Is Thelema not so d...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Is Thelema not so different?  

Page 9 / 14
  RSS

 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
13/07/2009 12:56 pm  
"kidneyhawk" wrote:
When you define "reality" as that which is not imaginary and the imaginary as "that which is not real," we are essentially arriving at a definition of reality being that which is not unreal. Or "reality is reality." This does not define anything nor does it tell us anything.

There you go with your "straw men" again. Where did I ever define "imaginary" as "that which is not real"? "Imaginary" is that which is created by the imagination, as the name suggests. Such a definition as you describe would indeed not tell us anything, which is one important reason why I've never employed such a definition.

Once again, perception itself (if we include the "perception" of imaginary things within the scope of that term) is sufficient to distinguish between those sensations which are real and those which are imaginary. If I sit here and visualise an elephant, I know that I'm imagining it. If I go to the zoo and see an elephant, I know I'm not. I don't need to philosophise about it - perception it itself sufficient to draw the distinction, because the two "types of sensation" are very, very qualitatively different from one another. In the latter case, sure, there's a theoretical possibility that I'm a brain in a vat and some mad scientist is just pumping me images of an elephant. There's also a theoretical possibility that my brain is just broken, and feeding me false sensations. But one thing I do know for sure is that I'm not imagining those sensations, and no amount of talk about circular definitions is going to change that, because definitions are descriptions of actual things; our ability to distinguish fantasy and reality is not contingent upon how we define those things, and you cannot nullify this simple fact by rational argument against it.

To start suggesting that the phantasms of the "astral plane" are "real" because "all perception is a description", or because "all experience is subjective", can only be done by ignoring this very basic fact. To argue that you "create your own reality" or that "everything is real" can only be done by ignoring this very basic fact. This is a classical example of modern occultism in operation - you take a very basic fact such as the ability to distinguish fantasy from reality, and you wrap it up in philosophical wranglings and flowery mystical talk until you've confused yourself so much that such a basic fact becomes concealed, becomes occult, and you talk yourself into believing something false. And that's not a dig at occultists, either; that's an example of how modern occultism is supposed to work - that's what it does.

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
It is in this context, that I stated that EVERYTHING is "REAL."

But it isn't. Imaginary things are not real.

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
However, just because something is real or has an existence does not determine the nature of that existence.

And you try to tell me about a definition that "does not tell us anything"? If the existence of something "does not determine the nature of that existence" then it is a meaningless term. You can't say that it "exists", but that it exists "in a non-existing kind of way", or that something is "real, but not in the same way as something actually real is real".

This is the kind of nonsense that comes out when you start trying to insist that "everything is real". The only way such a statement can make sense is if you exclude unreal things from your definition of "everything", and then you certainly do have a tautology. If absolutely everything conceivable were "real" then "real" would have no discernible meaning whatsoever, because there'd be nothing unreal to contrast it with. Therefore, if you find yourself tempted to claim that "everything is real", it's a pretty good sign that you're using a very weird, idiosyncratic and ultimately meaningless definition of "real" that is completely at odds with what that word actually does mean, and a pretty good sign that what you have there is modern occultism at work trying to hide something from you.

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
We can observe that people can and do mistake one category for another. An Angel emerges in my room and I think it was a phenomena which belongs to that in which I categorize my child entering the room.

Yes, this would be an example of people mistaking "one category for another" - specifically, of mistaking the category of unreal things for the category of real things. If, on the other hand, you're having regular actual vivid hallucinations of angels in your room which you are unable to identify as imaginary then what you need to do is to seek medical attention, because you aren't well if that's happening.

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
DWTW leads us through the clutter and chatter into that "something deeper" from which we "re-enter" the environment surrounding it and our personal "standard" is established "downward," as it were, into the world of action. Instead of riding on a concept to eventually "get there" we develop concepts as we "come back here." The result is not a dogma we would foist onto everyone else but our unique way of operating in the realms of choice and activity, a way which is expressing the outflowing of our "True Will," as opposed to our lives being dominated by the encrustation of behavior patterns which are ignorant of and at odds with the Will.

What absolute unadulterated nonsense. Crowley was very clear about what "Do what thou wilt" means, and it means to perform those actions which most closely accord with one's nature, to "establish [ourselves] in [our] right relation with the Universe", to follow the "orbit for each star" that "the order of nature provides", to "discriminate between what [one] actually is, and what [one] has fondly imagined [one]self to be", since "the will is but the dynamic aspect of the self". It has absolutely nothing to do with "getting there" and "coming back here", or "our unique way of operating in the realms of choice and activity", or "establishing our personal standard downwards", or any other kind of enthusiastic flowery outburst. And giving credence to the reality of "angels" does absolutely nothing to assist with such a task. What you're talking about has nothing to do with Thelema.

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
Your definition of "reality" here does not seem particularly helpful for inquiry and understanding of many of our subjective experiences in which the Will is always moving. It dismisses what it doesn't know, experience, understand and so on as "imaginary" or "unreal," which is to say non-existant.

Firstly, regardless of how "helpful" a definition of reality may be, it never makes sense to start including imaginary things within your definition of "reality" just because you think it would be "more helpful" to do so. Secondly, such a definition does not "dismiss" imaginary things as such - it correctly identifies them as such. You cannot work effectively with imaginary things - "effectively" as far as discovering and performing the will is concerned, at least - until you accept them as imaginary, because until you do you are going to be horribly misled at every turn. For some reason, you appear to be under the impression that deliberately and wilfully believing imaginary things to be real is going to somehow be helpful to you; it isn't - it's going to be extremely unhelpful.

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
Again, that is why I made the statement that Everything is Real.

And again, you are in error to make that statement.

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
"Reality" here implies existence without characteristics, which are relatively determined under a different context.

Reality certainly does not imply that. There are plenty of characteristics which are not "relatively determined" at all, mass being an example. The scales by which we measure mass might be "relatively determined", but the physical quantity being measured is not. Other characteristics such as "redness" are created by the perceptive faculties, but are certainly not "imagined", and are of a totally different order to and easily discernible from those characteristics which are imagined, such as the colour of an "angel's" radiant smile. To talk yourself into suggesting that there is nothing "helpful" about the ability to distinguish such differences is unbelievably foolish, as is the suggestion that imaginary things are "real" for the same reasons.

Everything I hear from you on this subject seems to boil down to "life feels much more invigorating and interesting to me if I believe imaginary things are real, and you aren't going to spoil my fun, so I'm going to keep doing it". All the details seem to be merely flawed rationalisations to justify continuing to hold that view.


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1827
13/07/2009 3:21 pm  

Once again, perception itself (if we include the "perception" of imaginary things within the scope of that term) is sufficient to distinguish between those sensations which are real and those which are imaginary

Actually, perception doesn't distinguish in this sense. It receives an impression. The mind determines where its going to categorically docket the impression. It may assess a perceived thing as "real" or "imaginary" or any other number of categories to which it chooses to behave and respond in particular ways.

This is a point I have been attempting to make here. We received impressions through our perceptive faculties and then we assess those impressions. Impressions imply something which does the impressing, ie. something which exists-or is "real." This can and does refer to much more than sensory input. The many images jostled about in dreaming, for example, arise from "available material" in reponse to "what's there." I can wake from a dream and decide that "OMG, my Spirit Master, Frank, just appeared again, handed me a key and told me that it opens the Gates of Gorton." However, a detached analysis of the experience may reveal much information about it. Frank may well be a manifestation of my desire to be connected to some "Spirit Master" which makes me feel special, a condition arising from not feeling special, from experience and programming relating to an underpinning sense of lack of worth and so on. The Key may be an element from a film I was watching the night before. Gorton could well enumerate into 666 as deeper functions of my mind assemble letters and numbers to conform to and fulfill desire. If this is all true, then my assessment is helping work with this perception to identify an underpinning origin in the "reality" of desire and mental/emotional structures which I may then see as indivative of a disability, a chain about my True Will.

On the other hand, such introspective work and observation may also yield up very different conclusions as to what the dream experience is conveying. The Will itself can make use of the "available material" to express itself.

In the above example (me and my friend, Frank), I would say that the reasoning faculties are being employed in service of the Will. They are being applied to eat through the surface of the experience and understand it and the approach is detached enough from self-gratification to willfully enter "unpleasant" or "disappointing" territory to get at the underlying nature of the phenomena. What drives us to this sort of action? The Will "kicking in" and flowing, the act of cooperating with it as it reveals itself.

But just because such phenomena may indicate a problem does not imply that all such phenomena expresses a problem per se. In the material universe, an object does not indicate a problem due to its perceived "materiality." It must be contextualized. The presence of a poisonous gas in a given locale is what it is. It may be quite natural and even beneficial in its environment. But to me, it is a threat to my mortal life and therefore the expression of my Will in that life. I may make this assessment, take action and choose to "clear the area." But the assessment and subsequent action has nothing to do with accepting or rejecting "materiality" itself.

The same is true with the "immaterial." The stuff of my dream is not "material" per se. One could remark that it is not real but it has its own existence and this existence can not only lend influence to the "real" world, it can reflect and express its own cause, which may be very vital to apprehend in relation to the Will.

This has nothing to do with clinging to false ideas and notions to protect myself from someone "spoiling my fun." It is an approach to human experience as a whole, without ignoring or shutting off areas that do not fit my understanding of what has a "valid" existence and what doesn't. Furthermore, it is an approach which seeks understanding of the phenomena beyond judgements which may reflect my personal prejudices towards ideas, be that "cool aliens exists and they like me" or "of course none of this can possibly have any implication, value or existence beyond the way I understand the world-and my mind-to work." And THAT is "occultism," examining the unknown territory, without imposing expectations that it conform to how we'd like it to be, to deepen out understanding of the factors involved, in relation to what we ARE and not what we'd imagine ourselves to be.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
13/07/2009 5:11 pm  

The word reality is used in many ways. In it's broadest sense it means the state of things as they actually exist.

All the problems arise when people assume reality means the same thing as consensus truth, or indeed any other type of truth, which it does not. Some people also use the word to mean a fact. In order to use the word reality to mean a fact, the fact has to be proven as true though - otherwise it is merely a fact. I may or may not die tomorrow is a fact. There is no indeterminate state. Therefore - whether or not I die tomorrow: that fact is true, and reality. If however I say that I may die tomorrow, the veracity of that statement depends upon whether I actually die or not, so it's not a fact, merely a possibility, and not reality. This is the way realists use the word reality.

When most occultists use the term 'reality', they're really talking about phenomenological reality. This type of reality is subjective and does not rely upon consensus truth - but upon the perceptual functioning of consciousness, and this type of reality could be either common to others or unique to the individual. It can be my perception that I both live and die daily, and so this view of reality does not always have to disagree with the realists use of the term: the reality of 'I may or may not die tomorrow' agrees with the reality of the perception that 'I both live and die daily', even though that is a subjective perception whether it is based on medical knowledge of the cellular life of the body, or a religious belief.

One advantage of phenomenological reality to the occultist over the realists use of the term reality, is that the realist always comes up against a false/true logical operator, while the occultist is not limited by the realist view, and is free to use a true/true logical operator (or a false/false), and this comes in handy in such matters as the self referential question, or the view that everything is an illusion, or in the attainment of certain mystical states. But for the realist - there is no inbetween state between living and dying. You're either alive or you're dead. true/false.


ReplyQuote
mika
 mika
(@mika)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 360
13/07/2009 7:11 pm  
"kidneyhawk" wrote:
This has nothing to do with clinging to false ideas and notions to protect myself from someone "spoiling my fun." It is an approach to human experience as a whole, without ignoring or shutting off areas that do not fit my understanding of what has a "valid" existence and what doesn't.

The practice of distinguishing between which perceptions are a result of things that really exist and which result from things that are imagined is only interpreted as "ignoring or shutting of areas that do not fit [your] understanding of what has a "valid" existence and what doesn't" by people who wish to "cling to false ideas and notions to protect [yourself] from someone spoiling your fun."

No one is saying that you must ignore certain experiences or "shut off areas" (areas of awareness, I assume you mean) based on what is real and what is imagined. For example, you can perform a ritual wherein you communicate with an angel, and then determine that the angel didn't actually exist outside of your imagination, yet still derive significance and meaning from the experience. Acknowledging which things don't have an existence outside of your imagination is only a problem for people who wish to believe everything they imagine is, or can be, real, hence their attitude that facing reality is somehow equivalent to a closed mind.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
13/07/2009 7:38 pm  

Mika - since the realist view clings to the relative perception of existance, it will always deny the absolute view of existance. In Buddhism and in Magick these two truths sit side by side, complementary to each other as the reality of all actual existance.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
13/07/2009 9:26 pm  

93,

I just can't READ!

I tried, you know. I really truly tried. I went as far back as Page 10 or so, and read this thread. Usually in the past long threads change course every so often, and I find where the course changes, and read from there, so please don't bother patronizing me for not reading all 14 pages. You'll get nowhere with it as I read what I felt was relevant and I could give two shits what anyone else thinks.

Onwards...

There are quite a few reasons I am having troubles reading this thread. Reason number 1: Erwin... shut up already! You've been posting in these Forums for years man, and you still haven't learned one bit of etiquette or decency. You are the kid on the playground who would try to ruin a perfectly good game of kickball by walking up and telling everyone they have the rules wrong after they have all been enjoying the game from hours! That type of crap is just ridiculous. If you are that concerned with it, go start your own game of kickball and leave the players from the other game out of it. You have nothing original to say, and quite frankly its distracting to sit and try and read pages upon pages of material, to have some idiot jump in every so often with hundreds of words of crap. (Even this post is on some ways distracting, is it not? Fine by me... it is my intention.)

Another reason I cannot read this thread.... Los, you seem like you are well intentioned. You are probably a really good person. But you spend so much time trying to rationlize some of this stuff that I have to skip over your posts too.

Tai - Why do you even engage in conversations with Erwin? He's the Forum Troll that simply never leaves. I would love to read what you have to say but when it is all in response to Erwin I get the feeling that you may not want anyone to read what you have to say, because no one besides Erwin really cares to read about Erwin.

Alrah - 5=6, 8=3 .... Are you serious? Come on, tell me you are a member of the True Rosicrucian fraternity now. Tell me you have handled the Holies of Holies with your bare hands, and you and God play poker on Tuesdays! Really, for you to be in the middle of a conversation and demand a view of "at least 5=6 equivalency" or whatever it was you explicitly said (I'm not a quote monger, as most may know), is just foul. I've been following this conversation just fine, and I have no friggin idea what my "Grade" is. And the 8=3, post Abyss comments. Honey, I'm very excited for you. Congratulations, and I hope that it is all that you ever dreamed it would be and more. However, you can really keep that mess to yourself. One of the most despicable things I ever read was someone who actually took the 8=3 Oath on a Forum. Sometimes Silence is a virtue. On top of that, with all due respect, you make the claim to the Grade but get overrun in a discussion about Will for seeming to identify your Will with emotional values such as joy. Perhaps you were speaking of another joy. It's a fault of Western Occult dialect, I understand.

Then... the "revoking of the 8=3" bit. In my experience this Forum has NEVER had such garbage tossed onto its wonderful templates. Ever. Maybe a quote monger can find some stuff running around the millions of posts, but seriously... that sort of mess can be left for alt.magick or wherever it is you all came from. The main condition of a Master of the Temple is to interpret every phenomenon as a particular dealing of God with one's soul. Thus, it is by definition impossible for ANYONE to "revoke" the Grade. There is no way to know how God is dealing with someone else's soul, and there is absolutely no way to monitor it. And further, who is anyone to say, "I revoke your 8=3"! By the power invested in you... how. In my opinion, the open claim to the Grade is simply a way to try and make oneself shine to one's peers. The Sun shines whether it tells you it is the Sun or not. Period. And no one, no planet, no other star, can take that away from the Sun. Sure, if someone is being an ass enough to make another person think "I revoke your claim to 8=3", then maybe that person is just being an ass and you are upset. I've known real Masters in my time, and I tell you that Erwin is far from a Master. He never has been. If his idea of Mastery is to continually attempt to belittle and confound others, then he is seriously screwed up, and perhaps even got swallowed by our wonderful nemesis 333. But whatever. All the Grades and titles are so much TRASH anyway. I say that as a Member of the A:.A:. too. Nope, I'm not a prominent one, but again who cares. You people are making monkeys out of yourselves for no damned reason.

Mika, I have enjoyed reading your posts thus far. It's nice to virtually meet you. Kyle, as always, you are a marvelous debater. It is quite possible to take some of the exchange between you two and make it into a small paper pamphlet to be read by all. I think that together you both were able to cut to the core of what is sometimes a very hard issue to discuss for most people, and you have done it marvelously. Good form, excellent discussion!

My opinion on the thread is: Yes, Thelema is not so different from other religions. It's not the Masters that make it so, but the abortive births. Unfortunately it is so. As for Will... I hold the opinion that the common consciousness of the average Joe is puppeteered by his Ego. This includes all of his sensory perceptions and virtually everything that makes Joe "who he is". When it comes to Will, the Joe has to turn himself inside out. Joe has to recognize the Divine within himself, and allow that Divinity to become the puppeteer. It is much easier said than done as most of us know, but there is a major difference between being tossed about by the senses and common mankind issues, and being able to distinguish between even the slightest impressions upon those senses and then utilize EVEN THE NEGATIVE ONES in order to fulfill one's purpose. I won't go on with this, as the way the forums go I'll have to re-explain it one hundred times anyway. In short, that is my personal view, and it was my view before I read this thread, and it has been my view for a very long time.

As an addendum... To interpret every phenomenon as a particular dealing of God with one's soul INCLUDES EVERY PHENOMENON, not just the ones that bring joy but the ones that bring pain and despair also. Recall that the Master of the Temple's Trance is Sorrow.

To Paul: As always, I do my absolute best to adhere to the Guidelines of this wonderful Forum. If any of this post is in violation of those Guidelines please let me know and I will correct the errors in some way as soon as I can. Those who know me know that one value I have always tried to uphold is a sense of respect, but sometimes... some things just need to be said.

Best wishes to everyone the Great Work!

93 93/93,

Az

P.S. For people like Erwin who are undoubtedly going to grab their dictionaries and copies of Book 4 and try and pick apart my words piece by little piece: I meant what I said exactly as I wrote it. There is no veiled language, and no cover ups. Furthermore, my statements are MY OPINIONS and therefore are subject to such criticism in such a manner that people may not agree with my opinions, but that is why they are opinions. I honestly don't care who agrees with me, and I'm not going to spend 14 off-topic pages defending my own opinions. Read it or don't. Accept it or don't. Either way, don't bother complaining as I simply will not respond. They are my opinions. They are a reflection of the manner in which some of your posts and presentations have made certain impressions upon my being, and therefore my Will in the circumstance is to accept the impressions I find fruitful and possibly beneficial, while refuting the claims and impressions which are not beneficial and at times just plain absurd. Therefore, it is my own little way of filtering the "Gold from the dross" in order that I may continue on in my Orbit as a Star. It just so happens that in this filtering I personally as a human being and genuine Aspirant have found that so much is left unsaid that it really needs to be said, and I have always ended up being the one to say such things instead of continually ignoring them as though they never occurred like some of our World Leaders do. With that, I reserve right to express my opinion, and see absolutely no reason for me to sit and defend it against the same type of crap I have refuted.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
13/07/2009 9:39 pm  

Ok. I said I was pissed at the time Azidonis. You know - pissed and making and arsehole of herself? I do that sometimes. lol. 😀

Post more often please. I like you. 🙂


ReplyQuote
mika
 mika
(@mika)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 360
13/07/2009 9:40 pm  
"alrah" wrote:
Mika - since the realist view clings to the relative perception of existance, it will always deny the absolute view of existance.

Support your claim about "the realist view" with evidence. Real evidence, not "this is what I think realism means therefore it is what realism means".

The actual definitions of "realist" and "realism" contradict your statements. "A person who tends to view or represent things as they really are" would not "cling to the relative perception of existance". A person who believes that "objects of sense perception have an existence independent of the act of perception" would not "always deny the absolute view of existance". In fact, it seems that the exact opposite is true. So, seriously, provide some support for your statements, or it will be apparent that this is yet another of your posts where you randomly string some interesting sounding words together whose definitions you don't actually understand, hoping no one is smart enough to figure out you're not making any sense.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/realist
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/realism


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
13/07/2009 9:45 pm  
"alrah" wrote:
Ok. I said I was pissed at the time Azidonis. You know - pissed and making and arsehole of herself? I do that sometimes. lol. 😀

Post more often please. I like you. 🙂

93,

I've done that before myself, actually. It turned out to be an extremely embarrassing moment, as I had to check myself and put myself in place on the spot. I felt like such an ass.

Many years ago I got into a real life discussion with another Thelemite. We were discussing the relevance of titles and Grades and all that garbage. He was an O.T.O. member as I recall, and I don't think he enjoyed me calling all of their Grades garbage. Anyway, I mentioned being a Neophyte in the A:.A:. and as soon as I did I had to mentally scold myself! I thought, "Who really gives a damn? What did you just prove? You proved that you are an idiot for saying Grades are trash and tossing yours out like you have a clue, and a complete ass for trying to use it to get the upper hand in the debate!"

It was honestly one of the most embarrassing moments of my life. Perhaps that's really why it was so poignant when you did it. 🙂

93 93/93,

Az


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
13/07/2009 9:49 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
93,

I just can't READ!

I tried, you know. I really truly tried. I went as far back as Page 10 or so, and read this thread. Usually in the past long threads change course every so often, and I find where the course changes, and read from there, so please don't bother patronizing me for not reading all 14 pages. You'll get nowhere with it as I read what I felt was relevant and I could give two shits what anyone else thinks.

Onwards...

There are quite a few reasons I am having troubles reading this thread. Reason number 1: Erwin... shut up already! You've been posting in these Forums for years man, and you still haven't learned one bit of etiquette or decency. You are the kid on the playground who would try to ruin a perfectly good game of kickball by walking up and telling everyone they have the rules wrong after they have all been enjoying the game from hours! That type of crap is just ridiculous. If you are that concerned with it, go start your own game of kickball and leave the players from the other game out of it. You have nothing original to say, and quite frankly its distracting to sit and try and read pages upon pages of material, to have some idiot jump in every so often with hundreds of words of crap. (Even this post is on some ways distracting, is it not? Fine by me... it is my intention.)

Another reason I cannot read this thread.... Los, you seem like you are well intentioned. You are probably a really good person. But you spend so much time trying to rationlize some of this stuff that I have to skip over your posts too.

Tai - Why do you even engage in conversations with Erwin? He's the Forum Troll that simply never leaves. I would love to read what you have to say but when it is all in response to Erwin I get the feeling that you may not want anyone to read what you have to say, because no one besides Erwin really cares to read about Erwin.

Alrah - 5=6, 8=3 .... Are you serious? Come on, tell me you are a member of the True Rosicrucian fraternity now. Tell me you have handled the Holies of Holies with your bare hands, and you and God play poker on Tuesdays! Really, for you to be in the middle of a conversation and demand a view of "at least 5=6 equivalency" or whatever it was you explicitly said (I'm not a quote monger, as most may know), is just foul. I've been following this conversation just fine, and I have no friggin idea what my "Grade" is. And the 8=3, post Abyss comments. Honey, I'm very excited for you. Congratulations, and I hope that it is all that you ever dreamed it would be and more. However, you can really keep that mess to yourself. One of the most despicable things I ever read was someone who actually took the 8=3 Oath on a Forum. Sometimes Silence is a virtue. On top of that, with all due respect, you make the claim to the Grade but get overrun in a discussion about Will for seeming to identify your Will with emotional values such as joy. Perhaps you were speaking of another joy. It's a fault of Western Occult dialect, I understand.

Then... the "revoking of the 8=3" bit. In my experience this Forum has NEVER had such garbage tossed onto its wonderful templates. Ever. Maybe a quote monger can find some stuff running around the millions of posts, but seriously... that sort of mess can be left for alt.magick or wherever it is you all came from. The main condition of a Master of the Temple is to interpret every phenomenon as a particular dealing of God with one's soul. Thus, it is by definition impossible for ANYONE to "revoke" the Grade. There is no way to know how God is dealing with someone else's soul, and there is absolutely no way to monitor it. And further, who is anyone to say, "I revoke your 8=3"! By the power invested in you... how. In my opinion, the open claim to the Grade is simply a way to try and make oneself shine to one's peers. The Sun shines whether it tells you it is the Sun or not. Period. And no one, no planet, no other star, can take that away from the Sun. Sure, if someone is being an ass enough to make another person think "I revoke your claim to 8=3", then maybe that person is just being an ass and you are upset. I've known real Masters in my time, and I tell you that Erwin is far from a Master. He never has been. If his idea of Mastery is to continually attempt to belittle and confound others, then he is seriously screwed up, and perhaps even got swallowed by our wonderful nemesis 333. But whatever. All the Grades and titles are so much TRASH anyway. I say that as a Member of the A:.A:. too. Nope, I'm not a prominent one, but again who cares. You people are making monkeys out of yourselves for no damned reason.

Mika, I have enjoyed reading your posts thus far. It's nice to virtually meet you. Kyle, as always, you are a marvelous debater. It is quite possible to take some of the exchange between you two and make it into a small paper pamphlet to be read by all. I think that together you both were able to cut to the core of what is sometimes a very hard issue to discuss for most people, and you have done it marvelously. Good form, excellent discussion!

My opinion on the thread is: Yes, Thelema is not so different from other religions. It's not the Masters that make it so, but the abortive births. Unfortunately it is so. As for Will... I hold the opinion that the common consciousness of the average Joe is puppeteered by his Ego. This includes all of his sensory perceptions and virtually everything that makes Joe "who he is". When it comes to Will, the Joe has to turn himself inside out. Joe has to recognize the Divine within himself, and allow that Divinity to become the puppeteer. It is much easier said than done as most of us know, but there is a major difference between being tossed about by the senses and common mankind issues, and being able to distinguish between even the slightest impressions upon those senses and then utilize EVEN THE NEGATIVE ONES in order to fulfill one's purpose. I won't go on with this, as the way the forums go I'll have to re-explain it one hundred times anyway. In short, that is my personal view, and it was my view before I read this thread, and it has been my view for a very long time.

As an addendum... To interpret every phenomenon as a particular dealing of God with one's soul INCLUDES EVERY PHENOMENON, not just the ones that bring joy but the ones that bring pain and despair also. Recall that the Master of the Temple's Trance is Sorrow.

To Paul: As always, I do my absolute best to adhere to the Guidelines of this wonderful Forum. If any of this post is in violation of those Guidelines please let me know and I will correct the errors in some way as soon as I can. Those who know me know that one value I have always tried to uphold is a sense of respect, but sometimes... some things just need to be said.

Best wishes to everyone the Great Work!

93 93/93,

Az

P.S. For people like Erwin who are undoubtedly going to grab their dictionaries and copies of Book 4 and try and pick apart my words piece by little piece: I meant what I said exactly as I wrote it. There is no veiled language, and no cover ups. Furthermore, my statements are MY OPINIONS and therefore are subject to such criticism in such a manner that people may not agree with my opinions, but that is why they are opinions. I honestly don't care who agrees with me, and I'm not going to spend 14 off-topic pages defending my own opinions. Read it or don't. Accept it or don't. Either way, don't bother complaining as I simply will not respond. They are my opinions. They are a reflection of the manner in which some of your posts and presentations have made certain impressions upon my being, and therefore my Will in the circumstance is to accept the impressions I find fruitful and possibly beneficial, while refuting the claims and impressions which are not beneficial and at times just plain absurd. Therefore, it is my own little way of filtering the "Gold from the dross" in order that I may continue on in my Orbit as a Star. It just so happens that in this filtering I personally as a human being and genuine Aspirant have found that so much is left unsaid that it really needs to be said, and I have always ended up being the one to say such things instead of continually ignoring them as though they never occurred like some of our World Leaders do. With that, I reserve right to express my opinion, and see absolutely no reason for me to sit and defend it against the same type of crap I have refuted.

I too have been following this thread, and whilst I haven't contributed, I must say, Azidonis: fabulously well said.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
13/07/2009 9:50 pm  

Mika - if you want to object about anything I've posted then come up with a proper argument that's for your position instead of trying a stupid ploy to pick apart my words through dictionary dichotimy, random criticism of what you don't understand, projection, and silly posturing. I posted definitions on a.m. for the above. Your dictionary was written by general scholars and not specialists in the feild. I'll repost my definitions here (as you requested I give) if you don't understand them now. Infact - just go look up the wiki on 'reality' and save us the bother.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality

Otherwise - stop spamming Lashtal with silly links. This isn't a.m. and they aren't an excuse for a coherent argument.

And I'm not pissed today. 🙂


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
13/07/2009 9:59 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
"alrah" wrote:
Ok. I said I was pissed at the time Azidonis. You know - pissed and making and arsehole of herself? I do that sometimes. lol. 😀

Post more often please. I like you. 🙂

93,

I've done that before myself, actually. It turned out to be an extremely embarrassing moment, as I had to check myself and put myself in place on the spot. I felt like such an ass.

Many years ago I got into a real life discussion with another Thelemite. We were discussing the relevance of titles and Grades and all that garbage. He was an O.T.O. member as I recall, and I don't think he enjoyed me calling all of their Grades garbage. Anyway, I mentioned being a Neophyte in the A:.A:. and as soon as I did I had to mentally scold myself! I thought, "Who really gives a damn? What did you just prove? You proved that you are an idiot for saying Grades are trash and tossing yours out like you have a clue, and a complete ass for trying to use it to get the upper hand in the debate!"

It was honestly one of the most embarrassing moments of my life. Perhaps that's really why it was so poignant when you did it. 🙂

93 93/93,

Az

Oh God - yes. The number of times I've woken hungover and thought 'oh shit - I was drunk and in charge of the computer last night...' :-)))

At this point I don't mind anybody giving me the nudge and suggesting 'time please alrah?' I'd welcome it. 🙂 I appreciate it! The executive functions just don't cut in when they should independantly.

And the grades *are* all garbage! The grades mean nothing without the 'knock your socks off' - 'oh wow!' 'golden all' stuff, or the 'omg - I've been zapped by a white light that zapped through my spine and made everything goddamn thing oh so clear'.. and the initiation (which I still won't speak of but just because it'd be a spoiler;).

Somewhere along the line I lost all ability to feel shame. ;D

Email me!


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5304
13/07/2009 10:03 pm  
"alrah" wrote:
And I'm not pissed today. 🙂

I think we've established from your numerous posts on the subject that you're partial to the occasional drop. Not sure it helps your credibility to keep mentioning it, though...

😉

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
13/07/2009 10:22 pm  
"lashtal" wrote:
"alrah" wrote:
And I'm not pissed today. 🙂

I think we've established from your numerous posts on the subject that you're partial to the occasional drop. Not sure it helps your credibility to keep mentioning it, though...

😉

Lol. When I came back from experiencing the highest dyhana, then I thought I was some kind of master and here to enlighten everyone, and my ego expanded until I was a mad girl - and although I'd saw something truely wonderful, my ego completely took it over and after propelling myself into the abyss for 14 years it eventually got resolved. But you can see that mad girl when I get pissed. It's obvious. I still have an ego, but now I'm not worrying about my credibility, and now I have some peace from the 14 years of recycling depression that I went through. I've posted some things that have aided me in the work recently when I'm not pissed. But I still have aspergers syndrome. I still have a lack of executive functions, and I still have to practise and do the work, and I still make mistakes and slip up. Everything changes and we are like surfers trying to balance on the next wave.

Credibility means nothing to me - people will either find some benefit from what I post or they won't. I hope they will - do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.


ReplyQuote
mika
 mika
(@mika)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 360
13/07/2009 10:29 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
There are quite a few reasons I am having troubles reading this thread. Reason number 1: Erwin... shut up already! You've been posting in these Forums for years man, and you still haven't learned one bit of etiquette or decency.

The purpose of these forums is not to teach etiquette or decency, so why would you expect anyone to learn such things here? As stated by the site admin, "I've said a number of times here that the site exists to "serve Thelema and the legacy of Aleister Crowley". So, as much as you may like others to behave according to your personal beliefs about what constitutes "etiquette and decency", there is no obligation for anyone to conform to your expectations, but only to conform to the rules of the forum as set by the Moderator.

Besides which, can you please explain to me what, exactly, "etiquette and decency" have to do with the legacy of Aleister Crowley?

"Azidonis" wrote:
You are the kid on the playground who would try to ruin a perfectly good game of kickball by walking up and telling everyone they have the rules wrong after they have all been enjoying the game from hours!

They may have been enjoying *a* game, but if they're not playing by the rules, it's not, technically, "kickball". You can't have it both ways - if you want to "play a perfectly good game of" Thelema, you need to be aware of, or at least consistent with, his well established concepts and definitions. If you want to make up your own "game rules", then you're no longer talking about Thelema (or whatever other of Crowley's work). Calling your ideas about magick "Thelema" and throwing in a bunch of words that Crowley used like "Will" and such to give your statements credibility or because it sounds cool is just so much b.s. This is not a dismissal of everything that is not Thelema or from Crowley, it is a statement about calling things what they are.

"Azidonis" wrote:
My opinion on the thread is: Yes, Thelema is not so different from other religions.

You think Thelema is a religion? I didn't realize people held that belief here.

"Azidonis" wrote:
As an addendum... To interpret every phenomenon as a particular dealing of God with one's soul INCLUDES EVERY PHENOMENON, not just the ones that bring joy but the ones that bring pain and despair also.

That was worth repeating.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
13/07/2009 10:40 pm  
"mika" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
There are quite a few reasons I am having troubles reading this thread. Reason number 1: Erwin... shut up already! You've been posting in these Forums for years man, and you still haven't learned one bit of etiquette or decency.

Besides which, can you please explain to me what, exactly, "etiquette and decency" have to do with the legacy of Aleister Crowley?

On a forum such as LAShTAL -actually, on any forum- I would have thought that etiquette and decency were two things that should issue from all participants.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3951
13/07/2009 10:42 pm  
"mika" wrote:
Besides which, can you please explain to me what, exactly, "etiquette and decency" have to do with the legacy of Aleister Crowley?

🙄


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
13/07/2009 10:44 pm  
"mika" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
As an addendum... To interpret every phenomenon as a particular dealing of God with one's soul INCLUDES EVERY PHENOMENON, not just the ones that bring joy but the ones that bring pain and despair also.

That was worth repeating.

Yes it was. And when you bring on the abyss then pain and despair are your lot until you give up all attachment. The universe attacks each attachment until you give up everything you are attached to. My nature is one of a figher (Moon in Aries) but in the abyss you don't win unless you learn to loose.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
13/07/2009 10:46 pm  

Mika's not English;-) I'll never invite her for tea, although I enjoy the sparring of intellects and I hope she does also.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
13/07/2009 11:13 pm  
"mikal" wrote:
You think Thelema is a religion? I didn't realize people held that belief here.

93/93

"The method of science, the aim of religion."

93


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
13/07/2009 11:15 pm  

93,

This is what I meant by having to clarify myself "one hundred times". 🙂 No matter, in turn...

"mika" wrote:
The purpose of these forums is not to teach etiquette or decency, so why would you expect anyone to learn such things here? As stated by the site admin, "I've said a number of times here that the site exists to "serve Thelema and the legacy of Aleister Crowley". So, as much as you may like others to behave according to your personal beliefs about what constitutes "etiquette and decency", there is no obligation for anyone to conform to your expectations, but only to conform to the rules of the forum as set by the Moderator.

Besides which, can you please explain to me what, exactly, "etiquette and decency" have to do with the legacy of Aleister Crowley?

Etiquette and decency may or may not have anything at all to do with the legacy of Aliester Crowley. However, on a Forum where many people are engaged in discussions regarding the legacy of Aliester Crowley, etiquette and decency do come into play. This has been supported already by others, and I do believe the Forum Guidelines are not only a declaration of what constitutes "way out of line" but also a call or charge to participants to observe some sort of etiquette and decency. Even The Book of the Law, if you want to take it that far, says,"As brothers fight ye!".

They may have been enjoying *a* game, but if they're not playing by the rules, it's not, technically, "kickball". You can't have it both ways - if you want to "play a perfectly good game of" Thelema, you need to be aware of, or at least consistent with, his well established concepts and definitions. If you want to make up your own "game rules", then you're no longer talking about Thelema (or whatever other of Crowley's work). Calling your ideas about magick "Thelema" and throwing in a bunch of words that Crowley used like "Will" and such to give your statements credibility or because it sounds cool is just so much b.s. This is not a dismissal of everything that is not Thelema or from Crowley, it is a statement about calling things what they are.

Eh, semantics. You are right on the semantics. I could care less about semantics, but whatever. The point is yes, they were playing *a* game. However, the example is the same. If a group of friends and I are playing flag football, and we agree that the boundaries are the trees on either side, and the goal line is a series of pine cones we have lines up at each end, and touchdowns are worth only one point, and no one is wearing any equipment other than flags, and you have to pull both flags in order to be down, and well.... it's still a variation of football, and the point is, it is a game we are playing. You don't walk up and say that it's not football and try and ruin our fun. That is a lack of decency. If you want to play, fine. But don't try and belittle the game we have created. If mattered that much, one would really have to go buy all of the necessary equipment, hire officials, recruit full teams, hold tryouts, practice, get some cheerleaders and hot dogs, etc. ad nauseum. At the neighborhood park we may not have all of that though, so we get a football, adjust the rules the way we need to in order to accommodate the intention with the resources, and we call it football.

Did I really just have to explain that? LOL

You think Thelema is a religion? I didn't realize people held that belief here.

Sigh... You of all people. I enjoyed your posts. You have accused alrah of this so many times, I hardly expected you to do it as well. Good sir or madam, you have put words into my mouth. I never said Thelema was a religion. I said Thelema is not so different from other religions. I do understand that according to semantics my words choices implies that Thelema is being compared to religions especially by saying "other religions", implying that it is one too.

We all know Thelema is not a religion. Thelema is a party! You can break apart the semantics all you like. In fact, hang yourself up on this. Besides the dictionary definition, what constitutes a religion? Religions have a fixed set of practices, they have congregations though some are solitary, etc. I'm really not going to get into it, but really... if you think there is no religious aspect to Thelema... is Thelema not the "Aim of Religion"? Would that not mean in some way, even semantically, that Thelema is what all religions want to be? And if all religions want to be like Thelema, what does that make Thelema?

I suppose having a series of definite practices, rituals, common beliefs, a dogma, etc is really not a type of religion. Fire up the dictionaries boys, we need some hardcore semantic answer to this one!

That was worth repeating.

Thanks. 🙂

93 93/93,

Az

P.S. Sometimes my typing is atrocious! Hence, I tend to make typos, misspell words, and the whole ensemble. Please do not bother trying to grammar police me on that too. LOL


ReplyQuote
mika
 mika
(@mika)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 360
13/07/2009 11:24 pm  
"Azoneris" wrote:
"mikal" wrote:
You think Thelema is a religion? I didn't realize people held that belief here.

"The method of science, the aim of religion."

Are you serious? Having the same goal as religion is not the same as being a religion.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5304
13/07/2009 11:25 pm  

Moderator's Note

Ok, people, enough already!

Running this site - or at least the Forums on this site - is a pretty thankless task at the best of times, nobody said it would be otherwise, but it's proving to be little more than a chore at the moment.

To be frank, Mika, your post is an excellent example of what makes it all such a drag at the moment. Not that you're the only offender, or, indeed, even the worst one, but for goodness sake...

"mika" wrote:
The purpose of these forums is not to teach etiquette or decency

That's a stupid remark, really crass. Of course it's not the "purpose" of this site to "teach etiquette or decency." It's not the function of this site to teach anything. But many people enjoy coming here to read, to absorb, to research and to enjoy the exchange of views. And while they're here it doesn't seem unreasonable to me for visitors to feel that they're in at least a vaguely supportive atmosphere. They certainly don't need to read post after wretched post of you pretending to be Erwin, that's for sure.

"mika" wrote:
As stated by the site admin, "I've said a number of times here that the site exists to "serve Thelema and the legacy of Aleister Crowley".

As indeed it does: but why that should be presented as an argument for arrogance and rudeness is beyond me.

"mika" wrote:
there is no obligation for anyone to conform to your expectations, but only to conform to the rules of the forum as set by the Moderator.

You mean, say, like: "Offensive or abusive behaviour is not permitted: contributions must be constructive and polite."

"mika" wrote:
Besides which, can you please explain to me what, exactly, "etiquette and decency" have to do with the legacy of Aleister Crowley?

What a bizarre remark.

"mika" wrote:
You think Thelema is a religion? I didn't realize people held that belief here.

A range of views on this site? Including some that are dissimilar to your own? Astonishing!

So - and this is addressed not just to Mika - enough's enough. Politeness is a requirement of participation here, always has been.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
13/07/2009 11:31 pm  
"kidneyhawk" wrote:
Actually, perception doesn't distinguish in this sense. It receives an impression. The mind determines where its going to categorically docket the impression. It may assess a perceived thing as "real" or "imaginary" or any other number of categories to which it chooses to behave and respond in particular ways.

Yes, perception does distinguish in this sense. "Distinguishing" is not the same as "labelling". Perception distinguishes, for instance, between a sour taste and a sweet taste, even if it's the mind that later says "this is sour, and that is sweet". The mind may choose to label one thing as "real" and another thing as "imaginary", but it doesn't need to figure anything else out in order to do this - it's merely attaching appropriate labels to differences already inherent in the perceptions it's receiving. Strawberries taste nothing like battery acid, at the perceptive level; the stimuli generated by the perceptive faculties will be very different in both cases. Similarly, reality looks nothing like fantasy, also at the perceptive level; the stimuli generated by real sensations will be very different from the stimuli generated by imaginary ones. Whether we're yet at a point where we can slap labels on those differences is irrelevant to that - the only matter of importance here is that those differences are indeed perceived, and although they can be later used by the mind, they are not constructed later by the mind following whatever "assessment" it might do.

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
We received impressions through our perceptive faculties and then we assess those impressions.

We certainly do assess them, but reality and fantasy simply are not in fact distinguished in this way, so it's irrelevant to the point at hand. When you see a bird flying around in your yard, you don't need to sit around assessing and weighing things up to figure out if it's real, and when you imagine a purple elephant with green spots, you don't need to sit around assessing and weighing things up to figure out if it's imaginary, either. The two types of perception are sufficiently different that no more processing is necessary on the mind's part. The mind can tell, purely as a result of the type of perception it receives, whether or not it's a "real perception" or an "imaginary perception".

Now, if you want to determine whether or not a given perception accurately reflects an external reality, you do have to assess that perception - although in practice this is rarely actually done in day-to-day life - but that's not what we're talking about, here.

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
I can wake from a dream and decide that "OMG, my Spirit Master, Frank, just appeared again, handed me a key and told me that it opens the Gates of Gorton." However, a detached analysis of the experience may reveal much information about it. Frank may well be a manifestation of my desire to be connected to some "Spirit Master" which makes me feel special, a condition arising from not feeling special, from experience and programming relating to an underpinning sense of lack of worth and so on. The Key may be an element from a film I was watching the night before. Gorton could well enumerate into 666 as deeper functions of my mind assemble letters and numbers to conform to and fulfill desire. If this is all true, then my assessment is helping work with this perception to identify an underpinning origin in the "reality" of desire and mental/emotional structures which I may then see as indivative of a disability, a chain about my True Will.

You're describing assessing something which you knew from the beginning was a dream. The "detached analysis" you describe is, in fact, absolutely contingent on you recognizing it as a dream. If you mistook your dream for reality, you'd be coming to some very, very differently conclusions. You're just agreeing with me in this paragraph.

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
The Will itself can make use of the "available material" to express itself.

No, it can't. The will isn't a "thing" which "makes use of" anything or does anything at all, for that matter. There is not some will with a mind in your head trying to get out. It's exceptionally unhelpful to think of the will in these terms.

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
It is an approach to human experience as a whole, without ignoring or shutting off areas that do not fit my understanding of what has a "valid" existence and what doesn't.

You still seem to be stuck on this idea, despite repeated explanations to the contrary, that just because something is described as "imaginary", it must be considered worthless information. It doesn't - it's just imaginary. If nothing else, examining that which is imaginary conveys very useful information about the ways in which your mind confuses the imaginary for the real, or how it misrepresents the imaginary as the real. The fact that the events portrayed in a dream don't exist does not mean that examining those imaginary events must be of zero value. But they are imaginary, and if you don't acknowledge them as imaginary, and try to ascribe "valid existence" to them - whatever you might mean by that - then you are going to get very, very confused.

In questions of the will, this starts to become extremely important when we're dealing not with trivial phenomena such as dreams, mystical experiences, or visions of angels, but with imagined qualities of the self which are at odds with the actual qualities of the self. If you don't recognize these as imaginary - and, to the untrained observer, it can be very difficult to recognize them as such since they can be deeply ingrained - and if you start insisting that they must be "valid" and celebrated, you're not even going to want to try to see through them. If you insist those qualities are real, and not imagined, you're going to think you've discovered the will, and you're going to be very wrong about it. It's at this point that a long and dogged insistence on learning to correctly distinguish fantasy from reality is going to pay big dividends.

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
And THAT is "occultism," examining the unknown territory, without imposing expectations that it conform to how we'd like it to be, to deepen out understanding of the factors involved, in relation to what we ARE and not what we'd imagine ourselves to be.

That's what occultism is often believed to be, sure. It just never actually works out that way. It results in people retreating into their own imaginations and absolutely insisting that both the universe and their own selves conform to how they'd like them to be. Just look at all the occultists who actually seriously think they're talking to extra-terrestrials, conjuring demons, communing with their dead pets, seeing cats parading round the magic circle, foretelling the future from some cards, and goodness knows what else. These people are most definitely not "examining the unknown territory, without imposing expectations that it conform to how we'd like it to be", and they're certainly not deepening their understanding of any factors involved in anything.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
13/07/2009 11:33 pm  
"mika" wrote:
"Azoneris" wrote:
"mikal" wrote:
You think Thelema is a religion? I didn't realize people held that belief here.

"The method of science, the aim of religion."

Are you serious? Having the same goal as religion is not the same as being a religion.

93/93

I politely refuse to continue on with that argument.

93


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
13/07/2009 11:55 pm  

93,

In an effort to return this thread to it's original topic...

"VictimofChanges" wrote:
After reading this thread,( http://www.lashtal.com/nuke/PNphpBB2-viewtopic-t-3390.phtml) I was surprised how Thelema is like all the other religions around.

It is surprising in way way, VoC, I agree.

If you say something that exists can't be studied or proven-then how do you know it exists? Maybe you're crazy, maybe I'm crazy, so how do we know we aren't? A crazy person just can't conclude they aren't crazy, we use evidence demonstrate it.

In my opinion, this is where Thelema attempts to separate itself from mainstream "religion". We say that something exists... Hadit and Nuit. We call them Motion and Matter. We say their interaction forms a combination which we call Horus, who has varying aspects. One thing that I enjoy about Thelema is that while the three mentioned above are labeled as "Gods", they are descriptions of physical phenomenon and thus are open to tangible application and function. That is a wonderful part of the scientific process too.

Of course, those three also correspond to Inner processes (As above, so below - As without, so within), so a religious aspect of Thelema is formed from that. It's quite genius in my opinion.

A subjective experience is a dime a dozen and proves nothing. Maybe I have a subjective experience that I can fly. So what? It proves nothing, it's just a hallucination.

Objectively, science has proven that motion and matter exist, and that they interact.

Subjectively, religion has "proven" that motion and matter exist inside of oneself, and they... interact. 🙂

Reading these posts gives me the impression that Thelema is like thousands of other religions; belief is based on nothing more than subjective experiences, or the belief in another person's experiences and the belief that you will soon have your own. When asked to prove these beliefs objectively, there are all sorts of reasons why it can't be. Every religion wants their belief to somehow be beyond study and evidence because it lets them justify their lack of it.

Good point. And I think that this one short paragraph has helped to create a wonderful thread. To be honest, I'm not too sure how to explain it with the possible exception of Maya. At some point, one gets the very distinct impression that everything is a huge illusion. Science cannot prove "where" or "what" the mind is, but it is definitely objective in the sense that everyone obviously has their own mind, and most people already have their minds made up! 🙂 But, the stuff the mind perceives is subjective, as we know, and once that clarity of the illusion hits, things begin to make more sense. After that point, there is a constant rending of veils so to speak, which creates an inner inertia similar to gravity. One cannot choose whether or not to be affected by the inner or the outer (ie. physical) inertia. It simply occurs. One can however, choose how one is affected by this inertia. Essentially, as Hadit and Nuit (Motion and Matter) interact within and without us, we can choose how Horus behaves. Thus, the concept of the Aeon of the Child, Crowned and Conquering.

That said, I both believe inwardly that this is so through personal (subjective) experience, and believe outwardly that this is so through physical (objective) experience.

Please note, for those interested in semantics, that while it may seems that I am "implying" that all physical experience is objective, I most certainly am not. Please refer yourself to the idea of maya, in which subjective and objective really don't exist anyway.

If Thelema uses the same system to justify its beliefs as any other religion, then how is it anything different? If we put the actual beliefs of Thelema aside, how is it not exactly the same as (insert any religion here)?

I personally think that Thelema uses a different system than say, Buddhism, or Christianity, or any other religion. I do think that if you ask a Thelemite if they believe in God (for example) that many would say yes. Some would say no. That is part of the beauty of being a Thelemite. Some people are more scientifically inclined, and thus may not perceive the interaction between Motion and Matter, and the causes and effects thereof to be a part of some sort of Divinity. Others may see it in a more artistic, or abstract manner. Thus the motto, "The Method of Science - The Aim of Religion."

I feel that Crowley believed he found the culmination of religious and scientific purposes. I think that he saw the interaction between Matter and Motion, or Nuit and Hadit, to be able to ultimately fulfill both functions.

However, I think that Thelema is like a science due to its various uses of the scientific method. I feel like Thelema is like a religion due to its multitude of personal experience. I think that Thelema as an entity on the planet Earth as utilized by the majority of people is like other religions in many ways. We have all sorts of things in common with religions, even down to the political corruption that occurs in religion. I also think that the parts of Thelema as a whole that are explicitly tied to the physical plane is much like many religions, but that the parts of Thelema not explicitly tied to the physical plane are in some ways unlike any religion ever imagined by humanity.

93 93/93,

Az

P.S. My apologies to Paul and everyone else for making my last post, the one right after Paul made his moderator's note. Yours wasn't there when I start typing mine, Paul, I promise! 🙂


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5304
13/07/2009 11:58 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
My apologies to Paul and everyone else for making my last post, the one right after Paul made his moderator's note. Yours wasn't there when I start typing mine, Paul, I promise!

No problem, Az. I moved mine. Because I can.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
mika
 mika
(@mika)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 360
14/07/2009 12:01 am  

Moderator's Note: Post deleted...


ReplyQuote
mika
 mika
(@mika)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 360
14/07/2009 12:16 am  
"lashtal" wrote:
Moderator's Note
"Offensive or abusive behaviour is not permitted: contributions must be constructive and polite."
Politeness is a requirement of participation here, always has been.

I would be happy to conform, if someone could explain to me how to determine what is offensive and what is polite. This is a serious request. As far as I can tell, these standards are completely subjective and dependent on how others here feel about what I say, so I don't know how I can possibly predict what another's impression will be. For example, I don't consider critiquing another person's ideas to be "abusive", but some people here apparently do.

If this is simply a matter of my style not being appropriate for the environment here, tell me and I'll leave.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
14/07/2009 12:32 am  

93,

"The Method of Science - The Aim of Religion."

An Example:

I decided a few days ago to begin using a variation of Liber Jujorum to quit smoking. Yes, I know that Jujorum involves slicing ones arm or what-not with a razor blade whenever the decided action is committed, and believe me I still have scars from my first successful bout with it... not moving the left arm past a 45 degree angle and what-not... it was a nice practice, and I did mine mainly during the winter of 2000 (November 2,000 - June 2,001 to be more precise). Winter time worked well as I was always wearing a coat or sweater, which means I didn't have to get questioned about all of the razor cuts on my arms, but I digress.

The variation I've decided to use is a small journal I have. I wrote in the journal that I intend to use the journal and the practice to quite smoking, and every time I have a cigarette I write it down in the journal... the time, date, and how many I smoked. I went out in town yesterday and smoked 4 throughout the period of a few hours, so when I returned I wrote the time period, that I had 4 cigarettes, and my reason for not writing them down one at a time, as I was in town. I will do this freely for oh say a week or so, take an average of how many cigarettes I smoke during a day, and make that into a benchmark. Currently my average is 13. After the week, and I have my benchmark, I will smoke progressively less until I do not smoke at all. I prefer a more relaxed method whereas if 13 becomes my benchmark and I smoke 13 it is okay. However, on the day where I only smoke 10, 10 may become the new benchmark. The benchmark means I will now smoke no more than 10 cigarettes in one day. Eventually the benchmark moves downward, until it is zero. After a week of no smoking, there is no point any longer, and the Operation is a success. I will keep you all updated just for kicks.

The point is, I am aware of the dangers to my health (and others, through second hand smoke) that smoking causes. I don't feel like it is a productive habit, and it's definitely not productive to the type of Pranayama I enjoy. therefore, Pranayama being the priority, smoking has to go. Liber Jurjorm is the chosen method. This is a part of the Science of Thelema. The religious aspect of this is that not only will I end up with a cleaner, healthier, and better smelling (!!!!) lifestyle, but my Pranayama practices will be more effective, and thus I will be able to enhance my spiritual growth on the whole do to the lack of the habit. While I am aware that some people who have Attained may smoke, I personally do not want to anymore, and I feel that not smoking will help with my personal progression.

So the Method of Science, has been explained. The Aim of Religion in this case would perhaps be my ability to use the Science in order to become more familiar with my own True Will, my own HGA, or whatever you want to call it, through the ability to practice more effective Pranayama, and a cleaner, healthier life in general.

How is this like other religions? We could get into a discussion of the Eastern philosphies, and include things such as Yama and Niyama, or we can get into a discussion of the Western philosophies, and speak of such things as chastity. We can tie all of this into a nice bundle by referring to various Oaths and Tasks of the A:.A:., and we can even take it to a more Macrocosmic level by discussing the various interactions between Hadit and Nuit in this example, and how those interactions will change my life outwardly and practically, or was can keep it Microcosmic, and discuss how the practices will change the ineractions of Hadit and Nuit inwardly, with improved Pranayama et al.

But, this is all just an example of how I think Thelema is similar to many forms of science and religion, yet different - hence the motto, "The Method of Science - The Aim of Religion".

I'll probably get more kisses too! 😀

... "And Blessing and Worship to the Prophet of the lovely Star!"

93 93/93,

Az


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
14/07/2009 12:32 am  

I suggest that you read a rather good book that Tom recommended to me when he learned I had aspergers? That goes over all the social nicities of what normal people expect. Thanks.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5304
14/07/2009 12:52 am  
"mika" wrote:
As far as I can tell, these standards are completely subjective and dependent on how others here feel about what I say

Yes, that's about the size of it! Well, not so much "what" you say, but how you say it.

"mika" wrote:
If this is simply a matter of my style not being appropriate for the environment here, tell me and I'll leave.

As I mentioned in my Private Message to you, this would be a real shame as you have much of value to say.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
14/07/2009 1:10 am  

93,

Last post for about a while I hope. LOL

"mika" wrote:
"lashtal" wrote:
Moderator's Note
"Offensive or abusive behaviour is not permitted: contributions must be constructive and polite."
Politeness is a requirement of participation here, always has been.

I would be happy to conform, if someone could explain to me how to determine what is offensive and what is polite. This is a serious request. As far as I can tell, these standards are completely subjective and dependent on how others here feel about what I say, so I don't know how I can possibly predict what another's impression will be. For example, I don't consider critiquing another person's ideas to be "abusive", but some people here apparently do.

If this is simply a matter of my style not being appropriate for the environment here, tell me and I'll leave.

Imagine yourself and everyone else in the Lashtal community at a huge poker game. We all take turns playing, watching, laughing, making comments, etc. Paul is the dealer, and he is very well known for being a fair dealer and not stacking the deck. He just shuffles and deals, and we all play poker.

Well, not everyone gets a good hand every time. Some people never get a good hand! Some people get good hands but do not win, some win more often than others. It just goes around and around in a large cycle as we all get drunk as funk and play poker, having a good time. Then someone gets bluffed and loses their whole life savings. They get upset, start throwing chairs, etc. Or, someone doesn't get dealt that one card that would win them enough money to pay off all their debts, so they begin to get pissy, etc.

Point being, we're all here hangin' out, enjoying wonderful discussions of Crowley's work and our own, as continuations of Crowley's work on a more personal scale. Many people just read the Forums, and some people like me just can't help but to participate. It's wonderful.

However, people get very involved with it. I've been posting in various Forums since 1997. I've seen it time and time again, which is why I was kind of sarcastic with the semantics bit. People get frustrated, especially when they feel that they are not being acknowledged or understood. Debates slowly become less friendly, and then people began to take little pop shots at each other until they are able to find one flaw in another person's argument large enough for them to create an entire dissertation on, then they move in for the kill.

I remember way back in the day, in June I think of '97. I was new to Thelema, and got into the middle of a discussion about Hadit and Nuit and their functions. I wrote this wonderful post that I thought was so prim and proper, and it astonished me how I had come up with so marvelous of a conception. When I logged on the next day, some man who I am sadly no longer in communication with had replied to my post. He quite simply tore it to shit up and down, inside and out. I felt like a true newbie. But instead of being crushed and getting all butt-hurt that he had done this, I wrote him an email and let him know that he just annihilated and rebuilt everything I had said, and I thanked him for the new knowledge and the experience. His reply to my email was my first real person to person communication with the A:.A:.

I could have gotten upset, especially being the teenager that I was, but what for? What the man said was astounding!

I've been on Lashtal for quite a few years. There have been some great debates, and some not so great ones. One thing that makes a great debate is the form. For people to be able to express their ideas and counter-ideas with clarity, and to have enough sportsmanship about the entire series of events to not take any of it personal. At the end of the debate, we should all be able to go have beers and blunts in a cafe in Amsterdam and joke about the debates saying, "Man, you got me good on that one! I had never even thought of that part of the concept!"

Instead, people take it way too personally. This is a Web Forum. This is Paul's House, in a way. We are greeted at the door, and sign our names, agree to the terms, and are invited in. While we are in his house we have so many different amazing things we can talk about and share with each other. However, someone always gets too drunk and starts the mudslinging because they don't agree with five other people, or what-not. Then someone else starts pointing fingers at another person telling them they have no idea what they are talking about, etc. It goes on and on until Paul has to come into the kitchen and tell us all to shut up and relax or get out of his house.

Mika, as I said in my own initial post, I like what you have to say. I think you make some very interesting points, and I think that you exhibit a very strong conviction when it comes to those viewpoints. I think that you and alrah are very different people and probably would not both hang out in Paul's kitchen at the same time for very long. 🙂 However, I do think that sometimes you are both saying the same thing, even though you are using different terms from one another, but you are both so involved and passionate about what you are trying to say that you don't always see the common thread. It happens. If you were in the kitchen with alrah and a bunch of us others and you two just could not agree and began going back and forth, what would you do? Some would say the best thing is to go into another room for a bit or try to relax in some other way, and try to get a more objective view of the discussion. Either way, you would not want to result in mudslinging and calling each other names and such.

I am a Thelemite. I don't like the O.T.O. I don't really care about some of the Lineages of A:.A:. that are in existence. Some things that I have heard and experienced just plain disgust me. In the past I've done my share of bashing, I admit. But in the long run, that energy could have been better spent in other ways. Nowadays I see no need to argue. I don't argue with children, I don't argue with family members, I don't argue with my fiance', and I especially don't argue with people I do not know. What's the point in it? I disagree with someone. Cool. If I feel so strongly about it that I want to force it down their throats, then I do not need to be talking to that person. I do not need to interfere with their Will or their humanly right to believe and experience the world as they may. The best thing for me to do then is to change the subject, or leave that person alone. It is okay to disagree.

You do fine. You are a bit brash, but I think that is just passion. I also think that you walk a fine line between being passionate and patronizing, and I'm not sure that's conductive to a good debate. As a smoker, I don't like it if people walk up to me and tell me smoking is unhealthy. I want to tell them to get the f- out of my face. I dismiss them in a respectful way as I respect their right to feel that way and even say what they say to me. However, when I see that same person littering on the sidewalk, not using turn signals, running red lights, cutting people off in traffic, lying to their spouse, etc. I get a snug smile on my face and a quiet sense of retribution, and relax.

People don't always agree, and they have every right not to. NO ONE has all the answers. NO ONE is always right. It is by the grace of God that these things should be thus.

I digress from the digression of the topic, for good.

93 93/93,

Az


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5304
14/07/2009 1:26 am  

What a great post, Az. Thank you.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
mika
 mika
(@mika)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 360
14/07/2009 3:58 am  
"Azidonis" wrote:
Imagine yourself and everyone else in the Lashtal community at a huge poker game. We all take turns playing, watching, laughing, making comments, etc. Paul is the dealer, and he is very well known for being a fair dealer and not stacking the deck. He just shuffles and deals, and we all play poker.

I understand what you're saying. The problem is, apparently, (most of) you all are playing Texas Hold'em, and I thought you wanted to play Five Card Stud. So then people complain I'm not playing by the correct rules, yet unlike a poker game, no one can provide me with details of what those rules actually are.

"Azidonis" wrote:
However, people get very involved with it. I've been posting in various Forums since 1997.

Thanks, but there's no need for you to explain. I've been posting in various Forums since 1992.

"Azidonis" wrote:
I think that you and alrah are very different people and probably would not both hang out in Paul's kitchen at the same time for very long. 🙂 However, I do think that sometimes you are both saying the same thing,

Then you must not fully understand what I've been saying in regard to her posts.

"Azidonis" wrote:
I also think that you walk a fine line between being passionate and patronizing, and I'm not sure that's conductive to a good debate.

The line between passionate and patronizing is in the eye of the beholder. That is, essentially, my problem with this whole issue of "politeness". It is subjective, thus it is arbitrary. What is straightforward to one person is condescending to the next. As for whether or not my style is conducive to a good debate, that depends on if there's other straightforward people around.

Speaking of the problem with arbitrary standards, consider this: Wasn't it so very patronizing of you to lecture me about what it's like to participate in Forums? I mean, I've even been doing this 5 years longer than you have! What kind of condescending jerk would just assume I'm some clueless newb?! ... ahem. See what I mean? You might think you're being honest and open and straightforward, yet still come off as totally arrogant. Is that a problem with your behavior or with my perception? Many people here want me to change my behavior, few are even questioning their own perception, fewer still consider what they think about me may not accurately describe my actual attitude or intentions.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
14/07/2009 4:10 am  

In the interests of kitchen harmony in Pauls house, I suggest we move any corresponence between us exclusively to a.m. and ignore each other if we wish to continue posting here. Agree Mika?


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
14/07/2009 5:33 am  
"mika" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
Imagine yourself and everyone else in the Lashtal community at a huge poker game. We all take turns playing, watching, laughing, making comments, etc. Paul is the dealer, and he is very well known for being a fair dealer and not stacking the deck. He just shuffles and deals, and we all play poker.

I understand what you're saying. The problem is, apparently, (most of) you all are playing Texas Hold'em, and I thought you wanted to play Five Card Stud. So then people complain I'm not playing by the correct rules, yet unlike a poker game, no one can provide me with details of what those rules actually are.

"Azidonis" wrote:
However, people get very involved with it. I've been posting in various Forums since 1997.

Thanks, but there's no need for you to explain. I've been posting in various Forums since 1992.

"Azidonis" wrote:
I think that you and alrah are very different people and probably would not both hang out in Paul's kitchen at the same time for very long. 🙂 However, I do think that sometimes you are both saying the same thing,

Then you must not fully understand what I've been saying in regard to her posts.

"Azidonis" wrote:
I also think that you walk a fine line between being passionate and patronizing, and I'm not sure that's conductive to a good debate.

The line between passionate and patronizing is in the eye of the beholder. That is, essentially, my problem with this whole issue of "politeness". It is subjective, thus it is arbitrary. What is straightforward to one person is condescending to the next. As for whether or not my style is conducive to a good debate, that depends on if there's other straightforward people around.

Speaking of the problem with arbitrary standards, consider this: Wasn't it so very patronizing of you to lecture me about what it's like to participate in Forums? I mean, I've even been doing this 5 years longer than you have! What kind of condescending jerk would just assume I'm some clueless newb?! ... ahem. See what I mean? You might think you're being honest and open and straightforward, yet still come off as totally arrogant. Is that a problem with your behavior or with my perception? Many people here want me to change my behavior, few are even questioning their own perception, fewer still consider what they think about me may not accurately describe my actual attitude or intentions.

😀


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
14/07/2009 5:43 pm  

93!

I am a bit astonished that people who claim to be able to define Thelema, the Will, reality and so forth seem to be unable to grasp such a simple concept as "decency" or "politeness", even in its very light version. There is no need to discuss how much old-Aeon morality or awe-inpspiring straight-forwardness is involved, it is actually pretty simple: When someone says "not so loud please", you don't tell him that you are using this level of volume already since 1992 and have not been harmed, you just turn down the volume. That's polite - even when you consider yourself to be "right". (or when your partner during a sex game says "stop it, please", you don't tell him that you are doing this since 1992 and it did never hurt you, you just stop) What is so complicated about that? Whining about how one's freedom of behaviour is in danger is pretty ridiculous in this instant. It might be frustrating sometimes to act on the least common denominator, but isn't it more frustrating if no-one is listening to WHAT one has to say? I would expect more adaptation skills from people who allegedly have conquered the highest philosophical peaks - even if it's boring. The prophet himself apllied a different tone in his lecture depending on his audience.

It would be cool if this discussion goes on for some time, it is enlightening at times.

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
mika
 mika
(@mika)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 360
14/07/2009 7:45 pm  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
I am a bit astonished that people who claim to be able to define Thelema, the Will, reality and so forth seem to be unable to grasp such a simple concept as "decency" or "politeness", even in its very light version.

The concept is easy to grasp. The standard, however, is not at all explicitly defined. We all know what "temperature" is. However, if you say "it's too hot in here", that could mean anything, no one else has any idea what actual temperature you are referring to. Besides which, you might find 35 deg C to be too hot, someone else might find 20 deg C to be too hot. Which of you is correct?

So, like feelings of "hot" or "cold", not only do "decency" and "politeness" lack explicit defintions, they are arbitrary. And my experience on this forum so far is that they are only found lacking in the people who say things, on-topic content especially, that others don't particularly want or like to hear.

In case this issue still isn't clear to you, consider this: it was very indecent for you to write a post that obviously was all about me and directed to me, yet you passively referred to "people" instead of stating my name up-front. Passive-agressive behavior is extremely impolite. Not only that, you picked on my statement that I've been on Forums since 1992 as if I used that as some kind of arrogant excuse for my behavior (which I clearly didn't, by the way), yet you completely ignored Azidonis' statement that he's been doing this since 1997. Such obvious bias in your criticism of others is also extremely indecent. So, you see, I can apply these arbitrary standards to you, and anyone else here, and be just as "justified" as you and others think you are when you apply them to me.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
14/07/2009 8:03 pm  
"mika" wrote:
So, you see, I can apply these arbitrary standards to you, and anyone else here, and be just as "justified" as you and others think you are when you apply them to me.

"arbitrary standards"? I find it amazing that you seem to be unable to grasp the simple fact that etiquette is generally taken for granted when approaching/ debating with people.

😯


ReplyQuote
mika
 mika
(@mika)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 360
14/07/2009 8:23 pm  
"DNA" wrote:
"mika" wrote:
So, you see, I can apply these arbitrary standards to you, and anyone else here, and be just as "justified" as you and others think you are when you apply them to me.

"arbitrary standards"? I find it amazing that you seem to be unable to grasp the simple fact that etiquette is generally taken for granted when approaching/ debating with people.

Your perception is in error. I am not unable to grasp that simple fact. You, and others, can pretend that's what's going on here, but it's not actually the issue at hand.

I find it amazing that you seem to be unable to grasp the simple fact that what is considered good etiquette by some is considered bad etiquette by others.

I have tried expressing the problem with subjective, undefined, arbitrary expectations, in many different ways. Sadly, the topic has been in relation to me, my posting style and "decency" and "etiquette", rather than in relation to the practice of Thelema and magick in general, even though the problem is equally relevant to both situations.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3951
14/07/2009 8:27 pm  
"mika" wrote:
. . . it was very indecent for you to write a post that obviously was all about me and directed to me, yet you passively referred to "people" instead of stating my name up-front.

Lutz can speak for himself, but I doubt very much that his comments were all about you as you seem to imagine; thus your reproach to him on this matter is misguided.

Seems there's still some fantasies that need stripping away.

Best wishes,

Michael.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
14/07/2009 8:53 pm  
"lashtal" wrote:
"mika" wrote:
As far as I can tell, these standards are completely subjective and dependent on how others here feel about what I say

Yes, that's about the size of it! Well, not so much "what" you say, but how you say it.

"mika" wrote:
If this is simply a matter of my style not being appropriate for the environment here, tell me and I'll leave.

As I mentioned in my Private Message to you, this would be a real shame as you have much of value to say.

Paul, just a thought, but you might single out members who you will require to submit their posts privately to you for pre-moderation. Then, when you get around to it, you either admit the post or reject them to be rewritten and resubmitted to you for further review. This will prevent these forums from becoming the shithole that alt.magick has always been, with very little productive use to anyone. This way, you can avoid losing the positive input that the offenders might have if you just kicked them off, without the putting up with the stuff you don't want in your forums.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
14/07/2009 9:45 pm  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
Although you've used this definition several times, I've not come across it before. Could you supply a source for it please?

The definition in question, in reference to the reality of the content of one's perceptions, is "reality is that which is not contingent on a mind."

The definition is more or less my own, though it's inspired partially by Philip K Dick's famous "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."

The truth of the definition is easy to observe. Something real -- like the table I'm typing this on -- continues to exist regardless of my beliefs about it. Something not real -- like the dragon I'm imagining or the spirit guide Frank in Kidneyhawk's dream -- goes away when it's not being thought about.

Speaking of which, Kidneyhawk gave a great example of how useful it is to distinguish real from not real:

"Kidneyhawk" wrote:
I can wake from a dream and decide that "OMG, my Spirit Master, Frank, just appeared again, handed me a key and told me that it opens the Gates of Gorton." However, a detached analysis of the experience may reveal much information about it. Frank may well be a manifestation of my desire to be connected to some "Spirit Master" which makes me feel special, a condition arising from not feeling special, from experience and programming relating to an underpinning sense of lack of worth and so on. The Key may be an element from a film I was watching the night before. Gorton could well enumerate into 666 as deeper functions of my mind assemble letters and numbers to conform to and fulfill desire. If this is all true, then my assessment is helping work with this perception to identify an underpinning origin in the "reality" of desire and mental/emotional structures which I may then see as indivative of a disability, a chain about my True Will

Dream interpretation, which can be quite useful in learning things about your mind, relies on the ability to distinguish fantasy things (images in the dream) from real things (the stuff those images might represent).

Erwin already noted this -- not only could you not interpret your dream if you mistook it for reality, you'd be led to precisely the wrong conclusions.

It's because you understand that "Frank" is "a manifestation of desire"...i.e. that he's figural, that he's just an image that represents something else, i.e. that he's not real...that you can obtain useful information about your mind.

[By the way, "Frank" as a spirit guide? Ugh, thanks for the Donnie Darko flashback]

Anyway, I don't even know where the disagreement is. The dream interpretation example shows that you are fundamentally in agreement with me. Your method of discovering the will -- cutting through mind stuff and attending to what's left over -- is virtually identical to mine.

Where is it that we disagree, exactly?


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
14/07/2009 9:58 pm  
"alrah" wrote:
However - the idea that the content of these imaginings is all a product of the mind - formed from idea's or knowledge that we already possess, comes undone when you find your imaginings (which I assume you think any astral workings come under the catagory of) are of a specific and unlikely sort and have been catalogued by other see'ers, and were also previously unknown to you.

One word: archetypes.

Human beings are all constructed in very similar ways, and you will find a strong agreement in aspects of mythological archetypes across a variety of cultures. Joseph Campbell used to say that dreams are an individual's myths and that myths are the dreams of large groups of individuals.

It's not unexpected at all that some of your imaginings strongly resemble some things that other human beings have imagined. It certainly doesn't prove -- or even remotely suggest -- that those archetypal images are real things, totally separate from human minds, running around on some other dimension somewhere.

"Azidonis" wrote:
Los, you seem like you are well intentioned. You are probably a really good person. But you spend so much time trying to rationlize some of this stuff that I have to skip over your posts too.

I don't know how I'm supposed to respond to this. What do you want me to do, exactly?

You skip over my posts. Cool. I guess I'll start returning the favor.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5304
14/07/2009 9:59 pm  
"Camlion" wrote:
Paul, just a thought, but you might single out members who you will require to submit their posts privately to you for pre-moderation.

Thanks for the constructive comment: pre-moderation is my usual way of dealing with these things, as outlined in the Guidelines...

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
14/07/2009 11:00 pm  
"lashtal" wrote:
"Camlion" wrote:
Paul, just a thought, but you might single out members who you will require to submit their posts privately to you for pre-moderation.

Thanks for the constructive comment: pre-moderation is my usual way of dealing with these things, as outlined in the Guidelines...

Also, sometimes just mentioning the possibility occasionally helps people to remember to self-edit with the moderator's perspective in mind. 🙂


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
15/07/2009 8:27 am  
"mika" wrote:
The concept is easy to grasp. The standard, however, is not at all explicitly defined. ....

So you obviously did not get it. Ratio has nothing to do with it.

"mika" wrote:
not only do "decency" and "politeness" lack explicit defintions, they are arbitrary.

How about applying some simple common sense? As I said before, one doesn't have to agree with this (unwritten and undefined) standard, but whoever has difficulties to comply with it might miss a wonderful chance to communicate something, which else might be simply overheard. And I wonder how anybody with an intellect like yours might have difficulties with that?

"mika" wrote:
And my experience on this forum so far is that they are only found lacking in the people who say things, on-topic content especially, that others don't particularly want or like to hear.

Oh, a conspiracy theory. Ridiculous.

"mika" wrote:
In case this issue still isn't clear to you, consider this: it was very indecent for you to write a post that obviously was all about me and directed to me, yet you passively referred to "people" instead of stating my name up-front. Passive-agressive behavior is extremely impolite.

The post was not "all about you", but admittedly I used your 1992 sentence in it, since - and that is the disadvantage of an internet forum - on re-reading your answer to Azidonis I wasn't sure any more if you were being ironic or serious. Moreover: usually I am the hippie-sissy who wants us all to be friends, not the passive-aggressive type.

"mika" wrote:
So, you see, I can apply these arbitrary standards to you, and anyone else here, and be just as "justified" as you and others think you are when you apply them to me.

Where are you from? Kindergarten? As I said, you do not grasp the concept of applying decency. How can I be sure you are more competent on Thelemic matters?

My oh my

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3951
15/07/2009 8:42 am  
"Los" wrote:
I don't know how I'm supposed to respond to this. What do you want me to do, exactly?

Nothing, I imagine. The poster is just saying that not all your posts turn him on, that's all. You seem a little injured by it, unnecessarily in my view.

Somehow I have to carry on living with the knowledge that in Erwin's eyes I don't cut the mustard. Someone scrolling past your posts seems rather small beer by comparison, n'est pas?

Best wishes,

Michael.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
15/07/2009 8:52 am  

You can cut my mustard any day Michael. :-))) We'll have to have a talk about intuition and the true will one day.


ReplyQuote
Page 9 / 14
Share: