Crowley is not the ...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Crowley is not the author of Liber AL  

Page 17 / 25
  RSS

 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
13/03/2009 10:21 pm  

Thank you 🙂


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5304
13/03/2009 10:28 pm  

I forget where in the book the quote appears, but I recall that it's connected with a reference to Skeat's Etymological Dictionary. And, following Crowley's lead, we discover that, according to Skeat, "belief" derives from a root meaning "to hold dear" and "to like", which is perhaps rather instructive.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
14/03/2009 1:48 am  

93, Erwin,

Thanks for such lucid posts. This paragraph, I think, cuts to the heart of (at least one point in) the discussion:

"Erwin" wrote:
This is the point I was making to Kyle, that the type of "subconscious mind" which contains these "patterns" contains as much "bad stuff" as it goes "good stuff". As an elementary example, Freud talked about people repressing "bad stuff" down into the subconscious. As another, a hard-coded fear of the dark, fear of rustling noises in the bushes, and fear of being outside of a close-knit group are other tendencies which may be conducive to survival but which may not be conducive to living the kind of lives most people want to.

So you're essentially saying that learning about the Unconscious is only useful if we *already* have (in advance of our investigations) criteria for determining what constitutes the will. Otherwise, we might dredge up repressed memories, traumatic experiences, fears shared by the entire race, instinctual urges, etc. and mistake them for the will.

That makes sense to me. So let's throw the ball back to the other team -- how do supernaturalists determine whether the "communications" they receive actually reveal anything about the will?


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1827
14/03/2009 2:00 am  

Los,

With all due respect, did you not read my response to Erwin on this specific post?

And may I ask: what's with the label

supernaturalists

when it has been repeatedly acknowledged that all which can be exists within the Continuum of Nature, be it fleeting thoughts or the chair you're sitting on?


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1827
14/03/2009 2:16 am  

The "Will" is bound up, one might say, in the "aggregate of experience" which we are, right? And this "aggregate" is composed of all of its sundry planes and levels and dimensions. Forget, for a moment, the endeavors to traffick with "Extraterrestrial Intelligences." To simply go in and begin to "Know Thyself" and explore the make up of the mind and how it is operating and what factors are involved is crucial to getting at some kind of clarity with regards to what we will understand as our "Will." Various aspects of the mind WILL communicate in numerous ways with each other during this process. Some will kick and scream for having been brought into the light of examination, which can be very threatening.

When going into such intrapsychic states of consciousness, there are depths which seem to exceed even the Archetypal Realms of Jung. We are hardly "supernaturalists" in that we see this movement in the Castanedian "Nagual" as still being within the Continuum of Nature. Nor do we just accept (as seems to be suggested by both yourself and Erwin) that whatever comes through is some voice to which we ought bow the knee. Some people may indiscriminately do what the "voices" tell them but I'm not one of them. On the other hand, work on this level CAN yield up information (or "data" as Erwin calls it) which may be put to use in the ongoing movement of the Will. An example would be the years of work and communications resultant from the activities of Nu Isis Lodge. These transmissions became the substance of the text "Wisdom of S'lba, which forms a literary embodiment of the "in-betweeness concepts" with which Grant's is so often concerned. There is a great value to these concepts as they are understood on a deep level and incorporated in our lives. As I've written above, they have, for me, reconciled two seemingly "warring" elements in religious philosophy: the preoccupations with the "Individual" and the "Transpersonal." This is one element which I see of tremendous power in Crowley's Thelema. The idea of "Being" is exchanged for "Going" and these two elements, often set at odds, become twin terminals for the "Going" in which the Will may manifest. "S'lba," then, exists as the creative fruit of such activity and for those who are inclined to its poetics and paradox, it offers insight and fuel into this "engine."


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1827
14/03/2009 2:19 am  

Grant's

that is...Grant's WORK...

Paul, I beg you...please reconsider...the EDIT BUTTON!!!!!!! 🙁


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
14/03/2009 2:23 am  
"kidneyhawk" wrote:
We are hardly "supernaturalists" in that we see this movement in the Castanedian "Nagual" as still being within the Continuum of Nature.

You realize Castaneda's work is fiction, right?


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1827
14/03/2009 2:31 am  

You realize Castaneda's work is fiction, right?

LMAO!

Of COURSE! But some of that fiction has, IMO, some wonderful and truly powerful insights and inspiration. For example, Tales of Power. I began reading that after reading William Burroughs "Retreat Diaries" which I've alluded to in a previous post. Burroughs was talking about the Tonal and Nagual and referenced TOP. Doesn't matter to me at all if Don Juan was a made up character, a fictionalization of someone Castenda knew or whatever. For a book whose "action" is mostly dialogue between "Carlos" and "Don Juan," I found it a very gripping read with some great challenges to me personally.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5304
14/03/2009 3:33 am  

I'm in the fortunate position of having read only the first couple of Castaneda books before learning the "truth" about them and about his prankster style, so I studied the knowing them to be "fiction". And you know what? They were as wise, "real" and instructive for me as anything by at least half the books on Crowley's Required Reading lists.

I'm surprised that Poelzig should imagine that you, Kyle, might not know them to be "fiction", whatever that really means in such a context.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
14/03/2009 3:35 am  

Well, we are chatting with people who believe they are conversing with discarnate intelligences, so I'm not going to assume a clear distinction between fact and fiction.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5304
14/03/2009 3:39 am  

Well, we are chatting with people who believe they are conversing with discarnate intelligences, so I'm not going to assume a clear distinction between fact and fiction.

That's a rather clumsy and cheap insult against someone who has demonstrated his substantial knowledge of such things time and again on this site.

Perhaps I can be forgiven for quoting from my own Chat Block comment a short while ago?

"That song about the Stairway To Heaven? Turns out there wasn't really a woman who was sure, after all. Must be fictional shit from which I can learn nothing."

(Please forgive the expletive.)

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
14/03/2009 3:42 am  

Ok, ok, I'm just breaking balls. 😉

I'll keep closer to the conversation from now on!


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5304
14/03/2009 3:48 am  

And lest we forget, your simultaneous posts on the Chat Box included such charming remarks, apparently addressed to those of us that disagreed with your ill-informed remark about Robert Anton Wilson, that "Maybe you have brain damage from taking drugs and chatting with aliens?"

A smiley sometimes doesn't cut it.

This site doesn't exist just for your territorial pissings.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1827
14/03/2009 3:58 am  

we are chatting with people who believe

Come on, P...give me some "evidence" that I've presented myself as someone who (ahem) "believes." 😉


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1827
14/03/2009 3:59 am  

I'm just breaking balls

To wax "Erwinian":

No.

You're not.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
14/03/2009 4:01 am  

Yes.

I am.

....... 😉

My apologies to kidney and the administration!


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1827
14/03/2009 4:08 am  

My apologies to kidney

How do the Brits put it?

Kidney's just taking the piss...

Poelzig, you can come off as such a cantankerous old scrooge but you DO know that we like having you here, right?

Seriously...it's a "warm fuzzy" from the "supernaturalist."

All is well and, even if you're "not a Thelemite," I think the "As Brothers Fight Ye" still applies. And we've had fun.

Do whatever you want with the

93,

🙂

Kyle


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
14/03/2009 4:48 am  

I dont know Kyle. He dissed RAW. 😯 I dont think Paul is going to be as forgiving as you...

All in good fun, usually... 😉


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
14/03/2009 7:02 am  
"zardoz" wrote:
OK, you want to have an argument about a dictionary definition. Most dictionaries don't define phrases. So what you would do to define 'ad hominem argument' would be to look up 'ad hominem' then look up 'argument' then put the two definitions together.

No, you wouldn't. You'd look somewhere that defined "ad hominem argument". For instance, the very first google result for such a phrase reveals:

"replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim"

Really, it isn't that hard.

"zardoz" wrote:
I note that you haven't produced an outside source to back-up one single statement you've made on this thread.

You don't "note" that at all - you falsely assert it in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. If you actually look through the thread, you'll find all sorts of dictionary definitions, quotations from various Crowley works, and all manner of "outside sources" that I've provided.

"zardoz" wrote:
Maybe you can't?

Maybe you can't read.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
14/03/2009 7:04 am  
"spike418" wrote:
Prevarication

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." - Inigo Montoya


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
14/03/2009 7:08 am  
"sonofthestar@Gmail.com" wrote:
Now when I say internal---consider: the curing of various aliments, and diseases, in one self, or others---without medical intervention.

The power of positive thinking can have a positive effect on "the curing of various ailments", sure, that's been pretty conclusively demonstrated. If "ceremonial means" make you think positively then sure, why not. It's nothing to do with "the power of will", though, just the power of positive thinking.

"sonofthestar@Gmail.com" wrote:
Also, effecting “genetic change” ---but not in the sense of growing extra limbs, eyes or silly structural mutations.

No, I do not accept this kind of "magick" would "work" by effecting change "by the power of will" through "ceremonial means". That's a truly absurd notion.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
14/03/2009 7:24 am  
"kidneyhawk" wrote:
I am a bit taken aback by your above post. Only because you seem to really and truly misunderstand all I've been trying to convey. Perhaps my communication is that poor.

Perhaps it is. All I can go on is what you say. I can't guess what you mean.

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
Or, I am thinking, some of the points I have introduced have gotten lost in the immense amount of detail into which this thread has gone.

I have been very carefully separating those other points from the particular points that I am interested in and focusing on, so no, I do not think this is the case.

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
The thing is, while standing by all that I've expressed previously, I do not find any fundamental disagreement with your post here.

Then I am utterly mystified, because "all that [you've] expressed previously" - on this particular point, at least - completely contradicts my post here, which is precisely what motivated me to write it, despite your odd claims to be seeing "straw men". However, if you are not in fundamental disagreement, then this particular subthread appears to have gone as far as it is going to go.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
14/03/2009 7:28 am  
"herupakraath" wrote:
"Erwin" wrote:
Since this is the home of the Aleister Crowley Society, I'd be interested if anybody could post one - just one - quote from Crowley's over fifty years of work that even hints at "belief" being necessary for magick to "work", rather than saying the exact opposite and exhorting the constant scepticism that he always did.

There are a number of people of shallow wit who do not believe in Magick. - Aleister Crowley, The New Comment on verse II:54 of Liber Legis

I'd still "be interested if anybody could post one - just one - quote from Crowley's over fifty years of work that even hints at 'belief' being necessary for magick to 'work', rather than saying the exact opposite and exhorting the constant scepticism that he always did", because this quote does nothing of the sort, especially when two sentences later comes: "I have identified magick with the art of life." An operating text search function does not replace reading comprehension, unfortunately.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
14/03/2009 7:57 am  
"Los" wrote:
So you're essentially saying that learning about the Unconscious is only useful if we *already* have (in advance of our investigations) criteria for determining what constitutes the will. Otherwise, we might dredge up repressed memories, traumatic experiences, fears shared by the entire race, instinctual urges, etc. and mistake them for the will.

Precisely so, although we doesn't necessarily have to have such criteria strictly "in advance of our investigations" - typically we learn as we go along, learning on the fly to distinguish such things being a primary method of developing these criteria. But at the very least you need an independent faculty for making such observations and distinctions from the beginning, even if you don't necessarily start off being exactly sure how to best employ it.

It's similar to these claims about a will being a "cosmic plan". As I said, even if there were such a "cosmic plan" - and there isn't - there's no guarantee that such a "plan" would be in one's best interests. So, would would have to judge whether such a "plan" would be in one's best interests, and that judgment would have to be made through a faculty independent of that plan. And, that faculty would be capable of making this judgment whether the "cosmic plan" was there or not. So, the idea of a "cosmic plan" is at best completely irrelevant to the question of discovering the will.

Same thing with these "occult practices". Whatever data such practices may generate, the faculty that we use to deduce or infer the will is wholly independent of those practices, so we do not "discover the will" by following such practices, but by using the same faculty we use to make sense of any other data. The practices, in themselves, do not "cause the attainment", and if you could generate sufficient data through alternative means - which you can, which you are usually better off doing, and which you can't avoid doing anyway, although you can certainly try to be studiously inobservant of that data - then the practices themselves would be entirely superfluous. Hence my suspicion that most people who claim to attain after engaging in such practices do so in spite of them, not because of them, since the data they dredge up usually isn't particularly good when placed in comparison with actually observing your own life and the functioning of your own being in the context of that life. This is why occultists who place particular importance on the results of such practices actually end up completely missing the really important data, and going off on a total tangent.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
14/03/2009 8:32 am  
"kidneyhawk" wrote:
Los,

With all due respect, did you not read my response to Erwin on this specific post?

With all due respect, I think this cuts exactly to the heart of your comment about "poor communication". Presuming that you are referring to comments like this:

"Integration isn't simply making all the components one big happy family in the same bed but adjusting those components by acting upon them to create a series of relationships which is condusive to 'what one is actually trying to achieve'."

then this does not address the question "how do supernaturalists determine whether the 'communications' they receive actually reveal anything about the will?" It just asserts that you do, in fact, determine it, in some vague and unspecified way. The whole substance of this point is whether or not that assertion is true. Time and time again, as I've said, you fail to address the question of "how" which I've been repeatedly putting to you, and I've repeatedly pointed out to you that you are omitting to address this, and then you still try to claim you aren't being "understood", or that people are constructing "straw men" to argue against you.

Is there something about this question that is confusing or unclear? Because it's plain at least that if you think you are addressing this question, I'm not the only one who thinks that you aren't. And, to reiterate, it is this question which is the most fundamental of all to the question of "discovering the will" and to Thelema in general. You spend a lot of time talking about investigating the subconscious from various angles, but when it comes to this crucial phase you continually gloss over it and avoid addressing it as if it were a trivial formality. That, right there, is where the problem with "communication" is here.


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1827
14/03/2009 5:40 pm  

Erwin,

Whereas I do not doubt that you've tried to stick to those topics and lines of reasoning which resonate with your own interests, this IS a group discussion and not a one on one debate. I've chosen to introduce and comment on areas which interest ME. And I think all around this running dialogue is quite sprawling, yet overall one with many very interesting points to follow up on.

how do supernaturalists determine whether the 'communications' they receive actually reveal anything about the will?

First off, I cannot explain again why "supernaturalist" is a pigeon hole which needs to be plugged. God, how many times must we state that all of what "is" is within the concept of "nature as a whole." Should something pegged as "supernatural" be later revealed to be part of the natural universe under some other understanding, we aren't surprised. It couldn't be any other way. We know so much about the "natural universe" and we might like to know more, therefore taking actions to inquire. From Psychotherapy to Deep Sea Explorations, we're curious cats.

How do we "know" if communications from beyond, sub-conscious explorations and analysis and so on reveal or help facillitate the True Will?

I'm going to avoid a tidy summary but it is the same way we determine how ANYTHING relates to the True Will. We look at it, give it thought, react to it...we might apply reason, we might have a visceral response...we might do many things and we might simply ACT in the space of moment. And we do this repeatedly.

We could very well go amiss. And we could very will be in the center of Will. So we apply those methods and techniques which we have found, to date, efficacious and keep working it, which is to say, moving through our lives. Do we sit around tallying up judgements as to how well others are "getting it?" We might make our observations, which relate to ourselves. But we are engaged with ourselves here. YOU cannot tell me what my Will is. Not because I'm trying to escape your observations but because we're just two guys chatting on the Internet. I need to rise to the occasion of looking deeply into my fundamental nature and the "self" which has gathered around it. I need to resolve the conflicts between inherited programming and what is yearning for expression and manifestation. There is no one method for this. It should be apparent that I experience things, I induce experiences and select courses of action. I analyze things, I react, I DO. I, like many others, have made decisions and embarked on things which have proven to be wastes of time, counter-productive and so on-as well as things which have been immensely rewarding and have me looking back to say "Yeah! That was right on target." So a life embracing the "True Will" seems to be one where we work to keep that latter category going in relation to how we are and where we would choose to be.

This process, this "thing," Erwin can and does move constantly from one place of experience to another. Be it communion in a deep space of the mind with what is perceived as a disembodied Intelligence, be it in the workplace, be it while chatting on Lashtal...the issue lies more with US than the "environmental condition." We DO act in such a way to create or establish the environment most condusive to our goals-but that determination comes from WITHIN US in the first place.

If we REASON our way to some "knowledge" of what our "True Will" is, the reasoning is not enough. We have to act accordng to the thought or realization. And that action is something other than reason. It's the element in Liber AL which DOESN'T cry "Why?"


ReplyQuote
Proteus
(@proteus)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 243
14/03/2009 6:51 pm  

We DO act in such a way to create or establish the environment most condusive to our goals-but that determination comes from WITHIN US in the first place.

"We cannot remind our readers too often that the Great Initiator comes in Silence to the higher consciousness, and is never a human being, however supernatural and secluded. All that can be done by the servants of the Masters on the physical plane is the preparation of the candidate."
- Dion Fortune from "The Training & Work of an Initiate"

Well said and well said.


ReplyQuote
Tiger
(@tiger)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 1503
14/03/2009 7:32 pm  

Everything can be used, even the agreed upon sanctioned conventional definition of the self can be a tool for awakening.


ReplyQuote
sonofthestar
(@sonofthestar)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 375
14/03/2009 7:41 pm  

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

Kidneyhawk said:
If we REASON our way to some "knowledge" of what our "True Will" is, the reasoning is not enough. We have to act accordng to the thought or realization. And that action is something other than reason. It's the element in Liber AL which DOESN'T cry "Why?

Absolutely, positivily---definative!!!!!!!!!
It is impossible to say it better.

Love is the law, love under will.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
14/03/2009 9:14 pm  
"kidneyhawk" wrote:
Whereas I do not doubt that you've tried to stick to those topics and lines of reasoning which resonate with your own interests, this IS a group discussion and not a one on one debate. I've chosen to introduce and comment on areas which interest ME.

And that's fine, but you can't complain about me "not understanding" you and then turn around and try to imply that you haven't been responding to my points all along. Either you're engaging with this particular point or you aren't. Make your mind up which way you want it.

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
First off, I cannot explain again why "supernaturalist" is a pigeon hole which needs to be plugged. God, how many times must we state that all of what "is" is within the concept of "nature as a whole."

And how many times do you need to be told? People use the term "supernatural" to refer to things which are not "within the concept of nature as a whole", like demons, telepathy, and all the other nonsense.

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
Should something pegged as "supernatural" be later revealed to be part of the natural universe under some other understanding, we aren't surprised.

But until that improbable time comes, we properly label it as "supernatural".

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
I'm going to avoid a tidy summary but it is the same way we determine how ANYTHING relates to the True Will. We look at it, give it thought, react to it...we might apply reason, we might have a visceral response...we might do many things and we might simply ACT in the space of moment. And we do this repeatedly.

This is a complete non-answer. "Look at it" how? "Give it thought" how? How does "having a visceral response" determine anything? How does "simply ACT[ing]" determine anything?

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
We could very well go amiss. And we could very will be in the center of Will. So we apply those methods and techniques which we have found, to date, efficacious and keep working it,

You cannot tell if any methods and techniques have been "efficacious" unless you have some criteria for determining whether or not something is in accordance with will in the first place. This is a circular definition.

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
I, like many others, have made decisions and embarked on things which have proven to be wastes of time, counter-productive and so on-as well as things which have been immensely rewarding and have me looking back to say "Yeah! That was right on target." So a life embracing the "True Will" seems to be one where we work to keep that latter category going in relation to how we are and where we would choose to be.

Finally, something resembling an answer. So your implication is that "true will" boils down to those things that you feel are "rewarding" and that feel "on target" for that reason?


ReplyQuote
sonofthestar
(@sonofthestar)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 375
15/03/2009 1:17 am  

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

The process of rationalization---is only one important function of the entire mental process. It is indeed used, quite often---in dealing with the circumstances, and events leading to the realization that there is True Will.
And, it is indeed used, quite often---in various stages of the implementing of one’s true will.
But, it is not to be crowned King, and sole provider of the criteria for discovering and implementing the true will.
It is not the be all/end all process; at some point, it must step aside---as the purity of true will manifest itself. If it does not, then it is transformed, into no thing more than the incessant chattering of analytical tape rewinding, which if listened to---only circumvents the very things it was once useful for.
In such a place as that, one can only reason, whilst will does naught.

Reasoning will only get the adept so far: it will not take him across the abyss.
If he has truly passed the ordeal of the abyss, then “reason” has indeed fulfilled its useful functions “before” his stay there;
Rationalization, will have been altogether superceded, and ‘incorporated” into a far superior mode of mental processing.
However superior, and developed the adept’s reasoning is, it will not serve him one iota, when encountering the ordeal of the abyss. The means to get through it all has been adequately given in the works of AC. It is this very ordeal in fact, where he will learn the folly of his reasoning!
But was he not supposed to understand all this before the ordeal?
If reason fails him, in a place where it is in fact turned against him, what is it then, which shall not fail him? Who in fact, can understand this mystery?

The adept does not need to explain, or justify the process through which he manifests his will, to anyone! Even his superiors, can only guide him so far. He or she, can only do, and must only do---certain singular aspects of the work---alone.

Love is the law, love under will.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
15/03/2009 1:27 am  

Erwin is not the one with the language problems in this thread.


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1827
15/03/2009 1:37 am  

Erwin is not the one with the language problems in this thread

Well, Poelzig, why don't you have a go at this, instead of perpetually offering slights and one-liners. I realize that you are not a "Thelemite" but I'm curious (since you ARE floating about on Lashtal.com of all places!): what do YOU think of this whole "True Will" business?

Do you think you've got one and that Liber AL was at least "right" with "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law?"

I may have another question for you after you answer that.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5304
15/03/2009 2:27 am  

Moderator's Note

"Poelzig" wrote:
Erwin is not the one with the language problems in this thread.

Poelzig,

At least your last dozen or so posts on this thread have been primarily or exclusively intended to insult one or more members here, with little regard to the discussion taking place. Many of your remaining posts appear to add nothing to the thread beyond demonstrating how impressed you are with Erwin's posts.

As a result, your activity on this thread fails to comply with the Guidelines:

Personal attacks and threats will not be tolerated. Offensive or abusive behaviour is not permitted: contributions must be constructive and polite.

Your authority to participate on the Forums without first submitting posts to me by Private Message for pre-moderation is therefore revoked for the time being:

All members of LAShTAL.COM have the authority to post on the Forums provided the post has been submitted to the site's appointed representatives for consideration. It is the current policy of LAShTAL.COM that this requirement for pre-moderation is waived for as long as the member demonstrates willingness and ability to comply with these Guidelines. In other words, authority to post without pre-moderation is a concession, not a right of membership. The site's appointed representatives reserve the right at any time, and without notice, to withdraw any or all members' rights to post without pre-moderation.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
15/03/2009 2:37 am  

Hi, One and All,
KidneyHawk-Sonofthe star:-' That part of liber Al that does not cry- why?'
A safe and sound point for discussion, quotes from Liber Al, will be avoided, if poss. ('Dogma' alert! Careful Draco)
" I sat in Meditation, a Tibetan Bhuddist Godform the object. Suddenly, I became aware of the third presence-What? I became aware of-My consciousness-The consciousness now inhabiting the statue.
And a third consciousness, The Knower, is what I illustrate. The Bhuddist, without attraction, or repulsion, does transcend the reason, leaving previous experience, and experiencing
this state. I adored, my idol was the adored, two modes of Being, of opposite nature.
Given time, One did rise, and did look down upon the adorer, active, and the adored, accepting, passively, I, was above, and beyond these states. (You asked why, not how.)
I grew used to being The Knower, in various inner plane situations, e.g. I have asked that
a certain Human trait, an 'evil' that occurs in our world, be explained to Me.
As the knower, I observed a scenario, which would disgust any decent person. Yet I felt nothing, other than interest. Upon coming to My waking state, I realized the meaning of the knowers
observation.
To My mind, parts of Liber Al consider this.
Perhaps this may aid, in a small facet, our understanding of The point raised.
Of course, as stated, The True Guru, and indeed, the true font of wisdom are within, we can only point to a star with a stick, that we have a reference point, for discussion, of that which personal experience alone, provides the answer.
And so, I noticed some chatter in between some fascinating points posted by KidneyHawk, quoted by Erwin, and realised that the occasional resident skeptic is making His point, a great idea. I've heard of Him, yet He hasnt tried to destroy my opinion! Erwin! ERWIN, HI!!! I'm an easy debate!
I talk with discarnate entities; One, most wondrous Being, did teach me much, giving me Her name. I could cite numerous examples, the Greatest, I had a conversation with another 'supernatural' Being, I declared that this magnificent Being was simply an external part of my subjective nature. The Being strongly disagreed, indeed, study showed 'IT' to be a Being, thousands of years old.
Well, I don't believe anything I haven't experienced, but I keep an open mind, and listen, every man has a tale to tell.
Please, Dear Erwin The Sceptic, enlighten Me as to your way of thinking!
Serenity, One and All.


ReplyQuote
Proteus
(@proteus)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 243
15/03/2009 3:13 am  

How does "simply ACT[ing]" determine anything?

Indulge me in a long quote from Liber 633 that seems to be quite appropriate to this thread (while skilfully endorsing neither mystic nor the occultist!):

"But this is a general objection of the sceptical sort to all miracles of whatever kind, and leadeth anon into the quagmire of arguments about Free Will. The adept will do better to rely upon The Book of the Law, which urgeth constantly to action. Even rash action is better than none, by that Light: let the magician then argue that his folly is part of that natural order which worketh all so well.

And this may be taken as a general license to perform any and every miracle according to one's will.

The argument has therefore been swung to each extreme; and like all arguments, ends in chaos.

The above concerning true miracles; but with regard to false miracles the case is altogether different."


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5304
15/03/2009 3:22 am  
"Proteus" wrote:
Indulge me in a long quote from Liber 633 that seems to be quite appropriate to this thread

That's De Thaumaturgia, by the way.

From the same Liber: O, My Brethren, even as every dog is allowed one bite, so let every wonder-worker be allowed one miracle. For it is right that he should prove his new power, lest he be deceived by the wile and malice of the apes of Choronzon.

Seems appropriate in the current context...

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1827
15/03/2009 3:51 am  

lest he be deceived by the wile and malice of the apes of Choronzon

Funny you should cite this, Paul...as I thought I could smell Choronzon earlier today on this thread (with full acknowledgement that KG and AC write on the Big C with some differing perspective).

Endless argument, endless reasoning, endless picking apart of words and ideas...and while I'm busy trying to politely "satisfy" Erwin's continuous request: "But how do you KNOW?" I am doing NOUGHT.

Son of the Star had a very valid point:

The adept does not need to explain, or justify the process through which he manifests his will, to anyone!

It is my perspective and feeling that we DO owe it ourselves, as "Stars," to rise to the challenges set before us. To embrace criticism and other views and challenges to our ways of operating...and from this stance, I really like what Erwin offers. But at the end of the day, I like Erwin as something which helps sharpen the sword-but is not the sword itself.

Perhaps the ultimate answer is I DON'T "KNOW" IN A WAY WHICH CAN SATISFY THE WORLD WITH "EVIDENCE" AND A "REASONABLE EXPLANATION" WHAT MY REAL AND TRUE WITH ACTUALLY IS. And attempting to do so, I am thinking, is a hindrance to the lauded "discovery and doing of the Will." In a wholly non-technical sense, we simply do our best and keep on pushing it. Keep questioning, maintain skepticism and keep opening in the most effective ways we know how to be truly ourselves. "Success may be our proof" but aren't we also working without "Lust of Result" (that is "Lust of Success?").

I think all the literature out there, from Crowley to Hessle, which can offer suggestions and ideas that might take seed in the mind and allow it to open where its closed, letting the "Latent Light" awaken and shine through, are worth reading and may help the process. But the "process" WAS given expression in that enigmatic text called Liber AL in poetic terms, meant to stir Gnosis of the Will. "Leaping Laughter." How rational is THAT?

It's time for some "Fresh Fever." Cheers to Son of the Star for a due reminder, Proteus and Paul for some apropo citations from someone who understood what we've been discussing and Erwin...it's been fun even if you feel that it's been "annoying."

I'll let you talk to some other people now.

93,

Kyle


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1827
15/03/2009 3:53 am  

TRUE WITH

TRUE WILL...as if my typo need clarification...sigh.


ReplyQuote
Palamedes
(@palamedes)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 450
15/03/2009 5:06 am  

I picked up last night the second volume of "Blake and Tradition" by Kathleen Raine (Princeton: University Press, 1968), and the first paragraph seemed strangely appropriate to these discussions. Let me make it clear that although I agree totally with the position of the author, I do not imply by this quote criticism of any one person. Interestingly enough, it concerns the figure of Urizen, recently referred to by kidneyhawk in one of the earlier posts in this thread:

"In the figure of Urizen and the myths that belong to him Blake has personified conceptual or discursive reason, dianoia [in Greek letters in the original]; or rather, he has given form and expression to the state of the soul governed by the belief that all knowledge is based upon the ratio of the five senses. But Urizen is not presented through his arguments; we are not given to read those 'books' that he writes with his iron pen'; he is presented to us as a mode of being. The final argument against the positivist is not the breaking down of his own arguments but the clear perception of his disastrous limitations, his monstrosity. Urizen, wise in his own estimation, is consistent by his own standards; but 'he who defines himself is not thereby clear.' Urizen is revealed, by Blake, in all his limitations, anxious and unhappy in himself and a tyrant when he governs a soul or a society" (p. 1).


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
15/03/2009 6:42 am  

Yes, excellent citatons from De Thaumaturgia... I never cease to be amazed when seeing what looks like precognition in Crowley's writings - I'm assuming he wrote it ? Can't think of a better example than this thread for what he wrote there in 633. Kind of eerie in a way...


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
15/03/2009 10:07 am  

Dear TRUE THELEMITES!
Hi, short of time, I'm off to see if I need a foot lopping off. My liver.......
*I want Erwin and his ilk to reinforce their opinions right now-I suspect they subconsciously know it's real, and that scares them away.
When Homo-Sapiens realises we're here, will the bad old days return?
There must be time of conflict, Prepare!
Therion stated, make your fortress fully manifest. (As though a conjuration made visible)
HA! It's such fun, now! I suggest planning, instigate radical action if needs be.
And by the way, 'Dynamic active expression' as mentioned above, is, to my mind, the only way of positive progression.
GOOD 'LUCK!'
Hope to peek in soon.
D.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
15/03/2009 1:18 pm  
"kidneyhawk" wrote:
Endless argument, endless reasoning, endless picking apart of words and ideas...and while I'm busy trying to politely "satisfy" Erwin's continuous request: "But how do you KNOW?" I am doing NOUGHT....Perhaps the ultimate answer is I DON'T "KNOW" IN A WAY WHICH CAN SATISFY THE WORLD WITH "EVIDENCE" AND A "REASONABLE EXPLANATION" WHAT MY REAL AND TRUE WITH ACTUALLY IS.

If that is the "ultimate answer", then your position is that the first part of the general Thelemic injunction to "(1) Find out what is thy Will. (2) Do that Will" is not reasonably possible, that by implication the second part is also therefore not reasonably possible except by sheer chance, that Thelema in its entirety is essentially meaningless, and that at the very least these occult practices that you have been speaking of do not appear to have brought you any closer to being able to know and do your will. The standards of "evidence" and "reasonable explanation" which would be sufficient to satisfy yourself should be no less rigorous than the standards which would be sufficient to "satisfy the world" if it had equal access to such evidence.

"One must find out for oneself, and make sure beyond any doubt, 'who' one is, 'what' one is, 'why' one is...One cannot do one's True Will intelligently unless one knows what it is." - Magick in Theory and Practice

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
I'll let you talk to some other people now.

As you wish. The point appears to have now been made in any case.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
15/03/2009 1:25 pm  
"Draconuit" wrote:
Erwin! ERWIN, HI!!!

Hello there, attention-seeking guy.

"Draconuit" wrote:
I've heard of Him, yet He hasnt tried to destroy my opinion!

Primarily because I have not yet been able to discern such a thing in amongst your bizarre word salad.

"Draconuit" wrote:
Dear Erwin The Sceptic, enlighten Me as to your way of thinking!

Certainly. Just read any of my words, either here or on my website - that's what they're there for. There's a fair amount of material in this very thread if you want an easy way to get started. If you have any questions, you know where to find me.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3951
15/03/2009 2:43 pm  
"Iskandar" wrote:
"In the figure of Urizen and the myths that belong to him Blake has personified conceptual or discursive reason, dianoia [in Greek letters in the original]; or rather, he has given form and expression to the state of the soul governed by the belief that all knowledge is based upon the ratio of the five senses. But Urizen is not presented through his arguments; we are not given to read those 'books' that he writes with his iron pen'; he is presented to us as a mode of being. The final argument against the positivist is not the breaking down of his own arguments but the clear perception of his disastrous limitations, his monstrosity. Urizen, wise in his own estimation, is consistent by his own standards; but 'he who defines himself is not thereby clear.' Urizen is revealed, by Blake, in all his limitations, anxious and unhappy in himself and a tyrant when he governs a soul or a society" (p. 1).

Interesting quote, Iskandar; thanks. I've not read this work by Kathleen Raine, but I'll look out for it. Those within reach of London might like to note that there is a talk at Treadwells this coming Wednesday on "Why Mrs Blake Cried" by Marsha Keith Schuchard, who wrote an excellent book of the same title a few years ago.

I have dipped in and out of this thread over the past week or so, found a few interesting points amongst the pugilism. I sympathise with those who wish to debunk in the absence of evidence, but only up to a point. I make my own enquiries and have evolved my own criteria - which I'm happy with - for sifting the wheat from the chaff. In this sifting I use an amalgam of intuition and logic, which includes paying attention to the views of others too, but in the final analysis I pay as much or as little attention as I see fit.

It is my opinion that, like Brahma, we're simultaneously the totality as well as the myriad aspects of totality, and initiation is a matter of a growing realisation of that. Doesn't seem very logical, does it? Then again, I consider that logic is one tool amongst several, not the ultimate.

There is an argument, I suppose, that people are liable to be led astray by these and similar remarks into a belief in "the supernatural". People have to make up their own minds, evolve their own standards of proof; we don't need some nanny-figure telling us what we should believe and what we shouldn't.

😀

Best wishes,

Michael.


ReplyQuote
alysa
(@alysa)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 655
15/03/2009 3:11 pm  

Very much looking forward for the Marcha Schuchard talk at Treadwell's, only wish to add that it's not this Wednesday, it's on the 25 of March.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
15/03/2009 3:19 pm  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
There is an argument, I suppose, that people are liable to be led astray by these and similar remarks into a belief in "the supernatural".

It isn't just a "belief in the supernatural" that people have to worry about. As we've seen, people invest a lot of time and effort into this concept of "will", into practices which they believe to be helping them to discover and do it, but it turns out that, and the end of analysis, they don't really have a good idea of what "will" even is, beyond vague feelings about things that seem "rewarding". When faced with this realization, they start invoking ideas of "Choronzon" so that they can maintain that it is the process of analysis itself which is the problem, not their lack of knowledge about what they're actually doing, and that it's better to "know your will" by not knowing it at all because it's less overtly disturbing that way.

That's what happens when you relax your critical faculties - you end up believing that you are doing things that you actually aren't, and constructing big elaborate stories about the world and what you're doing that bear little resemblance to how it actually is and what you actually are, regardless of whether or not the beliefs involved pertain to the "supernatural". Now that's fine if you want to do that sort of thing, but it's futile to claim that you're involved in some kind of meaningful "exploration" or coming to "greater levels of understanding" about your own being if that's what you're doing. Unlike actual supernatural claims, these sorts of beliefs can potentially evade a lack of evidence indefinitely due to them relating almost entirely to the "subjective self", which is why skepticism is even more important to these matters, and why relying on "intuition" precisely because it is "subjective" is about as backwards as it's possible to get, because that's going to end up confirming subjective appearances, not actually investigating them.

"MichaelStaley" wrote:
People have to make up their own minds, evolve their own standards of proof; we don't need some nanny-figure telling us what we should believe and what we shouldn't.

You can't help but to "evolve your own standards of proof" - nobody else can inject standards of proof directly into your head, however attractive that idea may sometimes appear. You evolve those standards by learning about various approaches to the subject. Somebody who suggests that people relax their "standards of proof" and instead to rely on vague feelings and "intuition" if it makes them feel better is being just as much of a "nanny-figure" as somebody who suggests that they don't, as far as how to set their "standards of proof" goes; they're just being a more comforting and self-affirming nanny, is all, a nanny who'd prefer her wards to remain perpetually at home within a great big warm hug.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3951
15/03/2009 5:09 pm  
"alysa" wrote:
Very much looking forward for the Marcha Schuchard talk at Treadwell's, only wish to add that it's not this Wednesday, it's on the 25 of March.

Good God, yes! Not this coming Wednesday, but the Wednesday after. Thanks for pointing that out, alysa; otherwise I might well have turned up at Treadwells, or at the very last have led people astray.

Best wishes,

Michael.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
15/03/2009 7:31 pm  
"Erwin" wrote:
It isn't just a "belief in the supernatural" that people have to worry about. As we've seen, people invest a lot of time and effort into this concept of "will", into practices which they believe to be helping them to discover and do it, but it turns out that, and the end of analysis, they don't really have a good idea of what "will" even is, beyond vague feelings about things that seem "rewarding". When faced with this realization, they start invoking ideas of "Choronzon" so that they can maintain that it is the process of analysis itself which is the problem, not their lack of knowledge about what they're actually doing, and that it's better to "know your will" by not knowing it at all because it's less overtly disturbing that way.

It is possible to formulate a True Will without having to articulate the 'concept of will' just as it's possible to use electricity to great effect without knowing exactly what it is. The presumption that someone doesn't know what they're doing because they can't convince you seems egocentric.

"Erwin" wrote:
That's what happens when you relax your critical faculties - you end up believing that you are doing things that you actually aren't, and constructing big elaborate stories about the world and what you're doing that bear little resemblance to how it actually is

Nice to hear someone knows "how it actually is." Einstein and Neils Bohr carried on a debate for years on "how it actually might be" without reaching any conclusions. Too bad you weren't around to enlighten them.

"Erwin" wrote:
Now that's fine if you want to do that sort of thing, but it's futile to claim that you're involved in some kind of meaningful "exploration" or coming to "greater levels of understanding" about your own being if that's what you're doing. Unlike actual supernatural claims, these sorts of beliefs can potentially evade a lack of evidence indefinitely due to them relating almost entirely to the "subjective self", which is why skepticism is even more important to these matters, and why relying on "intuition" precisely because it is "subjective" is about as backwards as it's possible to get, because that's going to end up confirming subjective appearances, not actually investigating them.

You're right, skepticism is important when investigating the authenticity of one's experience including intuitive cognitions. I didn't hear anyone say it wasn't nor did I hear anyone say they unquestioningly trust their intuition without some kind of verification. Intuition is a faculty that grows and develops with experimentation and use, in my experience. Exclusively intellectual 'thinking about things' seems to occlude any kind of intuitional ability.

"MichaelStaley" wrote:
People have to make up their own minds, evolve their own standards of proof; we don't need some nanny-figure telling us what we should believe and what we shouldn't.

You can't help but to "evolve your own standards of proof" - nobody else can inject standards of proof directly into your head, however attractive that idea may sometimes appear. You evolve those standards by learning about various approaches to the subject. Somebody who suggests that people relax their "standards of proof" and instead to rely on vague feelings and "intuition" if it makes them feel better is being just as much of a "nanny-figure" as somebody who suggests that they don't, as far as how to set their "standards of proof" goes; they're just being a more comforting and self-affirming nanny, is all, a nanny who'd prefer her wards to remain perpetually at home within a great big warm hug.

Much of this thread appears like certain members demanding conformity to some commonly accepted standard of proof. The suggestion to evolve one's own standards of proof is a very good one.


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1827
15/03/2009 7:47 pm  

It is possible to formulate a True Will without having to articulate the 'concept of will' just as it's possible to use electricity to great effect without knowing exactly what it is. The presumption that someone doesn't know what they're doing because they can't convince you seems egocentric.

This is true and well put, zardoz.

I have tried repeatedly to indicate that we determine what our "Will" is by our

own standards of proof

which as you indicate should be something that can and does

evolve

I have furthermore tried to indicate as plainly as possible that the many components of what we are come into play in this process, both the "figuring out" and the making it manifest. I think Michael put it extremely well and as clearly and simply as possible when he wrote:

In this sifting I use an amalgam of intuition and logic, which includes paying attention to the views of others too, but in the final analysis I pay as much or as little attention as I see fit.

This seems to me to be more of an effective route of action than material meant for endless "debate."

Which is, as I see it, the application of the whole "True Will" concept.

If someone feels compelled to endlessly call that clinging to a "Nanny," that's fine. But it no longer serves the purpose of critically examining and actually working with the "Will." And that same "Will" asks me to move out of earshot. Presumably to cling to my "Nanny" but in absence of evidence, I don't think such an accusation can really be "proven."


ReplyQuote
Page 17 / 25
Share: