8 months ago
Posts: 467
Topic starter  
Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

Physics eh? 

Correct, the father of QM practiced Advaita non-duality

And maths

Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

Well Newton was privately obsessed with alchemy and hidden codes in The Bible but that was his vice (read as dumb hobby). 

Okay, you can have your opinions on what is "hot or not", swipe left or right. Either choice you make is fine with me.

I'm just relying some facts about math and non-duality.

Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

You think someone like Bohr would lend an ear (on a professional scientist level) to someone like wacky Stan and his ideas?  

 

Yes, I do, but not as "science", as the word does not apply in this realm.

I already told you that Ralph Abrahams, a very prominent mathematician, notable for Chaos Theory, was deeply moved by Stan's work.

In the Science of Philosophy, the view that Niels Bohr takes in science is called the "holistic scientific view" and it is a view held by around 3% of all scientists.

97% of all scientists hold the "material reality only" model, philosophical materialism, and usually the materialists are always known for "scoffing" at the ideas of the holistic school.

Why?

Because any true holistic idea or concept is unfathomable to the dualistic mind.

At first.

Takes awhile, but everyone comes around...

Eventually.

Truth has three stages

First it is denied

Then it is violently opposed

Then it is accepted as self-evident.

Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

Anyway, happy creative pattern-finding and shadowgramming each Hebrew letter on your wall with Stan's bendy metal curvy-thing. 

That line didn't work the first time, and still produces zero laughter, but I am sure it is meaningful to you because so far, it is the only "rebuttal" you have going. 

But you know it isn't an "actual" rebuttal, right? It is a fake rebuttal, a very "poetic" idea, masquerading as the "actual". 

The false idea, believed to be a true idea, reveals very real objective things about YOU as the poet, and ZERO about what I have been describing.

You are confusing poetry with the actual truth of "math", a common error made in the dualistic mind 🙂

Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

Ever thought of aligning constellations with various temples of antiquity? 

Do you see anything that can be derived from my writing that would lead you to suspect that, or is that an idea from your mind, projected on my writing?

Can you tell the difference?

Probably not, but I'm trying! I really am

Everyone eventually gets it 🙂

"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: 3196
 
Posted by: @sangewanchuck56
Posted by: @shiva

t looks like somebody ran out of Fish and has returned for more.

It's always a fishy omen when an esteamed member starts changing his name and avatar pic/text. Be-ee-ee-ee-ee-ware!

Shiva I really do not appreciate your generation of aspersions against me either on this thread as well as other threads, which you seem important to do for some odd reason.

Did I make some sort of formal announcement?

Did I generate any unambiguous statement as to either my state of mind or my participation in this forum?

No, you had your own idea about what it meant, and as usual, issue your aspersions and punishments based on your false ideas you believe to be true.

I said "goodbye".

I say goodbye often when I am leaving, it does not mean I am never to return.

I said "thanks for all the fish" because I used the word "fish" in the discussion specifically as an example of how easily misunderstandings can enter a conversation around different meanings of a single word.

Thanks for all the fish means 'Thanks for all the misunderstanding' as well as a play on the classic Douglas Adams.

I was far from hurt, it was predictable that you were willing to control the conversation to the point of, by any means necessary, stop the conversation itself.

What you did was rather predictable.

You're acting like an edge lord on a discussion forum.

Did you actually believe I wanted to "take over this forum"? 

How childish.

This thread topic is not "About Sanguine Chuck, formally known as SangeWanchuck56", so I kindly ask you to stay on topic or go have your conversations elsewhere.

 

If yea are so non-dual cool then why argue? Why try to convert? You know the rest.....TALKING OVERMUCH.

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


ReplyQuote
Sanguine Chuck
(@sangewanchuck56)
Member
Joined: 8 months ago
Posts: 467
Topic starter  
Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

If yea are so non-dual cool then why argue? Why try to convert? You know the rest.....TALKING OVERMUCH.

Peer review is not "converting"

There is obviously no argument against what I propose, thus– no arguing 🙂

Thanks for helping me communicate that to the community.

Am I done now? Can I put my clothes back on?

Finally?

Cheers!

 

"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: 3196
 
Posted by: @sangewanchuck56
Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

You think someone like Bohr would lend an ear (on a professional scientist level) to someone like wacky Stan and his ideas?   

Yes, I do, but not as "science", as the word does not apply in this realm.

I already told you that Ralph Abrahams, a very prominent mathematician, notable for Chaos Theory, was deeply moved by Stan's work.

Yes only 'deeply moved' by Stan's work like someone may be moved by a Deniro performance,  a poem by Shelley or a song by The Bay City Rollers or whatever.  Did Ralph Abrahams give professional lip service to Stan's creative findings?  I'm not denigrating being into this as a wacky pass time, Hell I may even watch a Bigfoot documentary if it aired on TV later.  I know it's  BS but humans need that stupid fantasy-escape entertainment thing now and again.   You are going a bit over the top with it though. If your ternary Liber Legis jive actually meant ShT then what does it actually have to do with every man and woman doing their Will (which is the central part of Liber Legis)?  

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


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 6158
 
Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

Why try to convert?

"For cunningly doth he talk of many things, going from subject to subject, and thus he misleadeth the wary into argument with him. And though Choronzon be easily beaten in argument, yet, by disturbing the attention of him who would command him, doth he gain the victory."

- Liber 418, the Xth Aethyr


ReplyQuote
Sanguine Chuck
(@sangewanchuck56)
Member
Joined: 8 months ago
Posts: 467
Topic starter  
Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

Did Ralph Abrahams give professional lip service to Stan's creative findings?

yes there is a review somewhere. I can't find it, sorry.

Who cares tho? Really?

Why is this so shocking to you that there would be something elegant discovered in a sacred text?

Why is what Stan is suggesting any more crazy or nutty than what Crowley does? or what Cabbala does? Or any Gematria? Or any occult work, like the Tarot?

Dude, you're already in kookville, in case you haven't noticed.

 

Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

I know it's  BS but humans need that stupid fantasy-escape entertainment thing now and again. 

Hey man, I'm not your therapist and I can't help you with your cynicism.

I am of the mind that we all create our own reality, I am very much influenced by Leary in this regard.

If that is the reality you want, where all human joy of discovery is all BS, then do what tho wilt, why are you making it my responsibility to alleviate you of that?

 

Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

You are going a bit over the top with it though.

Huh? Where?

We are talking about Crowley and occult text. It begins over the top.

We are talking about Crowley and Liber al Vel Legis, both of which are "telelogical", meaning that Crowley, as well as Leary, postulated the influence of some form of higher intelligence directly onto history and time (angels, daemons, aliens, whatevers) in their work, and their work directly communicates to this type of vision and reality.

Are you asking me to convince you of that reality?

Not my job, that would be arguing, converting, etc.

Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

If your ternary Liber Legis jive actually meant ShT then what does it actually have to do with every man and woman doing their Will (which is the central part of Liber Legis)?  

It has everything to do with it, but that was discussed in the other thread on non-duality, not this one.

  • The revelation of Sunyata and the two truths of this absolute state is essential for understanding true will, specifically "pure will, unassuaged of purpose"
  • Without an understanding of self-emptiness along with the "continuity of existence", there can be no understanding of the discovery of true will, one would not even know if it was their will or not.
  • 0, 1, and 2 simply represent ubiquitous qualities all viewpoints share in common, from which only springs a unique and true will in each individual.

What you're really telling me is that you think I am smarter than Crowley to discover such an elegant pattern in Liber al vel Legis without it "actually" being there would mean it is my delusion that it is there, but it is not delusion to say that the pattern has its own internal consistency.

Astrology can be bullshit when it comes to sending energy beams to earth to influence our psychology, but astrology is still an internally consistent vehicle, with a map of all human psychological types.

Who cares if it really maps the planets influence?

Same with what Stan produced.

Let's say its bullshit.

Well, those mathematical patterns that are recursive, elegant, and wonderful metaphors for a deeper reality are still exactly those beautiful recursive patterns and wonderful metaphors for deeper reality.

I'm not focusing on the broader implications, I am simply reviewing steps taken in an operation, and that is it.

0, 1, and 2 actually are a naturally occurring ternary ordering principle that exists naturally in our minds and nature, and Liber al Vel Legis, and according to Stan Tennen, also in the first line of Genesis.

Those are just facts. Not opinions. Not visions. Facts.

I'm not implying anything more than that.

Posted by: @shiva

"For cunningly doth he talk of many things, going from subject to subject, and thus he misleadeth the wary into argument with him. And though Choronzon be easily beaten in argument, yet, by disturbing the attention of him who would command him, doth he gain the victory."

 

🤣 🤣 🤣 

Okay, this is really funny, and even falsifiable.

For encountering Choronzon, according to Crowley, who invented him, we are told there are two qualities in conversation that we can use to recognize Choronzon.

  • Choronzon practices deception
  • Choronzon is easily beaten

Okay, who is ready to test this on me?

You don't even need to engage with me at all to test this.

Simply go back a month, the beginning the these conversations, and draw from these.

If I practice deception, I would be making contradictions with reality.

Show me these contradictions, please.

I will immediately acknowledge the contradiction, and if I made any error, I will immediately offer an apology and retraction.

Who has "easily" beaten me in this conversation the past month?

I think one of the entertaining feature of this conversation is my ability to maintain a consistent conversation, and the biggest issue two members have with me is that I am "beyond criticism", a backwards compliment if there ever was one.

If I or anyone practices deception or delusion, 100% they will make contradictions, and any kind of contradiction.

I do note quite a number of continual contradictions being made by a certain user, but I don't want to spoil the fun of his own discovery, so I will not mention any names.

As for Choronzon, OMG easiest spirit of all to tassle with.

Utterly irrational, zero consistency. Also, has no idea about this either, utterly blind to it.

Very attached to duality.

If you're below the abyss, and take Crowley too seriously, sure, you're probably scared of facing this horrible demon.

But take it from someone who has taken a wranglin' or two.

Choronzon is nothing more than the irrational mind confused as the rational mind, sort of like Elmer Fudd, really not that smart at all, and pretty easy to "defeat", as Crowley would say.

Choronzon is the Chief of Dualistic and Bivalent Logic

0, 1, and 2 is a sweet and fun and funny naturally occurring ternary dynamic in our minds, and when this part of our mind gets turned on, defeating Choronzon is pretty easy, fun even. 

He is only dangerous if you identify with that part of your mind as real, as "real" would be defined by a mathematician, and mathematicians shouldn't be defining poetry, ever, that is where they will go nuts.

Cheers!

Don't take yourself too seriously!

Its just a conversation, dude!

SC

 

No doves, frogs or pigeons were harmed in the writing of this comment, only a few egos.

 

 

"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: 3196
 
Nothing here about this ternary business; 
 
1:25.
Divide, add, multiply, and understand.

New Comment ~  Crowley

I am becoming gradually more inclined to look for Greek Qabalah as a Key to this Book. All the most striking truths are in that cipher, chosen no doubt because I knew absolutely nothing about it.
I have thought of reading this verse 'Divide 56 into (?2) parts such that by adding them together and then multiplying them (? by 56 again) we should get some Arcanum'. Now 14 x 4 = 56. 14 + 4 = 18. 18 x 56 = 1008. 10 cubed + 2 cubed, a somewhat remarkable number. The sum of the factors of 56, viz. 1,2,4,7,8,14,28,56 is 120, the True Number of the Rosy Cross. See the account of this number in the ritual. (Equinox I, 3.)
(The above was written Aug 28, 1919 E.V. Today, Sept. 3, I find Ho Alastor = 1008. This eight-lettered name is therefore 'foursquare, mystic, wonderful'. Astonishing, astounding that this should come out almost at once after my first reading of 1008. I was looking for a quite different thing, the word for 'Restriction'.)
The root of Aleister or Alastor is apparently Al, meaning to wander, as suggested by the 'flowing' sound of both vowel and consonant.
Dividing 56 as 7,2,2,2, its factors, and adding their sum, 13, and multiplying, we get 728 or 31-666-31, Alostrael, the mystic name of the Scarlet Woman, the representative of Nuit, Lea Hirsig, as bestored on her by the Wizard Amalantrah, nearly two years before I made this calculation, An, XVI Sun in Sagittarius
Dividing 56 as 28.2 we get 56 x 30 = 1680
Dividing 56 as  7.8 we get 56 x 15 =  840
Of thse two numbers I have no special information

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


ReplyQuote
David Dom Lemieux
(@david-dom-lemieux)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 3196
 
Posted by: @sangewanchuck56

0, 1, and 2 actually are a naturally occurring ternary ordering principle that exists naturally in our minds and nature, and Liber al Vel Legis, and according to Stan Tennen, also in the first line of Genesis.

Those are just facts. Not opinions. Not visions. Facts.

I'm not implying anything more than that.

(Double post apology)

No, here are the actual facts;   we do not know for sure that any of the lines after the 6 + 50 line are even related.  That is, maybe 'divide, add' etc are a whole new paragraph and a general instruction to apply division, addition etc to something else such as  events or thoughts in general or whatever and nothing to do with the previous line of 6 + 50.

Let's say they are related and a continuation so we have the number (one number) derived from an implied addition i.e. '6 +50' which is obviously 56.  Let's say for argument's sake that it is then also divide 6/50 = 0.12 so you have 0.12 and then it's 'add' again.  Therefore it would be add the 56 to 0.12 which gives us 56.12.  We're already merely speculating and it could be a number of options.   It would then look like multiply the original 56 x the new result i.e. 56.12

Let's say your explanation is correct where you derive the result of 0.12 which , might I add (geddit?), does not =3.  However if I am presented with 0.12 and then as you say told to add I'd expect another number but you want to make the murky leap into adding the figures in the decimal places together which no logical person would do. 

Likewise with the instruction to 'multiply'  If I give someone one single number and tell them to 'multiply' this does not necessarily mean your preferred option of squaring a solitary number by itself anyway.  No, you need at least two numbers for multiplication and this suggests multiplying all of the results we met in that sequence as described above.

Basically you're a fan of Tennen, you like his wacky Bible code creative accounting and his ternary theory and you are a prophet...... a self-fulfilling prophet.  You want Liber Legis to have the same ternary codes that probably don't even exist in Hebrew texts.   It's looking like self-confirmation similar to the Texas Sharpshooter. 

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


ReplyQuote
Sanguine Chuck
(@sangewanchuck56)
Member
Joined: 8 months ago
Posts: 467
Topic starter  

@david-dom-lemieux

Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux
Nothing here about this ternary business; 
 

Crowley is known for giving multiple contradictory explanations for the same phenomenon. 

So unfortunately, it is hard if not impossible to use Crowley as a source on Crowley.

I only appeal to Crowley's writings as little as I have to, I prefer to derive my instructions directly from the text of Liber al Vel Legis, which claims that Crowley as the Beast will not "divine" all the mysteries within the book, therefore we should not expect from Crowley what the text tells us not to.

Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

we do not know for sure that any of the lines after the 6 + 50 line are even related.  That is, maybe 'divide, add' etc are a whole new paragraph and a general instruction to apply division, addition etc to something else such as  events or thoughts in general or whatever and nothing to do with the previous line of 6 + 50.

Well, we can try it both ways, and then interpret both ways, and see what we come up with, right?

Either way, the information for the instruction is still coming from the text.

many many ways to interpret all text.

Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

Let's say your explanation is correct where you derive the result of 0.12 which , might I add (geddit?), does not =3.

Yes Dom, I am a fan of your high-caliber and well placed humor 🙂

and yes, adding 1 + 2 does equal 3.

It doesn't matter if I add .1 + .2 = .3

The " . " is irrelevant.

I choose to use "that which remains" in the operation because "that which remains" is also in the text, as well as the operation arriving at 0.12

Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

However if I am presented with 0.12 and then as you say told to add I'd expect another number but you want to make the murky leap into adding the figures in the decimal places together which no logical person would do. 

I am adding together the numbers that remain from the first operation.

That is the "simplest" way to approach it, because I am not reaching outside of the operation or going back a step in the operation.

Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

Likewise with the instruction to 'multiply'  If I give someone one single number and tell them to 'multiply' this does not necessarily mean your preferred option of squaring a solitary number by itself anyway. 

We know that we can add, divide, and multiply and there are different ways to interpret it.

The steps I take to interpret it are reasonable within the operation, and I am a bit more conservative than others, for I stay solely inside the instructions without introducing any outside "entities" as they say.

Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

No, you need at least two numbers for multiplication and this suggests multiplying all of the results we met in that sequence as described above.

You can multiply ONE number by itself, have you ever heard of 2 x 2? 4 x 4? 8 x 8?

Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

Basically you're a fan of Tennen, you like his wacky Bible code creative accounting and his ternary theory and you are a prophet...... a self-fulfilling prophet.  You want Liber Legis to have the same ternary codes that probably don't even exist in Hebrew texts.   It's looking like self-confirmation similar to the Texas Sharpshooter. 

Hmmm, I wouldn't describe myself as a "fan" of Stan (geddit?)

I am a fan of Leary, Crowley, and Wilson.

However Dom, maybe you are right after all! 

Maybe all of this IS my own projection, and Crowley or any form of "higher intelligence" (whatevers) had NO idea that there could be this type of elegant interpretation that is consistent throughout every verse and chapter.

If all of this is my own projection, then I am the sole author of this interpretation, and since I have an internally consistent interpretation of Liber al Vel Legis that can be used to arrive at Sunyata, non-duality as well as provide a psychological map for resolving contradictions between multiple viewpoints, I have no other choice then to accept your judgement that I am both smarter than Crowley, and funnier than him.

I am skeptical that is the case, but If you tell me you have an eye for talent here, who am I to argue with you?

 

 

 

 

"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
Sanguine Chuck
(@sangewanchuck56)
Member
Joined: 8 months ago
Posts: 467
Topic starter  

(please forgive double post)

 

@david-dom-lemieux 

I just completed reading the other thread you started on the Commentary of Liber AL vel Legis

Great thread!

And Michael's sharing of the letter from Crowley to Grant I believe addresses some of your partial inquiry here regarding the "ternary" formula, what does Crowley say about it?

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

"twin concepts", concepts that need each other, are interdependent on each other, just like how our minds use the number "1" and the symbolic "2" on a number line, twin concepts about counting that produce a child, an infinite number line.

That is how Crowley addressed this ternary formula, one set of twin concepts that produce a child.

True and False are also "twin concepts", bringing this down into Malkuth, and like a child is perfectly the absorption of the mother and father, "mystery" or "unknown" is the absorption of true and false.

This formula is self referencing a fundamental dynamic that exists in our minds.

To become aware of this dynamic in our minds gives us "force and fire", which I interpret as "air and fire" or "energy and light" and the child that arrises in our minds from force and fire are brilliant ideas, new ideas, creative and imaginative ideas, not about the text or Thelema, but about life, and liberty, and love, and light.

Cool how three numbers can become such perfect metaphors for the all of it, eh?

"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
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 4191
 
Posted by: @sangewanchuck56

Michael's sharing of the letter from Crowley to Grant

I just want to make clear, Sanguine, that the paragraph by Kenneth Grant is part of a letter he wrote in 1952 to an applicant to the British Branch of the O.T.O. Grant is referring to a conversation with Crowley on the matter, during one of his several visits to Crowley between December 1944 and May  1945.


ReplyQuote
Sanguine Chuck
(@sangewanchuck56)
Member
Joined: 8 months ago
Posts: 467
Topic starter  
Posted by: @michael-staley

I just want to make clear, Sanguine, that the paragraph by Kenneth Grant is part of a letter he wrote in 1952 to an applicant to the British Branch of the O.T.O. Grant is referring to a conversation with Crowley on the matter, during one of his several visits to Crowley between December 1944 and May  1945.

Amazing how one human being can offer to make a correction to another human being, clear up a mistake or misunderstanding to another human being in a manner that is simple, to the point, rational, and requiring no need to turn me into Choronzon or damage my reputation to do so.

Thank you for correcting me there Michael, my wording was indeed a little bit sloppy!

see, @ignant666, I am not above criticism, and I am truly sloppy at times and its great to get help from everyone, only way I can do this is with all of you.

asdfdddd67jhreww

"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
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1163
 

Sanguine Chuck (@sangewanchuck56):

"... I'm out of [...] any conversation actually, unless someone willingly participates in a conversation I started. ..."

 

Are you willing to summate your point[-s], in some short sentences?!?

 

The Confessions of Aleister Crowley: An Autohagiography, does at its beginning contain a section titled Prelude, used by Aleister Crowley to set the tone for the rest of his autobiography.

And in this prelude Aleister Crowley states that it "... is rare indeed for so strenuous and out-of-doors a life [as his,] to be associated with such profound devotion to the arts of the quietist; ...".

 

"The mystics known as Quietists insist with more or less emphasis on intellectual stillness and interior passivity as essential conditions of perfection; and all have been officially proscribed as heresy in very explicit terms by the Roman Catholic Church. [...] Quietism can be used in a general sense to mean peace or tranquillity of mind; calmness; indifference; apathy; dispassion; indisturbance; inaction. [...] Miguel de Molinos. Founder of Quietism, born at Muniesa, Spain, 21 December, 1640 e.v.; died at Rome, 28 December, 1696 e.v. [...] Many of his Quietistic teachings found their way into Thelema. His Spiritual Guide is a recommended text for preparation of the Student level of the A.'.A.'.[, that is, a text teaching Quietism is recommended already at the beginner level of AC's A.'.A.'.]. [...] In "The System of the O.T.O", which originally appeared in Magick Without Tears, Crowley says,

The A∴A∴ concerns the individual, his development, his intitiation, his passage from "Student" to "Ipsissimus"; he has no contact of any kind with any other person except the Neophyte who introduces him, and any Student or Students whom he may, after becoming a Neophyte, introduce."

(Sources: "Quietism From Thelemapedia" - - - http://www.thelemapedia.org/index.php/Quietism , "Molinos From Thelemapedia" - - - http://www.thelemapedia.org/index.php/Molinos , and "A.'.A.'. From Thelemapedia" - - - http://www.thelemapedia.org/index.php/A.%27.A.%27. )

 

My general impression of your communication so far, is that it is long-winded and very wordy.

 

Are you willing to in short, describe how this your thread titled "Crowley and his usages of maths and formulas in Thelema", is of substantive or practical use with respect to Aleister Crowley's Thelema?


ReplyQuote
Sanguine Chuck
(@sangewanchuck56)
Member
Joined: 8 months ago
Posts: 467
Topic starter  
Posted by: @wellreadwellbred

My general impression of your communication so far, is that it is long-winded and very wordy.

Okay, thank you for that feedback, I will try and do better next time.

Posted by: @wellreadwellbred

Are you willing to in short, describe how this your thread titled "Crowley and his usages of maths and formulas in Thelema", is of substantive or practical use with respect to Aleister Crowley's Thelema?

Yes, my intention is that it can 

  • Be recorded for future discovery for those researching thelema and non-duality on the internet
  • provide some insight into the mind of Crowley, the author of Liber al Vel Legis
  • And that with this insight one can develop further understanding via reading while improving my own understanding via writing in dialogue with all of you fine people.

 

"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: 3196
 
Posted by: @wellreadwellbred

Sanguine Chuck (@sangewanchuck56):

My general impression of your communication so far, is that it is long-winded and very wordy.

That is gold.  Kinda like Richard Nixon calling  Lance Armstrong out for being a liar. 

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


ReplyQuote
christibrany
(@christibrany)
Yuggothian
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2914
 

@david-dom-lemieux Said poster David's said words above are said to be true and comedic. sic 


ReplyQuote
Sanguine Chuck
(@sangewanchuck56)
Member
Joined: 8 months ago
Posts: 467
Topic starter  
Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

That is gold.  Kinda like Richard Nixon calling  Lance Armstrong out for being a liar. 

🤣 🤣 🤣 

or kinda like the "troll" Sanguine Chuck asking if @david-dom-lemieux is a trickster  😆 

Projections are rich, eh?

Would you believe that if we have the internet and a method to communicate via text anonymously, and we have the formula of 0, 1, and 2, we also have a psychological map that can predict when an individual will project themselves onto the conversation in a manner that can be tested?

It's like reading a confession.

The more the dualistic mind projects itself onto a "ternary" environment that is accounting for all possible viewpoints, their contradictions and their resolutions, the more the dualistic mind begins to offer its most deepest confessions of their innermost self, but without the realization or ability to discern that is what is happening.

Confusing the "planes", the dualistic mind confuses self for other, and other for self.

Sometimes it is so eerily perfect (see Trump, 2015-2021) that I am surprised there has not been a perfect analytical tool for psychologists that they can use to measure it.

"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
magimaat
(@magimaat)
Member
Joined: 6 months ago
Posts: 3
 
Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

we do not know for sure that any of the lines after the 6 + 50 line are even related.  That is, maybe 'divide, add' etc are a whole new paragraph and a general instruction to apply division, addition etc to something else such as  events or thoughts in general or whatever and nothing to do with the previous line of 6 + 50.

 

56 = number of minor arkana 

of which there are 14 in each cornerstone.. within that 14 we have both tree of life and clip clops ..one going up one going down. the placement of each on the wheel determines the atom'ic structure of the "god particle" atom Crowley speaks of ..

 

 

 

 

 


ReplyQuote
hadgigegenraum
(@hadgigegenraum)
Member
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 344
 

@wellreadwellbred 

I wanted to get back to thanking you for the excellent post, relevant to issues plaguing the thread, and featuring that quote from AC mentioning quietism with backup references from thelemapedia mentioning Molinos.


ReplyQuote
Sanguine Chuck
(@sangewanchuck56)
Member
Joined: 8 months ago
Posts: 467
Topic starter  
Posted by: @hadgigegenraum

I wanted to get back to thanking you for the excellent post, relevant to issues plaguing the thread, and featuring that quote from AC mentioning quietism with backup references from thelemapedia mentioning Molinos.

Crowley was an unusually prolific writer, touching upon many topics in his writings, often under the influence of cocaine of all things!

What a puzzle, that man. Such an active mind and large library of written works composed on a rinky dink typewriter. I don't know how he produced that much volume with such low end technology, but I bet the coke was better then than now and likely helped him plow through!

Always helpful to have volumes of verbal references for silence when engaged in ChiT ChaT on a discussion forum.

LAChTAL in it's "discussion" mode 😀 LAShTAL in silent mode 🙂

 

 

 

 

"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
hadgigegenraum
(@hadgigegenraum)
Member
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 344
 

@sangewanchuck56 

Crowley was not alone as regards writers in the 19th century pumping our voluminous works without word processors, and they weren't all coke heads... to which Crowley was not a slave of that his whole life, but I am sure it might have been helpful in dictating the Hagiography...

The point may be that essential language skills were at a fairly high level for some. AC was well tutored, imbued with King James from an early age, and was bookish from infirmaries, and need to read beyond the Bible for his sanity, and then write for his life one might say which is perhaps the only way to reckon the voluminous volume of the Collected Works....comprehensible or not!

Thank about the all the volumes of Massey, Dickens, Blavatsky, Bulwar-Lytton, etc, etc...the list could go on and on....so basically we might say a devolution in writing is in progress along with sperm counts!


ReplyQuote
Sanguine Chuck
(@sangewanchuck56)
Member
Joined: 8 months ago
Posts: 467
Topic starter  
Posted by: @hadgigegenraum

Thank about the all the volumes of Massey, Dickens, Blavatsky, Bulwar-Lytton, etc, etc...the list could go on and on....so basically we might say a devolution in writing is in progress along with sperm counts!

I quite enjoy this concept of "biblio-yoga" that @kidneyhawk mentioned on the other forum.

Not sure if that is the same as what you are hinting at? 

a few puns you wrote in there, as usual with much of your work, I always go with the interpretation of your puns that keeps the conversation moving forward.

many ways to keep a convo moving forward, I suppose Energized Enthusiasm one of many 🙂

I too find this need to write, however, oddly, somethings I need to write out in collaboration with others, or they simply do not emerge at all.

Is there a modern biblio-yoga but for social media?

I think so, imagine the fun we would have on a Google doc.

Leary once described this type of journey as early sailors on the open seas, charting their own course , a lone journey for sure, but if perhaps one fares across another sailor, captaining another boat, they need to share co-ordinates, need to compare notes, even share stories.

And they have to be able to communicate clearly, focus on the shared information all sailors and captains can see on the sea. (giddit? @david-dom-lemieux)

That sort of collaboration appears to be apart of the lone journey, comparing notes on the pole star we all share in common.

One single pole star.

Only one, if you are a sailor on the open seas, there is only one star you can trust.

Curious, the polestar and the star in the west, a connection?

(bringing thread back on topic lol, forgot which conversation we were having, I tend to favor THC, personally speaking, hehe)

 

 

 

"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: 3196
 
Posted by: @magimaat
Posted by:@david-dom-lemieux

we do not know for sure that any of the lines after the 6 + 50 line are even related.  That is, maybe 'divide, add' etc are a whole new paragraph and a general instruction to apply division, addition etc to something else such as  events or thoughts in general or whatever and nothing to do with the previous line of 6 + 50.

 

56 = number of minor arkana 

of which there are 14 in each cornerstone.. within that 14 we have both tree of life and clip clops ..one going up one going down. the placement of each on the wheel determines the atom'ic structure of the "god particle" atom Crowley speaks of ..

Ok. Do you have a reference for this 'God particle' idea? 

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


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1163
 

[Underlining used by me for emphasis:]

First posting in this thread by Sanguine Chuck, @sangewanchuck56:

"Crowley and his usages of maths and formulas in Thelema

I wish to introduce a forum topic around Crowley’s usage of maths and formulas, not in a kabbalistic sense, numerology–but in the sense that a mathematician would use them, in his writings, explaining to us readers his viewpoint."

 

[Quotes from page 2 in the thread titled Hegel and Thelema, pertaining to postings by me and Sanguine Chuck, with content relevant to this thread ( source: https://www.lashtal.com/forums/thelema/hegel-and-thelema/paged/2/#post-117330 ) :]

Me: "I am in not interested in AC's so called ( inept ) mathematical proofs, and with respect to what he wrote concerning any number[-s] and his Thelema and his BOTL, I am only interested so far as what any such writing conveys about the meaning of any number[-s], according to him, in the context of his Thelema and his BOTL."

 

Sanguine Chuck: "According to Crowley, or according to the actual text of Liber al Vel Legis?

The former can contradict the later, and the later predicts that Crowley cannot know the meaning all.

How do you resolve that?"

 

My position on Liber al Vel Legis ( = AC's The Book of the Law ), is that Aleister Crowley authored that text based on his own ideas, and I have provided an explanation of how he wrote the "original handwritten manuscript" for this book, in a posting on page 3 in a thread by me titled Was the HGA also the actual initiator in the Order in which AC started on his path as an initiate? ( Source:  https://www.lashtal.com/forums/thelema/was-the-hga-also-the-actual-initiator-in-the-order-in-which-ac-started-on-his-path-as-an-initiate/paged/3/#post-106555   )

That is, what Aleister Crowley wrote concerning any number[-s] with respect to his Thelema and his The Book of the Law, conveys his meaning[-s] of any such number[-s], according to him as the ultimate and supreme authority relating to said Thelema, and relating to the said The Book of the Law.

 

As for your statement that his The Book of the Law predicts "that Crowley cannot know the meaning all.", I fully agree to "that Crowley cannot know the meaning all.", in the sense that he obviously "cannot know the meaning all.", that it will have for any other reader than himself. 

Aleister Crowley's The Djeridensis Working, or "The Comment called D", to his The Book of the Law (1923?), does on the other hand, contrary to any assumption[-s] that one "cannot know the meaning all.", postulate that "... All things are able to know all; all are alike in this, at the end of all.":

 

"1. Nuit defined. Nuit is all that may be, and is shewn by means of any one that is.

2. Pantheism of AL. The Book of the Law shows forth all things as God.

3-4. Virtues of the Soul All things are able to know all; all are alike in this, at the end of all."

( Source: Aleister Crowley's comments to his The Book of the Law, Chapter 1, verses 1 to 4 ("1. Had! The manifestation of Nuit. 2. The unveiling of the company of heaven. 3. Every man and every woman is a star. 4. Every number is infinite; there is no difference.") in his The Djeridensis Working, THE COMMENT CALLED "D")  - - -  https://hermetic.com/legis/djeridensis/chapter-i )


ReplyQuote
Sanguine Chuck
(@sangewanchuck56)
Member
Joined: 8 months ago
Posts: 467
Topic starter  
Posted by: @wellreadwellbred

My position on Liber al Vel Legis ( = AC's The Book of the Law ), is that Aleister Crowley authored that text based on his own ideas, and I have provided an explanation of how he wrote the "original handwritten manuscript" for this book, in a posting on page 3 in a thread by me titled Was the HGA also the actual initiator in the Order in which AC started on his path as an initiate? ( Source:  https://www.lashtal.com/forums/thelema/was-the-hga-also-the-actual-initiator-in-the-order-in-which-ac-started-on-his-path-as-an-initiate/paged/3/#post-106555   )

Hello wellread, 

I took the time and read that link you provided.

Do you believe in magick? By magick I mean that an artist, writer, etc can perform a certain ritual and enter into an expanded state of consciousness and retrieve ideas from (the gods, the aliens, the subconscious mind, the brain's higher intelligence, etc).

Posted by: @wellreadwellbred

That is, what Aleister Crowley wrote concerning any number[-s] with respect to his Thelema and his The Book of the Law, conveys his meaning[-s] of any such number[-s], according to him as the ultimate and supreme authority relating to said Thelema, and relating to the said The Book of the Law.

Well, I feel we are coming full circle, because although we are following the same tract, Crowley's own writings contain contradictions.

For example, even you claim Crowley can't be trusted about an higher intelligence informing Liber al Vel Legis, Aiwass, as the author of Liber al Vel Legis, but it was his own ideas.

Posted by: @wellreadwellbred

As for your statement that his The Book of the Law predicts "that Crowley cannot know the meaning all.", I fully agree to "that Crowley cannot know the meaning all.", in the sense that he obviously "cannot know the meaning all.", that it will have for any other reader than himself. 

Well, I am not the one asserting that Crowley does not know the all and especially the secret word, it is Liber al Vel Legis itself that makes that claim, thus another contradiction.

If I follow the text itself, the text allows for meaning to be obtained in Liber al Vel Legis that is intended for the audience to discover, yet beyond the scope of the prophet's knowledge and understanding.

That is what Liber al Vel Legis claims.

By the way, what ever happened to the Eight and Ninety Rules of Art?

Wasn't Crowley supposed to expand on that, but never did?

 

 

"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
Sanguine Chuck
(@sangewanchuck56)
Member
Joined: 8 months ago
Posts: 467
Topic starter  
Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

(Double post apology)

I couldn't have said it better myself.

I just realized something perhaps of minor significance to Crowley and math and this thread and not sure why this was not connected earlier.

The "Aleph" numbers, Aleph Naught and Aleph One, in Set Theory, a branch of mathematics.

and

Aleph Naught is something close to what this thread opens with, the infinite sets of all types of numbers as the teaching tool of Nuit to arrive at Sunyata (Zero in sanskrit).

Aleph One is a bit over my head still, I can't seem to frame it in my own language, so my understanding is very poor (apologies) but here is the Wiki

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleph_number#Aleph-nought

What I didn't realize was this was likely defined in Crowley's lifetime, prior to Liber al Vel Legis. I thought Set Theory was more recent, like mid 20th century.

The mathematician, Georg Cantor, was likely someone who would have caught Crowley's attention, consider;

Cantor's theory of transfinite numberswas originally regarded as so counter-intuitive – even shocking – that it encounteredresistancefrom mathematical contemporaries such asLeopold KroneckerandHenri Poincaré[3]and later fromHermann WeylandL. E. J. Brouwer, whileLudwig Wittgensteinraisedphilosophical objections. Cantor, a devoutLutheran,[4]believed the theory had been communicated to him by God.[5]SomeChristian theologians(particularlyneo-Scholastics) saw Cantor's work as a challenge to the uniqueness of the absolute infinity in the nature of God[6] – on one occasion equating the theory of transfinite numbers withpantheism[7] – a proposition that Cantor vigorously rejected.

I'm not sure why the Hebrew letter was chosen by Cantor, but it very well could be this is what Crowley was designing off of.

But we can see that at the time, a signature of philosophy and ideology was mathematics as the teaching tool, apply maths to philosophy and the mind of God.

It brings a new view to "are they not the Ox, and none by the book" Aleph being the Hebrew letter of Ox and cattle.

 

"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
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1163
 

[Underlining used by me for emphasis:]

 

@hadgigegenraum:

"@wellreadwellbred  I wanted to get back to thanking you for the excellent post, relevant to issues plaguing the thread, and featuring that quote from AC mentioning quietism with backup references from thelemapedia mentioning Molinos."

You're Welcome.

 

Sanguine Chuck @sangewanchuck56:

"Do you believe in magick? By magick I mean that an artist, writer, etc can perform a certain ritual and enter into an expanded state of consciousness and retrieve ideas from (the gods, the aliens, the subconscious mind, the brain's higher intelligence, etc)."

AC's The Book of the Law is certainly written as revealed ( ultimately ) by "... Hoor-paar-kraat." (Chapter 1, verse 7), to which "The Golden Dawn attributed Silence ..."(, as did Aleister Crowley that was initiated in said The Golden Dawn).

( Source: Hoor-par-kraat From Thelemapedia[.] Hor-pa-kraat (Horus the Child, GD: Hoor-par-kraat) - - - http://www.thelemapedia.org/index.php/Hoor-par-kraat )

Within the same book is also written that:

"... Hoor in his secret name and splendour is the Lord initiating." (Chapter 1, verse 49.), that "If Will stops and cries Why, invoking Because, then Will stops an does naught." (Chapter 2, verse 30), that "If Power asks why, then is Power weakness." (Chapter 2, verse 31), "Success is thy proof: argue not; convert not; talk not over much!" (Chapter 3, verse 42), that "Ra Hoor Khut" is "... the strength, force, vigour, of your arms." (Chapter 3, verse 17.), and "the Hawk-Headed Lord of Silence & of Strength;". (Chapter 3, verse 70.)

That is, doing your Will, silently and successfully, is the core message of this book.(Irrespective of what you claim it claims):

(Sanguine Chuck @sangewanchuck56:) "... If I follow the text itself, the text allows for meaning to be obtained in Liber al Vel Legis that is intended for the audience to discover, yet beyond the scope of the prophet's knowledge and understanding.

That is what Liber al Vel Legis claims.

By the way, what ever happened to the Eight and Ninety Rules of Art?

Wasn't Crowley supposed to expand on that, but never did?"

 

Sanguine Chuck @sangewanchuck56: "I feel we are coming full circle, because although we are following the same tract, Crowley's own writings contain contradictions.

For example, even you claim Crowley can't be trusted about an higher intelligence informing Liber al Vel Legis, Aiwass, as the author of Liber al Vel Legis, but it was his own ideas."

As already stated by me in this posting, and also indicated by me earlier in this thread, Aleister Crowley authored his The Book of the Law based on his own ideas (some derived from his time in The Golden Dawn), so as to make it appear that it was revealed ( ultimately ) by "... Hoor-paar-kraat.", to which said The Golden Dawn attributed Silence, as did he.

 


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1163
 

[Underlining used by me for emphasis:]

Sorry for chain posting, but I must improve this sentence used by me in this thread:

"That is, doing your Will, silently and successfully, is the core message of this book."

My improved version for said sentence is: 

"That is, doing your Will, quietistically and successfully, is the core message of this book [ = AC's BOTL]." ( As doing your Will, can of course, involve, audible or noisy activities.

https://www.lashtal.com/forums/thelema/crowley-and-his-usages-of-maths-and-formulas-in-thelema/paged/4/#post-117529 The preceding hyperlink leads to a earlier posting by me in this thread, about the importance of quietism to Aleister Crowley's Thelema. 

" ... Book Four (1912), [is] Crowley’s most articulate exposition of his ideas about magick. [...] It was in this book that Crowley added the “k” to magic. [...]

The key to genius is quieting the mind. [...] Here Crowley hits on the key: concentration of the mind, something he learned from Eckenstein and Allan Bennett. [Before he authored his The Book of the Law, based on what he learned from them.] Although the second half of the book is a brilliant exposition of the philosophy and symbolism of magick, one feels that after this central insight, all the paraphernalia of ceremony and ritual are unnecessary. Crowley himself had grasped this during his Augoeides invocations in China; he didn’t need his magical instruments because he could do everything in his mind. But if the mind can do that, what else might it do?

Crowley didn’t get the hint, and this is what’s frustrating about him; he often grabs hold of an important insight, but drops it and falls back into the “satanizing” and rebellion that he knows is unnecessary. Concentrating the mind does not require Aiwass or thelema or doing what you wilt, nor even Buddhism, just patience, effort, solitude, and time. For all his being the “spirit of solitude,” Crowley spent very little time alone—some of his “magical retirements” were taken at the best hotel in town. He was practically always surrounded by people, an example, perhaps, of his following the small part of himself rather than the great. "

( Source: Gary Lachman, Aleister Crowley: Magick, Rock and Roll, and the Wickedest Man in the World (New York: Tarcher/Penguin, 2014), pages 172 and 173.)

For Aleister Crowley, "Knowledge and Communication of the Holy Guardian Angel", that is, "contacting your True Self" or "True Will", required performing a medieval ritual called "the Sacred Magic of Abramelin the Mage". And this old fashioned in the sense of out-of-date idea, he held on to until the end of his life:

"He [ = the Holy Guardian Angel] is not, let me say with emphasis, a mere abstraction from yourself; and that is why I have insisted rather heavily that the term “Higher Self” implies “a damnable heresy and a dangerous delusion.”

It it were not so, there would be no point in The Sacred Magic of Abramelin the Mage." 

( Source:  Aleister Crowley's Magick Without Tears, Chapter 43, The Holy Guardian Angel is not the "Higher Self" but an Objective Individual - - - https://hermetic.com/crowley/magick-without-tears/mwt_43  )

 

As for this your thread titled "Crowley and his usages of maths and formulas in Thelema", Aleister Crowley demonstrates ineptitude with respect to maths, in his comments to his The Book of the Law. And as I have found no convincing evidence in line with his claim[-s] that he did not author it himself, based on his own ideas, I find it both pointless and useless to engage with the actual subject matter of this thread.

 


ReplyQuote
Sanguine Chuck
(@sangewanchuck56)
Member
Joined: 8 months ago
Posts: 467
Topic starter  
Posted by: @wellreadwellbred

That is, doing your Will, silently and successfully, is the core message of this book.(Irrespective of what you claim it claims):

Okay, but my question was do you believe in magick? Do you believe that it is possible that humans can perform a ritual or prayer, change their consciousness, and receive insight from any form of "higher intelligence"?

Posted by: @wellreadwellbred

As already stated by me in this posting, and also indicated by me earlier in this thread, Aleister Crowley authored his The Book of the Law based on his own ideas (some derived from his time in The Golden Dawn), so as to make it appear that it was revealed ( ultimately ) by "... Hoor-paar-kraat.", to which said The Golden Dawn attributed Silence, as did he.

I understand that you post your interpretations of Liber al across various locations on this forum.

I can only determine from your answers that you do not believe in Magick, and you do not believe the claims dictated in Liber al Vel Legis.

Which is cool with me, seriously bro! 

Posted by: @wellreadwellbred

"That is, doing your Will, silently and successfully, is the core message of this book."

 

What does that actually mean tho?

Posted by: @wellreadwellbred

The preceding hyperlink leads to a earlier posting by me in this thread, about the importance of quietism to Aleister Crowley's Thelema. 

Yes, volumes and volumes were written about Thelema under the influence of cocaine and hash, an irony quite under appreciated in our discussion.

I guess if your will is a selfish one, and only gives you insight about YOU and not the world, therefore providing you with nothing to share of any value with others, then silence it best is!

But if your true will provides you something of interest and benefit for the world, then your approach to quietism is quite self defeating out the gate.

I don't believe the Great Work cares for our selfish and quiet illumination, I believe the Great Work is about building a super civilization, great art and great science which can create a great humanity.

Crowley called the global true will the transformation of the world into "the tabernacle of the Holy Ghost".

Check it out, great stuff!

 

"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
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1163
 

[Underlining used by me for emphasis:]

 

Sanguine Chuck @sangewanchuck56: "my question [...] do you believe in magick?"

 

I accept AC's definition of magick as "... causing Change to occur in conformity with Will".

As The Book of the Law, Aleister Crowley's core book for his Thelema, "expressly tells us to forget about anybody else's will, to focus on doing our own, and to “stamp down” (or at least try to) anybody who gets in our way.", this "Thelema is, at the end of all analysis, an individual rather than a social philosophy ..."

( Source: The Ethics of Thelema - - - https://www.erwinhessle.com/writings/theleth.php )

 

Me: "doing your Will, quietistically and successfully, is the core message of ..." Aleister Crowley's core book for his Thelema, his The Book of the Law. 

 

Sanguine Chuck @sangewanchuck56: "What does that actually mean tho?"

 

It means that "doing your Will" according to AC's Thelema, involves quiestistically overcoming the illusion[-s] of your mind, by quieting or stilling the thoughts, ideas, feelings, emotions, and mental images it dreams up, so as to live according to your nature with its inclinations and preferences, and according to what you actually are. 

 

Crowley, introduction to Magick in Theory and Practice:

"The sincere student will discover, behind the symbolic technicalities of this book, a practical method of making himself a Magician. The processes described will enable him to discriminate between what he actually is, and what he has fondly imagined himself to be. [...] Magick will teach him that his mind is playing him traitor."

 

"... Thelema involves not an attainment, in the traditional sense, but a kind of “de-attainment.” One does not attain to a new state or become something different than what one actually is: one sees through the illusion of the mind and lives according to one’s nature. What does this actually, practically mean? There’s nothing remotely occult or supernatural about any of this."

( Source: Monday, June 13, 2011 Skeptical of the True Will? - - - http://thelema-and-skepticism.blogspot.com/2011/06/skeptical-of-true-will.html )


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 6158
 
Posted by: @wellreadwellbred

"expressly tells us to forget about anybody else's will, ...

Okay. But you have selected a quote about "Ethical Thelema," which is similar to "Skeptical Thelema," both of which come from the mind of Erwin Hessle, who is not the best person to be quoting around here when you are attempting to explain yourself.

I mean, you don't want to be associated with The Skeptics. Or do you?

 


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1163
 

[Underlining used by me for emphasis:]

 

Shiva: " I mean, you don't want to be associated with The Skeptics. Or do you? "

 

In this thread I just explained my statement; Doing your Will, quietistically and successfully, is the core message of Aleister Crowley's core book for his Thelema, his The Book of the Law.

The latter book supports that you doing this Will, overrules what others may say (or think) about you: 

" 42. Let it be that state of manyhood bound and loathing. So with thy all; thou hast no right but to do thy will. 43. Do that, and no other shall say nay. 44. For pure will, unassuaged of purpose, delivered from the lust of result, is every way perfect. 45. The Perfect and the Perfect are one Perfect and not two; nay, are none! " 

( Source: Aleister Crowleys's core book for his Thelema, his The Book of the Law, chapter 1. )

Aleister Crowley's core book for his Thelema, The Book of the Law, does also expressly tells you to not fear others:

" 17. Fear not at all; fear neither men nor Fates, nor gods, nor anything. Money fear not, nor laughter of the folk folly, nor any other power in heaven or upon the earth or under the earth. Nu is your refuge as Hadit your light; and I am the strength, force, vigour, of your arms. " 

( Source: Aleister Crowleys's core book for his Thelema, his The Book of the Law, chapter 3. )

This book does, in addition, expressly tells you to laugh at the fear of " Them that seek to entrap thee, to overthrow thee, ... ":

" 42. The ordeals thou shalt oversee thyself, save only the blind ones. Refuse none, but thou shalt know & destroy the traitors. I am Ra-Hoor-Khuit; and I am powerful to protect my servant. Success is thy proof: argue not; convert not; talk not over much! Them that seek to entrap thee, to overthrow thee, them attack without pity or quarter; & destroy them utterly. Swift as a trodden serpent turn and strike! Be thou yet deadlier than he! Drag down their souls to awful torment: laugh at their fear: spit upon them! "

( Source: Aleister Crowleys's core book for his Thelema, his The Book of the Law, chapter 3. )


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 6158
 
Posted by: @wellreadwellbred

n this thread I just explained my statement; Doing your Will, quietistically and successfully, is the core message of Aleister Crowley's core book for his Thelema, his The Book of the Law

Okay. When you put it in your own words like that, it's cool.

It only gets "warm" when Erwin is cited as a reference.

 

 


ReplyQuote
Sanguine Chuck
(@sangewanchuck56)
Member
Joined: 8 months ago
Posts: 467
Topic starter  
Posted by: @wellreadwellbred

I accept AC's definition of magick as "... causing Change to occur in conformity with Will".

 

Okay, but my question was a bit more specific, do you believe in magick as a form of acquiring inspiration and *ideas* through ritual?

It still appears to me that you do not.

Which is cool, my point is not what you should or should not believe, only that whatever paradigm you are coming from will actually be the "thing" that determines ultimately how you are interpreting Liber Al vel Legis.

Posted by: @wellreadwellbred

It means that "doing your Will" according to AC's Thelema, involves quiestistically overcoming the illusion[-s] of your mind, by quieting or stilling the thoughts, ideas, feelings, emotions, and mental images it dreams up, so as to live according to your nature with its inclinations and preferences, and according to what you actually are. 

 

You don't believe that Liber Al vel Legis and Crowley were keys to obtaining visionary states of being?

Posted by: @wellreadwellbred

... Thelema involves not an attainment, in the traditional sense, but a kind of “de-attainment.” One does not attain to a new state or become something different than what one actually is: one sees through the illusion of the mind and lives according to one’s nature. What does this actually, practically mean? There’s nothing remotely occult or supernatural about any of this."

Well I actually agree with this 100%, this is the "pure state" as well the primordial state in Dzokden.

I'm just not sure why you're keeping the magick out of it, but I love what you're doing with the silence.

I suppose Magick without Magick is Zen for Neurotics, lol

Posted by: @shiva

Okay. But you have selected a quote about "Ethical Thelema," which is similar to "Skeptical Thelema," both of which come from the mind of Erwin Hessle, who is not the best person to be quoting around here when you are attempting to explain yourself.

I don't believe his viewpoint is a true "skepticism". True skepticism in the scientific sense is Philosophical Agnosticism.

"Skeptical Thelema" is more just Thelemic Philosophical Materialism.

His paradigm appears to be rooted in a sense of separation between self and other, and that the mind/consciousness is nothing more than a phenomenon of the human brain.

I'm fine with it I suppose, some things he writes are sharp, but he does appear to take a lot of effort to "hide" the pure materialism of the viewpoint, which perplexes me, and then he wraps it in skepticism. Very odd.

All Science, no Art.

This is why I was asking WellreadWellBread, it appeared to me that the viewpoint they were communicating was simply materialism, or magick without magick.

 

"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
Page 4 / 5
Share: