Is Thelema not so d...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Is Thelema not so different?  

Page 7 / 14
  RSS

 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
08/07/2009 10:25 pm  
"Iskandar" wrote:
To claim that Michael propagates intuition in order to prevent people from realizing that they have been duped by his publications is a slander.

No, it isn't. His publications directly encourage people to use fantasy and other tentacly imaginary nonsense in an effort to reach some kind of "spiritual attainment". You can only do this by deliberately ignoring evidence and pretending that "intuition" or fantasy in general can help you figure out what's going on. If you don't do this, then you realize very quickly what absolute nonsense this fantasy-based approach is. So yes, propagating the value of "intuition" in figuring out what's going on in preference to the only tool which actually can help you figure out what's going on - reason - very deliberately discourages people from realising what garbage they've been fed. Michael's position is essentially no different from that of any other psychic huckster who tells people they have to "believe" in order for it to work and then charges them $35 for a telephone tarot reading. In the country where Michael lives, there's laws governing that kind of activity, now, although his own activities will currently fall outside the scope of them.

There's nothing slanderous about it - it's a simple factual observation. If there's anything slanderous going on here, it's your suggestion that it's anything other than that.


ReplyQuote
Palamedes
(@palamedes)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 450
08/07/2009 10:28 pm  

Mika: "Just to make it clear" referred to the Goldman's statement. "Something like that" referred to the phrasing. That you connect the two in order to make me say something I did not say is disingenuous. That the statement was perhaps not really Goldman's is irrelevant. Also, the first time I assumed the quote was familiar (that revolution is not worth it if I cannot dance to it) so I wrote that nobody can dance to it. The second time, since the reference seemed to be lost, I clarified by stating that what I am actually saying is not that I can't dance (as you mentioned in your response) but I don't want to -or that nobody wants to - because your revolution, your tune, your view of reality is boring. That you think I need to be Moderator in order to suggest that you should not be giving instructions to the people is a sign of a confused mind. Also and typically, you dance around what is inessential, while you cannot either fathom or address the substance of my post. And the substance is this: whichever story of reality you like telling yourself, it is and always will be a fiction. It cannot be otherwise, since the reality is non-conceptual and prelinguistic. Now if you addressed this issue, a discussion with you would make sense. I am not interested in exchanging profanities online.


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1838
08/07/2009 10:35 pm  

LOL!

The more your words are directly addressed, Erwin, the more immature you get.

Gee, you seem to be very "not terribly interested in learning about something you've already made up your mind on". Suggest you take your own advice

There's no connection between my statement that your words were bigoted and fallacious and you returning my criticism of yourself. Both of my statements are true and they both apply to you. You can try be clever or whatever but it doesn't change the fact.

Anybody who can read doesn't need it demonstrating to them.

Is this "reason?" I appreciate the higher level of logic you've brought into the discussion.

Based on folks like you who read this stuff and have clearly no idea what they're talking about and indulge in incessant fantasies about aliens and cosmic plans and who knows what else. In other words, evidence. Sure, it's a generalization and there'll be the odd exception, but as the term implies, it's generally correct.

Whatever, Erwin. Again, you project the image that kidneyhawk "indulges" in "incessant fantasies" blah blah blah. That "fancy pciture" sure helps your position. It's an assumption. But when assuming works for you, you go for it.

All of it.

You've read it all, Erwin? If not, I think we will always need a second opinion when you speak about anything. God knows if you've had any experience of it or not. But we're supposed to believe it when tell us something is "factual?"

Well, we've pretty much already established that you're not very observant, so we needn't put much weight on what things "seem to you".

I'm starting to think that YOU aren't so observant, Erwin. You skip over inconvenient details, pick a point, convolute and crush it. And then you act as if you're a smart fellow for having done so.

Well it's obviously not "undeniably concerned" with that, since I've just denied it.

Erwin denies something, therefore it's somehow weakened? The great (ahem) Master of the Temple has spoken?

When the majority of someone's participation in these forums is promoting their books and criticising contrary positions

That's how you see Michael's participation? Not very observant, are you?

the tripe contained in them

"Tripe" entailing material you've not even read?

Erwin, once again you've entered a thread with nothing to contribute to its main theme. You pick and choose statements to play with, presumably for your own gratification, as if the computer is your mental masturbation machine. In the end you can shut off the monitor and think of how superior you are to others whom you admittedly know nothing of.

As much as you might like to deceive yourself into thinking you are engaging in dialogue, contributing apt criticism or some such thing, I suspect that you are simply "polishing your self image."

How's it looking?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
08/07/2009 10:36 pm  
"mika" wrote:
"Camlion" wrote:
Yes, Mika, there is such a code of conduct and it insists that the true Will be done by each individual.

But it does not insist how.

Of course it doesn't, who said that is does? Why would it or should it?

"mika" wrote:
"Camlion" wrote:
To behave in a manner contradictory to true Will or to refrain from doing true Will would constitute a violation of that code of conduct.

And how do you propose determining whether or not another person is behaving in a manner contradictory to his or her Will? You just can't know what other people's wills are so you have no method for judging their conduct.

I do not propose determining whether or not another person is behaving in a manner contradictory to his or her Will. That is not my responsibility, nor is it yours. Why would it be? Where did I or anyone else suggest such a thing? I said that there was a code of conduct inherent to Thelema.

"mika" wrote:
"Camlion" wrote:
If the execution of that true Will involves 'pictures in the head,' those pictures must be engaged;

Perhaps in the execution, however, one cannot determine what that true Will is in the first place if distracted by paying attention to those pictures in the head. I am not talking about how Will manifests, but about how one goes about discovering it.

Yes, of course I meant in the execution - "Do what thou wilt." But now that you mention it, not that it has anything to do with my statement, but how can you declare unequivocally what will and will not determine what true Will is for each and every individual? Are you out of your mind?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
08/07/2009 10:38 pm  
"Iskandar" wrote:
I clarified by stating that what I am actually saying is not that I can't dance (as you mentioned in your response) but I don't want to -or that nobody wants to - because your revolution, your tune, your view of reality is boring.

And that's occultism in a nutshell. If you find reality boring, just pretend that something else is real. Priceless.


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1838
08/07/2009 10:44 pm  

And that's occultism in a nutshell. If you find reality boring, just pretend that something else is real. Priceless

Yeah, because that was the gist of Iskandar's post. 🙄


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
08/07/2009 10:46 pm  
"kidneyhawk" wrote:
There's no connection between my statement that your words were bigoted and fallacious and you returning my criticism of yourself.

Yes, there is. That's why I connected them.

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
Both of my statements are true and they both apply to you.

I'll be remembering that next time you try arguing that there's no such thing as "truth".

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
I appreciate the higher level of logic you've brought into the discussion.

I highly doubt it.

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
Again, you project the image that kidneyhawk "indulges" in "incessant fantasies"

So now you're denying almost everything you've ever written on these forums?

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
I'm starting to think that YOU aren't so observant, Erwin.

I'm sure thinking that makes you feel better.

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
Erwin denies something, therefore it's somehow weakened?

No, it means it's not "undeniable", just like I said. Did you have to practice to get this obtuse, or did it just come naturally?

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
Erwin, once again you've entered a thread with nothing to contribute to its main theme.

So you claim in order to maintain your self-righteousness.

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
You pick and choose statements to play with, presumably for your own gratification, as if the computer is your mental masturbation machine. In the end you can shut off the monitor and think of how superior you are to others whom you admittedly know nothing of.

I think you're getting a little over-excited. You might want to take a break.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
08/07/2009 11:39 pm  
"Erwin" wrote:
Both experiences are real experiences, yes, but one is an experience of a real perception, the other is an experience of a fantasy, as you've been told multiple times recently.

Yes I note how you assert things over and over without defining key concepts. Like reality. Simply repeating things over and over doesn't make it "real". That's called wishful thinking. Or fantasizing about your mastery of reality. Remember those "fancy pictures" Los warned us about?

One might suspect you can't tell the difference or have zero experience exploring the reality of the astral plane. One thing magickal practise teaches is that the self-evident and obvious are not necessarily how things really are. Resorting to "direct perception" as an excuse for lack of magickal experience, and understanding resulting from such experiences, is pretending to a false authority.

"Erwin" wrote:
Why on earth would I care about getting "respect" from someone who freely admits to being incapable of distinguishing fantasy from reality? It would be like getting respect from a monkey, only far less gratifying. What an odd thing to say.

Note I never said that I was unable to distinguish between fantasy and reality. Rather, I used your argumentation and resulting straw man to note your point on "direct perception" was null. Of course, when your "point" is shown as meaningless, you ignore my assertion of being unable to define "reality" and proceed to make more claims about fantasy versus reality. Which constitutes more wishful thinking and fantasizing on your part - i.e. evading the point of reality.

Going back over your other comments, I'm beginning to think you really don't know the difference and that you are seriously confused rather than responding from malice. It's okay to be confused along the path. What's worse is throwing around terms like "direct perception" and "reality" without having a real clue what any of it means. And pretending like you do.


ReplyQuote
soz
 soz
(@soz)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 93
08/07/2009 11:45 pm  

Per contra:

If one is an artist or poet or mystic then dreams, fantasies and various non-immanent states of consciousness are often not only important to doing one's will, but crucial.

If a visionary with a deep understanding of symbolism does pathworking, or scrying, or has vivid dreams, these things may well be vital to True Will.

To say that one only does one's will when mindful of the present moment is to me an interesting debate. To say, as Erwin does, that all occultism is garbage, is to me not an interesting argument; and even if it were, it has played out again and again on these boards, and generates much heat and little light.


ReplyQuote
mika
 mika
(@mika)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 360
09/07/2009 12:01 am  
"Camlion" wrote:
"mika" wrote:
"Camlion" wrote:
Yes, Mika, there is such a code of conduct and it insists that the true Will be done by each individual.

But it does not insist how.

Of course it doesn't, who said that is does?

Kidneyhawk, who said "...sets up a code of conduct that is antithetical to Do What Thou Wilt", to which I replied "How do you know what conduct is antithetical to another person's will?"

You quoted this very exchange in your reply to me above. Did you forget the context or are you just playing dumb because you're annoyed at me?

"Camlion" wrote:
Why would it or should it?

Exactly. For absolutely no reason. So why would someone, like Kidneyhawk for example, make a statement claiming that certain actions contradict following one's will? How would he know?

"Camlion" wrote:
Hhow can you declare unequivocally what will and will not determine what true Will is for each and every individual?

True Will is inherent to reality; ones will or essential nature is an intrinsic part of reality. It can only be found by paying attention to reality, by its very nature. Thus, I can declare unequivocally that one cannot find one's true will by paying attention to fantasies.

To use my example from another post, you are not going to experience listening to a symphony by putting your fingers in your ears, singing LALALALA, and imagining that you're listening to a symphony. By definition, the experience of listening to a symphony must occur in reality, otherwise you are just imagining what you think it must be like to have the experience. To use an even simpler example: everyone may experience the combined scent and flavor and texture of food differently, but I can declare unequivocally that one cannot experience the combined scent and flavor and texture of food without actually putting it in your mouth and eating it. Now, you can try to argue that imagining what food tastes like is just as valid and accurate and qualitatively the same as actually eating it, but that would be a pretty idiotic argument, don't you think?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
09/07/2009 12:03 am  

The attitude that all occultism is garbage arises from fear of being confused. There is definitely a lot of garbage, New Age and otherwise, out there, but it is up to each person to navigate the waters and find meaningful truths for themselves. When a person has a tendency to be easily confused, their reason becomes a means of guarding against deluding subjective states - which poses a danger to their grip on reality. The root problem lies in that person having a weak and immature essence. But there are techniques for strengthening one's sense of being.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
09/07/2009 12:06 am  
"tai" wrote:
Yes I note how you assert things over and over without defining key concepts. Like reality.

You don't "note" that at all - you simply wish it. It's another good example of your inability to distinguish fantasy from reality. I've defined "reality" many times over as those things which actually exist, as opposed to those things which are imaginary. Funnily enough, this is exactly what the word actually means, too. See, I'm helpful like that, using words as they are actually meant to be used, and all. You may not like the fact that I've done this, but that's your problem, not mine.

"tai" wrote:
One might suspect you can't tell the difference or have zero experience exploring the reality of the astral plane.

Absolutely right, since the "astral plane" is not real - it's imaginary. Ergo, you also have "zero experience exploring the reality of the astral plane", as does everyone else in the universe.

"tai" wrote:
Note I never said that I was unable to distinguish between fantasy and reality.

Note that you did. Observe your own hand:

"Again, the question here is not the categorical difference between fantasy/imagination/stories versus reality, but the difference between a direct perception of a pink unicorn on the astral plane and a direct perception of a red apple on the table. There is no difference."

So, if you think "there is no difference" between a perception of a pink unicorn on the astral plane, and a perception of a red apple on the table, then you are unable to distinguish fantasy from reality. If you could distinguish fantasy from reality, then you'd be able to detect a difference. A really, blindingly obvious difference, as it turns out, since distinguishing between perceptions of real things and perceptions of imaginary things is - for anyone who's not suffering from bona-fide, continuous, waking-life hallucinations and who is not a complete imbecile - an absolutely trivial exercise. If you had even the slightest idea what you were talking about, you'd know this.

Look, I don't know why you continue to insist that it must be my fault that you speak complete gibberish. If you don't like it, don't say such idiotic things, you really shouldn't need me to tell you that.

"tai" wrote:
Rather, I used your argumentation and resulting straw man

You people and your "straw men" - it's your stock answer to everything when you're called on your patent nonsense. Honestly, you're like an eight year old boy standing next to a plate that used to be piled up with jam tarts, with jam round your mouth, crumbs all down your front, looking up guiltily as you chew furiously asking "what, me? What are you on about?" Really, who do you seriously think you're fooling, here?

"tai" wrote:
What's worse is throwing around terms like "direct perception" and "reality" without having a real clue what any of it means. And pretending like you do.

My goodness, I hope they don't let you on airplanes with irony like that.


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1838
09/07/2009 12:13 am  

So why would someone, like Kidneyhawk for example, make a statement claiming that certain actions contradict following one's will? How would he know?

Mika,

Sigh...are you really not understanding what I wrote? I was responding to the notion that imposing some absolutest criteria of methodology and worldview onto another person's "Work with the Will" was antithetical to DWTW. I still stand by this position for the very reason that I CANNOT know another's Will and determine, like Erwin, that "reason" is the ONLY WAY to get at this. Is that any clearer? Do you disagree with this? Do you feel that Erwin is right, reason is the ONLY way and ergo any representation of a differing approach on my part must be "incorrect" and symptomatic of confusion, denial etc?

And do note this is not a "railing against reason." It's a vantage point that acknowledges factors other than reason which are useful to the Great Work. Application of ANY factors will vary from person to person, as we are all unique.


ReplyQuote
mika
 mika
(@mika)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 360
09/07/2009 12:26 am  
"soz" wrote:
If one is an artist or poet or mystic then dreams, fantasies and various non-immanent states of consciousness are often not only important to doing one's will, but crucial.
If a visionary with a deep understanding of symbolism does pathworking, or scrying, or has vivid dreams, these things may well be vital to True Will.

That may be so. However, the issue, that I'm addressing anyway, is not how one's will manifests, but how one goes about discovering one's will. An artist may find fantasies and the like to be essential to creating his art, but that very same artist will find that fantasies cloud his ability to perceive his will. Luckily, he has the power to choose whether or not to pay attention to his fantasies, depending on the needs of the moment. If he wants to pay attention to acting according to his will, he can observe his fantasies as if they were passing clouds, recognizing them to be unreal and thus irrelevant to the moment. If he wants to create some work of art that requires his imagination to run wild, he can let those fantasies become the focus of his attention.

Unless you're on LSD 24/7 or some such thing, you have the ability to choose when you wish to engage in "various non-immanent states of consciousness", and when you wish to pay attention to reality. And, the point is not to shut down one's imagination, but to recognize that your will can only be found by paying attention to reality. You won't find your will in your fantasies, even if it turns out that manifesting your will involves engaging in fantasies.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
09/07/2009 12:33 am  
"kidneyhawk" wrote:
Sigh...are you really not understanding what I wrote? I was responding to the notion that imposing some absolutest criteria of methodology and worldview onto another person's "Work with the Will" was antithetical to DWTW. I still stand by this position for the very reason that I CANNOT know another's Will and determine, like Erwin, that "reason" is the ONLY WAY to get at this. Is that any clearer?

I'll tell you what is "clearer" - your continuing inability to grasp even the smallest clue as to what anybody is saying. I believe Mika has already said, point blank, that not only is reason not "the only way to get at this", but that it's not any way at all to get at this, since the only way to actually discover the will is to pay attention to it instead of telling yourself stories - i.e. reasoning, or fantasizing - about what it must be. I've also said this on many, many occasions, in as many words, hence all the talk of distinguishing fantasy from reality. The role of reason is to stop yourself from believing those stories, not to invent more of them for yourself. Quite where you've got this idea that Erwin says that "reason is the ONLY way" is a complete mystery, because that's about as far away from what I actually have been saying as it's possible to get. Not two or three posts ago I just got done telling you that you were believing your own faulty rational conclusions because of your failure to properly employ reason, and now you come out with this little gem.

And you have the nerve to accuse other people of constructing "straw men", and of "not really understanding what I wrote"? Sheesh...


ReplyQuote
mika
 mika
(@mika)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 360
09/07/2009 12:43 am  
"kidneyhawk" wrote:
I was responding to the notion that imposing some absolutest criteria of methodology and worldview onto another person's "Work with the Will" was antithetical to DWTW.

Stating the required methodology for discovering one's will is not antithetical to others doing what they will. I'll repeat the example I just used: Everyone may experience the combined scent and flavor and texture of food differently, but I can declare unequivocally that you cannot experience the combined scent and flavor and texture of food without actually putting it in your mouth and eating it.

So, do you think that I am "imposing some absolutist criteria of methodology and worldview" when I say that in order to experience the combined scent and flavor and texture of food you have to put it in your mouth an eat it?

Will is intrinsic to reality, thus in order to become aware of your will, you have to pay attention to reality. The only way that can be interpreted as "imposing some absolutist criteria of methodology and worldview" is if you are using different definitions of "Will" and "reality" in which Will is no longer intrinsic to reality. Is that what you're doing? If so, please provide your definitions.

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
I still stand by this position for the very reason that I CANNOT know another's Will and determine, like Erwin, that "reason" is the ONLY WAY to get at this.

There is a difference between claiming to know another's Will, and claiming to know how others need to go about discovering their Wills. You seem to be conflating these two types of statements.

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
Do you feel that Erwin is right, reason is the ONLY way and ergo any representation of a differing approach on my part must be "incorrect" and symptomatic of confusion, denial etc?

I would not make an absolute, definitive claim that Erwin's method is the only method that works. However, I will say that any method for discovering Will that is based on paying attention to fantasies and mental constructs and other stories about what we think and feel is, indeed, symptomatic of confusion, denial, etc, and ultimately will not work. Will can only be found in reality, by its very nature.


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1838
09/07/2009 12:45 am  

Quite where you've got this idea that Erwin says that "reason is the ONLY way" is a complete mystery, because that's about as far away from what I actually have been saying as it's possible to get

Sorry. I must have misread

the only tool which actually can help you figure out what's going on - reason

😯


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
09/07/2009 1:10 am  
"kidneyhawk" wrote:
Sorry. I must have misread

the only tool which actually can help you figure out what's going on - reason

No - you read it fine, you just completely failed to pay attention, as usual. Reason is, indeed, the only tool which can help you figure out what's going on. Reason is not the only tool - and, in fact, is not any kind of tool - for discovering your will, which is a completely different thing to figuring out what's going on in the world.

If I'd said the only way to get to the moon was by rocket ship, you wouldn't make the mistake of claiming that I said the only way to discover your will was by rocket ship, would you? This is because the term "rocket ship", unlike the term "reason", doesn't send you into paroxysms of self-righteous outrage and confusion, blinding you to everything that's going on right under your nose.

Reason is the tool for making factual statements about the world. You don't discover your will by trying to make factual statements about it - you discover it by observing it. You don't observe things with your reason. For the umpteenth time, pay attention.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
09/07/2009 2:13 am  
"Erwin" wrote:
You don't "note" that at all - you simply wish it. It's another good example of your inability to distinguish fantasy from reality. I've defined "reality" many times over as those things which actually exist, as opposed to those things which are imaginary

I won't bother responding to your childish remarks. Let's stick to the substance. A page back you wrote:

There is more to "reality" than the speculative question of what does or does not exist out there in the universe somewhere, and this is something that basic magical experience ought to reveal, but it clearly hasn't in your case.

Of course you made these comments prior to me noting your "direct perception" was a null point. So that put us back to defining real objects (imaginary objects being whatever is left over). Do you follow me so far? If so, what does it mean that reality = things which actually exist? You don't know. The dictionary doesn't know.

"Erwin" wrote:
Absolutely right, since the "astral plane" is not real - it's imaginary. Ergo, you also have "zero experience exploring the reality of the astral plane", as does everyone else in the universe.

Again, you are fantasizing about your mastery of reality. If you want to stick with strict language definitions, dreams, thoughts, fantasies, the spectrum of subjective states - these are all considered to be real. That's why neuroscience, psychology and consciousness studies and artificial intelligence departments at universities take these subjective states as real objects of research and study. With funding and grants. And paid researchers. We're not talking about Erwin-reality but speaking of the real world, see? What would be an imaginary object, for example, is a purple five-headed cat with eight golden paws. The thought or a dream of a purple five-headed cat with eight golden paws, on the other hand, could be real, depending on whether someone actually had the thought or dream.

"Erwin" wrote:
Note that you did. Observe your own hand:

"Again, the question here is not the categorical difference between fantasy/imagination/stories versus reality, but the difference between a direct perception of a pink unicorn on the astral plane and a direct perception of a red apple on the table. There is no difference."

So, if you think "there is no difference" between a perception of a pink unicorn on the astral plane, and a perception of a red apple on the table, then you are unable to distinguish fantasy from reality.

Hmmmmm you may have a point. OR you may have a reading disability and cannot follow an argument. Note I did not say there is no difference between a pink unicorn on the astral plane and an apple on the table. As I wrote, "the question here is not the categorical difference between fantasy/imagination/stories versus reality" - that is, between things that are subjective versus objective. What I meant is there is no difference between "direct experience" of a pink unicorn on the astral versus "direct experience" of an apple on the table. In both cases direct experience comes into play and there is no difference between these two examples. You were distinguishing between direct (unmediated) perception and subjective fantasizing and my above reply countered this claim. To make my point clear, direct perception is a meaningless concept because it apprehends both subjective and objective things. Moreover it's only when you start thinking about A versus B, trying to ascertain what makes one real and another fantasy, that you start telling yourself stories and engaging in the subjective fantasizing that you claim others suffer from. I guess you also failed to note your bad reasoning.

Here's a little thought-experiment for you: everytime you ascribe to others some deficiency (learning disability, inability to reason properly, failure to understand) consider the possibility that you are projecting yourself onto others.

Good night Little Professor.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
09/07/2009 6:53 am  

Wow. I'm away for one day, and I miss all the fun.

Although I've been greatly entertained by the large number of posts that I haven't had time to properly read, I'm a little disappointed that we've lapsed back into the topic of "how do we know what's real?" and abandoned the direction that I was attempting to move the thread -- i.e. getting people to explain how other methods of discovering the will actually work.

I'll note that no one has provided a clear explanation of the way that their method works.

Instead of responding to all the new ideas that have been injected into the thread, I will take a brief look at kidneyhawk's response to me, where he attempts to describe how one goes about discovering the will:

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
We have to start somewhere and we dig in. As we gain more information, experience and awareness of what's going on, we can respond in more effective fashions. [...] What we discover moves with us endlessly. We are continually observing, processing, reacting, not reacting, acting and so on. Are we doing right by ourselves? We decide this.

What an astute reader will notice is the section that I have placed in bold, in which kidneyhawk asserts that we should "respond" to our experiences, but fails to specify how we should respond.

This is unhelpful in the case of (to go back to my hypothetical example), a young man who is playing the guitar and having all kinds of fantasies about himself in the process. It's quite right that only he can decide whether he's doing his will -- for no one can say for sure what someone else's will is -- but if he has no clear method, he'll have no way of telling whether he's proceeding correctly. He might very well "engage" one of those fantasies instead of his will because he has no basis on which to discriminate them.

Your description of your method is vague, and I think not helpful to someone who wants to know what the true will is and how he should go about doing it. Do you not see that?


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
09/07/2009 7:07 am  

Now, on to Tai:
Tai, I can't see at all how I've "questioned and critiqued the True Wills of others" in the passage you've quoted and underlined.

I did assert that the only way to discover the will was to observe the self in the midst of activity...but that's not questioning or critiquing someone else's will...that's part of the discussion we're having about how a person goes out and discovers it.

The rest of those statements you've underlined are general observations illustrated by a hypothetical case. I'm saying, for example, that very often, an act of childish rebellion is going to be, by its nature, reactive, created by the mind, and thus not the will. I don't presume to speak in all cases, just the majority of them.

If we can't generalize about how to discover the will, then it's impossible to talk about and thus utterly and completely useless. There goes Thelema, except as a nice little collection of literature and symbols (which might have aesthetic merit, but I think we all agree that Thelema is more than a style of art).

In other words: I'm not questioning what anyone here thinks is his will -- I'm not in a position to judge whether you or anyone else is doing his true will...it would be impossible for me to say (and, as I've discussed, false in way, because there's no moment when you say "ah! here it is! I'm doing my will!" Doing the will is a process that one can get better at over time).

I get the sense, from what you and others have been saying, that you all mistake my position for "All occult practices are dumb, and it cannot be anyone's true will to do them!! Mwahahahahaha! I am the evil tyrant reason, and I demand that all of you become scientists, mwahahahaha."

That's not my position at all.

It could very well be someone's true will to engage in occult practices all day long. What we're talking about here is how a person figures out that his will is to engage in occult practices all day long. And, I contend, that one cannot do it by occult practices.

You gave an example in which a person does a series of magical workings, and they all fail. So...does that mean to you that those things are not part of a person's will? The method you're trying to articulate is simply not presented with enough detail to make any sense of.

"tai" wrote:
Los - if you believe what makes you unique or different are merely fantasies, and thus rationalize them away, how do you ever hope to discover your unique True Will?

By observing the self in the midst of action without reference to thoughts like, "Gee whiz, this makes me unique. This is my special talent, and I'm a special little snowflake."

It's quite true that the will is unique -- of course, in one sense *everything* is unique because, in the words of Heraclitus, we cannot step into the same river twice. So "unique" is, ultimately, a meaningless word. The meaning that we normally attach to the word unique is "special," and it's often connected to a fantasy we have about our importance in the grand scheme of things. It's not necessarily always, but often.

[and before someone says it, just because you can't step into the same river twice doesn't mean we can't know things to a reasonably certain extent...sheesh]

rather than taking your approach of constantly presuming about and critiquing others - as if you are in a position of authority to do so.

Well, as I said above, I don't think I've presumed anything about other actual people. I'm not in a position of "authority" on this subject, except insofar as I make statements that accord with reality and arguments that are convincing -- if not to you and other supernaturalists, than hopefully to lurkers and those "on the fence."

All I can do is present my argument, and I'll await your reply.

Unfortunately, I will be away again tomorrow, but I look forward to reading this thread in the evening. Do try to play nice, everyone.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
09/07/2009 7:17 am  

Oh, alright, I can't let Camlion feel left out.

"Camlion" wrote:
Thelema insists upon [...] a mind that is at once wide open and vigilantly guarded.

Yes. And having an "open mind" does not mean believing anything, accepting things as true without evidence, and accepting things that don't make any sense at all.

Having an open mind means that you're willing to be convinced of a position when there is a proper amount of evidence. And I'm quite willing to be convinced...please, someone explain their method of discovering the will and how it works.

It's not a trick question. I'm interested in your method and how you think it works.

Anyone, in any field, who has any kind of a method of doing anything would be expected to be able to give a simple explanation of what it is and how it works -- and *not* give a vague answer along the lines of, "Well, I experience it and engage it and do it more effectively as my experience grows," etc.

It's not being "closed minded" to dismiss an answer like that as vague and non-specific -- because such an answer obviously *is* vague and non-specific.

Sorry for a number of posts in a row. I'll try not to do that again.


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1838
09/07/2009 7:22 am  

kidneyhawk asserts that we should "respond" to our experiences, but fails to specify how we should respond.

Los,

How old are you?

Do you personally have any issues or trouble effectively responding to your environment to your own satisfaction?

If yes, you might benefit from some honest help. If no, your inquiry exists in some abstract realm of discussion and debate which exists for its own sake and not for the "realization of the Will."

I am very seriously asking you: do you "know" your own Will? Do you feel that you a handle on what you are? Are you acting accordingly?

It's a yes or no question. I'm not fishing for details that I can criticize, ridicule or judge. Are you challenging ideas and words which have been set forth for the sake of demonstrating a point or are you lost and looking for your personal realization of the Will?

I feel fairly confident that I know the nature of what I consider to be my "fantasies" much better and intimately than you possibly can. Your general statements about "fantasies" offer no insight to me. This has become an endless banter over details that contextualize themselves in this thread and not the life experience which occurs outside of it.

What works for me may not work for you. Then again, we presumably share the condition of being human beings. As different as we may be, we still hold things in common. Based on this, I think we can communicate with each other in a semi-sensible way.

Again I ask, do you feel that you have discovered, know and are effectively engaged with your own "Will?" If not, you are a seeker and trying to figure this out. If so, you then have some vital and personal knowledge and we can get at this in terms of how what we've "discovered" may be helpful and of value to others.

So enough speculation and limp-wristed poking at concepts and words and ideas. If you're there, you have something to share. If you're not, you have something to learn.

Where are you at, man?

Things will get less "vague" from this point on.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4018
09/07/2009 1:26 pm  
"Erwin" wrote:
. . . you use these forums to spam those books . . .

Spamming via Lashtal consists of sending out multiple notices via the Private Messaging system, and is something that the owner of this site takes seriously enough to cancel the membership of perpetrators. I've never done this. If you have evidence to the contrary, then please contact Paul Feazey with it; otherwise, you might care to clarify your remark. If you mean merely that notices are posted of my publications, then you should note that a) this is done with with the approval of the Webmaster, and b) this is done by many other people on this site. It's not spamming; you might care to consider your use of language.

Best wishes,

Michael.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5320
09/07/2009 2:48 pm  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
If you mean merely that notices are posted of my publications, then you should note that a) this is done with with the approval of the Webmaster

Michael is being modest and cautious with this remark. It would be more accurate to say that I have on occasions badgered him in an attempt to get more information about forthcoming publications: I don't so much "approve" his notices as actively seek them.

One of the things about LAShTAL of which I'm most proud is that it isn't, if you scratch the surface, just a shiny veneer covering a money-making venture or even a group of such ventures. There are no advertisements here and the not insignificant cost of developing and hosting the site is met by me and the kind donations of some generous members. Not by encouraging spamming, despite what some Wikipedia editors might have contended!

As Michael notes, any spamming of the membership is, I'm very proud to say, tackled robustly. Invariably it involves the termination of a membership because it's simply not fair to the other members.

In summary, Michael does not "use these forums to spam books" and a retraction by Erwin would be appropriate.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
09/07/2009 4:39 pm  
"Erwin" wrote:
"Iskandar" wrote:
To claim that Michael propagates intuition in order to prevent people from realizing that they have been duped by his publications is a slander.

No, it isn't. His publications directly encourage people to use fantasy and other tentacly imaginary nonsense in an effort to reach some kind of "spiritual attainment". You can only do this by deliberately ignoring evidence and pretending that "intuition" or fantasy in general can help you figure out what's going on. If you don't do this, then you realize very quickly what absolute nonsense this fantasy-based approach is. So yes, propagating the value of "intuition" in figuring out what's going on in preference to the only tool which actually can help you figure out what's going on - reason - very deliberately discourages people from realising what garbage they've been fed. Michael's position is essentially no different from that of any other psychic huckster who tells people they have to "believe" in order for it to work and then charges them $35 for a telephone tarot reading. In the country where Michael lives, there's laws governing that kind of activity, now, although his own activities will currently fall outside the scope of them.

There's nothing slanderous about it - it's a simple factual observation. If there's anything slanderous going on here, it's your suggestion that it's anything other than that.

Erwin - if your pupil and sychophant Mika is any example - then the fantasies in her head regarding what is or is not the trueself/will are directly attributable to your own poor schooling of her. She hasn't even gotten to the point of properly engaging with the self referencial question beyond feeding her false self image a delusion that may give her temporary relief, and then you have the temerity to question Michaels approach? Produce a proper 8=3 master if you want your teachings to be taken without having to overcompensate with the salt.

And I don't mean more vinegar...


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
09/07/2009 4:47 pm  
"mika" wrote:
"Camlion" wrote:
"mika" wrote:
"Camlion" wrote:
Yes, Mika, there is such a code of conduct and it insists that the true Will be done by each individual.

But it does not insist how.

Of course it doesn't, who said that is does?

Kidneyhawk, who said "...sets up a code of conduct that is antithetical to Do What Thou Wilt", to which I replied "How do you know what conduct is antithetical to another person's will?"

You quoted this very exchange in your reply to me above. Did you forget the context or are you just playing dumb because you're annoyed at me?

"Camlion" wrote:
Why would it or should it?

Exactly. For absolutely no reason. So why would someone, like Kidneyhawk for example, make a statement claiming that certain actions contradict following one's will? How would he know?

"Camlion" wrote:
Hhow can you declare unequivocally what will and will not determine what true Will is for each and every individual?

True Will is inherent to reality; ones will or essential nature is an intrinsic part of reality. It can only be found by paying attention to reality, by its very nature. Thus, I can declare unequivocally that one cannot find one's true will by paying attention to fantasies.

To use my example from another post, you are not going to experience listening to a symphony by putting your fingers in your ears, singing LALALALA, and imagining that you're listening to a symphony. By definition, the experience of listening to a symphony must occur in reality, otherwise you are just imagining what you think it must be like to have the experience. To use an even simpler example: everyone may experience the combined scent and flavor and texture of food differently, but I can declare unequivocally that one cannot experience the combined scent and flavor and texture of food without actually putting it in your mouth and eating it. Now, you can try to argue that imagining what food tastes like is just as valid and accurate and qualitatively the same as actually eating it, but that would be a pretty idiotic argument, don't you think?

Here we go again - Mika asserting what the true self and the true will is all about in her conceptual model of it. If the true will was only about 'the now' then why does it create a vessel? When are you going to give up the intellectual idea that you can understand the true will or your true self using your ego Mika? These little essays may please your ego, but they aren't getting anyone anywhere. But if you like being stroked by Erwin so much... continue. lol.


ReplyQuote
IAO131
(@iao131)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 461
09/07/2009 5:01 pm  
"Los" wrote:
I did assert that the only way to discover the will was to observe the self in the midst of activity...

What does that even mean? Why is self-observation useful towards discovering Will? What does it mean to 'observe the self' especially if a self is non-existent in your beliefs (or are we using the term in some kind of practical sense?) And what about all the things where self-reflection and awareness of self are actually symptoms of dis-ease?

I'm saying, for example, that very often, an act of childish rebellion is going to be, by its nature, reactive, created by the mind, and thus not the will. I don't presume to speak in all cases, just the majority of them.

I dont understand how you can say this except by setting up a definition of Will and then saying "OK it doesnt fit that definition [which is most likely 'that which isnt contingent upon the mind' which is itself a highly ambiguous statement] so its not will"... Otherwise, how would you know its not his will? Because it is re-actionary? All reactions are not part of Will? Couldnt one argue that its impossible to have anything but reactions to one's environment/stimuli etc.? Because it comes from his mind? How do you know it came from his mind, how do you know things coming from the mind are inherently not will, and how can you ever tell from the outside whether its will or not in this case?

If we can't generalize about how to discover the will, then it's impossible to talk about and thus utterly and completely useless. There goes Thelema, except as a nice little collection of literature and symbols (which might have aesthetic merit, but I think we all agree that Thelema is more than a style of art).

What the Will is should probably first be established since how to discover something requires you know what youre looking for... and Im guessing just abotu everyone here including people who seemingly agree on most points would give slightly different definitions & understandings of Will.

In other words: I'm not questioning what anyone here thinks is his will -- I'm not in a position to judge whether you or anyone else is doing his true will...it would be impossible for me to say (and, as I've discussed, false in way, because there's no moment when you say "ah! here it is! I'm doing my will!" Doing the will is a process that one can get better at over time).

Yet these statements seem at variance from the ones you mentioned in the example above - how could you ever say the reactionary kid was not doing his will? How could he? What does 'get better' mean? What does 'getting better' at doing your will look like? Is 'getting better' proof that you are doing your Will?

I get the sense, from what you and others have been saying, that you all mistake my position for "All occult practices are dumb, and it cannot be anyone's true will to do them!! Mwahahahahaha! I am the evil tyrant reason, and I demand that all of you become scientists, mwahahahaha."

That's not my position at all.

It could very well be someone's true will to engage in occult practices all day long. What we're talking about here is how a person figures out that his will is to engage in occult practices all day long. And, I contend, that one cannot do it by occult practices.

Wait... A person cannot know whether it is their will to practice occult practices to find out their will?

By observing the self in the midst of action without reference to thoughts like, "Gee whiz, this makes me unique. This is my special talent, and I'm a special little snowflake."

What kind of special information does 'observing the self' give you? How does it help in the least? And see the questions above about what you mean by 'observation' (who is observing whom?) and 'self'...

All I can do is present my argument, and I'll await your reply.

Although I find some of your ambiguous statements frustrating, I have to say I extremely appreciate your tone and patience... Erwin's and even mika's tone to a lesser extent is often abusive, dismissive, unnecessarily harsh, and full of insults - Im not sure exactly what they think theyre going to accomplish with that, really, except look pompous and a bit silly. Saying "I am right and you are a buffoon for thinking otherwise," and yes, building up straw men and knocking them down (complaining about others pointing out your straw men is amusing but they are still straw men... ) are both funny to read but definitely not legitimate arguments or points. No matter how many times you plug your ears, say LA LA I AM RIGHT LA LA LA, and misrepresent the people you disagree with out of ignorance or insidiousness or plain malice, and just straight-up insult people, people arent going to suddenly be converted to your Magister Templi wisdom.

IAO131


ReplyQuote
mika
 mika
(@mika)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 360
09/07/2009 5:02 pm  
"alrah" wrote:
Here we go again - Mika asserting what the true self and the true will is all about in her conceptual model of it.

If you had been paying attention, any attention at all, you would clearly see how blatantly ridiculous the above statement is. Try to quote exactly what I asserted about 'my conceptual model of the true self'.

You can't, because I don't have one.

I don't indulge in such useless fantasies. As I keep telling you, over and over and over again, a "conception of the true self" is a figment of the imagination, thus has no relevance to one's actual true self.

"alrah" wrote:
If the true will was only about 'the now' then why does it create a vessel?

What kind of insane fantasy is this? Your "true will" created your body?

Are you honestly claiming here that you believe that your "true will" existed prior to your physical manifestation, and not only that, it influenced the physical and temporal lives of your parents such that they not only met, but procreated in a time and space such that the particular egg and sperm that combined to create you came together according to your true will's intentions? What about the true wills of your parents? Did your true will override their true wills in its efforts to create your body? Did they all have a conference on the astral plane and come to agreement?

My lord, you're really slipping off the deep end. Even more than last time.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
09/07/2009 5:02 pm  
"mika" wrote:
"Camlion" wrote:
"mika" wrote:
"Camlion" wrote:
Yes, Mika, there is such a code of conduct and it insists that the true Will be done by each individual.

But it does not insist how.

Of course it doesn't, who said that is does?

Kidneyhawk, who said "...sets up a code of conduct that is antithetical to Do What Thou Wilt", to which I replied "How do you know what conduct is antithetical to another person's will?"

You quoted this very exchange in your reply to me above. Did you forget the context or are you just playing dumb because you're annoyed at me?

Read carefully: The code of conduct that I describe above, that of Thelema, is perfectly capable of antithesis by way of alternative codes of conduct that contradict or countermand it. One need not know the true Will of another to violate his freedom to do it. For example, if you replace 'Do what thou wilt' with 'Do as you're told,' you are propagating code of conduct that is generally the antithesis of Thelema, and you are doing so without needing to know the true Will of another. I believe that this what kidneyhawk intended by his statement (he may kindly confirm or deny this, if he will) and therefore, in your disagreement with his statement, you are mistaken.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
09/07/2009 5:10 pm  
"mika" wrote:
"alrah" wrote:
Here we go again - Mika asserting what the true self and the true will is all about in her conceptual model of it.

If you had been paying attention, any attention at all, you would clearly see how blatantly ridiculous the above statement is. Try to quote exactly what I asserted about 'my conceptual model of the true self'.

You can't, because I don't have one.

I don't indulge in such useless fantasies. As I keep telling you, over and over and over again, a "conception of the true self" is a figment of the imagination, thus has no relevance to one's actual true self.

"alrah" wrote:
If the true will was only about 'the now' then why does it create a vessel?

What kind of insane fantasy is this? Your "true will" created your body?

Are you honestly claiming here that you believe that your "true will" existed prior to your physical manifestation, and not only that, it influenced the physical and temporal lives of your parents such that they not only met, but procreated in a time and space such that the particular egg and sperm that combined to create you came together according to your true will's intentions? What about the true wills of your parents? Did your true will override their true wills in its efforts to create your body? Did they all have a conference on the astral plane and come to agreement?

My lord, you're really slipping off the deep end. Even more than last time.

I'd illustrated just one facet among many others that you believe about your true self on the other thread. And it's part of your self image (oh wise master) that of course you don't have one. Not vou.... lol.

And yeah - let's ignore qabalah now - it's not a map of the territory - it's now an insane fantasy. Ok mika. As to the rest - that it boggles your tiny mind to image the true will of any human being is capable of such magick, just demonstrates the nature of your tiny mind gal.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
09/07/2009 5:56 pm  
"Los" wrote:
"Camlion" wrote:
Thelema insists upon [...] a mind that is at once wide open and vigilantly guarded.

Yes. And having an "open mind" does not mean believing anything, accepting things as true without evidence, and accepting things that don't make any sense at all.

Having an open mind means that you're willing to be convinced of a position when there is a proper amount of evidence. And I'm quite willing to be convinced...please, someone explain their method of discovering the will and how it works.

It's not a trick question. I'm interested in your method and how you think it works.

Anyone, in any field, who has any kind of a method of doing anything would be expected to be able to give a simple explanation of what it is and how it works -- and *not* give a vague answer along the lines of, "Well, I experience it and engage it and do it more effectively as my experience grows," etc.

It's not being "closed minded" to dismiss an answer like that as vague and non-specific -- because such an answer obviously *is* vague and non-specific.

From what I read of you, which is all I know of you, I cannot conclude that you have an open mind, no. Yes, you invite others to provide fodder for your ham-handed dissection, but this does demonstrate a genuinely open mind, certainly not. More importantly, you obviously lack the common experience required to give an informed opinion on conclusions drawn from the experiences of others within the field under discussion here. In other words, the people engaging in these discussions immediately and easily recognize from what you write that you are not a qualified candidate to serve in a peer review of these matters - because your are not a peer. You are not a peer because you have not met the requirements. You have not done the work, engaged in the personal exploration, put in the time and effort to qualify you as a peer. Or, to give you the benefit of the doubt for a moment, at least you have not demonstrated those qualifications openly. Without this, your opinions of certain experiences and the conclusions drawn therefrom are worthless. Do you honestly believe that the people involved in these discussions do not comply with your request for the details of their methods because they are frauds and are fearful that you will expose them as such? If you do believe that, you are a fool. The truth is that you have not demonstrated the personal qualifications required to judge in such matters, because you have never 'been there' yourself.

I would suggest that you seriously address kidneyhawk's most recent post above, in an attempt to qualify yourself as a judge in the peer review that you seem to want to engage in, one concerning true Will, with the people who frequent these forums and this website in general. Thelema is not a spectator sport and, thus far, I see you as a spectator only - not as an actual participant in the process.


ReplyQuote
mika
 mika
(@mika)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 360
09/07/2009 7:03 pm  
"alrah" wrote:
And it's part of your self image (oh wise master) that of course you don't have one.

It's part of my self image that I don't have a self image? Not only is the hole you're in getting deeper, it apparently has no bottom.

"alrah" wrote:
And yeah - let's ignore qabalah now

Who said anything about qabala? Oh, right, no one did. You're just attempting to divert the conversation, again, as I predicted. You are totally transparent.

"alrah" wrote:
As to the rest - that it boggles your tiny mind to image the true will of any human being is capable of such magick, just demonstrates the nature of your tiny mind gal.

The fact that I don't believe that one's "true will" is responsible for physically manifesting one's body demonstrates that I prefer to base my understanding of reality on actual reality.

You love to imagine all sorts of things about will, and about reality; apparently this fantasy land of yours is much easier for you to deal with than the actual reality of your life. You hate that I poke holes in your little imaginary world bubbles so you lash out at me. Like I said, you're transparent. Hell, even if every single thing you claimed about me were true, tiny mind and all, you'd still be stuck with the reality of your own life. Instead of waking up, that fact just drives you ever deeper into fantasy land.


ReplyQuote
Tiger
(@tiger)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 1538
09/07/2009 7:24 pm  

To what god shall we appeal for aid ?

It is Anubis, the watcher in the twilight,
the god that stands upon the threshold,
the jackal god of khem,
who stands in double form between the Ways.
At his feet, on watch, wait the jackals themselves,
to devour the carcasses of those who have not seen Him,
or who have not known His name.

This is the threshold of life; this is the threshold of death.
All is doubtful, all is mysterious, all is intoxicating.
Not the benign, solar intoxication of Dionysus,
but the dreadful madness of pernicious drugs;
this is a drunkenness of sense, after the mind has bee abolished
by the venom of the Moon.


----"How splendid is the Adventure!"

The Book Of Thoth pg 113
Aleister Crowley

....she occupies the place of the Link between the human and divine....

She is the poisoned darkness which is the condition of the rebirth of light.

pg 112


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
09/07/2009 7:26 pm  

Yes - it's part of the self image you're ignoring that can claim you have no self image. Yes - it *is* identical to denial! Thanks for demonstrating! 🙂 Then when it creates anger or fear or anything it doesn't like then it can simply say to itself that it's simply 'experiencing' these things and avoid responsibility for them - or 'not identify with them' as your self image ducks down to lick your fur in tune with your cat and then congratulate yourself afterwards that there was nothing to pay attention to really (it was all an illusion which was why you're both going bald). Yeah - and encourage others to believe in models of 'non belief' and call it Thelema. And make up fancy reasons for why love doesn't really mean love. That'll really work!

All hail the master of reality with no conceptual models of the true will while she makes her next delicious sandwhich please! 🙂


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
09/07/2009 7:28 pm  

The above was to Mika. Sorry. 🙂


ReplyQuote
mika
 mika
(@mika)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 360
09/07/2009 8:15 pm  
"alrah" wrote:
Yes - it's part of the self image you're ignoring that can claim you have no self image. ... Then when it creates anger or fear

Your problems become clearer with every post. You think one's self-image "creates anger or fear"? Well, of course you do, since you'd also like to believe that you can destroy anger or fear or any other emotion you don't like to experience.

Anger, fear, and every other emotion is created by a combination of the mind and body. Emotions are not created by one's self image. Emotions are experienced by the self; some people, like yourself, then imagine that these emotions are a part of the self. You identify the self-image you've created in your mind with the emotions you experience; they are intricately intertwined, which is why you mistakenly believe that your self-image creates emotions, that your self-image is responsible for dealing with emotions, and that not identifying with your emotions must be the same as denial.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
09/07/2009 8:43 pm  

What I'm saying is the same as what I've said from the start - that anger, fear etc, are not the natural (default) state of equilibrium of the human being. That Love and Joy are.

Now you've made some statements - you'd like to believe that anger and fear etc. are not created by ones self image, but you haven't backed that up so far in any fashion. I'm allowing for any 5=6 experiences instead of reason if you will - they will pass with me just like they will with any other person who's passed that grade and recieved the actual initiation. I'll allow for words not being good at conveying the grade. So prove now your thesis, enter or be bitten on the ass.


ReplyQuote
mika
 mika
(@mika)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 360
09/07/2009 9:02 pm  
"alrah" wrote:
What I'm saying is the same as what I've said from the start - that anger, fear etc, are not the natural (default) state of equilibrium of the human being. That Love and Joy are.

So, you think emotions that are pleasant to you are the natural state of equillibrium of the human being, and that emotions that are unpleasant to you are not. That's hilarious.

What, exactly, is the qualitative difference between anger and fear, and love and joy? Why, exactly, is one emotion part of the natural state of being human, and another emotion is not? Can you give *any* objective response that is not based on your own comfort level with your own emotional experiences?


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1838
09/07/2009 9:38 pm  

So, you think emotions that are pleasant to you are the natural state of equillibrium of the human being, and that emotions that are unpleasant to you are not. That's hilarious

Actually, in relation to the "True Will," it may be that conditions evocative of particular emotive states are found to be beneficial to the expression of that Will. It's not that the emotion itself is the state of equilibrium. Never the less, the emotion may speak to how that equilibrium is in action. Of course, we live in an ever changing field of experience where we must adapt to every sort of condition. Thus, it is helpful to cultivate an approach to such change whereby one isn't "derailed" when things are less than desirable. I prefer Casteneda's approach, where he writes: "The basic difference between a warrior and an ordinary man is that a warrior takes everything as a challenge while an ordinary man takes everything as a blessing or a curse." But the "Warrior" approach doesn't indicate a submissive response to whatever the wind blows. We act upon our environment (which includes our mind) via "intentional acts" whereby we "garden" the expression of our Will. Having a preference in this process is not a bad thing and it may indicate an understanding of one's "essential nature." This doesn't imply lack of understanding or experience of a non-preferential state of mind. I think Alrah's allusion to the tea ceremony elsewhere illustrates how one may regard things from an "enlightened" standpoint as opposed to attachment to ideas. The ability of the human being to have preferences and take action based on them can keep one person spinning their tires endlessly in the mud and find another actually "Doing" their "Will." In the latter category, we have a different relationship to all the various constructs of the mind.

If everything is seen as a challenge, we must consider WHAT is being "challenged." I see this as the "True Will" and the "challenge" may be pleasurable or painful. But it's regarded and related to by manifesting a course of action which is "Lawful," according to Crowley. Every instant the Will may be manifested, the "Challenge" may be "risen to" through both "non-attachment" yet "full engagement" driven by the continually released or revealed Will of the individual.

I wouldn't make assumptions, however, that an expression of preference for one environment (in this case, an emotional environment) over another is Alrah retreating into the little womb of her "comfort zone."


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
09/07/2009 9:44 pm  
"mika" wrote:
"alrah" wrote:
What I'm saying is the same as what I've said from the start - that anger, fear etc, are not the natural (default) state of equilibrium of the human being. That Love and Joy are.

So, you think emotions that are pleasant to you are the natural state of equillibrium of the human being, and that emotions that are unpleasant to you are not. That's hilarious.

What, exactly, is the qualitative difference between anger and fear, and love and joy? Why, exactly, is one emotion part of the natural state of being human, and another emotion is not? Can you give *any* objective response that is not based on your own comfort level with your own emotional experiences?

As you will. Anger and fear lead to attempts at dominance and submission - and these are not Thelemic. Now - I am really off to bed. Ask Camlion who is American about this, until tomorrow.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
09/07/2009 10:01 pm  

Ah, I love a good cat fight. miauuuuu hssssssss!

"Los" wrote:
You gave an example in which a person does a series of magical workings, and they all fail. So...does that mean to you that those things are not part of a person's will? The method you're trying to articulate is simply not presented with enough detail to make any sense of.

Yes, Person A should conclude the intentions embodied in those series of failed magickal workings are not in accordance with True Will. Or rather they are not primary to their evolution at that particular point in time, being more on the level of wishing thinking. Maybe at a later stage Person A will do them again with great success. Or realize he or she does not want them. What is certain is the presence of True Will is detected in the fact it causes real (not imaginary) change in one's life. And by "change" I don't mean deciding to go for a walk or see a movie or read a book, but shaking the foundations of Person A's personal universe. Why so? I regard True Will to be close to or identical with Hadit - what is within you more than "you."

"Los" wrote:
By observing the self in the midst of action without reference to thoughts like, "Gee whiz, this makes me unique. This is my special talent, and I'm a special little snowflake."

You are confusing uniqueness for narcissism, a state of delusion that seeks to preserve a false self-image by denying any hint of real difference. In contrast to, say, a cherished yet false difference ("special little snowflake"). It's curious - we are looking at the same term ("unique") in totally different ways. The uniqueness I refer to is a latent difference within the personality and not necessarily desirable to others. In fact it can make the person feel neurotic and uncomfortable. Or completely alienated. It's the part of the personality that resists conforming to social situations and does not "fit in". Zizek's concept of the psychoanalytic symptom is a useful model, but only as a starting point and should not be construed to mean symptom = True Will. Think of it this way: the symptom structures our reasoning but itself lies "outside" of reason or signification. One way we detect its presence is by noting what our thoughts, words and actions tend to keep recurring around over the years. It refuses to go away. Within the scheme of Heraclitus' river it is one of the few things that doesn't change so quickly.

Btw, some useful links on True Will:

http://www.thelemapedia.org/index.php/True_Will
http://www.scarletwoman.org/docs/docs_message.html


ReplyQuote
mika
 mika
(@mika)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 360
09/07/2009 10:01 pm  
"kidneyhawk" wrote:
Actually, in relation to the "True Will," it may be that conditions evocative of particular emotive states are found to be beneficial to the expression of that Will.

Are you claiming that the effective expression of your Will is dependent on you experiencing particular emotive states? That "Do What Thou Wilt Shall be the Whole of the Law" is only valid when your emotional state is beneficial to its expression (in which case, what does "the Whole of the Law" mean to you)? Can you only be a Master of the Temple when you're experiencing joy or some other pleasing feeling, then when you experience anger you drop down 6 grades, do not pass Go? That's... odd.

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
Of course, we live in an ever changing field of experience where we must adapt to every sort of condition. Thus, it is helpful to cultivate an approach to such change whereby one isn't "derailed" when things are less than desirable.

Of course. One such approach is understanding that the ability to express your will is independent of the conditions (mental, emotional or otherwise) in which you find yourself.

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
The ability of the human being to have preferences and take action based on them

If you are acting based on what you think you prefer and based on your preferred emotional states, you are not acting according to your will, you're acting according to what you think and feel. Do you believe that "Do What Thou Wilt" means "do what you think and feel you should do"?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
09/07/2009 10:17 pm  

That second link doesn't seem to work so here's another link:
http://www.hermetic.com/crowley/libers/lib2.html


ReplyQuote
mika
 mika
(@mika)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 360
09/07/2009 10:21 pm  
"alrah" wrote:
Anger and fear lead to attempts at dominance and submission - and these are not Thelemic.

Now you're claiming what is or isn't Thelemic? Pathetic. And what a glimpse into your psyche - "anger and fear lead to attempts at dominance and submission" - no wonder why you have issues. Anger and fear can also lead to communication and resolution. Have you even considered that possibility?

So, what if it is my Will to dominate or submit? Will you claim it must not actually be my will because dominance and submission are caused by anger and fear, and anger and fear are imbalanced and unhealthy, therefore none of these things could possibly be involved in one's expression of will?

What about expressing anger by yelling, is that contrary to Thelema? What about punching someone in the face, is that contrary to Thelema as well?

When I say you are transparent, it is because you are obviously attempting to create a model of magick and reality in which you can justify glorifying all the things you enjoy and villifying and avoiding all the things that make you uncomfortable.

Let's review some highlights of your claims, just from the past couple of days:
1. Your opinion about what words mean is more accurate than their dictionary definitions.
2. Your true will is responsible for physically manifesting your body.
3. Anger and fear are not part of the natural state of being human.
4. Certain ways that others choose to act are not Thelemic.


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1838
09/07/2009 10:33 pm  

Mika, you really DO seem incapable of following the bouncing ball and I wonder if this isn't because of a need to contradict others and establish ways in which you think you're right.

Are you claiming that the effective expression of your Will is dependent on you experiencing particular emotive states?

No, I'm not and DID not. 😯

I wrote:

it may be that conditions evocative of particular emotive states are found to be beneficial to the expression of that Will. It's not that the emotion itself is the state of equilibrium. Never the less, the emotion may speak to how that equilibrium is in action

But if you quote me in full, you don't have a criticism to make. The Will is present regardless of conditions. The Will may express itself through a variety of conditions. The Will is also a radiating impetus that colors our human ability to select one thing over another and act upon those conditions to change them. "Change according to Will." Thelema is dynamic and active. Otherwise, we'd have some ideal of a static Will which just sits there and has no connection whatsoever to our actions, decisions, valuations etc.

Can you only be a Master of the Temple when you're experiencing joy or some other pleasing feeling, then when you experience anger you drop down 6 grades, do not pass Go? That's... odd.

That would be quite odd. Never said or implied that. I said that one may act upon the environment including the emotional environment to induce changes beneficial to continued outflowing of the Will. I don't think this means always seeking a good or happy state. It may be determined that consciously entering into a very uncomfortable zone can be the space of change whereby the Will is better realized. The quote from Carlos is relevant here.

If you are acting based on what you think you prefer and based on your preferred emotional states, you are not acting according to your will, you're acting according to what you think and feel. Do you believe that "Do What Thou Wilt" means "do what you think and feel you should do"?

Sure. That's IF. And were we talking about what we THINK we prefer? No. We were talking about operating on exisiting conditions to create change beneficial to the Will. This includes the emotional environment. One has to have a relationship of understanding and "cooperation" with the Will to "know it." This will give rise to definite thoughts and feelings which have been impacted by this impetus. The statement that "I really think and feel I ought to do this," followed by appropriate action, needs to be read in relationship to its impetus. That's our challenge. To know the Will and cooperate with it. Understanding and work with this process tends to unfold over time with effort.

Do you see a problem with this?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
09/07/2009 11:57 pm  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
Spamming via Lashtal consists of sending out multiple notices via the Private Messaging system

According to you. The use of open forum discussion boards to promote commercial material is widely considered to be "spamming" all across the internet, whether that usage of the term is the one you prefer or not. "Unsolicited bulk email" is merely one aspect of the phenomenon. Look up "newsgroup spam" and "forum spam" if you don't believe me, and you'll find out that it predates both private message and email spam. The fact that you would prefer the term "spamming" to refer solely to private messaging in no way requires everybody else to adopt your favoured usage.

"MichaelStaley" wrote:
otherwise, you might care to clarify your remark.

I've been perfectly clear what I meant by my remarks. My clarification is still up there for you to read, if you cared to do so.

"MichaelStaley" wrote:
If you mean merely that notices are posted of my publications, then you should note that a) this is done with with the approval of the Webmaster, and b) this is done by many other people on this site.

So noted, and dismissed as irrelevant. As I noted, my observation of your activities on these forums - including, but not limited to, the general low quality and trivial, distractionary nature of the majority of your contributions, your disappearance from these forums and subsequent reappearance prior to announcing your latest republications, and your frequent, groundless, and potentially libelous accusations of "dishonesty" against those who criticise the absurd, anti-rational and unfounded religio-superstitious approach that you propagate - leads me to conclude that your primary interest in participating in these forums is to promote your publications and the material contained therein, and that, as far as I'm concerned, is spamming, whether you or anyone else likes that usage or not, and regardless of the fact that it is freely permitted by the owner. Furthermore, given your documented and retrievable history of making the types of remarks referred to above, if you think you're going to cow me with this sort of display of self-righteous indignation, then you have another think coming.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
10/07/2009 12:03 am  
"tai" wrote:
Hmmmmm you may have a point. OR you may have a reading disability and cannot follow an argument.

And, shocker as it is, it turns out to be the former.

"tai" wrote:
Note I did not say there is no difference between a pink unicorn on the astral plane and an apple on the table. As I wrote, "the question here is not the categorical difference between fantasy/imagination/stories versus reality" - that is, between things that are subjective versus objective. What I meant is there is no difference between "direct experience" of a pink unicorn on the astral versus "direct experience" of an apple on the table.

I know exactly what you said. I even went to the trouble of quoting it for you.

"tai" wrote:
To make my point clear, direct perception is a meaningless concept because it apprehends both subjective and objective things.

And you're wrong, again. There is a very clear distinction between direct experience of perceiving real things, and direct experience of perceiving imaginary things. As an elementary example, imaginary things are not perceived through your senses, on account of them being imaginary, and all. It is very easy for anyone who is not an idiot to distinguish between perceptions of real things and perceptions of imaginary things, because they are qualitatively different to an enormous degree. If you have not acquired this ability, then what you need to do in to go down to your local loony bin and volunteer yourself for indefinite incarceration, because you're not capable of functioning in the world. If you have acquired this ability, then you're just rattling off a pack of lies because you think it sounds good. Which way do you want it?


ReplyQuote
mika
 mika
(@mika)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 360
10/07/2009 12:29 am  
"kidneyhawk" wrote:
it may be that conditions evocative of particular emotive states are found to be beneficial to the expression of that Will.

If you believe certain conditions are beneficial to the expression of Will, then, logically, you also believe that other conditions are detrimental to the expression of Will. Therefore, you are indeed claiming that the effective expression of your Will is dependent on particular conditions.

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
It's not that the emotion itself is the state of equilibrium

Then, just to be clear, you disagree with Alrah's statements on the subject?

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
The Will is present regardless of conditions. The Will may express itself through a variety of conditions.

Yes, and yes.

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
The Will is also a radiating impetus that colors our human ability to select one thing over another and act upon those conditions to change them.

No. The Will does not color our ability to select one thing over another, that's a function of the mind (and emotions and ego an whatever other constructs the mind creates). The Will informs us which 'one thing over another' is our essential nature to select. It's up to the idividual to practice ignoring the constructs of the mind and its imagined preferences so that the preferences of the actual Will can become clear.

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
"Change according to Will."

Right. Not "change according to the preferences of the mind".

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
"mika" wrote:
Can you only be a Master of the Temple when you're experiencing joy or some other pleasing feeling, then when you experience anger you drop down 6 grades, do not pass Go? That's... odd.

That would be quite odd. Never said or implied that.

You did imply it when you said "it may be that conditions evocative of particular emotive states are found to be beneficial to the expression of that Will". As I explained above. If certain conditions are beneficial, others are detrimental, which implies that a person is more or less capable of effectively carrying out his Will depending on the conditions in which he finds himself, thus a Master is only a Master when the conditions are good.

In other words, if you believe a Master lives according to his Will regardless of the situation in which he finds himself, which I think you'd agree with, then your claim that certain conditions are beneficial and others aren't is obviously in error.

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
We were talking about operating on exisiting conditions to create change beneficial to the Will.

Maybe you were talking about that, but not me. I don't presume to know what would be beneficial to my Will, since that kind of speculation is fantasy and thus irrelevant, and in fact detrimental, to discovering and following my Will.

How do you know what changes would be beneficial to your Will? That's not a rhetorical question. Exactly *how* do you figure this out? What is your process, and by what standard do you judge the anticipated change to determine if it will be beneficial?

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
The statement that "I really think and feel I ought to do this," followed by appropriate action, needs to be read in relationship to its impetus.

The statement that "I really think and feel I ought to do this," needs to be followed with "but what I think and feel are constructs of the mind, thus illusions, thus not worth my attention right now". After you dismiss all those thoughts and feelings and other mental constructs, your Will is what remains, and *that* is your basis of action. That is how you discover your Will and act accordingly.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
10/07/2009 1:07 am  
"IAO131" wrote:
What kind of special information does 'observing the self' give you? How does it help in the least?

There's just no charitable way of responding to this. Maybe you ought to take up knitting instead.


ReplyQuote
Page 7 / 14
Share: