Every number is inf...

Clear all

# Every number is infinite; there is no difference

Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
04/01/2014 1:55 am

As I understand it Hume was sceptical of a priori reason/rationalism/induction as being an adequate source for gleaning knowledge.  He saw it as epistemologically inadequate as he had a problem in assuming that Nature behaves as it does when we are not there to perceive it.  Likewise this includes causation in  Nature.  He inferred that any attempt to reason a structure upon the outer-world is therefore lacking so all knowledge can only truly be empirical

Kant rejected this scepticism and set out to prove that synthetic reasoning is valid, epistemologically speaking, as we all impose meaning when we contemplate the pure maths of geometry and Newtonian causation.  7 + 5= 12 but 7 or 5 have nothing to do with 12 no matter how much we try reason it.  Nevertheless 7 + 5 do =12.

With that said is  Liber Legis's Every number is infinite; there is no difference some sort of reference to Kant's attempt to show us that Hume's scepticism is flawed?  If every number is infinite then the only way to find order in the world is by Willing each number to be it's own separate entity in the interplay of division, addition and multiplication which leads me to quote,"Divide, add, multiply, and understand.?

(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
04/01/2014 2:26 am
"david" wrote:
With that said is  Liber Legis's Every number is infinite; there is no difference some sort of reference to Kant's attempt to show us that Hume's scepticism is flawed?

I don't think it's a reference to any specific philosopher. In Liber Legis, the claim is that every individual thing -- every person, every event, every will -- is utterly unique and cannot be compared, ultimately, on a scale of "better" or "worse."

For example, is a pencil "better" than a hammer? What about "better" than a donut? How do these things differ in terms of their ultimate value? Well, the answer is that there is "no difference" in an ultimate sense. Each one is just what it is, and it's not what it's not. It's a unique thing that might be "better" or "worse" in a specific context but that ultimately cannot be said to be "better" or "worse."

So while we might say that a pencil is "better" at writing than a donut, no one can say that a pencil is "ultimately" better than anything else. It is unique. It is what it is, and it's not what it's not.

Thelema instructs us to regard all things as they are and not to judge them on some arbitrary scale of ultimate goodness.

That means that your Will is what it is. It's not "good" or "bad," it's just what it is.

"Since I am Infinite Space, and the Infinite Stars thereof, do ye also thus. Bind nothing! Let there be no difference made among you between any one thing & any other thing; for thereby there cometh hurt."

Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
04/01/2014 1:28 pm

Arbitrary scale of ultimate goodness.  I like that, thanks.

Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
05/01/2014 12:06 pm
"david" wrote:
If every number is infinite then the only way to find order in the world is by Willing each number to be it's own separate entity in the interplay of division, addition and multiplication
"Los" wrote:
I don't think it's a reference to any specific philosopher. In Liber Legis, the claim is that every individual thing -- every person, every event, every will -- is utterly unique and cannot be compared, ultimately, on a scale of "better" or "worse."

Thelema instructs us to regard all things as they are and not to judge them on some arbitrary scale of ultimate goodness.

Every individual, event or will manifested that ever exists (or existed), exists solely because they are a possibility in an infinite possibility (Nuit), if they were not this unique possibility in this infinite possibility, they could not exist in the first place.

While I agree with the quotes above, one could still interpret similar axioms like "Every man and woman is a star" in an egalitarian sense.
Not all stars burn with equal brightness, stars come in different sizes, different constellations and some of them act even under rulership of other star(s.)

There is not even a slightest hint for egalitarianism, or if you prefer; democracy to be found in TBOTL. This is maybe the reason why many newcomers to Thelema are almost shocked at least when they arrive to the 3rd chapter of Liber Al.

"Aleister Crowley" wrote:
For each Star is the husk of Hadit, unique and conqueror, sublime in His own virtue, independent of Hierarchy. There is an external hierarchy, of course, but that is only a matter of convenience

(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
06/01/2014 4:11 pm

I am not quite sure where this thread is going or coming from!  David as the OP raised a query about Liber AL I.4, to which in reply Los spent six paragraphs saying nothing is better than anything else and answered (in part):

"Los" wrote:
Thelema instructs us to regard all things as they are and not to judge them on some arbitrary scale of ultimate goodness.

to which the OP then said he “liked that”, even though Los was saying it was not about an arbitrary scale of goodness!  (That reminds me a bit of the tv ads we always used to see about foodstuffs being chock “full of goodness” - whatever that is, precisely: it isn’t medical terminology – for example: Cadbury’s Fudge (which I’m quite fond of): “It’s full of Cadbury goodness, but very small and neat (etc, etc…)”

Clearly, David’s follow-up as OP was something of a non-comment, within the general framework.  But is this where the query grinds to a finish (ayino’s further contribution not withstanding)?  Btw, I particularly liked your point ayino about

"ayino" wrote:
Not all stars burn with equal brightness, stars come in different sizes, different constellations and some of them act even under rulership of other star(s.)

which it is true a lot of people (Thelemites) do not take into consideration so much as the "egalitarian" sense of the axiom.

Eyes down for a full house,
Norma N Joy Conquest

(@hamal)
Member
Joined: 7 years ago
Posts: 547
06/01/2014 6:58 pm
"jamie barter" wrote:
"ayino" wrote:
Not all stars burn with equal brightness, stars come in different sizes, different constellations and some of them act even under rulership of other star(s.)

which it is true a lot of people (Thelemites) do not take into consideration so much as the "egalitarian" sense of the axiom.

Stars orbit the centre of mass in their galaxies, so in small galaxies they rapidly go round and round the same sh*t again and again. Some stars are ultimately so irritating they get ejected from their galaxies through gravitational interaction (like a kick up the bum!)

😀
93
Hamal

Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
06/01/2014 11:10 pm
"jamie barter" wrote:
I am not quite sure where this thread is going or coming from!  David as the OP raised a query about Liber AL I.4, to which in reply Los spent six paragraphs saying nothing is better than anything else and answered (in part):

Well when I wrote the OP  I was hoping there would be  more of an elaboration on the account I gave, of a landmark dispute in the history of philosophy and how Liber Legis solved it.  Los's response overlooked that and was a more practical account of what Liber Legis is/does so it killed my initial intention but simultaneously threw light on the issue.  Since then the thread has been going off on a tangent yes.

(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
07/01/2014 12:54 pm

Yes, verily it takes all sorts!  (Of stars: “Thus ye have star and star, system and system…”)

"Hamal" wrote:
Stars orbit the centre of mass in their galaxies, so in small galaxies they rapidly go round and round the same sh*t again and again.

The centre of every galaxy is meant to contain at least one hypermassive black hole (which in case anyone is still unaware, is a form of star which is so powerfully energetic and heavy with compression it has collapsed in on itself.)  In terms of every man and every woman, would you happen to know anyone like that?!

"Hamal" wrote:
Some stars are ultimately so irritating they get ejected from their galaxies through gravitational interaction (like a kick up the bum!)

Stars may well be ejected from galaxies – shunned, I suppose, for some reason (although I am not aware of the politics which may be involved! But I suppose we should beware of the dangers of ‘anthropomorphising’ stars too much.)

David, you may perhaps need to sharpen your original question/ point up further and/or concentrate it to get more of a response.  Also, to maybe not mention the word epistemological any more frequently (and not before breakfast...)

"david" wrote:
Well when I wrote the OP I was hoping there would be more of an elaboration on the account I gave, of a landmark dispute in the history of philosophy and how Liber Legis solved it.

Are you saying that Liber Legis DID solve it, or you are hoping the elaboration would reveal it as such?  Please clarify further.

"david" wrote:
Los's response overlooked that and was a more practical account of what Liber Legis is/does so it killed my initial intention but simultaneously threw light on the issue.

Los's response: as I indicated, Los said in what was six paragraphs what I then summarised in six words: viz., “nothing is better than anything else”.
"Threw light"?  Yes, I suppose if you mean something like a marsh light, or dim phosphorescence...

"david" wrote:
Since then the thread has been going off on a tangent yes.

But thank you, David, for helping along what was the virtual idea of the centre of pestilence discussion forum to become one step closer to an actuality bit by byte.  Or verse by verse: insomuch as The Book of the Law goes/is concerned, as far as I’m aware it is now 1 verse down & only another 219 to go.  (So which one’s next?)

“Discussingly” yours,
N Joy

(@hamal)
Member
Joined: 7 years ago
Posts: 547
07/01/2014 3:20 pm
"jamie barter" wrote:
"Hamal" wrote:
Some stars are ultimately so irritating they get ejected from their galaxies through gravitational interaction (like a kick up the bum!)

Stars may well be ejected from galaxies – shunned, I suppose, for some reason (although I am not aware of the politics which may be involved! But I suppose we should beware of the dangers of ‘anthropomorphising’ stars too much.)

Ah... Los'd in space again!

93
Hamal

(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5056
07/01/2014 3:40 pm
"david" wrote:
... is Liber Legis's Every number is infinite; there is no difference some sort of reference to Kant's attempt to show us that Hume's scepticism is flawed?

Probably not. Of corse not. Absolutely not.
But, sure, you can apply any quote to support or deny any philo-ramble.

Because ... There is no difference!

Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
07/01/2014 8:06 pm
"Shiva" wrote:
"david" wrote:
... is Liber Legis's Every number is infinite; there is no difference some sort of reference to Kant's attempt to show us that Hume's scepticism is flawed?

Probably not. Of corse not. Absolutely not.
But, sure, you can apply any quote to support or deny any philo-ramble.

Because ... There is no difference!

"Philo ramble"?  Who was rambling?

(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5056
07/01/2014 8:50 pm
"david" wrote:
"Philo ramble"?  Who was rambling?

Kant, Hume, et al.

Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
07/01/2014 11:32 pm
"Shiva" wrote:
"david" wrote:
"Philo ramble"?  Who was rambling?

Kant, Hume, et al.

As the definition of ramble is to, "talk or write at length in a confused or inconsequential way", I fail to see how the great minds of their generation (Hume and Kant) "rambled" when they were furthering human thought in a concise and penetrating manner. They were continuing a tradition that started with Socrates and the beginning of Western civilization.

This trick of applying any quote to support or deny any philo-"ramble" I'd love to see you give a few examples.

(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5056
08/01/2014 12:03 am
"david" wrote:
As the definition of ramble is to, "talk or write at length in a confused or inconsequential way", I fail to see how the great minds of their generation (Hume and Kant) "rambled" when they were furthering human thought in a concise and penetrating manner. They were continuing a tradition that started with Socrates and the beginning of Western civilization ... I'd love to see you give a few examples.

One example is enough:

"Philosophy is the enemy of Magick." - Perdurabo. Book 4 - Part 2

(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
08/01/2014 12:22 pm

As Hamal said about a similar exchange, reserve me a ringside side for this one?!… *

"Shiva" wrote:
"david" wrote:
"Philo ramble"?  Who was rambling?

Kant, Hume, et al.

You don’t mean Uncle Al, here, I suppose??

"david" wrote:
As the definition of ramble is to, "talk or write at length in a confused or inconsequential way",

That is A definition; it also means to go on a pleasant and leisurely [countryside] walk, etc.  Also, “Ramble On” is the name of the “Tolkienesque” song off LedZep 2.  (“That’s enough definitions – Ed”…)

"david" wrote:
I fail to see how the great minds of their generation (Hume and Kant) "rambled" when they were furthering human thought in a concise and penetrating manner. They were continuing a tradition that started with Socrates and the beginning of Western civilization.

Kant – as Ron Mael of Sparks so poetically put it in their song "Hasta Mañana Monsieur": “You mentioned Kant and I was shocked, so shocked!  You know, where I come from none of the girls have such foul tongues!” (and which went on hilariously: "Guess I was wrong because you fled/ Leaving me with a Michelin guide and a half-empty foreign bed"...)

"david" wrote:
This trick of applying any quote to support or deny any philo-"ramble" I'd love to see you give a few examples.

To give you a couple of examples myself, I could use the following “to apply and support” a line of pro-Thelemic reasoning/ rambling by using one of my favourite quotes from the Critique Of Treason:

Two things fill the mind of man with ever-increasing wonder and awe, the more often and the more intensely the mind of thought is drawn to them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me.

Immanuel Kant, Conclusion to Critique of Practical Reason[/align:16hcbvle]

There is but one categorical imperative: “Act only on that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will that it  should become a universal law.”

Immanuel Kant, Fundamental Principles of Morals, p.421[/align:16hcbvle]

(* Seconds out!  Ding ding! 😀 )
N Joy

Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
08/01/2014 3:17 pm
"Shiva" wrote:
One example is enough:

"Philosophy is the enemy of Magick." - Perdurabo. Book 4 - Part 2

Magick is philosophy.  What was the full context of that quote?

Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
08/01/2014 3:25 pm
"jamie barter" wrote:
As Hamal said about a similar exchange, reserve me a ringside side for this one?!… *

Two things fill the mind of man with ever-increasing wonder and awe, the more often and the more intensely the mind of thought is drawn to them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me.

Immanuel Kant, Conclusion to Critique of Practical Reason[/align:d4rkufhm]

There is but one categorical imperative: “Act only on that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will that it  should become a universal law.”

Immanuel Kant, Fundamental Principles of Morals, p.421[/align:d4rkufhm]

(* Seconds out!  Ding ding! 😀 )
N Joy

Fair enough but any idiot could hand- pick a bunch of philosophical quotes without explaining the contextual accounts of those quotes within the framework of that thinker's work.  Why are treating this like a boxing match?

(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
08/01/2014 4:06 pm
"david" wrote:
Fair enough but any idiot could hand- pick a bunch of philosophical quotes without explaining the contextual accounts of those quotes within the framework of that thinker's work.

True enough, any idiot could.  But speaking for myself, I was just giving an example here, not wanting to try to make out any particular contextual account for it.

"david" wrote:
Why are treating this like a boxing match?

I really don’t know!  I’m as mystified as you… maybe Hamal could throw further light upon the origination of this metaphor??!!

Yours puzzled ???
N Joy

(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5056
08/01/2014 4:08 pm

Welcome to lashtal - the magickal octagon.

"I will bring you to victory & joy: I will be at your arms in battle & ye shall delight to slay.
Success is your proof; courage is your armour; go on, go on, in my strength; & ye shall turn not back for any! - AL[/align:18qie9hp]

Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
09/01/2014 11:03 pm

93 Shiva

Still waiting for that full contextual origin of the quote, "Philosophy is the enemy of Magick." - Perdurabo. Book 4 - Part 2

Crowley demanded that his students nail Western Philosophy.  Presumably this book is written by Crowley?;

Liber OS ABYSMI
vel
DAATH
sub figura CDLXXIV

A.·. A.·.
Publication in Class B.
Imprimatur:
N. Fra A.·. A.·.

1.This book is the Gate of the Secret of the Universe.
2.Let the Exempt Adept procure the Prolegomena of Kant, and study it, paying special attention to the Antinomies.
3.Also Hume's doctrine of Causality in his "Enquiry."
4.Also Herbert Spencer's discussion of the three theories of the Universe in his "First Principles," Part I.
5.Also Huxley's Essays on Hume and Berkeley.
6.Also Crowley's Essays: Berashith, Time, The Soldier and the Hunchback, et cetera.
7.Also the "Logik" of Hegel.
8.Also the "Questions of King Milinda" and the Buddhist Suttas which bear on Metaphysic.
9.Let him also be accomplished in Logic. (Formal Logic, Keynes.) Further let him study any classical works to which his attention may be sufficiently directed in the course of his reading.
10.Now let him consider special problems, such as the Origin of the World, the Origin of Evil, Infinity, the Absolute, the Ego and the non-Ego, Freewill and Destiny, and such others as may attract him.
11.Let him subtly and exactly demonstrate the fallacies of every known solution, and let him seek a true solution by his right Ingenium.
12.In all this let him be guided only by clear reason, and let him forcibly suppress all other

etc

now that's a funny way of showing that philosophy is the enemy of magick.

(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
09/01/2014 11:08 pm
"david" wrote:
now that's a funny way of showing that philosophy is the enemy of magick.

93!

No, it justifies the saying: "KNOW YOUR ENEMY!"

Love=Law
Lutz

Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
09/01/2014 11:14 pm
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
"david" wrote:
now that's a funny way of showing that philosophy is the enemy of magick.

93!

No, it justifies the saying: "KNOW YOUR ENEMY!"

Love=Law
Lutz

The dominance of the ruach?  Fair enough .  Good point.

Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
01/04/2014 1:33 pm

I hope my first post helps in some way here,

I am a romantic, and so one potency of ascribation of "every number is infinite..., there is no differene" and "every man and every woman is a Star," may thus be. a) Star and infinite, corresponds to "heh" of Tetragramatton. Hence "hvh" the name which broke off from 'yod' and so, in genesis symbolises mankind losing the word.

"Divide, add and multiply" when read regarding "for therein cometh hurt," and "I am divided for love's sake" speaks of the Vision of Sorrow.

"...keep separate the planes."

Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
03/11/2014 7:36 pm

If anyone's interested there is a substantial amount of work written by him on the philosophical implications of this very subject in the above link in the New Comment.

(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
04/11/2014 12:19 pm
"david" wrote:
http://hermetic.com/legis/new-comment/
If anyone's interested there is a substantial amount of work written by him on the philosophical implications of this very subject in the above link in the New Comment.

Although slightly out of nowhere in that the post hasn’t been active for six months (although you have admitted to a taste for thread necromancy, so let’s take that into account as mitigating circumstances) it was nevertheless thoughtful of you to provide this, david, for the benefit of those few who may not already be aware of it.  Maybe your end of term report lending up to Xmas should read something like: “David is trying his best, although still inclined to make howlers from time to time – he therefore needs to apply himself harder in order to bring out the most of his abilities”? ;D )

"Shiva" wrote:
Welcome to lashtal - the magickal octagon.

"I will bring you to victory & joy: I will be at your arms in battle & ye shall delight to slay.
Success is your proof; courage is your armour; go on, go on, in my strength; & ye shall turn not back for any! - AL[/align:2wjdmour]

With the advent of some fresh new blood, surely we must be up to the “magickal nonagon” by now, at least?!? ;D

N Joy

Share: