Crowley is not the ...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Crowley is not the author of Liber AL  

Page 19 / 25
  RSS

 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
16/03/2009 7:44 pm  
"IAO131" wrote:
"Erwin" wrote:
occultists usually consider occultism to be about revealing that which is concealed, but in practice what occultism boils down to is taking that which is apparent and going to great lengths to conceal it by resolutely refusing to pay any attention to it in case it results in any actual honest effort being required.

LOL, very funny (because its true) description.

I think a fundamental problem is that many people here simply cannot even say what they think "Will" means. Its often met with "you cant say anything about it" or "knowledge/reason is false" but that makes Thelema meaningless. So long as you cant define Will at all, to my knowledge you are just working off of a set of delusions and calling it Will. The problem is that everyone wants to justify their fantasies by saying its part of their Will. Perhaps someone could concede that 'its just fun even though it might not bear effective results in helping me do my Will' or 'its interesting' and that it doesnt necessarily help one discover or do one's Will at all?

IAO131

Will is doing what you truely love regardless of what you *want*. Love is universal. Want is relative towards yourself. These two principles are embodied within the 2 truths of buddhism. I find Zen and Thelema to be identical in their expression within a human. The truths are not dificult to know or understand - they are just so simple that people overlook them. *simple* rarely adds to an ego image. lol. 🙂


ReplyQuote
sonofthestar
(@sonofthestar)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 375
16/03/2009 7:47 pm  

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

Alrah,

I find that what you say here:

The problem with most communication, and with debates such as this - is that they presuppose that communication with another is the ultimate function of the thought process and it's validation. It is not. It may satisy the ego - it may satisfy for a little while our combatitive natures, it may reinforce our image of ourselves, but it has little to do with what our essential thought process is there for and even - in the wider scheme of things - to what it owes it's alleigence to - which is simply a greater thing it is a party to.

Is actually rather wonderfully breathtaking, in the scope of it's implications!

Love is the law, love under will.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
16/03/2009 8:07 pm  

It's like rock climbing sonofthestar. It's a handhold. A place to rest. A shortcut. There to be used as needed. Functional. 😉

Love under Will.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
16/03/2009 11:06 pm  
"IAO131" wrote:
I think a fundamental problem is that many people here simply cannot even say what they think "Will" means.

I don't recall anyone asking the question here, 'what does Will mean?'

I've been answering the question regarding how to recognize it.

"IAO131" wrote:
Its often met with "you cant say anything about it" or "knowledge/reason is false" but that makes Thelema meaningless.

One can say a lot about it. Why anyone would spend more time talking about it than working with it is something I don't understand, but that's just my opinion.

Reason can be a very valuable tool and is essential to the occultist working within the guidelines of, 'the method of science, the aim of religion.' It's one tool amongst others. It can also be very limiting if that's all you got. Hesse's book Steppenwolf deas with this theme. Gurdjieff said that the 'tree of knowledge' should develop and grow along with the 'tree of being.' The academic scholar generally works at knowledge and neglects being to their detriment.

"IAO131" wrote:
So long as you cant define Will at all, to my knowledge you are just working off of a set of delusions and calling it Will.

I don't follow the logic: if you can't define something then to work with it is delusional. It's making the map more important than the territory.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
16/03/2009 11:18 pm  
"alrah" wrote:
"IAO131" wrote:
"Erwin" wrote:
occultists usually consider occultism to be about revealing that which is concealed, but in practice what occultism boils down to is taking that which is apparent and going to great lengths to conceal it by resolutely refusing to pay any attention to it in case it results in any actual honest effort being required.

LOL, very funny (because its true) description.

I think a fundamental problem is that many people here simply cannot even say what they think "Will" means. Its often met with "you cant say anything about it" or "knowledge/reason is false" but that makes Thelema meaningless. So long as you cant define Will at all, to my knowledge you are just working off of a set of delusions and calling it Will. The problem is that everyone wants to justify their fantasies by saying its part of their Will. Perhaps someone could concede that 'its just fun even though it might not bear effective results in helping me do my Will' or 'its interesting' and that it doesnt necessarily help one discover or do one's Will at all?

IAO131

Will is doing what you truely love regardless of what you *want*.

That definition works for me. The quest-ion then becomes discovering what we truely love.


ReplyQuote
sonofthestar
(@sonofthestar)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 375
16/03/2009 11:57 pm  

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

If I were "defining" true will, in a simple, yet easily understood way

I might simply say The Life expression of a Star, or perhaps
that which is the fulfilling potentency, and potential of every man and every woman.
What could be more simple to understand than that?

When though, in writing about some "functional" aspects of my own personal Will, or in attempting to answer those who are so silly as to conjure up "why, why, why" or "how, how, how" stuff,
I can be as descriptive or non descriptive as I choose;
As poetic, or technical as I choose.
I can use phrases such as "even comes close to" and "only an approximation of something that is not communicable" etc.

Yes, Alrah is indeed quite correct in using the word "Functional".
And so ideed was I in my method of describiing the functionality of my personal will, the way I will to describe it.
Thank you Alrah, your understanding of things, is top notch!

To say that people here cannot say what "Will" means, is simply not even true.
The only thing they are failing to do, is to define will according to the dictates of others. which means they are not failing at all!

Love is the law, love under will.


ReplyQuote
sonofthestar
(@sonofthestar)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 375
17/03/2009 12:00 am  

93!

Right Zardoz, Love must indeed enter the picture if one is to even come close to defining will.
excuse me for posting so fast!

93! 93 93!


ReplyQuote
Aleisterion
(@aleisterion)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 319
17/03/2009 12:01 am  

Erwin wrote: "If you insist on reducing things to "intuition", then no thread can "go anywhere", because "intuition" is a typical dead-end religious excuse designed to stop any process of investigation stone dead by deciding the question on faith. Making references to a non-existing "insight which in [your] opinion goes deeper than logic or reason" is conceptually no different to answering any factual claim about the universe with "God did it."..."

Or perhaps the intelligent mind can locate a happy medium, being rational with regard to mundane matters and yet allowing the will free reign in the fields of creativity and attention to that faculty "deeper than logic or reason". This is the Aleister Crowley Society and it is a fact that Aleister Crowley a) claimed to have realized such a faculty of supernal perception through his experiences with praeterhuman minds and through samadhi; and more vital to the question of this thread, b) claimed that, while he wrote the Book of the Law physically with his own fingers, contributed nothing to the overall content, insisting to the last that it came not from his mind but from Aiwass. Having had some experience myself, I can say with all conviction that he was correct in this. But I don't expect you, Erwin, or anyone else so rigidly confined to the dogma of limited reason, to have had any similar experience; and without that common ground, I could never begin to enable you to understand from whence I come in my own diametrically opposed position, and no amount of argument or exposition (however passionate) can ever help to convey what only interior revelation can do. Which is why I try to stay out of such entanglements these days. I simply felt it important, in whatever small way, to note here that there are those who have found a happy medium in this matter: believing in something without letting that belief take them to an impositional extremism of superstition. There is no room for baseless superstition or gods and their demands for an imagined appeasement in my atheist Theriosophy. All that is praeterhuman is in my view ultimately ourselves, from a certain point of view.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
17/03/2009 12:07 am  

Other than your odd but not unpredictable speculations about my motives, I don't disagree with your presentation, here, but I'm curious as to why you disagree with me here:

"Camlion" wrote:
However, varying audiences require varying approaches to this subject, as is the case with most any subject. Erwin does not want to acknowledge this reality, for reasons of his own.

and then in the very next post turn around and agree with me on that exact same point:

"Camlion" wrote:
I would also like to reiterate what Erwin said in response to certain posters: Thelema is not whatever what wishes it to be, and one's true Will is certainly not whatever one wishes it to be.

ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
17/03/2009 12:13 am  
"Yygdrasilian" wrote:
My understanding of the intuitive faculty of cognition is as means of discerning patterns and, as such, does not exclude logical propositions, but rather allows one to recognize the connections between rationally apprehended concepts and perceptions without having to rely upon logical methods for immediate verification. This isn’t exactly the same thing as ‘faith’ - which presumes the factual truth of one’s belief whether or not it is based on reason.

I don't disagree with any of this. It certainly is "as intrinsic to the processes of thought and perception as reason is", as are other processes. It only turns into "faith" when one attempts to support factual claims with reference to it, which is exactly what Michael asserts that he does. We can "think and perceive" many things without having make factual claims, and it's only when we try to do this that it becomes problematic.


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1827
17/03/2009 12:17 am  

The quest-ion

Nice.

Signed,

A "Grantian." 😉


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
17/03/2009 12:23 am  
"zardoz" wrote:
I did not say the way to know your will is to do your will.

Yes, you did. Observe:

"zardoz" wrote:
The 'how' of knowing True Will is to keep quiet and do it.

Since you brought up a musical analogy, here's what your "method" translates to:

Student: Hi. I'd like to learn 'how' play the piano, please.

Teacher: Sure! Just sit down there on that stool in front of the piano.

Student: OK. Now what?

Teacher: Keep quiet and do it.

Student: Do what?

Teacher. I said keep quiet and do it.

Student: But I don't know what to do.

Teacher: Exactly what part of "keep quiet and do it" are you having difficulties with, here?

Student: The "do" part.

Teacher: What did I just say?

Student: But what do I...

Teacher: Keep quiet and do it!

Student: Look, how am I supposed to "keep quiet" and "do it" at the same time? A piano is a musical instrument. It's supposed to make a noise.

Teacher: Stop cramming it into an intellectual box. Reason is bullshit. Blah blah blah blah di blah.

See? Gibberish.

"zardoz" wrote:
You keep leaving out the "keep quiet" part, a part that bears some resemblance to the idea you mentioned: .".. if you could stop the conscious part of your mind."

But which mysteriously omits to state what you do when it is quiet.

"zardoz" wrote:
The "do it" part of my statement could use some elaboration.

You think?

"zardoz" wrote:
I would gladly do so but it seems I'm answering the wrong question. I thought it was 'how to formulate one's True Will" not how to recognize it in everyday life which assumes that one has a formulation to work from.

No, it was "how" do you determine whether or not what you are doing is, in fact, in accordance with your will, as opposed to not being in accordance with your will.

"zardoz" wrote:
Another funny thing is people who can't remember what they just wrote:

Erwin:
"like you, who cannot describe in a few words what it is and how to recognise it

An observation unrelated to this specific point, but to people's inability to talk sensibly about the concept of will, despite making all kinds of grand claims about it. Pay attention.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
17/03/2009 12:31 am  
"Aleisterion" wrote:
Or perhaps the intelligent mind can locate a happy medium, being rational with regard to mundane matters and yet allowing the will free reign in the fields of creativity and attention to that faculty "deeper than logic or reason".

And that "happy medium" is found by refraining from using any part of the mind other than the rational part to make factual claims, including factual claims about what your will is and whether you are doing it.

Honestly, I'm starting to think that only a handful of people who've responded to me in this thread have bothered to read anything I've written in it.

"Aleisterion" wrote:
All that is praeterhuman is in my view ultimately ourselves, from a certain point of view.

From the "point of view" of it not being "praeterhuman" at all, if it's ultimately human.


ReplyQuote
Proteus
(@proteus)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 243
17/03/2009 12:44 am  

Honestly, I'm starting to think that only a handful of people who've responded to me in this thread have bothered to read anything I've written in it.

quit your whinin'

Honest John


ReplyQuote
IAO131
(@iao131)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 461
17/03/2009 12:54 am  
"zardoz" wrote:
"IAO131" wrote:
I think a fundamental problem is that many people here simply cannot even say what they think "Will" means.

I don't recall anyone asking the question here, 'what does Will mean?'

I've been answering the question regarding how to recognize it.

Its the same epistemological question of how to know what the Will is...

"IAO131" wrote:
Its often met with "you cant say anything about it" or "knowledge/reason is false" but that makes Thelema meaningless.

One can say a lot about it. Why anyone would spend more time talking about it than working with it is something I don't understand, but that's just my opinion.

For the same reason youre on this forum typing right now I would guess which is that you enjoy talking about Thelema and A.C. and such... My point is that everyone is talking about different ideas. Erwin and kidneyhawk and sonofthestar and your and whoever else's definitions of Will appear to be different and so the ideas like "do having visions and such help the Will" only make sense in the context of the meaning of Will.

"IAO131" wrote:
So long as you cant define Will at all, to my knowledge you are just working off of a set of delusions and calling it Will.

I don't follow the logic: if you can't define something then to work with it is delusional. It's making the map more important than the territory.

It is delusional to think that X justifies/helps/anythings the Will if the idea "Will" is meaningless. Its also futile to have a productive discussion. If you touch an electric wire and call it a purple elephant it will still shock you but what is the 'electric wire' in this case? Is it someone's "love" and "not want" like a poster above said vaguely? Is it whats left over after you get past the prejudices of mind and body as mentioned above? If you dont have a definition of Will and yet make claims about it it seems pointless, meaningless, and delusional. Is that clearer?

IAO131


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
17/03/2009 1:02 am  
"Los" wrote:
You correctly note that "will" is what's left over after all restriction is removed, particularly the restriction of the mind and its preferences. Some ritual practices, I think, aim at easing these restrictions. Crowley, in Liber Samekh, notes that the ritual essentially distracts the body and mind of the magician so that the will can leap forward. The same idea underlies a great deal of ritual practice, as well as yoga (mantra yoga springs immediately to mind).

I'd respond to that with three points:

1. "Aiming to do" and "actually doing" are two different things. One of the points I've been making is that people blindly believe that certain practices do what they claim to do (on the rare occasions when they have a clear idea what they claim to do, that is), without having any mechanism for determining whether or not that belief is correct. This does not strike me as a wise way to approach this subject.

2. Even if we accept that these practices do what they claim to do, we're still left with the problem that they contain no hint at all of what one should do once the mind actually has been "distracted". Thus, at best, they are preparations for something else, or general training for distracting the mind at will, both of which can be done far more simply.

3. If these practices do "keep [the mind] busy with imaginative chatter" then you're left with the possibility of the mind being so busy that it can't pay attention to anything once it's been distracted, which would defeat the whole purpose. One could try to claim that there's some other part of the mind which pays attention - i.e. the part that's not "busy" - but since it's the conscious mind that draws conclusions, that part cannot tell us much even if it does exist.

"Los" wrote:
To this objection, I suppose, a practitioner could argue that the "communications" actually don't allow him to discover the will but are in fact activities that it is his will to perform (for artistic inspiration, for example).

Which wouldn't be an "argument" since it argues for a completely unrelated point to the one at hand. At no point during this thread have I made any suggestion whatsoever about whether any particular activity could or could not be somebody's will to do, despite actually having received several "refutations" exactly along the lines you suggested.

"Los" wrote:
If this is the case, then the practitioner must have used other methods for determining his will in the first place. If that's true, then we can agree that "communications" with such intelligences cannot reveal the will to us (or at least cannot do so with any reliability)

Agreed.

"Los" wrote:
Or do you think those Christians waiting for the "second coming" are correct in doing so?

The fact that, over 900 posts into this thread, you still haven't gotten anybody to answer this simple question you must have asked over ten times now is highly revealing, to my mind.


ReplyQuote
Aleisterion
(@aleisterion)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 319
17/03/2009 1:33 am  

Erwin wrote: "And that "happy medium" is found by refraining from using any part of the mind other than the rational part to make factual claims, including factual claims about what your will is and whether you are doing it.
Honestly, I'm starting to think that only a handful of people who've responded to me in this thread have bothered to read anything I've written in it."

But if one realizes that it is a fact, then one is on good enough ground to make the claim, even if there is no overwhelming objective proof. Liber Legis however speaks for itself, gven sufficient study of the facts surrounding it. But full acceptance of the praeterhuman origin of the book requires more than that, one has to really experience it in order to embrace it. But embracing such a thing doesn't mean we have to abandon all reason for superstition that might tend to arise out of the inferior human interpretation of the phenomenon.

Aleisterion wrote: › Select ›‹ Expand
All that is praeterhuman is in my view ultimately ourselves, from a certain point of view.

Erwin wrote: "From the "point of view" of it not being "praeterhuman" at all, if it's ultimately human."

It is praeterhuman (or beyond us) presently, in our current limitation of consciousness -- though occasionally there is a breakthrough, and I think Liber Legis is a particular consequence of such an event.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
17/03/2009 1:44 am  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
Yygdrasilian, I agree with you. However, you are attempting to address someone who a) thinks that logic is the only show in town, and b) prefers to caricature points the easier to dismiss them.

By the way, whoever that guy was who was having problems understanding what an actual, honest-to-goodness "ad hominem argument" really looks like, there's a prime example of one, right there.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
17/03/2009 1:53 am  
"Aleisterion" wrote:
But if one realizes that it is a fact, then one is on good enough ground to make the claim,

And only the rational part of the mind is in any position to "realize that it is a fact", so where are you trying to go with this?

"Aleisterion" wrote:
But full acceptance of the praeterhuman origin of the book requires more than that,

Yes, it requires an abandonment of reason, a wanton disregard for reality, and a plummeting descent into faith.

"Aleisterion" wrote:
But embracing such a thing doesn't mean we have to abandon all reason for superstition

Yes, that's exactly what it means, at the least with regards to that specific claim.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
17/03/2009 1:57 am  
"Erwin" wrote:
Other than your odd but not unpredictable speculations about my motives, I don't disagree with your presentation, here, but I'm curious as to why you disagree with me here:

"Camlion" wrote:
However, varying audiences require varying approaches to this subject, as is the case with most any subject. Erwin does not want to acknowledge this reality, for reasons of his own.

and then in the very next post turn around and agree with me on that exact same point:

"Camlion" wrote:
I would also like to reiterate what Erwin said in response to certain posters: Thelema is not whatever what wishes it to be, and one's true Will is certainly not whatever one wishes it to be.

I think your efforts at communication are deliberately self-defeating, so of course I question your motives. This behavior makes no sense.

In the second quote I agree with you on certain facts regarding Thelema. In the first quote I don't agree that you should present those facts with the same approach or even in the same terms to every audience, or refuse to adapt them to more readily accessible forms.

Its all about communication. I assume from what I see that it is your Will to communicate here, and yet you repeatedly fail to anticipate the most receptive approaches. On top of that, you exhibit hostility toward your audience, insulting them eagerly.

I suppose that you imagine your refusal to compromise in your approach (not in the message but in its delivery) is somehow an effective technique, 'speaking plainly and to the point,' but there is no evidence of successful communication from you here. Rather a shame, because I do think you have some valuable contributions to make to the discussion.


ReplyQuote
Aleisterion
(@aleisterion)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 319
17/03/2009 2:13 am  

Aleisterion wrote: › Select ›‹ Expand
But if one realizes that it is a fact, then one is on good enough ground to make the claim,

Erwin responded: "And only the rational part of the mind is in any position to "realize that it is a fact", so where are you trying to go with this?"

No, the full realization to which I was referring stems from samadhi, not the rational mind.

Erwin wrote: "[full acceptance of the praeterhuman origin of the book] requires an abandonment of reason, a wanton disregard for reality, and a plummeting descent into faith."

Why should it involve an abandonment of reason if it is based on such overwhelming subjective epiphany, rooted in so much circumstantial evidence? The positional is perfectly reasonable, given the complete perspective.

Aleisterion wrote: › Select ›‹ Expand
But embracing such a thing doesn't mean we have to abandon all reason for superstition

Erwin wrote: "Yes, that's exactly what it means, at the least with regards to that specific claim."

Explain how.


ReplyQuote
Aleisterion
(@aleisterion)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 319
17/03/2009 2:14 am  

"Position" not "positional"...


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
17/03/2009 2:25 am  
"Camlion" wrote:
In the second quote I agree with you on certain facts regarding Thelema. In the first quote I don't agree that you should present those facts with the same approach or even in the same terms to every audience, or refuse to adapt them to more readily accessible forms.

No, you're talking about presenting different facts. The "facts" are what they are. "Varying approaches" to those facts can only mean "varying the facts", unless you're talking about using slightly different words, which you aren't.

"Camlion" wrote:
I suppose that you imagine your refusal to compromise in your approach (not in the message but in its delivery) is somehow an effective technique, 'speaking plainly and to the point,' but there is no evidence of successful communication from you here.

Yes. No evidence at all of the most popular thread in LAShTAL.com history - even if you subtract my own contributions to it - where the single most fundamental concept to Thelema has been discussed in a deeper and fuller way than has ever been covered here before (although notably not by you, since your contributions are essentially limited to compulsively agreeing with me all the time, as is usually the case when you and I engage in the same threads - in your case I use the word "engage" in its broadest possible sense, of course), and than ever could be covered by people constantly cherishing each other's cuddly validity and superficially skirting around the issues as you seem to want them to do all the time. No evidence at all of - with the exception of the usual flakes and hardcore religious types - a progressive retreat from the more bizarre of occult claims under the pressure of scrutiny towards the realms of sanity, especially as they pertain to matters of the will. Right. No evidence of successful communication at all.

Sheesh - some people and their idiosyncratic approaches to facts, eh?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
17/03/2009 2:32 am  
"Aleisterion" wrote:
No, the full realization to which I was referring stems from samadhi, not the rational mind.

OK, so you're just mistaken, then. Mystical states are fundamentally incapable of determining facts.

"Aleisterion" wrote:
Why should it involve an abandonment of reason if it is based on such overwhelming subjective epiphany, rooted in so much circumstantial evidence?

It isn't. It's "rooted" in fantasy. Religious experiences are no evidence for anything, as anybody who's spent more than a few minutes investigating the subject would know. To believe that they are requires the abandonment of reason, or at least the application of it in an startlingly inept manner.

"Aleisterion" wrote:
But embracing such a thing doesn't mean we have to abandon all reason for superstition

Erwin wrote: "Yes, that's exactly what it means, at the least with regards to that specific claim."

Explain how.

Because, in order to deliberately go against reason in favour of superstition, you have to abandon reason for superstition. It turns out the clue was in the question, all along.


ReplyQuote
Aleisterion
(@aleisterion)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 319
17/03/2009 3:26 am  

I never said that mystical phenomena determine facts, you demonstrate a tendency to twist things I say to fit your preconceived notions. What I said was that it is samadhi that brings supernal realization.

As for your notion that Aiwass is rooted in fantasy, it is unbelievable the extent to which you seem willing to attribute to coincidence, given the fatcs surrounding the particular case in question. But that aside, your sweeping condemnation of all "religious" experiences (as if you could ever accurately estimate the value of another's experience) says ill of your discernment and alot about your closed mind.

But you failed to answer my question. I asked if you would explain how, in this specific case of Liber Legis, a praeter-rational approach might fall prey to erroneous superstition. It is entirely possible to evolve the concept of religion, to free it of the baggage of deities and devils and consider it as a means of exploring our full potential on every level.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
17/03/2009 3:26 am  

Erwin, the post count in a thread is not always evidence of successful communication occurring, quite the opposite at times; a lot of head butting, in hopes of wearing down the resistance of the imagined opposition. I suppose some gas has been let out of occultism and superstition in general, beneficial in the sense that flatulence is healthy.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
17/03/2009 3:43 am  
"Aleisterion" wrote:
I never said that mystical phenomena determine facts, you demonstrate a tendency to twist things I say to fit your preconceived notions.

A rhetorical device, Aleisterion, guaranteed to cause frustration and prolong conflict.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
17/03/2009 7:26 am  
"sonofthestar@Gmail.com" wrote:
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

If I were "defining" true will, in a simple, yet easily understood way

I might simply say The Life expression of a Star, or perhaps
that which is the fulfilling potentency, and potential of every man and every woman.
What could be more simple to understand than that?

93 sonofthestar

Well said!


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
17/03/2009 7:35 am  
"kidneyhawk" wrote:

The quest-ion

Nice.

Signed,

A "Grantian." 😉

Thank-you. It's nice to see my communications are received by some.

I admire Kenneth Grant's work a lot although I didn't follow with where he went with it. He is a true explorer and should be acknowledged as one of the occult giants and masters of our times. I have no opinion on the OTO controversy and consider it irrelevant to my work.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
17/03/2009 8:12 am  
"Erwin" wrote:
"zardoz" wrote:
I did not say the way to know your will is to do your will.

Yes, you did. Observe:

"zardoz" wrote:
The 'how' of knowing True Will is to keep quiet and do it.

Well, that can be a fair interpretation. The first conscious act of Will may be deciding to formulate one's true will. I'm not saying to do that which you don't know how to do yet which seems to be how you want to pigeonhole my statement. I'm saying that prolonged discussion and excessive intellectual rumination is counterproductive. I once went to Morocco with a guy who opted to stay in the hotel courtyard and read a book about Morocco instead of getting out and seeing it for himself.

"Erwin" wrote:
Since you brought up a musical analogy, here's what your "method" translates to:

Student: Hi. I'd like to learn 'how' play the piano, please.

Teacher: Sure! Just sit down there on that stool in front of the piano.

Student: OK. Now what?

Teacher: Keep quiet and do it.

Student: Do what?

Teacher. I said keep quiet and do it.

Student: But I don't know what to do.

Teacher: Exactly what part of "keep quiet and do it" are you having difficulties with, here?

Student: The "do" part.

Teacher: What did I just say?

Student: But what do I...

Teacher: Keep quiet and do it!

Student: Look, how am I supposed to "keep quiet" and "do it" at the same time? A piano is a musical instrument. It's supposed to make a noise.

Teacher: Stop cramming it into an intellectual box. Reason is bullshit. Blah blah blah blah di blah.

See? Gibberish.

That's right, your interpretation is gibberish. This week analogy fails very quickly when you have the student ask, "do what?" because no one asked "do what?" I'll presume this is your backwards way of asking. So what can you do to discover one's Will? Yoga, meditation, self-observation, self-examination, magick are some suggestions. Crowley's exercises in general but not necessarily just his. Keep the attention focused on the question.

"Erwin" wrote:
"zardoz" wrote:
The "do it" part of my statement could use some elaboration.

You think?

Elaboration was almost immediately forthcoming, thanks to Los. I keep forgetting to whom I'm speaking. Someone who apparently needs a lot of explanation before acting. I hope you don't have the same problem in the love-making department. 'Oh, I can't love or recognize love until I have a sufficient definition of what it is.' You seem the only one who has a problem with my statement on Will.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
17/03/2009 8:20 am  
"IAO131" wrote:
"zardoz" wrote:
"IAO131" wrote:

It is delusional to think that X justifies/helps/anythings the Will if the idea "Will" is meaningless. Its also futile to have a productive discussion. If you touch an electric wire and call it a purple elephant it will still shock you but what is the 'electric wire' in this case? Is it someone's "love" and "not want" like a poster above said vaguely? Is it whats left over after you get past the prejudices of mind and body as mentioned above? If you dont have a definition of Will and yet make claims about it it seems pointless, meaningless, and delusional. Is that clearer?

IAO131

Will doesn't have to be specifically defined to be meaningful just as love or music doesn't have to be defined to work and be extremely meaningful. And having a definition of something doesn't omit the possibility of delusion. A balanced skepticism is advised in either case.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
17/03/2009 8:22 am  
"Camlion" wrote:
"Erwin" wrote:
Other than your odd but not unpredictable speculations about my motives, I don't disagree with your presentation, here, but I'm curious as to why you disagree with me here:

"Camlion" wrote:
However, varying audiences require varying approaches to this subject, as is the case with most any subject. Erwin does not want to acknowledge this reality, for reasons of his own.

and then in the very next post turn around and agree with me on that exact same point:

"Camlion" wrote:
I would also like to reiterate what Erwin said in response to certain posters: Thelema is not whatever what wishes it to be, and one's true Will is certainly not whatever one wishes it to be.

I think your efforts at communication are deliberately self-defeating, so of course I question your motives. This behavior makes no sense.

In the second quote I agree with you on certain facts regarding Thelema. In the first quote I don't agree that you should present those facts with the same approach or even in the same terms to every audience, or refuse to adapt them to more readily accessible forms.

Its all about communication. I assume from what I see that it is your Will to communicate here, and yet you repeatedly fail to anticipate the most receptive approaches. On top of that, you exhibit hostility toward your audience, insulting them eagerly.

I suppose that you imagine your refusal to compromise in your approach (not in the message but in its delivery) is somehow an effective technique, 'speaking plainly and to the point,' but there is no evidence of successful communication from you here. Rather a shame, because I do think you have some valuable contributions to make to the discussion.

Well said...


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
17/03/2009 10:48 am  
"Camlion" wrote:
I suppose some gas has been let out of occultism and superstition in general, beneficial in the sense that flatulence is healthy.

So you're withdrawing your claim that "there is no evidence of successful communication from you here", then? That's OK, just as long as we know.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
17/03/2009 10:53 am  
"Aleisterion" wrote:
I never said that mystical phenomena determine facts, you demonstrate a tendency to twist things I say to fit your preconceived notions. What I said was that it is samadhi that brings supernal realization.

Well, why don't we look at what you actually wrote and see for ourselves?

First...

"But if one realizes that it is a fact, then one is on good enough ground to make the claim"

...then...

"No, the full realization to which I was referring stems from samadhi, not the rational mind."

So yes, you did say that mystical states can determine facts.

"Aleisterion" wrote:
As for your notion that Aiwass is rooted in fantasy, it is unbelievable the extent to which you seem willing to attribute to coincidence, given the fatcs surrounding the particular case in question.

Firstly, as I've already said, it's not sensible to default to the supernatural in the face of improbability when the conclusion you're defaulting to is even more improbable.

Secondly, there is no discernible "coincidence" in this case at all beyond some spurious reports of some vision of Rose Crowley's.

"Aleisterion" wrote:
But that aside, your sweeping condemnation of all "religious" experiences (as if you could ever accurately estimate the value of another's experience) says ill of your discernment and alot about your closed mind.

Correctly pointing out that religious experiences are no indicator of fact is not a "sweeping condemnation". Wasn't someone just talking about "a tendency to twist things I say to fit your preconceived notions"?

"Aleisterion" wrote:
But you failed to answer my question. I asked if you would explain how, in this specific case of Liber Legis, a praeter-rational approach might fall prey to erroneous superstition.

This is the first time you've ever brought up this weird idea of a "praeter-rational" approach, whatever you might mean by that.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
17/03/2009 10:57 am  
"zardoz" wrote:
This week analogy fails very quickly when you have the student ask, "do what?" because no one asked "do what?"

That's exactly what everyone was asking - what do you do to determine whether or not your actions are in accordance with your will. You were, apparently, just too preoccupied with your futile and hopeless quest to score some kind of point over me to notice what was going on, which isn't unusual for you.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5304
17/03/2009 12:09 pm  
"Erwin" wrote:
there is no discernible "coincidence" in this case at all beyond some spurious reports of some vision of Rose Crowley's.

Just as a matter of interest, Erwin, how do you come to the conclusion that the "reports" of Rose's "vision" are themselves "spurious" ("not being what it purports to be; false or fake")?

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
17/03/2009 12:13 pm  

As for whether Aiwass is the author of Liber Al...

The world cannot be simply catagorised into what is real and what is unreal, or what is a verifyable fact and what is a delusion. There exists at least one other catagory for phenomenum of uncertain veracity, or Fortean.

Crowley claimed to have witnessed ball lightning in 1916. The phenomena of ball lightning used to be dismissed as being on the level of sasquash sightings until it was verified in several labs. Until that point, because the phenomena was so rarely witnessed on the ground, people who actually saw ball lighting were often dismissed as being mistaken or delusional cranks by people with rather black and white perceptions, and who had never seen ball lightening for themselves. Now there are multiple scientific models of the phenomena and ball lightning in nature is fast gaining credibility as a 'real' phenomena.

Like ball lightning, as phenomena of uncertain veracity, the existance of HGA's will only be evident and satifyingly 'real' to others with K&C of them. For those without K&C HGA, speculations as to whether Crowley wrote Liber Al or whether Aiwass did are bootless. They can attempt K&C HGA for themselves if they like or wait for some future scientific veracity that may not happen within their lifetime, if indeed at all. In any event, the individual is the sovereign arbitor of his or her own reality. What is 'real' is not determined by science or democracy.


ReplyQuote
Aleisterion
(@aleisterion)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 319
17/03/2009 12:27 pm  

Erwin,

What I said was that the ideal approach was a happy medium, or more than just rational, inasmuch as it is a spiritual approach (though not a theological one). The mistakes made by the superstitious based on their faulty interpretation of a genuine mystical event aren't possible in a system that offers this marriage between science and religion.

You go on to say: "Firstly, as I've already said, it's not sensible to default to the supernatural in the face of improbability when the conclusion you're defaulting to is even more improbable.Secondly, there is no discernible "coincidence" in this case at all beyond some spurious reports of some vision of Rose Crowley's."

But it isn't improbable in light of a) the overall circumstantial evidence, and b) the epiphany obtained from doing the general sort of work (relative to each case, of course) that eventually led Crowley to his own. As for your assertion that there is nothing to this case but "some spurious reports of some vision of Rose's", I disagree. There's a huge body of extraordinary coincidences here.

Anyway each is free to "abide in this bliss or no"...


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5304
17/03/2009 12:29 pm  
"alrah" wrote:
Like ball lightning, as phenomena of uncertain veracity, the existance of HGA's will only be evident and satifyingly 'real' to others with K&C of them. For those without K&C HGA, speculations as to whether Crowley wrote Liber Al or whether Aiwass did are bootless. They can attempt K&C HGA for themselves if they like or wait for some future scientific veracity that may not happen within their lifetime, if indeed at all. In any event, the individual is the sovereign arbitor of his or her own reality. What is 'real' is not determined by science or democracy.

I'm not usually fond on single-word responses to posts on the threads here, but:

Perfect

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
17/03/2009 12:39 pm  

Thank you:-)


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
17/03/2009 12:41 pm  

I'm sure most people here will be familiar with Alan Watts.

Here's a nice little sketch: Prickles & Goo


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
17/03/2009 12:44 pm  
"lashtal" wrote:
"alrah" wrote:
Like ball lightning, as phenomena of uncertain veracity, the existance of HGA's will only be evident and satifyingly 'real' to others with K&C of them. For those without K&C HGA, speculations as to whether Crowley wrote Liber Al or whether Aiwass did are bootless. They can attempt K&C HGA for themselves if they like or wait for some future scientific veracity that may not happen within their lifetime, if indeed at all. In any event, the individual is the sovereign arbitor of his or her own reality. What is 'real' is not determined by science or democracy.

I'm not usually fond on single-word responses to posts on the threads here, but:

Perfect

Ditto. 🙂


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
17/03/2009 4:14 pm  
"Erwin" wrote:
"Camlion" wrote:
I suppose some gas has been let out of occultism and superstition in general, beneficial in the sense that flatulence is healthy.

So you're withdrawing your claim that "there is no evidence of successful communication from you here", then? That's OK, just as long as we know.

Certainly not, successful communication is not your forte, for that implies more interaction between the parties than I think you are capable of psychologically. Simple verbal surgery like the lancing of a boil (without anesthesia -just for fun), perhaps. I know that you are a self-styled skillful dasher of fanciful self-delusion, Erwin. Perhaps this website, or any site that tends toward self-absorption into the bottomless pit of general occultism, benefits from a good dose of that from time to time. If this is your limited mission, you are fairly well equipped for it, but you are ill-equipped for productive communication beyond that point.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
17/03/2009 4:38 pm  
"lashtal" wrote:
"alrah" wrote:
Like ball lightning, as phenomena of uncertain veracity, the existance of HGA's will only be evident and satifyingly 'real' to others with K&C of them. For those without K&C HGA, speculations as to whether Crowley wrote Liber Al or whether Aiwass did are bootless. They can attempt K&C HGA for themselves if they like or wait for some future scientific veracity that may not happen within their lifetime, if indeed at all. In any event, the individual is the sovereign arbitor of his or her own reality. What is 'real' is not determined by science or democracy.

I'm not usually fond on single-word responses to posts on the threads here, but:

Perfect

If I may, I'd like to ask a question of Erwin here that is directly related to the topic of this particular thread and to the subject of this website itself, Aleister Crowley, rather than the transitory imbalances in perspective that the varied membership of a website of this sort inevitably phases through:

Erwin, concerning Crowley's firsthand accounts and later analysis of the Cairo Working and the authorship of Liber AL, do you think that he was lying, mistaken or otherwise?


ReplyQuote
IAO131
(@iao131)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 461
17/03/2009 5:21 pm  
"zardoz" wrote:
"IAO131" wrote:
"zardoz" wrote:
"IAO131" wrote:

It is delusional to think that X justifies/helps/anythings the Will if the idea "Will" is meaningless. Its also futile to have a productive discussion. If you touch an electric wire and call it a purple elephant it will still shock you but what is the 'electric wire' in this case? Is it someone's "love" and "not want" like a poster above said vaguely? Is it whats left over after you get past the prejudices of mind and body as mentioned above? If you dont have a definition of Will and yet make claims about it it seems pointless, meaningless, and delusional. Is that clearer?

IAO131

Will doesn't have to be specifically defined to be meaningful just as love or music doesn't have to be defined to work and be extremely meaningful. And having a definition of something doesn't omit the possibility of delusion. A balanced skepticism is advised in either case.

No but when one turns around and calls yelling at animals "music," then a musician will come along and say "thats not what I mean by music at all." Then you cant have a conversation about what is music, what helps one to become a better musician, etc. You can certainly play drums or whatever without hearing the word "music" just like people definitely walk around and move around and Go their Ways without hearing about "Will" but in discussion of these IDEAS, the ideas have to have some kind of meaning otherwise the DISCUSSION is meaningless. Having a definition of something doesnt omit the possibility of delusion but omitting a definition creates a large possibility of delusion - especially when multiple people are talking past each other using different ideas for similar words. Thats all I meant.

IAO131


ReplyQuote
IAO131
(@iao131)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 461
17/03/2009 5:24 pm  
"Erwin" wrote:
Firstly, as I've already said, it's not sensible to default to the supernatural in the face of improbability when the conclusion you're defaulting to is even more improbable.

As Christopher Hitchens says, paraphrasing Hume's essay on Miracles, 'what's more likely? A miraculous birth or that a Jewish mynx lied to her husband Joseph?'

Im not sure why so many people laugh at the idea of a 'talking snake' a la Bible but are not phased in the least by some kind of discarnate intelligence/Secret Chief manifesting to deliver some World-message, etc.

IAO131


ReplyQuote
IAO131
(@iao131)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 461
17/03/2009 5:29 pm  
"alrah" wrote:
As for whether Aiwass is the author of Liber Al...

The world cannot be simply catagorised into what is real and what is unreal, or what is a verifyable fact and what is a delusion. There exists at least one other catagory for phenomenum of uncertain veracity, or Fortean.

Crowley claimed to have witnessed ball lightning in 1916. The phenomena of ball lightning used to be dismissed as being on the level of sasquash sightings until it was verified in several labs. Until that point, because the phenomena was so rarely witnessed on the ground, people who actually saw ball lighting were often dismissed as being mistaken or delusional cranks by people with rather black and white perceptions, and who had never seen ball lightening for themselves. Now there are multiple scientific models of the phenomena and ball lightning in nature is fast gaining credibility as a 'real' phenomena.

Like ball lightning, as phenomena of uncertain veracity, the existance of HGA's will only be evident and satifyingly 'real' to others with K&C of them. For those without K&C HGA, speculations as to whether Crowley wrote Liber Al or whether Aiwass did are bootless. They can attempt K&C HGA for themselves if they like or wait for some future scientific veracity that may not happen within their lifetime, if indeed at all. In any event, the individual is the sovereign arbitor of his or her own reality. What is 'real' is not determined by science or democracy.

93,

The problem is that "K&C" does not automatically lead everyone to attains "this" to the same conclusions. Im quite certain there are multiple people who would claim some form of K&C but their interpretations of those experiences are most likely quite different. For example, I take the view that HGA is coterminous with Silent Self and the Self-as-All-Things etc. and not some Entity who has passed through the spiritual incarnation of humanity or some Secret Chief who has come down to guide me like a cosmic tour guide. Others will most likely degree. In this sense, its a psychological experience not subject the same empirical notions of truth (verification-ism); theres no way to objectively verify the content of subjective states (at least with our present technology which could only do so through backwards-engineering our conscious states which is a whole new topic) and especially not the noetic content of those states. I see no hope in having multiple people attain K&C and then talk about this situation in helping to resolve the nature of the Angel, the nature of the reception of Liber AL, and its ancillary topics...

IAO131


ReplyQuote
IAO131
(@iao131)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 461
17/03/2009 5:31 pm  
"IAO131" wrote:
"alrah" wrote:
As for whether Aiwass is the author of Liber Al...

The world cannot be simply catagorised into what is real and what is unreal, or what is a verifyable fact and what is a delusion. There exists at least one other catagory for phenomenum of uncertain veracity, or Fortean.

Crowley claimed to have witnessed ball lightning in 1916. The phenomena of ball lightning used to be dismissed as being on the level of sasquash sightings until it was verified in several labs. Until that point, because the phenomena was so rarely witnessed on the ground, people who actually saw ball lighting were often dismissed as being mistaken or delusional cranks by people with rather black and white perceptions, and who had never seen ball lightening for themselves. Now there are multiple scientific models of the phenomena and ball lightning in nature is fast gaining credibility as a 'real' phenomena.

Like ball lightning, as phenomena of uncertain veracity, the existance of HGA's will only be evident and satifyingly 'real' to others with K&C of them. For those without K&C HGA, speculations as to whether Crowley wrote Liber Al or whether Aiwass did are bootless. They can attempt K&C HGA for themselves if they like or wait for some future scientific veracity that may not happen within their lifetime, if indeed at all. In any event, the individual is the sovereign arbitor of his or her own reality. What is 'real' is not determined by science or democracy.

93,

The problem is that "K&C" does not automatically lead everyone to attains "this" to the same conclusions. Im quite certain there are multiple people who would claim some form of K&C but their interpretations of those experiences are most likely quite different. For example, I take the view that HGA is coterminous with Silent Self and the Self-as-All-Things etc. and not some Entity who has passed through the spiritual incarnation of humanity or some Secret Chief who has come down to guide me like a cosmic tour guide. Others will most likely degree. In this sense, its a psychological experience not subject the same empirical notions of truth (verification-ism); theres no way to objectively verify the content of subjective states (at least with our present technology which could only do so through backwards-engineering our conscious states which is a whole new topic) and especially not the noetic content of those states. I see no hope in having multiple people attain K&C and then talk about this situation in helping to resolve the nature of the Angel, the nature of the reception of Liber AL, and its ancillary topics...

IAO131

93,

*disagree not 'degree'

(Edit buttons are quite useful, but alas...)

IAO131


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
17/03/2009 5:36 pm  
"IAO131" wrote:
"zardoz" wrote:
"IAO131" wrote:
"zardoz" wrote:
"IAO131" wrote:

It is delusional to think that X justifies/helps/anythings the Will if the idea "Will" is meaningless. Its also futile to have a productive discussion. If you touch an electric wire and call it a purple elephant it will still shock you but what is the 'electric wire' in this case? Is it someone's "love" and "not want" like a poster above said vaguely? Is it whats left over after you get past the prejudices of mind and body as mentioned above? If you dont have a definition of Will and yet make claims about it it seems pointless, meaningless, and delusional. Is that clearer?

IAO131

Will doesn't have to be specifically defined to be meaningful just as love or music doesn't have to be defined to work and be extremely meaningful. And having a definition of something doesn't omit the possibility of delusion. A balanced skepticism is advised in either case.

No but when one turns around and calls yelling at animals "music," then a musician will come along and say "thats not what I mean by music at all." Then you cant have a conversation about what is music, what helps one to become a better musician, etc. You can certainly play drums or whatever without hearing the word "music" just like people definitely walk around and move around and Go their Ways without hearing about "Will" but in discussion of these IDEAS, the ideas have to have some kind of meaning otherwise the DISCUSSION is meaningless. Having a definition of something doesnt omit the possibility of delusion but omitting a definition creates a large possibility of delusion - especially when multiple people are talking past each other using different ideas for similar words. Thats all I meant.

IAO131

zardoz and IAO131: Does 'the apparently innate, functionally intrinsic, underlying inclination of the individual' work for either of you as a working definition of true Will? If not, please modify, adjust or replace accordingly, if you Will. Thanks.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
17/03/2009 5:42 pm  
"Erwin" wrote:
"zardoz" wrote:
This week analogy fails very quickly when you have the student ask, "do what?" because no one asked "do what?"

That's exactly what everyone was asking - what do you do to determine whether or not your actions are in accordance with your will. You were, apparently, just too preoccupied with your futile and hopeless quest to score some kind of point over me to notice what was going on, which isn't unusual for you.

Oh so all along it's been what to do not how. A few posts back you specifically told me the word was how ... and you keep telling me to pay attention. 😆
Sometimes people (who are open to input) can learn from the criticism they project upon others, sometimes not.

I also think Alrah sums it up very well in her last post.

Thank-you for clarifying your point IAO31.


ReplyQuote
Page 19 / 25
Share: