Crowley is not the ...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Crowley is not the author of Liber AL  

Page 21 / 25
  RSS

IAO131
(@iao131)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 461
18/03/2009 8:09 pm  
"alrah" wrote:
"Camlion" wrote:
"Camlion" wrote:
IAO131, do you not think that this K&C of HGA can come in one instance as a profound union of singular self with collective not-self, yet in another as the subtlest intuitive notion, and in a third as something else entirely?

Granted, though, that the first example, the profound experience, certainly might be expected to precede the lesser reverberations that will follow thereafter.

That's perfectly correct Camlion. The daily union of the 8=3 doesn't exactly have the same wow factor as the initiation of 6=5, but it does give a person some stability, happiness and general contentment in life. ๐Ÿ™‚

You're an interesting person to have noticed this. Thank you and well said. ๐Ÿ™‚

How would you describe the 'union of the 8=3' and what I presume you meant as 'the initiation of 5=6'...?

"alrah" wrote:
"IAO131" wrote:
"alrah" wrote:
As to the commonalities - I think a few secrets are best in order not to confuse people more than they already are.

I cant imagine how discussing commonalities would do anything but disperse confusion...

IAO131

And I think it would add to them. I have no intention in being the cause of peeps practising the Great Work (who have not yet attain K&C) going on to play twenty questions with themselves as if they were ticking off boxes in a silly womans magazine to see if they *fit* the criteria specified.

Sorry - No.

Whoever asked for people who havent attained K&C to talk about it? I thought the whole time we were talking about people who HAD thought they had K&C and therefore they could describe and decide on the commonalities. You are disagreeing to a straw man, in short.

If you want a coherent concept, you need some criteria for distinguishing it from other concepts - thats what gives the concept meaning and power. If we can agree that K&C is 'the subjective experience of union of ego with non-ego', for example, that would drastically cut down on the experiences to which people could ascribe K&C to....

William James and Rudolf Otto both gave really good delineations of the mystic phenomenon, for example.

"alrah" wrote:
Man... those Christians are weird folks... ๐Ÿ˜€

Yea so are a lot of the people here 8)

"gurugeorge" wrote:
I think it's a bit of a boo-boo to think that K&C is about literally having a conversation with God, it's about having sex with God, and the phenomena associated with it involve powerful physical experiences and convulsions.

Yea..... Related phenomena may be the "kriya" of yoga, or the "sponteanous qigong" of Chinese systems.

(The above is just my pedantic side dotting the Ts and crossing the Is, according to my merely academic understanding of this stuff. I've no idea what I'm talking about really ๐Ÿ˜€ )

Oh ok then... phew, I almost tried to take that seriously for a second.

IAO131


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
18/03/2009 8:31 pm  

Uh, those links tell you to hold your nose as well. I'm certain most sane people with normal taste for food could differentiate onion from apple. However, I knew that it can be hard to say whether it's orange or citron of you hold your nose.

However, I didn't know one can't tell between onion and apple if one is blocking the smell. There are the tastebuds for sweet, sour, etc, in the tongue, won't they matter at all in this case?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
18/03/2009 8:33 pm  

"I'm certain most sane people with normal taste for food could differentiate onion from apple." - I forgot the word "blindfolded".


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
18/03/2009 8:49 pm  
"IAO131" wrote:
"Camlion" wrote:
"Camlion" wrote:
IAO131, do you not think that this K&C of HGA can come in one instance as a profound union of singular self with collective not-self, yet in another as the subtlest intuitive notion, and in a third as something else entirely?

Granted, though, that the first example, the profound experience, certainly might be expected to precede the lesser reverberations that will follow thereafter.

In that case, those second two options I said No to above would be 'yes' if its contingent on the fact that they are accompaniments of the first option (the experience of union). If they occur on their own, they are not K&C, but I can fathom someone saying 'they are effects of K&C and therefore part of it' which I would agree.

Good. That is why I appended the clarification. The 'conversation' is then ongoing, unless or until a subsequent 'crisis' changes matters again.


ReplyQuote
IAO131
(@iao131)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 461
18/03/2009 9:20 pm  
"anpi" wrote:

Uh, those links tell you to hold your nose as well. I'm certain most sane people with normal taste for food could differentiate onion from apple. However, I knew that it can be hard to say whether it's orange or citron of you hold your nose.

However, I didn't know one can't tell between onion and apple if one is blocking the smell. There are the tastebuds for sweet, sour, etc, in the tongue, won't they matter at all in this case?

Oh right, you have to hold your nose... If you smell the onion, it obviously wont taste like an apple as those senses are intertwined heavily. Either way, try it on someone. Cut slices of onion and apple, blind fold them and have them plug their noses and give them an apple or onion randomly and have them say what they think it is. If their nose is really blocked, Im guessing that their results will be close to random.

IAO131


ReplyQuote
IAO131
(@iao131)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 461
18/03/2009 9:24 pm  
"IAO131" wrote:
"anpi" wrote:

Uh, those links tell you to hold your nose as well. I'm certain most sane people with normal taste for food could differentiate onion from apple. However, I knew that it can be hard to say whether it's orange or citron of you hold your nose.

However, I didn't know one can't tell between onion and apple if one is blocking the smell. There are the tastebuds for sweet, sour, etc, in the tongue, won't they matter at all in this case?

Oh right, you have to hold your nose... If you smell the onion, it obviously wont taste like an apple as those senses are intertwined heavily. Either way, try it on someone. Cut slices of onion and apple, blind fold them and have them plug their noses and give them an apple or onion randomly and have them say what they think it is. If their nose is really blocked, Im guessing that their results will be close to random.

IAO131

93,

Either way, its true and the whole point is that "Expectations guide Perceptions & Behaviors"... which was related to the idea that one's ideas about HGA could color one's experience & interpretation of that experience, etc.

Theres tons of evidence to show that if you have a certain idea in your head, you are more likely to interpret stimuli in a biased way. For example,

"Know that a Mind can only apprehend those Things with which it is already familiar, at least in Part. Moreover, it will ever interpret according to the Distortion of its own Lenses. Thus, in a great War, all Speech soever may be understood as if it were of Reference thereunto; also, a Guilty Person, or a Melancholic may see in every Stranger an Officer of Justice, or one of them that are banded together (him seemeth) to persecute him, as the Case may be." - Liber Aleph, "DE STULTITIA HUMANA"

IAO131


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
18/03/2009 9:28 pm  
"Erwin" wrote:
"zardoz" wrote:
The HGA seems much more than a metaphor for Will.

Crowley would have unambiguously and conclusively disagreed with you on that one. Observe:

"This Great Work is the Attainment of the Knowledge and Conversation of thine Holy Guardian Angel" - Liber Aleph

"This is the Task of the Adept, to have the Knowledge and Conversation of His Holy Guardian Angel, to become aware of his nature and his purpose, fulfilling them" - New Comment to AL I, 7

"Thus he will assimilate the Law, and make it the norm of his conscious being; this by itself will suffice to initiate him, to dissolve his complexes, to unveil himself to himself; and so shall he attain the Knowledge and Conversation of his Holy Guardian Angel." - New Comment to AL III, 60

"This being so, the Adept will be free to concentrate his deepest self, that part of him which unconsciously orders his true Will, upon the realization of his Holy Guardian Angel....For his Angel is an intelligible image of his own true Will, to do which is the whole of the law of his Being." - Magick in Theory and Practice

"The True Will must be consciously grasped by the Mind, and this Work is akin to that called the attainment of the Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel." - Heart of the Master

"Teeth are displayed when our Secret Self - our subconscious Ego, whose Magical Image is our individuality expressed in mental and bodily form - our Holy Guardian Angel - comes forth and declares our True Will to our fellows, whether to snarl or to sneer, to smile or to laugh." - Equinox of the Gods

All of those excellent Crowley quotes, to my interpretation, are saying that the HGA is much more than a metaphor for Will. None of those statements are metaphors. A metaphor is a figure of speech that uses two unlike terms to describe something in common. Those quotes express much more and describe the relationship of the HGA experience with True Will. They are obviously closely related. Thank-you for posting them.

"Erwin" wrote:
"zardoz" wrote:
I suggest your knowledge of his work could grow in both theory and especially in practice, imo.

There's yet another bit of your own advice you clearly ought to be taking.

I don't give advice that I don't personally take.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
18/03/2009 9:39 pm  
"Walterfive" wrote:
"alrah" wrote:
I am given to understand that if we could imagine (which we cannot) all of the elements of mind that are seperated in function and location when embodied in the flesh, - memory, consciousness, ego, all the little mental semi autonomous subroutines that manage input and output, - if we could possibly imagine them as a unified whole, whose existance ranges from the absolute of all reality towards an embodied individual relative self, and as such with the ability to exist within relative time and external to it (anywhere/when) then *this* would constitute the HGA.

As to verification - there are certain commonalities of experience that people have with HGA, or indeed any other type of phenomena of uncertainty veracity, otherwise they would not be partly defined as a phenomena at all.

I've been staying out of this thread due to the signal-to-noise ratio being very high, but "Well said!!!"

Walter Five

Correct me if I'm wrong, Walter Five but I think you're intending to say that the signal-to-noise ratio is very low or the noise-to-signal ratio is very high on this thread. Lots of noise compared to the signal? If that's what you mean, then I would agree. I also thought alrah's HGA description very well said.


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 1722
18/03/2009 9:44 pm  
"IAO131" wrote:
Theres tons of evidence to show that if you have a certain idea in your head, you are more likely to interpret stimuli in a biased way.

93!

Of course this doesn't apply if you have the really right and true idea in your head...

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
18/03/2009 9:55 pm  
"Erwin" wrote:
You can't know how to do something without knowing what you need to do in order to do it.
You can't know how to build a steam engine without knowing what you need to do in order to build a steam engine.

And who said otherwise? You must be making another creative interpretation based on very narrow selective perception. I clearly suggested places to begin.

"Erwin" wrote:
You're still desperately grasping at straws to get yourself out of the hole you dug yourself into. It isn't working.

Another empty statement that conveys no information except a glimpse into your imagination. A statement that gets accurately described as noise. I'm sorry you're not able to receive my communications.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
18/03/2009 9:59 pm  
"IAO131" wrote:
"anpi" wrote:

Uh, those links tell you to hold your nose as well. I'm certain most sane people with normal taste for food could differentiate onion from apple. However, I knew that it can be hard to say whether it's orange or citron of you hold your nose.

However, I didn't know one can't tell between onion and apple if one is blocking the smell. There are the tastebuds for sweet, sour, etc, in the tongue, won't they matter at all in this case?

Oh right, you have to hold your nose... If you smell the onion, it obviously wont taste like an apple as those senses are intertwined heavily. Either way, try it on someone. Cut slices of onion and apple, blind fold them and have them plug their noses and give them an apple or onion randomly and have them say what they think it is. If their nose is really blocked, Im guessing that their results will be close to random.

I tried it quickly on myself with a piece of onion and a piece of the sking of a tomato which I shuffled and ate with my eyes closed and holding my nose. I know it's not a scientifically valid test and that a piece of tomato is not a piece of an apple, but when I took the first piece, I immediately noticed it's onion from the texture of the flesh. It also help if you know it's either onion or some other thing.

Either way, its true and the whole point is that "Expectations guide Perceptions & Behaviors"... which was related to the idea that one's ideas about HGA could color one's experience & interpretation of that experience, etc.

Theres tons of evidence to show that if you have a certain idea in your head, you are more likely to interpret stimuli in a biased way. For example,

This was probably your point, but I think the main point of those experiments with onions and apples is how much the sense of smell affects the taste, not how susceptible to hypnosis we are.

However, it is true that stimuli can be interpreted in various ways depending on expectations and such, though this often depends on the individual. There are probably some people who can be hypnotised so that they will think an onion is an apple even if they can smell it.

When I was a student, I went to some university experiment where they recorded my brain activity while I had to close my eyes and a guy tried to talk me relaxed and then told me some suggestions about roses and sweet smells. It didn't do much to me but I tried to use some breathing exercises to relax myself. Then he inserted under my nose something which smelled like ammonia and which probably was ammonia. I now regret that I didn't ask him if he had got some subjects who did smell something else than ammonia.

I think good Magick or Yoga practice should strengthen the mind in such a way that it can't be so easily manipulated by influences from the outside.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
18/03/2009 10:12 pm  
"IAO131" wrote:
"zardoz" wrote:
sonofthestar, I agree that one should carry on despite what the naysayers think.

93 93/93

Funny... he wasnt talking about naysayers at all, but rather the idea that it doesnt matter what you call it. Perhaps you should pay more attention to what people are actually talking about before jumping on a non-existent bandwagon?

IAO131

You got it wrong, IAO131.

I was responding to this paragraph from sonofthestar:

Many of those who consider my practice of "superstitious " Magick nonsense, might also consider My True Will, just as outrageous to their "infallible reason". Nevertheless, I am not deterred.

And I'm not aware of any bandwagon to jump on or fall off from with that statement. As far as I know, I'm the only one who has expressed this during this conversation. I hope you're able to take your own advice.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
18/03/2009 10:14 pm  

Should read:
And I'm not aware of any bandwagon to jump on or fall off from with the statement:
' one should carry on despite what the naysayers think.'


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
18/03/2009 10:54 pm  
"IAO131" wrote:
"IAO131" wrote:
"anpi" wrote:

Uh, those links tell you to hold your nose as well. I'm certain most sane people with normal taste for food could differentiate onion from apple. However, I knew that it can be hard to say whether it's orange or citron of you hold your nose.

However, I didn't know one can't tell between onion and apple if one is blocking the smell. There are the tastebuds for sweet, sour, etc, in the tongue, won't they matter at all in this case?

Oh right, you have to hold your nose... If you smell the onion, it obviously wont taste like an apple as those senses are intertwined heavily. Either way, try it on someone. Cut slices of onion and apple, blind fold them and have them plug their noses and give them an apple or onion randomly and have them say what they think it is. If their nose is really blocked, Im guessing that their results will be close to random.

IAO131

93,

Either way, its true and the whole point is that "Expectations guide Perceptions & Behaviors"... which was related to the idea that one's ideas about HGA could color one's experience & interpretation of that experience, etc.

Theres tons of evidence to show that if you have a certain idea in your head, you are more likely to interpret stimuli in a biased way. For example,

"Know that a Mind can only apprehend those Things with which it is already familiar, at least in Part. Moreover, it will ever interpret according to the Distortion of its own Lenses. Thus, in a great War, all Speech soever may be understood as if it were of Reference thereunto; also, a Guilty Person, or a Melancholic may see in every Stranger an Officer of Justice, or one of them that are banded together (him seemeth) to persecute him, as the Case may be." - Liber Aleph, "DE STULTITIA HUMANA"

IAO131

Yes, well, all those fruits and veggies aside, perception is influenced by expectation, suggestion and many other things, which is why it is less than completely reliable.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
18/03/2009 10:57 pm  
"Camlion" wrote:
Erwin, you've noted several times now in this thread that you see me has having no opinions of my own, a very odd observation to me,

Probably because you aren't very observant.

"Camlion" wrote:
I think that when you blah blah blah

Yet again you spend a lot of time writing about your fascination with and fantasies about me and no time at all actually contributing anything. You're just making my point for me, here.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
18/03/2009 11:00 pm  
"Aleisterion" wrote:
Your inability (or unwillingness) to see that inexplicable mystical vision, or to hear that magical voice, is not unusual but it doesn't mean others do not or that the vision and the voice are imaginary.

Yet again you completely miss the point, after more than 1,000 posts now. Nobody has claimed that "mystical visions" don't exist, just that they aren't anything approaching reliable evidence for making factual claims, with the sole exception of the factual claim that you had a mystical experience of some kind.

If you do think that mystical visions are reliable evidence for making factual claims, then accept Jesus as your personal saviour, right now. If you won't, then just stop being so silly.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
18/03/2009 11:03 pm  
"Los" wrote:
"IAO131" wrote:
One famous Christian theologian (Timothy something... not famous enough for me to remember his name) said he experienced God simply when he felt a strong emotion of comfort wash over him after seeing a dog die & contemplating mortality.

"There is death for the dogs."

Sorry, couldn't resist -- I'll be back with thoughts on this thread later.

Dogs? Is that

AL II:27. There is great danger in me; for who doth not understand these runes shall make a great miss. He shall fall down into the pit called Because, and there he shall perish with the dogs of Reason.

or

AL II:44. Aye! feast! rejoice! there is no dread hereafter. There is the dissolution, and eternal ecstasy in the kisses of Nu.

AL II:45. There is death for the dogs.

? ๐Ÿ˜‰


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1814
18/03/2009 11:24 pm  

they aren't anything approaching reliable evidence for making factual claims, with the sole exception of the factual claim that you had a mystical experience of some kind

For all the detail and definition and so on filling up this monster of a thread, has anyone here suggested otherwise? Several of us have tried to express some of the subtleties and ambiguities which may attend such experience...for example, I do not see LAM as a "factual being." BUT, I also do not see LAM as an "un-factual" being. Objects exist, ideas exist. And LAM exists in a space which is beyond the considerations of BOTH objective AND subjective reality. That space can relate to BOTH of these "realms" and engage in communication or interchange with it. But unless I've missed something in the 1000 + posts (which is possible-and understandably SO!), I don't see anyone indicating "factual claims" as you seem to use the term.

What I DO see is participants reacting to is the imposition of the "supremacy" of the "factual" as sole and supreme arbiter of preception, values and subsequent action. YOU seem most focused on maitaining the ideal of one approach trumping (or trouncing) all others. This has, regrettably, created some real knee-jerk response to points you make which-IMO-are of great value. But a 1000 post argument wasn't necessary for you to express these ideas-and it could (LOL-"arguably") have been done in a way where a much better reception would have been found (amongst people who really ARE interested in the same baseline topic you ARE: Crowley's Philosophy).

I would think you'd much more prefer folks here to really take an interest in the things you've written, such as your essay on True Will. I've been genuinely interested in some of what you've got to offer in the way of insight, Erwin (as an unabashed whatever it is that I am). But I will also add this: some of the other voices here, representing points of view other than your own, also have shown some real insight, no less than yourself. I don't appeal to some limp-wristed egalitarianism in saying such...and there HAVE been a few really dumb posts along the way. But I think you may be "creating the oppostion" you'd like to fight as much as actually doing so by leading the dialogue down routes meant to see "Erwin" on top of an argument as opposed to really shedding some light on the sundry considerations around our multi-faceted human experience.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
18/03/2009 11:25 pm  
"zardoz" wrote:
All of those excellent Crowley quotes, to my interpretation, are saying that the HGA is much more than a metaphor for Will. None of those statements are metaphors. A metaphor is a figure of speech that uses two unlike terms to describe something in common.

A metaphor is also "something used, or regarded as being used, to represent something else; emblem; symbol." So this quote:

"For his Angel is an intelligible image of his own true Will"

and this one:

"our subconscious Ego, whose Magical Image is our individuality expressed in mental and bodily form - our Holy Guardian Angel"

certainly do present the Holy Guardian Angel as a metaphor for the will (or for the "subconscious Ego" which, despite the awful phrase, amounts to the same thing). I didn't claim that presenting the HGA as a metaphor for will was the only thing those quotes do.

"zardoz" wrote:
Those quotes express much more and describe the relationship of the HGA experience with True Will. They are obviously closely related.

They are, and that's the most puzzling thing about the whole "external individual" stuff in Magick Without Tears - to claim that this is what Crowley meant all along when he was referring to "Holy Guardian Angel" is to turn his entire body of work on its head, and since plenty of other letters in the same book quite clearly do not do that, it's basically impossible to take it at face value.

There are ways to interpret around it, of course. We can quite correctly argue that "he is not ... a mere abstraction from yourself....He is not to be found by any exploration of oneself" if we consider "self" in this context to really mean the mind, which believes itself to be the real individual, but in fact is not. In this sense, the "HGA" certainly is an "objective external individual" because he's the only individual that's been there from the beginning - the mind that believes itself to be an individual is simply mistaken, and the actual individual is external to it.

Naturally, there are far more simple ways of conveying this which he did not employ, so we can't definitely conclude that's what he was talking about, but it's certainly worth consideration.

Same thing with the whole "Aiwaz, is none other than mine own Holy Guardian Angel, to Whose Knowledge and Conversation I have attained, so that I have exclusive access to Him" business; quite apart from the "I now incline to believe that Aiwass is...also a man as I am, insofar as He uses a human body to make His magical link with Mankind" type comments in the same work, and the fact that nowhere, ever, does he ever claim to have had any follow-up contacts with Aiwass, which doesn't sound like much of a "conversation" to me, there is also this:

"I had a strong impression that the speaker was actually in the corner where he seemed to be, in a body of 'fine matter,' transparent as a veil of gauze, or a cloud of incense-smoke. He seemed to be a tall, dark man in his thirties, well-knit, active and strong, with the face of a savage king, and eyes veiled lest their gaze should destroy what they saw."

which, in the letter in Magick Without Tears entitled "Beings I Have Seen with My Physical Eye" strangely goes completely unmentioned, despite reporting some vague perceived shapes in a column of smoke as a supposedly good example. Are we really expected to believe that if pointed out to him, he'd reply "Oh yeah! Crap, I forgot all about that whole 'Book of the Law' stuff!"

It just doesn't add up. Those two parts from Magick Without Tears and Equinox of the Gods just stand apart from absolutely everything else he ever wrote on the subject of the "Holy Guardian Angel". They are anomalies. What is at least clear is that whatever type of "Holy Guardian Angel" he was talking about in those two passages, it is definitely not the same type of "Holy Guardian Angel" he was talking about everywhere else.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
18/03/2009 11:28 pm  
"zardoz" wrote:
And who said otherwise?

You did:

"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."

"zardoz" wrote:
You must be making another creative interpretation based on very narrow selective perception.

Well, if you can come up with a different interpretation of the extract, I'd sure be interested to see it.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
18/03/2009 11:35 pm  
"kidneyhawk" wrote:

they aren't anything approaching reliable evidence for making factual claims, with the sole exception of the factual claim that you had a mystical experience of some kind

For all the detail and definition and so on filling up this monster of a thread, has anyone here suggested otherwise?

Where on earth have you been? Yes. Many, many people have not only "suggested otherwise", but have positively asserted it. This thread has been absolutely chock full of people claiming that their "mystical experiences" provide them with some measure of "truth", or some indication of "reality", in a manner at least as good as and often far better than "reason" can. When they do that, they are asserting that "mystical experiences" are reliable evidence for making factual claims. This is precisely why Los has had to repeatedly ask his question about the Christians, which nobody has been able to satisfactorily answer, although one brave soul at least had a go.

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
Several of us have tried to express some of the subtleties and ambiguities which may attend such experience...for example, I do not see LAM as a "factual being."

Again, the question is not about whether mystical experiences are reliable evidence for factual claims about the contents of those experiences, but whether they are reliable evidence for factual claims of any kind including, for instance, factual claims that you understand yourself better than you did before you had them. Which they aren't.

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
What I DO see is participants reacting to is the imposition of the "supremacy" of the "factual" as sole and supreme arbiter of preception, values and subsequent action.

Then I can only conclude that you haven't been paying attention.


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 1722
18/03/2009 11:57 pm  
"Erwin" wrote:
and the fact that nowhere, ever, does he ever claim to have had any follow-up contacts with Aiwass,

Hi Erwin!

Just for the record, he DID invoke Aiwass and had conversations with him in 1906 working with Elaine Simpson.

April 20th: ...Aiwass invoked appears, of brilliant blue...wishing me to follow his cult...[saysโ€ฆ]"Return to Egypt....Go with the Scarlet Woman....money troubles will be settled...I will give you no guarantee of my truth." Here he turned blue-black...etc.

Whether correctly or not, he did claim contact with him.

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3877
19/03/2009 12:07 am  
"IAO131" wrote:
Im surprised that you and other people have no heard of this. I thought this was a common elementary school experiment.

I'm not interested in the schools experiment. I am merely telling you not only that I can tell the difference between the taste of an apple and that of an onion, but also that when I have eaten one food thinking it another, I have immediately been aware of the difference.

But no, apparently my personal experience is negated by some survey of schoolchildren.

๐Ÿ™„

Jesus, you couldn't make it up.


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1814
19/03/2009 12:09 am  

Here he turned blue-black...etc

Sounds like a...praeternatural being! ๐Ÿ˜‰


ReplyQuote
IAO131
(@iao131)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 461
19/03/2009 12:15 am  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
"IAO131" wrote:
Im surprised that you and other people have no heard of this. I thought this was a common elementary school experiment.

I'm not interested in the schools experiment. I am merely telling you not only that I can tell the difference between the taste of an apple and that of an onion, but also that when I have eaten one food thinking it another, I have immediately been aware of the difference.

But no, apparently my personal experience is negated by some survey of schoolchildren.

๐Ÿ™„

Jesus, you couldn't make it up.

"Jesus," Staley, are you really that dense? Did you even bother reading those links? If you cannot smell them, you will not be able to tell a difference. Im sorry you cannot understand something that elementary school kids apparently are taught openly, and Ive experienced this myself. It was an EXAMPLE in the first place - its amazing how people nitpick things that are irrelevant anyways

IAO131


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1814
19/03/2009 12:17 am  

Im sorry you cannot understand something that elementary school kids apparently are taught openly, and Ive experienced this myself

Which could also be the impassioned cry of a parent whose child is enrolled in a Catholic School.


ReplyQuote
IAO131
(@iao131)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 461
19/03/2009 12:19 am  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
"IAO131" wrote:
Theres tons of evidence to show that if you have a certain idea in your head, you are more likely to interpret stimuli in a biased way.

93!

Of course this doesn't apply if you have the really right and true idea in your head...

Love=Law
Lutz

93 Lutz,

What are you talking about?

Aside from the question whether there even is such a thing as a 'really right and true idea' for many situations, one has to ask how having 'right' or 'wrong' matters in this...

Truth has no bearing on the fact that your beliefs, whether true or false, will influence your actions. Suppose that there isnt a God Allah that wills his followers to commit suicide in acts of jihad... even if there weren't, the belief in that will cause those people to perform those behaviors. Even if the bogey man doesnt exist, belief in him will still cause real fear.

Either way, expectations guide perceptions, and the whole point of this was to make the point that you cant just trust multiple people to all have some experience, acknowledge it as K&C, and all innately come to the same metaphysical conclusions from their experiences.

IAO131


ReplyQuote
IAO131
(@iao131)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 461
19/03/2009 12:23 am  
"Erwin" wrote:
Again, the question is not about whether mystical experiences are reliable evidence for factual claims about the contents of those experiences, but whether they are reliable evidence for factual claims of any kind including, for instance, factual claims that you understand yourself better than you did before you had them. Which they aren't.

One could say that the experience itself is a raw datum that is a fact in itself but which doesnt necessarily justify or prove other facts. For example, the fact that you perceive a unity does not automatically lead to the Metaphysical fact that All things are one (all things are one in your consciousness, yes... but is that their inherent nature?) for the same reason that perceiving duality automatically implies a Metaphysical fact that All things are different.

You could also argue that the experience is a 'widening of the horizon of the mind' a la Liber O and that one knows oneself through one's experiences and therefore is one more experience to help understand the self...

"kidneyhawk" wrote:

Im sorry you cannot understand something that elementary school kids apparently are taught openly, and Ive experienced this myself

Which could also be the impassioned cry of a parent whose child is enrolled in a Catholic School.

Im not sure how that relates.

That is directly relating Catholic School to a reproducible scientific experiment...

Oh well.

IAO131


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5278
19/03/2009 12:27 am  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
Jesus, you couldn't make it up.

Ah, but Michael, apparently they've done, like, tests and stuff.

Your fundamental error is in allowing yourself to be influenced by that which you know, through experience, to be real. As I say: they've done tests and, like, everything, so you're obviously wrong.

And, if I may be permitted to say so: You really could make it up. There's a few contributors to this thread that have been doing just that for the last dozen pages or more, armed only with Wikipedia and a zealous belief in their own infallibility.

I refer them - as is my wont - to the much derided Robert Anton Wilson.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5278
19/03/2009 12:32 am  
"IAO131" wrote:
One could say that the experience itself is a raw datum that is a fact in itself but which doesnt necessarily justify or prove other facts. For example, the fact that you perceive a unity does not automatically lead to the Metaphysical fact that All things are one (all things are one in your consciousness, yes... but is that their inherent nature?) for the same reason that perceiving duality automatically implies a Metaphysical fact that All things are different.

Nope. I've read that paragraph a dozen or more times and I still have no idea what you're saying. I mean, the lips are moving, but all I hear is the echoing of an empty vessel. Think I'll read a bit of AC: he has the advantage of speaking only when he has something to say, and then saying it with crystal clarity.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
19/03/2009 12:34 am  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
Just for the record, he DID invoke Aiwass and had conversations with him in 1906 working with Elaine Simpson.

April 20th: ...Aiwass invoked appears, of brilliant blue...wishing me to follow his cult...[saysโ€ฆ]"Return to Egypt....Go with the Scarlet Woman....money troubles will be settled...I will give you no guarantee of my truth." Here he turned blue-black...etc.

Whether correctly or not, he did claim contact with him.

You're right, I'd forgotten about that.

It was, however, clearly of little or no consequence and would still be hardly deserving of the name "conversation" in the "Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel" sense which is generally not intended to be limited to a small number of isolated instances, but to be more or less continuous, at least when it counts, so the point stands.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5278
19/03/2009 12:40 am  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
Whether correctly or not, he did claim contact with him.

And, of course, Rose filled in the gaps of Liber AL as the result of an invocation of him after the reception, according to his account.

The desirability of returning to Egypt is something that features in many of his notebooks and diaries, by the way. Am I alone here in thinking that his failure to do so was, um, unfortunate?

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
OKontrair
(@okontrair)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 501
19/03/2009 12:44 am  

If counter examples can be disregarded the point doesn't have to stand - it can bask in a hammock.

OK


ReplyQuote
herupakraath
(@herupakraath)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 408
19/03/2009 12:48 am  
"lashtal" wrote:
The desirability of returning to Egypt is something that features in many of his notebooks and diaries, by the way. Am I alone here in thinking that his failure to do so was, um, unfortunate?

Yes indeed, in work performed with Elaine Simpson and in the Alamantrah Working Crowley was urged to return to Egypt but chose not too. The Enochian work with Neuberg took place in northern Africa, but I'm not sure if that counts or not, not knowing the particulars of the travel itinerary.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
19/03/2009 1:01 am  
"Erwin" wrote:
"zardoz" wrote:
And who said otherwise?

You did:

"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."

"zardoz" wrote:
You must be making another creative interpretation based on very narrow selective perception.

Well, if you can come up with a different interpretation of the extract, I'd sure be interested to see it.

You are changing the meaning by quoting me out of context. If you quoted what I was responding to, your reply wouldn't make sense. Not that it does anyway.

I did appreciate your lengthy reply re: metaphor and will respond when I have more time.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
19/03/2009 1:45 am  
"Erwin" wrote:
It just doesn't add up. Those two parts from Magick Without Tears and Equinox of the Gods just stand apart from absolutely everything else he ever wrote on the subject of the "Holy Guardian Angel". They are anomalies. What is at least clear is that whatever type of "Holy Guardian Angel" he was talking about in those two passages, it is definitely not the same type of "Holy Guardian Angel" he was talking about everywhere else.

Wouldn't "it is seemingly not the same" be more accurate than "it is definitely not the same"? I think so. I also think that Crowley was never certain on this point, as he was never certain about the authorship of Liber AL. Hence the apparent contradiction in the written record. In other words, he lacked your certitude, Erwin, and we have the mystery that is at the root of this thread as a result. I see no alternative solution to this mystery beyond each inquirer duplicating the experience of the "HGA" for themselves, an experiment, if you like, in personal experience. Was this not Crowley's constant counsel? For those not so inclined, I believe that true Will is discernible by other means, which is fine, but it does not solve this particular mystery.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 2195
19/03/2009 1:55 am  

Ok, so as not to get distracted by children's experiments involving apples and onions, I want to steer this thread back to two significant points that have not been resolved yet:

1) Earlier, Erwin posted the following about the process of discovering the will: "'The process of "discovering the will" boils down to identifying the occasions where the conscious part of the mind substitutes its own preferences and ameliorating that influence, success in which in turn cumulatively improves the skill of not paying attention to these preferences in the first place."

He wrote quite a bit more than this, and he has an interesting essay on his website about the process.

Here's my question, the question that few have really addressed: does anyone substantially disagree with this? Does anyone have a radically different conception of will and the process of discovering it? If you do, what is your conception, what process do you propose, and how do you know that it is accurate?

2) If you don't really disagree with that description of finding the will, have a gander at what I wrote earlier in the thread: talking about the possibility of using "communication with spirits" as a way of discovering the will, I said,

"such 'communications' carry the risk of of *increasing*, rather than decreasing, the preferences of the mind. After all, a practitioner could get obsessed with the fantasy, taking the fantasy as objectively real, and convince himself that his will is such and such, rather than letting the will take over when restrictions are gone.

"To this objection, I suppose, a practitioner [of such communications] 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). 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); thus we can return to the larger question of the thread: whether these entities are real or not."

Now, the question I have: does anyone substantially disagree with the conclusion in bold? I imagine there are people who disagree. For what reason do you disagree? Is your conception of will different? Do you not think that "communications" carry the possibility of increasing the preferences of the mind?

And finally, let's return to my hobby horse for the thread:

3) On Christians and the HGA:

"The Christian's interpretation of that experience [communicating with a spirit that may or may not be identical to the HGA] is 'Jesus is an objective entity who judges the living and the dead, who will cast into a lake of fire everyone who didn't worship him.'

"So what makes that interpretation incorrect? My answer is: There's no evidence that the experience corresponds to any 'objective' entity.

"I'd like to hear everyone else's reason for finding the Christian's interpretation incorrect. And if it's the same as mine, why can't you apply that same reason to 'Praeternatural intelligences'?"

To be clear: that's not a rhetorical question. I'm interested in responses.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 2195
19/03/2009 1:56 am  
"Los" wrote:
I want to steer this thread back to two significant points that have not been resolved yet

Right. Except the two became three. Just as the one became two. Let me log off before I completely turn into Zarathustra....


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
19/03/2009 2:02 am  
"Camlion" wrote:
Wouldn't "it is seemingly not the same" be more accurate than "it is definitely not the same"?

No, it wouldn't. As I clearly said, if you substitute this meaning into anything else he wrote on the subject it becomes utter gibberish. When on the one hand he says the Holy Guardian Angel in an image of the will and that the "Great Work" is a question of resolving complexes, and then on the other hand he says the Holy Guardian Angel is one of an elite band of spacemen who alone have the power to advance mankind and that the "Great Work" is to get in contact with these creatures, that's not "seemingly not the same" - "it is not the same".

"Camlion" wrote:
I think so.

Well that just goes to show how little you think about these things.

"Camlion" wrote:
In other words, he lacked your certitude, Erwin,

No, he didn't. If he did, he'd have said something along the lines of "well, I'm not really sure, but the Holy Guardian Angel kinda might be an image of the will. Sorta. Perhaps." Crowley had absolutely no truck with that kind of silliness whatsoever. He said things like "The A.A. possesses the secrets of success; it makes no secret of its knowledge, and if its secrets are not everywhere known and practised, it is because the abuses concerned with the name of occult science disincline official investigators to examine the evidence at their disposal. This paper has been written not only with the object of attracting individual seekers into the way of Truth, but of affirming the propriety of the methods of the A.A. as the basis for the next great step in the advance of human knowledge". I don't know who this flaky new-age guy that you've been reading is, but it doesn't bear any resemblance to the Crowley I know.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
19/03/2009 2:06 am  
"OKontrair" wrote:
If counter examples can be disregarded the point doesn't have to stand - it can bask in a hammock.

Only if such "counter examples" address the point, which in this case, they don't. The "point" is that despite Crowley's claims to having "exclusive access" to Aiwass, he didn't exercise that access much, certainly far, far less than one would expect someone to "access their Holy Guardian Angel". Pointing out that Crowley invoked Aiwass twice or three times instead of once, while certainly correct, doesn't change that. If he'd been invoking Aiwass once a week for new instructions then that would mean something. In fact, since in Lutz's example he didn't even listen to what he was told to do, if anything it strengthens the point.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
19/03/2009 2:06 am  

"It's so hard to believe in anything anymore. I mean, it's like, religion, you really can't take it seriously, because it seems so mythological, it seems so arbitrary...but, on the other hand, science is just pure empiricism, and by virtue of its method, it excludes metaphysics. I guess I wouldn't believe in anything any more if it weren't for my lucky astrology mood watch." - Steve Martin


ReplyQuote
phthah
(@phthah)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 210
19/03/2009 2:23 am  

93,

"lashtal" wrote:
The desirability of returning to Egypt is something that features in many of his notebooks and diaries, by the way. Am I alone here in thinking that his failure to do so was, um, unfortunate?

Yes, I completely agree with that. IMO, he should have gone to Egypt with Rose, as instructed by Aiwass. Unfortunately, we will never know what might have happened if he would have. I think it could have been of benefit to A.C. and to Rose and quite likely to Thelema in general.

93 93/93
phthah


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
19/03/2009 2:31 am  
"Los" wrote:
Ok, so as not to get distracted by children's experiments involving apples and onions, I want to steer this thread back to two significant points that have not been resolved yet:

1) Earlier, Erwin posted the following about the process of discovering the will: "'The process of "discovering the will" boils down to identifying the occasions where the conscious part of the mind substitutes its own preferences and ameliorating that influence, success in which in turn cumulatively improves the skill of not paying attention to these preferences in the first place."

He wrote quite a bit more than this, and he has an interesting essay on his website about the process.

Here's my question, the question that few have really addressed: does anyone substantially disagree with this? Does anyone have a radically different conception of will and the process of discovering it? If you do, what is your conception, what process do you propose, and how do you know that it is accurate?

2) If you don't really disagree with that description of finding the will, have a gander at what I wrote earlier in the thread: talking about the possibility of using "communication with spirits" as a way of discovering the will, I said,

"such 'communications' carry the risk of of *increasing*, rather than decreasing, the preferences of the mind. After all, a practitioner could get obsessed with the fantasy, taking the fantasy as objectively real, and convince himself that his will is such and such, rather than letting the will take over when restrictions are gone.

"To this objection, I suppose, a practitioner [of such communications] 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). 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); thus we can return to the larger question of the thread: whether these entities are real or not."

Now, the question I have: does anyone substantially disagree with the conclusion in bold? I imagine there are people who disagree. For what reason do you disagree? Is your conception of will different? Do you not think that "communications" carry the possibility of increasing the preferences of the mind?

And finally, let's return to my hobby horse for the thread:

3) On Christians and the HGA:

"The Christian's interpretation of that experience [communicating with a spirit that may or may not be identical to the HGA] is 'Jesus is an objective entity who judges the living and the dead, who will cast into a lake of fire everyone who didn't worship him.'

"So what makes that interpretation incorrect? My answer is: There's no evidence that the experience corresponds to any 'objective' entity.

"I'd like to hear everyone else's reason for finding the Christian's interpretation incorrect. And if it's the same as mine, why can't you apply that same reason to 'Praeternatural intelligences'?"

To be clear: that's not a rhetorical question. I'm interested in responses.

Los, I do agree that Erwin's method is one of several viable methods, and one of the ones that is probably best for the category of people that I will call 'the many.' It places the user at minimal risk of undue distraction and delusion, two things which they have plenty of to begin with. There are no doubt other methods that would fall into this category.

Another category of method to determine true Will would include Crowley's system of Magick, which includes Crowley's system of mysticism. I would agree with Crowley's final conclusion that this category of method is only appropriate for those with a true aptitude for it, an extremely small minority of the total population, 'the few.' There are no doubt other methods that would fall into this category.

By whatever method, I believe that it is an absolute necessity for every man and every woman to learn of their true Will, to determine what it is and to do it; also that, whenever possible, children should be encouraged to mature without completely losing their innate connection with that true Will. This will save them the trouble of repeating this debate in the future.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
19/03/2009 2:46 am  
"Erwin" wrote:
"Camlion" wrote:
Wouldn't "it is seemingly not the same" be more accurate than "it is definitely not the same"?

No, it wouldn't. As I clearly said, if you substitute this meaning into anything else he wrote on the subject it becomes utter gibberish. When on the one hand he says the Holy Guardian Angel in an image of the will and that the "Great Work" is a question of resolving complexes, and then on the other hand he says the Holy Guardian Angel is one of an elite band of spacemen who alone have the power to advance mankind and that the "Great Work" is to get in contact with these creatures, that's not "seemingly not the same" - "it is not the same".

"Camlion" wrote:
I think so.

Well that just goes to show how little you think about these things.

"Camlion" wrote:
In other words, he lacked your certitude, Erwin,

No, he didn't. If he did, he'd have said something along the lines of "well, I'm not really sure, but the Holy Guardian Angel kinda might be an image of the will. Sorta. Perhaps." Crowley had absolutely no truck with that kind of silliness whatsoever. He said things like "The A.A. possesses the secrets of success; it makes no secret of its knowledge, and if its secrets are not everywhere known and practised, it is because the abuses concerned with the name of occult science disincline official investigators to examine the evidence at their disposal. This paper has been written not only with the object of attracting individual seekers into the way of Truth, but of affirming the propriety of the methods of the A.A. as the basis for the next great step in the advance of human knowledge". I don't know who this flaky new-age guy that you've been reading is, but it doesn't bear any resemblance to the Crowley I know.

Erwin, you very clearly lack the personal experience required to understand the "HGA" or the authorship of Liber AL. Even with his experience, Crowley was left with contradictions in his own writings, few, but some. You are better off confining yourself to your own preferred plebeian practices, and leaving the rest to the few with a true aptitude for it. (Not that all who post to this website represent those few. I suspect not, but that is not for me to say.)


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
19/03/2009 3:08 am  
"Camlion" wrote:
Erwin, you very clearly lack the personal experience required to understand the "HGA" or the authorship of Liber AL.

Translation: "Crap. I can't respond sensibly. I'll just bluster instead and evade the issue as usual. I knew I shouldn't have ventured an opinion - this always happens."

"Camlion" wrote:
Even with his experience, Crowley was left with contradictions in his own writings, few, but some.

These contradictions are something to be expected given the volume and diversity of his work, not something to be surprised about, and certainly not an indication that he was fundamentally confused or uncertain about anything in particular. You'd be left with contradictions in your writings too, if you wrote as much as Crowley did and over the time period that he did. I mean, you have enough trouble avoiding contradicting yourself from one post to the next.

For instance, every other post of yours exuberantly declares how right you think I am on the subject of the will, the HGA and any number of other matters, and claiming how what I've taught you is "exactly how you describe it", and then the other posts consist of you claiming that I 'very clearly lack the personal experience required to understand the "HGA"', that my "theoretical conclusions" are useless, and that I can't communicate successfully, which apart from completely contradicting your other posts clearly imply that - since you claim it's "exactly how you describe it" - you lack that experience and ability to communicate successfully, and that your own conclusions are equally theoretical and useless, too. You're absolutely all over the place, here - watching you flounder around is like watching an all-day Laurel & Hardy special. It's hilarious.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
19/03/2009 3:25 am  

LOL Erwin, you are just fine at your own depth, and I agree with you within those parameters, but you lack the practical experience in Magick and mysticism to do well at the deep end of the pool. All you can muster is trying to cajole the deep end into becoming shallower for you, which is your approach to the esoteric. Stick to what you're best at and leave the rest alone.


ReplyQuote
sonofthestar
(@sonofthestar)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 375
19/03/2009 5:21 am  

93!

It would be interesting if someone could tie in these various items that seem to bare a relation to/upon each other. I am not making any kind of statement here, other than that all these things I bring up, have some bearing upon each other. I only present them here for consideration.

It has been said many times on many threads, by various posters, that a person does not need to be a Thelemite, to discover, and do, their True Will.
It has been stated, that such individuals, and some were named as examples, of men and women from various eras from the past, as having indeed discovered their true will, and fulfilling it.

What does it mean then, if the HGA is really just another term for the True Will (as some are certain)
and those numbers of folk, who throughout history have indeed accomplished theirs, having lived before that School of Initiation founded by AC, or if after--having never heard of this school----did indeed discover their true will, and fulfil it?
By what means did they discover their True Will? Was it through a particular system, as presented by particular initiating schools? Schools of initiation, from the same source from which sprung Crowley's own Sacred Order?

Is there evidence such as would imply, that there are those who have been born in full communion with the HGA/true will--and have not had to discover anything they were not aware of from the earliest days of their youth? That such a true will, had only needed to develope? There seems to be evidence to support this; that there have been many such individuals.
That they were part of the Great White Brotherhood, from which issues the School of initiation as founded by AC? As made mention of such names in the Litany of the Saints. Or does this Brotherhood, if you believe it exist, have no bearing upon such things?

And, referencing the above, with that which is below:

People had better think long and hard before they absolutely, unequivocally proclaim the True Will to be The HGA.
Such a statement is a completely different thing than saying the Knowledge and conversation of the HGA---leads to the discovery of the True Will!

Does akin too, seem to be more as in liken unto, related to, rather than equals?

Now I am not saying that they had better think long and hard, because I believe them to be wrong, nor am I saying they are right; only that it is something extremely important to ponder before one commits entirely, one way or the other.

Unless these tid-bits above are addressed in detail, only the surface of the topic is being addressed! I wrote these down fast, so consider them rough, but I feel they are stated adequately enough to give forth several things worthy of elaboration.

93! 93! 93!


ReplyQuote
Patriarch156
(@patriarch156)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 486
19/03/2009 5:51 am  
"Erwin" wrote:
It was, however, clearly of little or no consequence and would still be hardly deserving of the name "conversation" in the "Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel" sense which is generally not intended to be limited to a small number of isolated instances, but to be more or less continuous, at least when it counts, so the point stands.

It hardly is the only occurrence. Among the published occurrences AC notes on 24. may 1919 e.v., that he will inquire further regarding his "New Religion," by asking Aiwaz thought the aid of the Scarlet Woman.

Later that same month on the 31st he notes: "Later-I invoked Aiwaz, was shown a phantasm of Bapgomet, and suddenlt determined to recognize this for Him!" A few days later on june 2nd he notes further, "I had 'asked Aiwaz' to arrange this." Though he still grapples in the same note about whether or not Aiwaz is an discarnate intelligence in the sense that he is seperate from himself, his solution seems largely to be sollipsism.

Later he starts communing almost daily with Aiwaz by aid of Leah Hirsig (among other instances on august 11. 1920 e.v.) , whence Aiwaz appears in the pleasant form of Satan, his father (amongst other places on the 28th that same month).

It seems to me that instead of this being a few isolated instances at the beginning and at the end of his life, that this remained a factor in AC's life throughout.

As for the rest of the thread I think it justifies Crowley's warning about giving this experience a name at all. Clearly all sorts of metaphysical nonsense will spring from it as a result.


ReplyQuote
Patriarch156
(@patriarch156)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 486
19/03/2009 5:59 am  
"Patriarch156" wrote:
[notes on 24. may 1919 e.v.

This should of course be 1920 e.v.


ReplyQuote
IAO131
(@iao131)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 461
19/03/2009 6:01 am  
"lashtal" wrote:
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
Jesus, you couldn't make it up.

Ah, but Michael, apparently they've done, like, tests and stuff.

Your fundamental error is in allowing yourself to be influenced by that which you know, through experience, to be real. As I say: they've done tests and, like, everything, so you're obviously wrong.

And, if I may be permitted to say so: You really could make it up. There's a few contributors to this thread that have been doing just that for the last dozen pages or more, armed only with Wikipedia and a zealous belief in their own infallibility.

I refer them - as is my wont - to the much derided Robert Anton Wilson.

Im astounded that educated adults are so ignorant about this. Its pretty fascinating really.

Its amazing, too, that people can take an arbitrary example that was attempting to make a poitn and obsess endlessly about its validity (and it is valid... why dont you try it or read literature on it instead of scoffing at it?) Dare I say my own experience (and Ive actualyl tried this) conflicts with yours (and I doubt you held your nose and had someone hand you, randomly, slices of apples and onions in the time this thread has started)

"lashtal" wrote:
"IAO131" wrote:
One could say that the experience itself is a raw datum that is a fact in itself but which doesnt necessarily justify or prove other facts. For example, the fact that you perceive a unity does not automatically lead to the Metaphysical fact that All things are one (all things are one in your consciousness, yes... but is that their inherent nature?) for the same reason that perceiving duality automatically implies a Metaphysical fact that All things are different.

Nope. I've read that paragraph a dozen or more times and I still have no idea what you're saying. I mean, the lips are moving, but all I hear is the echoing of an empty vessel. Think I'll read a bit of AC: he has the advantage of speaking only when he has something to say, and then saying it with crystal clarity.

Aleister Crowley definitely did NOT always write with crystal clarity.

Either way Im sorry you cant understand what Im saying, its in the context of the quotation above it of course... the main idea is that a phenomenological experience does not justify making one draw metaphysical conclusions. If thats meaningless to you, I suggest looking up those words in a dictionary which people tend to be doing often around here.

"Los" wrote:
Ok, so as not to get distracted by children's experiments involving apples and onions, I want to steer this thread back to two significant points that have not been resolved yet:

1) Earlier, Erwin posted the following about the process of discovering the will: "'The process of "discovering the will" boils down to identifying the occasions where the conscious part of the mind substitutes its own preferences and ameliorating that influence, success in which in turn cumulatively improves the skill of not paying attention to these preferences in the first place."

He wrote quite a bit more than this, and he has an interesting essay on his website about the process.

Here's my question, the question that few have really addressed: does anyone substantially disagree with this? Does anyone have a radically different conception of will and the process of discovering it?

I can find ways to disagree with it.

" identifying the occasions where the conscious part of the mind substitutes its own preferences and ameliorating that influence, success in which in turn cumulatively improves the skill of not paying attention to these preferences in the first place."

First of all, this implies that all preference that is conscious is inherently bad. This means that we are left to UNconscious preferences. The body has instinctual preferences, by the way... Also, one has to ask what the point of this definition is or the goal or end is... Why is conscious preference so wrong? What about situations like when I ask you 'what is 7+3?' Are you just going to give me an answer without 'conscious preference'? Suppose I really like airplanes so I decide to study them... is that precisely NOT following my will because it was my obvious conscious preference?

IAO131


ReplyQuote
Page 21 / 25
Share: