Well, there you go: 100% of the people I asked read "spit". (I could just ask my son and my neighbour, because I never did it before or even thought about doing it). I am sure there is a lot of fun to be had when you show people only one word and let them decipher it. Let's find more words. If you show them the whole sentence nobody would read "shit", even if totally unaware of what they are reading. If you wait a few more years nobody will actually know what handwriting is.
How did you present the word?
Did you only photocopy the phrase "I spit/shit", removing it from the rest of the work, in total isolation?
How did you phrase your query? Did you phrase your query in a way that was "grasping" at what you want those around you to see? Did you take care to isolate all bias from your question?
Here is how I did it.
- I told a number of people I am going to send them two words in an image.
- I tell them the first word is "I", what is the second word?
- Some people's first reaction was "well, i dont want to say what I think it looks like, because it is impolite, surely? Shit? It looks like shit."
- Then asking them to "look" into the word, I ask "does it look like the word "spit"? How about a "p"?
- Consensus is that the vertical line extending over the horizon of the text is what we would expect an "h" to look like.
One of my friends, his first "reaction" was "I see spirit!" which kinda floored me, but he said he just gave it a quick glance and the word "spirit" came to him, which is also the correct answer when we understand what the transmutation of "shit" is. I asked him again to look at the word, close. He said "It says I shit"
Now, the handwritten word to me does look like the word shit, and always has for over 25 years.
We can say that the written word "spit/shit" LOOKS like shit, with 100% certainty.
Even if it just looks like "shit" to some but not all, we can say that with 100% certainty.
Distinguishing our interior mental psychology, the distinctions between all of our truth values, our concepts, our language, our ideas about reality, and a methodology to deconstruct all of that so we enter a state of clarity is directly what Liber al Vel Legis is teaching us to do, so discovering the secret key through applying what the text is teaching us to do is very consistent.
Well, absolutely not. Since he did not write it, it is only consistent with what some people (all of those you asked apparently) like to "read into" his handwriting, not with what he wrote.
But it is consistent with the actual text, the text tells us that "no beast shall divine" this, that the scribe will not ever know, and this does not require that the scribe did know (although I believe the scribe did!)
Are you suggesting this is one more proof for the praeterhuman/supernatural source of the book?
I think that if we accept the paradigm of non-duality, which is that all phenomenon of the natural universe is mind and mind only, then yes this would be a proof for that.
However, it is also a proof for the genius of Crowley, without appealing to higher intelligence, unless that higher intelligence is simply his own brain, his own "circuit 8".
For sure, this is a proof of the sheer literary genius scope of his usage of language, as the rest of the 20th century followed his lead.
EDIT: I just want to reiterate, if I am only projecting this mathematically consistent, abyss crossing, and hysterically funny "insight" through paralanguage that was not Crowley's intention, that would make me smarter and funnier than Aleister Crowley. Trust me, play one game of chess with me and you will quickly falsify that claim, lol.
"If you have come to help me, then you are wasting your time, but if you are here because your liberation is bound together with mine, then let us work together." Lilla Watson
Now, the handwritten word to me does look like the word shit, and always has for over 25 years.
We can say that the written word "spit/shit" LOOKS like shit, with 100% certainty.
Even if it just looks like "shit" to some but not all, we can say that with 100% certainty.
Well, obviously we (meaning you and myself) have different understanding of the word "we" (English is not my first language). Because, according to your last quoted sentence, even if it was only you (and your test audience) that reads "shit" (for no less than 25 years) you would use the phrase "we with 100% certainty" on this forum.
I simply printed out the word (no fooling around with a beforehand "I") and asked. And since for most people it seems to be "more normal" that a handwritten letter is usually NOT stretched out UNDER an imagined line on which you write (like in first grade) they (like me) seemed to assume it is a "p". Also, and they were probably not aware of that conclusion, the letter "h" starts at that imagined line so it would be fairly astonishing if it would stretch out under that line. Just look at the manuscript and try to see the "line" and try to find h's that behave differently (and I am not even beginning to talk about the fact that Crowley's upright line of his "h" is drawn in a circular momentum and not as a linestroke). But I am sure a forensic graphologist would come up with another test.
Anyway, since as I said I cannot argue with the implications of your finding (I never read them) and also cannot erase your 25 years of reading habits, I don't want to spoil the fun.
Love=Law
Lutz
Well, absolutely not.
We now arrive at the point where 100% is confronting Absolutely Not!
Yoy see? The proposition is ALL or NONE.
(In this case, on the physical plane, in 3D "reality," one of these approaches seems to be absolutely [reasonably non-doubtful] , while the other resembles [absolute] extremism.
We now arrive at the point where 100% is confronting Absolutely Not!
Got me. As an apology I want to say that I meant only the 100% part with my "absolutely not". Because even an astonishing 99% would be absolutely not 100%. There is nothing else in what I have written that I would use the "absolutely" label on.
Love=Law
Lutz
There is nothing else in what I have written that I would use the "absolutely" label on.
That's okay. The only thing that is "absolute" is nothing. Therefor "Not" (LA) can be combined with "absolutely," and you can get away with it by using Zen Koan mode, or by referring to one (of many) of Tiger's posts.
The best of luck to you in resolving the fecal disorder.
Well, obviously we (meaning you and myself) have different understanding of the word "we" (English is not my first language). Because, according to your last quoted sentence, even if it was only you (and your test audience) that reads "shit" (for no less than 25 years) you would use the phrase "we with 100% certainty" on this forum.
Well, this would become a statistical truth then.
Since the first group I asked all said shit at 100%, I expect that to drift. Therefore, to claim that the word looks like "shit" more than it does spit is both statistically true, but also "rationally" true, because there is a rational explanation to how the word does look like shit, the actual "line" drawn in the handwritten script extends beyond the horizon of the word.
A handwritten "p" has no requirement to extend ABOVE the horizon, but extend BELOW the horizon.
What does Liber al Vel Legis say, specifically regarding the "chance" shape of the letters and their discovery therein?
Then this line drawn is a key:
The text says within the chance shape of the letters, this "line" drawn is a key.
We are clearly squabbling over a "line" drawn, no?
The line drawn when scribing the letter p, and the letter h. We are attempting to deconstruct one singular line drawn.
And if you "look" into the word more, we see a continual play of "opposites", where as one line is BELOW the horizon in "p", another line is ABOVE the horizon in "h".
Consistent with the overall meaning of Liber al Vel Legis, the view from Non-Duality (ABOVE the abyss) is a different view than BELOW the abyss (duality), for below the abyss, all of our concepts are "reversed" mirror images of that which is above (non-duality).
Below the abyss, shit is shit, it stinks, it is disgusting and putrid. We AVOID shit.
Above the abyss, everything is in the natural state, an underlying purity within all things, even shit. Even words and concepts, also are all equally pure.
The ability to transmute "shit" into purity is the linguistic alchemical test in Liber al Vel Legis, for to do this, you must obtain a non-dual view, which is "Wisdom", or the union of opposites.
Ra Hoor Khuit has so much wisdom he can shit it out!
Ra Hoor Khuit is RISING ABOVE THE HORIZON!
Anyway, since as I said I cannot argue with the implications of your finding (I never read them) and also cannot erase your 25 years of reading habits, I don't want to spoil the fun.
My friend, challenging this, challenging me asserting this, is where all the fun begins! hehe
"If you have come to help me, then you are wasting your time, but if you are here because your liberation is bound together with mine, then let us work together." Lilla Watson
@sangewanchuck56
And just to add to the discussion I was curious enough to check out my copy of the Liber in his handwriting and if you check verse 44 of the same chapter, the word 'pride' has the exact same style of P.
You can't tell me he was writing Hride
A handwritten "p" has no requirement to extend ABOVE the horizon, but extend BELOW the horizon.
As it does. There is no upper line, only the (let me call it) ground line. Please check out all the p's, they nearly always extend too high (that was obviously his writing style), then go on and look for the h's. They don't go under the line. Never. That doesn't count out your theory how certain juveniles may read it. And if this is about how it MAY be read, there is no point of discussion.
And if you "look" into the word more, we see a continual play of "opposites", where as one line is BELOW the horizon in "p", another line is ABOVE the horizon in "h".
No, the "p" always starts UNDER the line and, depending of your writing speed, may exceed OVER the line, but the "h" simply has no reason or way to ever go UNDER the line, since it starts from the line and moves upward. There is no chance of a real doubt about which letter he wrote, sorry, I am into this more than 25 years (as if this would prove a point). But if you think there is importance in the fact that you and your peers (and maybe others) read it differently then this may be as it is. It might be a sign.
And please, if it serves your purpose, let's do not spoil the fun and always remember that Thelema is the only religion that brings serious laughter into the equation.
I know people who say that ALL his handwriting is "shit".
Love=Law
Lutz
fecal disorder.
Do you eat poop?
Poo-poo eating, as practiced by our inspiration, AC, and perhaps others, is the Official Hot Topic for the current season.
I call the Spring Birds 2021 Prophecy Prize for my discussion of coprophagy earlier this spring.
I think we all owe it to each other, and ever more so, to ourselves, to be clear and upfront in stating our views on the Burning Issues Of The Day.
Thus, i will forthrightly state that
- i do not now eat, nor have i ever eaten, shit, nor do i approve of others doing so;
- that is "spit", not "shit".
fecal disorder.
Do you eat poop?
Poo-poo eating, as practiced by our inspiration, AC, and perhaps others, is the Official Hot Topic for the current season.
I call the Spring Birds 2021 Prophecy Prize for my discussion of coprophagy earlier this spring.
I think we all owe it to each other, and ever more so, to ourselves, to be clear and upfront in stating our views on the Burning Issues Of The Day.
Thus, i will forthrightly state that
- i do not now eat, nor have i ever eaten, shit, nor do i approve of others doing so;
- that is "spit", not "shit".
Agreed. But I find my own smell interesting. lol
Enough of the fecal matter.
I guess when you die a lot of the times you soil yourself. Also depending on method, also ejaculate.
Bodies are gross really.
'I am not now, nor never have been a member of the Communist Party Fecal Party, so help me God.'
Do you eat poop?
No!
Have you ever thought about it?
*No!
(*well, yes in terms of using defilements which can be excrement, burnt skin, ash from burial grounds, alcohol, etc as a form of visualization in my devotional practice in Vajrayana, this is standard actually)
Just wondering.
Of all the things to wonder about 🤣
Now, do Hindu Tantriks eat poop and think about eating poop?
Yes, this is an "old aeon" form of attainment in Hindu Tantra.
What is this an attainment of?
Sunyata, the discovery of the underlying purity in all things.
So imagine your a tantric, an initiate, and all of your practice is also about re-wiring your own body and nervous system, rewiring the reactions in the biological state.
You've been "thinking" about poop, visualizing it, training your body and mind to experience poop as sunyata until you can "feel" sunyata in your biological state.
Have you really attained that? Well you will know if you can pick up the poop, put it into your mouth, and eat it, and not have your body react in some reactive in disgust set of behaviors, you are able to maintain your state of purity in your body and mind.
That was the old aeon!
Liber al Vel Legis just has us do this with the "word" shit.
Can you see the word shit as empty of all meaning, in the pure state? Or do you see shit when you see the word shit?
How does Crowley use dung?
In "The Winged Beetle", Crowley gives us ELEVEN unique usages of "dung".
Specifically, one definition of dung is "matter for man, dung for alchemist"
Dung is a symbol of transmutation.
This "purity" is the underlying equanimity in all things.
Everybody poops!
We are all in this shit together!
After understanding the key, you will never see shit the same way again, hehe
"If you have come to help me, then you are wasting your time, but if you are here because your liberation is bound together with mine, then let us work together." Lilla Watson
the word 'pride' has the exact same style of P.
Oh, good. Comparative Graphology to the rescue.
Now, what about the #2 fixation obsession disorder?
Please check out all the p's
Oh, good. More Comparativonumerology.
i do not now eat, nor have i ever eaten, shit, nor do i approve of others doing so;
Aha. You have come out of the (water) closet and joined the Anticaprophagic League, of which I am the Poster Child. You were right. Although I am not receiving mail, email, or turd bombs, we can clearly see how the previous discussion (on another thread) has evoked the very topic we rejected.
This topic cannot, therefore, be introduced into the "Non-Dual" thread ... except as an example of Duality that is ready for resolving (in a Duel).
Enough of the fecal matter.
Yes, it has been more than enough. However, the "matter" will not go away 'til the provocateur drops it "below the threshold of consciousness, where it belongs (after anal-isis).
I am not now, nor never have been a member of the
Communist PartyFecal Party, so help me God.'
Congratulations. Your Membership Card will be mailed as soon as you pays your due-doos and fees in advance.
Anticaprophagic League
I think your typo has turned this into an anti-goat-eating society (Latin "caprum" = goat, as opposed to the Greek "kopros" = dung), and i must dissent. I love goat.
I am pro-goat, and anti-shit, as far as diet goes. Thus i support and practice caprophagy, and abhor and avoid coprophagy.
I plan to take a digital copy of Liber AL and remove all dual references ... leaving only those messages that refer directly (and obviously) to the non-dual state.
How are you getting on with that?
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
the non-dual state.
Dom inquires: How are you getting on with that?
Said project is now resting comfortably behind the back burner on the project stove. I believe it is sleeping peacefully.
I think your typo has ...
Capro-, copra-, down the lane,
these two are not the same.
A goat for you, no poop for me,
o how happy we will be.
I love seeing that this has finally instigated some conversation, some lively debate.
May I challenge us all to be methodical with the consensus? At least be clear what we are affirming or not?
I think we all owe it to each other, and ever more so, to ourselves, to be clear and upfront in stating our views on the Burning Issues Of The Day.
Thus, i will forthrightly state that
- i do not now eat, nor have i ever eaten, shit, nor do i approve of others doing so;
Okay, we have 100% consensus here 🙂
Five stars.
Big Thumbs up!
This is the equanimity we share so far in the consensus, I might add.
This means that we share the text in common, sure, but we also share the "truth" value of the text in common, an equanimity of shared meaning.
that is "spit", not "shit".
Are you really going to try to slip in a duality, a "spit or shit"-"up or down"-"kill or fill", here in this convo when I am requesting that you challenge me on the mathematically elegant non-duality of ternary logic para language?
(If your answer is yes, omg I love you for that.)
If you just jump into Liber Al vel Legis chp3 and then jump to me informing this community what I am, that is not how we prove or disprove this. Its not a vote up or down type thing.
I am making a falsifiable claim.
I am claiming that when you read liber al vel legis in twilight language and para language, you can only arrive at "shit" being the key word, as a matter of simple deduction, induction, and abduction, as in, it really cannot be argued with because the conclusion follows a logical and mathematical form.
I understand that sounds like an obnoxious claim I am making.
I get that.
And that does indeed put me into somewhat of a comical-and-on-the-spot-in-real time situation, I feel like I am somewhat like the stage magician trying to convince James Randi that he really is using psychic energy to do the card trick.
I see that I am in quite the pickle 🙂
So discussing "shit" or "spit", which is a dualistic form of logic, black or white, true or false, yes or no, is not the language here.
If you attempt to understand the secret key within a duality, it will just annoy your brain, like a meme that annoys you.
Using the duality will indeed put you in the pickle too, along with me.
The paralanguage of all the text in Liber al Vel Legis is in ternary logic and ternary para-logic.
0,1,2 = Nuit Hadit RHK, exactly as Crowley tells us, in his own words.
Don't let my high faluttin' terms like "paralogic" or "paralanguage" confuse you either, this is very simple to understand.
the paralogic of liber al vel legis is true, false, and mystery.
0 = mystery
1 = true
2 = false
So the key must be considered in the context of the discussion between Nuit and Hadit, using their instructions and their instructions only, and proving them solely by appealing only to Crowley's writings, without introducing anything more than the obvious and non-controversial.
If I follow those rules, you will also need to follow those rules so you can see the conclusion is only what I have plainly laid out, and only because I am reading the paralanguage in the text.
Consider; Chp1 = a simple beautiful teaching of Sunyata, nothingness.
- Chapter 1, in the voice of Nuit, is giving an actual teaching of Sunyata, or Binah, the post crossing of the abyss experience (not the crossing part, after that 🙂
- Nuit does not even give riddles, she defines all of her terms,if you follow Nuit's instructions down to the very letter, she provides the Western rational mind an extraordinarily simple way to arrive at "nothingness" (Sunyata, a state of experience as well as a collection of teachings in all schools in different ways) as well as instructions of how to read the text, how to read the language of the text.
- Nuit's instructions are mathematical, the infinite number line, the key numbers of the text, 0.12. This is all paralanguage, with a set of rules.
- The rules are mathematical, so we are just going to follow them while we continue to read Liber al Vel Legis.
- We conclude that Chp1 is an elegant teaching of "nothingness", rational, mathematical, simple, lovely, and that Nuit has given us simple tools with which to read and understand the text, a little bit by little bit, a way to continually and evermore come to "lie in her bosom"
Chp 2; a puzzling, poetic, and narrative form to arrive at Sunyata, nothingness.
- Hadit's paralanguage is entirely opposite of Nuit's in its logical form, arriving at emptiness, nothingness, Sunyata, not through any process that is simple, rational, certain or actual, the para language of the voice of Chp2.
- Hadit teaches us to arrive at Sunyata through mystery.
- Note "mystery" is a narrative form of a true logical "unknown" in paralogic, basically a 0 numerically.
- Hadit trains us through this mystery of self and other by playing with our projections onto the mystery (nothingness) of the text by throwing puzzle after puzzle. I could write a book on Chp2 alone that is how rich it is in paralanguage here.
- Hadit is complimenting Nuit's arrival at nothingness, he is the poem to her math, the puzzle to her solution, the art to her science, in terms of the two distinct paralanguages used.
Chp 3; A very very strange way to arrive at Sunyata, nothingness.
- Without the bizarre, syncronistic, and narrative discovery of the word "shit" in Chp3, there would be no way to understand any of Chp3 at all, for the paralogic of Chp3 combines the paralanguage of Chp1 AND Chp2 combined, which we can also predict it should do from reading Chp1 and Chp2 in the paralanguage.
- The "wisdom" of Chp3 in this language is incredibly hysterical, incredibly enlightening, deeply contemplative, and continually teaching.
So is it "spit" or is it "shit" in a ternary paralogic and paralanguage?
All dualities resolve the same, and the formula for the resolution is always the absorption of the dyad, the duality, the child, the synthesis.
So we can predict that the truth to this conundrum most be that BOTH are true in some sense, false in some sense, and unknown in some other sense.
And we have the tools to define exactly which is which, 0, 1, or 2.
SPECIAL REQUEST: I love the convo, great fun and great exercise, but literally I am "pooped", end of day, long run on beach, etc. So my next post is going to address the core rebuttal so far to this secret word is that it "clearly" is the word spit if we just "look" into all of the words in the text, but after I have a bit rest and refreshment.
Great fun! this convo, great fun.
"If you have come to help me, then you are wasting your time, but if you are here because your liberation is bound together with mine, then let us work together." Lilla Watson
also, forgive this "second post", but under no uncertain terms should anyone interpret the reading of Liber al within the paralanguage to give the result of the "only" possible interpretation.
This interpretation does not cancel out other interpretations, it actually predicts them.
Part of the outcome of the conversation within the text, between Nu, Had, and RHK, is the distinction between the "definitive" or "actual" and the "temporary, provisional" view, interpretation, teaching, etc of both the text and Sunyata, the state of nothingness.
I probably wont post anymore tonight so I will get to the main collection of rebuttals in the morning, cheers!
"If you have come to help me, then you are wasting your time, but if you are here because your liberation is bound together with mine, then let us work together." Lilla Watson
ooh hoo
maybe there’s a Piss in there also;
that we could find;
which got missed by The Scribe and The Prophet;
who could not read his own handwriting;
side tracked by shinning on about the reception.
Good day everyone,
See all of these quotes below I am copying and pasting?
100% of all of these rebuttals, taken at face value, are avoiding confronting the claim.
Even though I have already provided a "anti-thesis", it appears that everyone wants to keep their shit as shit, something not talked about, something hidden, gross.
Well do what tho wilt!
I am not trying to convert anyone, I am merely the messenger here, not the chef!
Please look at all of these responses, kindly before I tear the flesh away from them, poke their eyes, flap my wings in their faces so to speak 🙂
And just to add to the discussion I was curious enough to check out my copy of the Liber in his handwriting and if you check verse 44 of the same chapter, the word 'pride' has the exact same style of P.
You can't tell me he was writing Hride
Please check out all the p's, they nearly always extend too high (that was obviously his writing style), then go on and look for the h's. They don't go under the line. Never. That doesn't count out your theory how certain juveniles may read it. And if this is about how it MAY be read, there is no point of discussion.
There is no chance of a real doubt about which letter he wrote, sorry, I am into this more than 25 years (as if this would prove a point). But if you think there is importance in the fact that you and your peers (and maybe others) read it differently then this may be as it is. It might be a sign.
Yes, it has been more than enough. However, the "matter" will not go away 'til the provocateur drops it "below the threshold of consciousness, where it belongs (after anal-isis).
To claim that the written word, (shit/spit), and the printed word "spit" only reflect Crowley's intention and therefore that is PROOF that the secret word is NOT SHIT are not following the instructions in the text.
You are "filling in the blank", the mystery, the unknown, with your own concept.
Kindly, allow me to show you.
1.) It is not possible for anyone to say, with any certainty, that the secret word is NOT "shit", unless you already know what the secret word is and have a counter interpretation.
- Do you have this?
- If so, bring it forth.
- If you do not, then I highly recommend taking my claim outside of the dualistic view, "spit or shit, true or false", and view it as it "actually" is at this stage to you, an unknown, a mystery.
- Mystery is "empty" of any truth value, other than it is true that it is mystery.
- Maybe true, maybe false, but certainly neither true, nor neither false at this stage.
- From a psychological perspective, (alchemical magickal tantric whatever) this is an opportunity to hold two opposites in your mind at once, true and false, suspending both of them, resting in their union, mystery.
- You can be absolutely certain that you do NOT YET KNOW, or do NOT YET UNDERSTAND, and therefore, have NO WISDOM, not yet anyway!
- (or you can continue with dualistic true or false personal concepts leading your true will into delusion and really bad potty jokes, take your pick here, hehe)
Who here is so brave as to do this?
Who here has such clarity that they can confront the "war in heaven" or the dualistic battle between "true or false" here in Malkuth, with calm and focused brevity?
"A King may choose his garment as he will: there is no certain test: but a beggar cannot hide his poverty."
2.) The rebuttal that "Oh Crowley wrote ALL OF HIS P's like this!!!! OBVIOUSLY Crowley MEANT to write the word spit not shit, and shit is gross" is, according to the actual text, a "crap" argument, easily discarded, exposing a hungry ghost so to speak. Such an anti-thesis is a child of "group think", which happens in all social groups, even enlightened Thelemites 🙂
Understand, I am following the rules of the text, and so should you in your counters here.
I will try to be funny where appropriate 🙂
The text provides many instances regarding the rules of engagement around the changing of the letter in the book, their printing and copying, and specifically what a changing letter provides in discovery, including something like a "clause" as what to do in case their is any misunderstanding, confusion, or foolishness.
And we can't just isolate text, give it some meaning that sounds cool, we have to translate everything into the narrative of what the text is about.
The text itself is about the reception of Liber al Vel Legis and its production and distribution, self- referential, a story about the author of the text experiencing purely heightened creativity, being "in-between" the conversation happening between Nuit and Hadit about the coming "aeon" for humanity expressed as their child, Ra Hoor Khuit.
So, in the actual story, in the actual text, not in my concept of the text, we find these instructions.
- My scribe Ankh-af-na-khonsu, the priest of the princes, shall not in one letter change this book; but lest there be folly, he shall comment thereupon by the wisdom of Ra-Hoor-Khuit.
This is a very very specific instruction, perfectly defined like an attorney would in a contract, including a provision about what to do in case of misunderstanding, mistakes, etc
no?
- Change not as much as the style of a letter; for behold! thou, o prophet, shalt not behold all these mysteries hidden therein.
Nuit repeats again this same instruction, including not even changing the "style" of the letter.
She also clearly says that within this letter is a mystery that the prophet, who she defines as Crowley, will not behold himself.
So any argument that is praying, hoping for any way to avoid dealing with the shit, resting on Crowley's actual intention of the text, has to argue with Nuit, not me.
And if you were to propose a real counter argument, with brevity and clarity, this is where you would want to focus it.
How am I deciphering these lines of text, my interpretation in the para language?
That is where the flaw would be found.
Skeptical?
Hadit even reinforces this instruction to Crowley, do not change in STYLE or value.
- The stops as thou wilt; the letters? change them not in style or value!
Liber al Vel Legis, being a self-referential work, where the author of the book and the audience reading the book are all apart of the book and story, tearing down the fourth "wall" so to speak, is a story about the book, everything about it, from inspiration of the book to its production and distribution.
The text can get pretty specific when we simply just read the paralanguage, without projecting our own personal concepts on to it, simply reading it at face value when it instructs us to read it that way.
- This book shall be translated into all tongues: but always with the original in the writing of the Beast;
Very specifically, in the mass production and "copying" of the book, even in all languages that are not English, shall all printed copies of the text contain the photocopy of the original handwriting of the Beast.
And the book explains specifically how it is that this instruction is in the book itself, telling us
- for in the chance shape of the letters and their position to one another:
RHK specifically says in the "chance" shape of the letters.
"Chance" as a word implies "without intention" of the author, Crowley.
So ya'll need to present counter arguments to RHK and Nuit at this stage, I am simply following their rules, interpreted in the most obvious of ways.
- in these are mysteries that no Beast shall divine.
There are two ways to look at how the word "divine" is used, one is passive, and the other active.
I am going to use the active interpretation, where as to "divine" something is like "skrying", the "weaving of a spell", creating "magick" itself.
With the active interpretation of divine, the text simply told us that the "magick" inherent in this operation is not written by Crowley or anyone, the magick comes from the "chance" shape of the letters.
Posted by: @the_real_simon_iff
And please, if it serves your purpose, let's do not spoil the fun and always remember that Thelema is the only religion that brings serious laughter into the equation.
I know people who say that ALL his handwriting is "shit".
haha! YES!!! Let me know if you are ever in need of a roommate.
And you're actually presenting one of the proofs of the interpretation.
The KEY OF IT ALL MUST BE FUNNY!!!!!
This shit is funny, yo.
Paralanguages are a riot.
But they are also hyper-rational, complimented perfectly with the hyper-intuitive.
A leaping and laughing mathematician and poet is what we shall all be, if we discuss the text within the rules of the text 🙂
I am attaching here a scholarly links on "piss, shit, etc" used in Hindu Tantric practice in the obtainment of "non-duality" and Sunyata.
I am merely the messenger, not the author 🙂
Disgusting Bodies, Disgusting Religion: The Biology of Tantra (full PDF)
"If you have come to help me, then you are wasting your time, but if you are here because your liberation is bound together with mine, then let us work together." Lilla Watson
ooh hoo
maybe there’s a Piss in there also;
that we could find;
which got missed by The Scribe and The Prophet;
who could not read his own handwriting;
side tracked by shinning on about the reception.
Well you can only find it if the text instructs you to find it, that is if we are deciding to join the conversation in a collaborative and rational way, devoid of bad koans that collapse into duality and your own personal impressions.
Come participate with us amigo!
The whole "passive" and off to the side-lines approach you are taking to the group process is addressed in the text, provisionally as "professional soldiers who dare to play and not fight".
Come fight as brothers! Not as a primate viewing themselves has "high up" in the trees, "pissing down" on everyone's conversation and noble effort 🙂
(my last post for awhile!)
"If you have come to help me, then you are wasting your time, but if you are here because your liberation is bound together with mine, then let us work together." Lilla Watson
See all of these quotes below I am copying and pasting?
WellReadandBred is usually in charge of multiple quote posting. With some folks, the longer the post, and the more the quotes, these less they are likely to pay any attention.
100% of all of these rebuttals, taken at face value, are avoiding confronting the claim.
Well, that's everybody, then (100%). I wonder what claim they are avoiding?
I am not trying to convert anyone, I am merely the messenger here, not the chef!
Messenger, chef, or unreasonably overboard ... did you know that kings used to kill messengers? In the present case, the messages are way too overlong. There is no Rule here about length of posts, so you are free to ramble.
Here's a problem: Your messages are laced with condescension, traced with your own importance as you ramble on about misspelled words and the fecal obsession.
I have arrived at two conclusions ...
1. Fourth (4th) Ray. "These people are argumentative and combative." No matter what anybody (else) says, you will be ready to offer an opposite view.
2. "Words, words, words!" and "Images, images, images," cries Choronzon as he goes on and on revealing the wall, the gap, the void that prevents true communication.
To claim that the written word, (shit/spit), and the printed word "spit" only reflect Crowley's intention and therefore that is PROOF that the secret word is NOT SHIT are not following the instructions in the text.
There is no PROOF here of anything. I suspect that you are mad (crazy). I must therefore resort to the ultimate referral (It is not "Go to Hell" or "Reproduce Yourself"), which is ...
See a doctor.
The rest of your post rambles endlessly, making no practical point. When you see the doc, give him/her/it the referral diagnosis ...
Exuberant Egomania.
100% of all of these rebuttals, taken at face value, are avoiding confronting the claim.
It's 100% again. Anyway. I don't avoid the claim, I think the claim is nonsense. Of course I am open to be convinced otherwise, but so far I don't hold my breath. The secret key is a misread "shit"? Well, I am sure there is something to be had in confronting this in the way you do, but so far not for me. There is way too much to accept beforehand, like the "mystery, true, false" stuff, or "Without the bizarre, syncronistic, and narrative discovery of the word "shit" in Chp3, there would be no way to understand any of Chp3 at all". Claims that need claims.
You obviously have fun with it, but these days I don't have the time to dive deeper into this. This is not avoidance or (gasp!) fear of your "solution", but simply the clickbait isn't strong enough for now.
Love=Law
Lutz
@sangewanchuck56
It sounds like you’re saying that Crowley could not read his own hand writing and mistook an ( h ) for a ( p ) and that you know his hand writing and what he was trying to say better than him. as well as being preoccupied, attached, obsessed and engrossed with Shit. And if you really care that it is Shit and not Spit then taking it up with the O.T.O. would be a good place to start.
I think the claim is nonsense.
I second that notion.
You obviously have fun with it, but these days I don't have the time to dive deeper into this.
I also second that notion.
... preoccupied, attached, obsessed and engrossed with Shit.
This will be the formal charge when SWC56 is referred to The Grand Tribunal. Speaking of which ...
... the O.T.O. would be a good place to start.
I see we have some quick rebuttals, some "concepts" about my post.
WellReadandBred is usually in charge of multiple quote posting. With some folks, the longer the post, and the more the quotes, these less they are likely to pay any attention.
Well do what thou wilt!
I am providing contextual completeness with clarity and methods for falsification, and some fun theater thrown in to make it entertaining.
I really don't recommend commenting on my posts without reading them.
I can assure you that your comments will appear asinine to those who are actually reading all of the posts.
Well, that's everybody, then (100%). I wonder what claim they are avoiding?
They are avoiding the claim that the word "spit" in Chp3, which can reasonably look like the word "shit" in the handwritten manuscript, is the secret key to understanding the "meaning" of the text and the language of Liber al vel legis, as it is written in when interpreted through para-language.
Sincere question; is that really hard to understand?
Messenger, chef, or unreasonably overboard ... did you know that kings used to kill messengers?
In the old aeon, sure.
In the new aeon, "strike hard and low", give it a shot 🙂
In the present case, the messages are way too overlong. There is no Rule here about length of posts, so you are free to ramble.
Best not to comment thereupon!
Read or not read, why would I care?
Why read some, and then comment?
That appears like reactive behavior, you are reacting to the dualities of true or false that appear to be conflicting in your mind.
Here's a problem: Your messages are laced with condescension, traced with your own importance as you ramble on about misspelled words and the fecal obsession.
My words are "laced", eh?
How does that happen?
We do know that we develop concepts about each other through only the "text" in these posts.
We do know that you just introduced another concept about me. (again- why am I the interesting subject here???)
How do you know your concept about my intention and meaning is not your own misunderstanding?
Can you give me something to falsify?
Something I can use to somehow prevent misunderstanding?
I have arrived at two conclusions ...
1. Fourth (4th) Ray. "These people are argumentative and combative." No matter what anybody (else) says, you will be ready to offer an opposite view.
Okay, so you are reverting to your concept which is resting on what I assume is a third party "authority", to inform you what my "true" intentions are within the text.
And I note that you are focusing on a rebuttal against my claim with a concept about me.
Do you actually believe that the state of mind I am in, or the concept you have about the state of mind that I am in, as well as any "hidden" intentions you suggest I have, negates anything mathematical or rational in my communication?
Liber al Vel Legis is a very combative text, we are talking about a combative text, and showing how combative text can produce "win-win" collaborative discussions, creating quick learning.
Do you go to the Aikido dojo and complain that all they do is practice fighting each other?
2. "Words, words, words!" and "Images, images, images," cries Choronzon as he goes on and on revealing the wall, the gap, the void that prevents true communication.
Be careful what you invoke here amigo! For indeed that is true (to the degree within Crowley's system).
Words, images, text, meaning are all FORM.
Choronzon is attachment to form.
Right now, you are attached to a concept about me that your mind is misleading you to believe, because your mind is having a difficult time balancing the duality of "true and false", which is mystery.
You are attached to TRUE OR FALSE.
You are uncomfortable with simply enjoying the conversation, processing my claim in the beginning as a mystery, unknown at the moment.
You are telling me all of this through your paralanguage, which you are as of yet unaware of. Or at least it appears like you are unaware.
It's 100% again.
Yes! Please note that pattern, when you see when I say 100%, that means perfect certainty. That means mathematical certainty.
Anything below 100% is only certainty about uncertainty.
Are you 100% certain that you are reading this line of text right now?
Yes, of course you are!
Oh, you're not 100% sure?
I think there is a word for that type of disorder, no?
Anyway. I don't avoid the claim, I think the claim is nonsense.
Both of those statements "I dont avoid the..." and "I think the claim is nonsense" are inherently contradictory, because if you already know the claim is nonsense, that means you can falsify my claim, without insulting me, moving me down the tree below you in some way, you can falsify my claim, right?
And if you do not yet understand the full claim, the only thing that could possibly be the nonsense is your concept about my claim, your concept "looks like nonsense" to you.
no?
Do you see how I appear to be "nit-picking" at your text? Deconstructing it? I am deconstructing your text into the paralogic and paralanguage used in Liber al.
It can be very annoying at first, this deconstruction of text and meaning.
I politely advise to not let it annoy you at all, but use it to find the calm center, the center of the hurricane between True and False.
Of course I am open to be convinced otherwise, but so far I don't hold my breath.
Yes, be advised all, please do not eat actual shit, and do not hold your breath during this discussion 🙂
The secret key is a misread "shit"?
That sentence you wrote, isolated from any context, is exactly correct however it wont make sense until you attach the context of the paralanguage, which is rational and can be explained without making any contradictions.
Well, I am sure there is something to be had in confronting this in the way you do, but so far not for me.
Until we "get the joke" and can read the paralanguage, and continually resolve paradoxes and dualities within Liber al Vel Legis, it simply is not possible to have any concept of this yet that is either true or false.
There is way too much to accept beforehand, like the "mystery, true, false" stuff, or "Without the bizarre, syncronistic, and narrative discovery of the word "shit" in Chp3, there would be no way to understand any of Chp3 at all". Claims that need claims.
Beautiful, now we are getting somewhere! Yes, and thank you for following along like you are, paying attention, I appreciate that, I do put a lot of care into these writings, this conversation is very special to me I hope you understand this.
You obviously have fun with it, but these days I don't have the time to dive deeper into this. This is not avoidance or (gasp!) fear of your "solution", but simply the clickbait isn't strong enough for now.
haha! Totally understood and respected brother!
Until we met again, I only request you keep this in the mystery until you get exactly where it is either true or false.
I have a perspective of all of this that may not be fair to all of you, as this paralanguage and linguistic process I have already "proven" in my real life work, and I have 20 years of learning how to read and write in paralanguage as a designer of financial and contextual architectures that need to scale to millions and hundreds of millions of people, and I need to be able to prove these algorithms can work to get investment dollars, so I have the benefit of already knowing 100% that what I am describing works, all the time, and as the text says "Success is your proof!".
On a list of the top 10 most interesting things to do with the paralanguage of Liber al Vel Legis, 0, 1, and 2, deciphering Liber al Vel Legis is number 12 or 13 on that list.
Cheers!
"If you have come to help me, then you are wasting your time, but if you are here because your liberation is bound together with mine, then let us work together." Lilla Watson
Both of those statements "I dont avoid the..." and "I think the claim is nonsense" are inherently contradictory, because if you already know the claim is nonsense, that means you can falsify my claim, without insulting me, moving me down the tree below you in some way, you can falsify my claim, right?
It can be very annoying at first, this deconstruction of text and meaning.
I politely advise to not let it annoy you at all, but use it to find the calm center, the center of the hurricane between True and False.
Of course I am open to be convinced otherwise, but so far I don't hold my breath.
Well, logic tells me "avoiding" something and "thinking something" of something ist't contradictory at all, but anyway, without the sentence that followed you may have a point. But there was a following sentence which you later quoted. This is by the way not "deconstruction" but quoting out of context. A little like people showing one single handwritten word. I gave you a good reason in that my time is limited at the moment and so I am not prepared to read all your stuff (I probably will at a later time), especially since claiming "shit" is the secret key to Liber L is simply not click-baity enough for me. I have seen too many of these claims to now get in a hurry.
If success is proof, you will need to succeed in convincing a lot of people I guess. We'll see.
Anyway, it takes a lot to annoy me, so please do go on.
Love=Law
Lutz
I am providing contextual completeness with clarity and methods for falsification, and some fun theater thrown in to make it entertaining.
Basically, you are ... raving.
I can assure you that your comments will appear asinine to those who are actually reading all of the posts.
Would ONE (1) (any one) of those who are reading the posts like to step forth and support the claims of clarity, methods, or practicality?
They are avoiding the claim that the word "spit" in Chp3, which can reasonably look like the word "shit" in the handwritten manuscript, is the secret key to understanding the "meaning" of the text and the language of Liber al vel legis, as it is written in when interpreted through para-language.
Well, if you are claiming this, then you are full of it. I don't think this "paralingo" is spoken around these parts, but it does seem like paralingo is your interpretation of reality.
Sincere question; is that really hard to understand?
Sincerely replying, I don't think you have a single supporter who claims to understand your dilemma, your solution, or, or what caused you to lose your equilibrium.
In the new aeon, "strike hard and low", give it a shot
Come to the dojo, if it ever opens again.
I formally declare a State of Acute Trollism, coupled with dementia or condescension, and I am forced to resort to the ultimate response ...
[Silence]
I gave you a good reason in that my time is limited at the moment and so I am not prepared to read all your stuff (I probably will at a later time), especially since claiming "shit" is the secret key to Liber L is simply not click-baity enough for me. I have seen too many of these claims to now get in a hurry.
Yes you did, I now see what you mean. Nice one!
Do you see how my "concept" slightly deviated from the "definitive" meaning of what you intended to write? I had a "false" concept there, and you rightfully corrected it into a concept we could share in common as "true", what you "really" meant.
If I have a false concept about something, ESPECIALLY the claim I am making, and I take this false concept and I confuse it is the actual "true" and definitive concept, that would make me delusional.
right?
If I am truly delusional about my claim, I want to confront that and see my delusion.
If you or anyone here can show me my delusion, out of compassion, for you are all Kings, do I "lose" this "battle"?
No, I WIN the battle, for you have helped me overcome a delusion, so any anxiety or stress that I would have which could lead me to avoid this "battle of concepts" between brothers and kings is only a "win-win" support of mutual attainment.
I win because you have shown me my delusion.
You win because your "king", your "definitive" concept, was able to maintain its "center", your concept had "integrity" to it.
We both "won" through disagreement.
That is a simple explanation of win win consensus building through the paralanguage of 0,1, and 2
Shiva by the way is providing excellent example of dualistic argumentation.
He is unaware that his entire paralanguage in written text is written in duality or black or white thinking.
He is coming up with concepts about this conversation.
He already has a concept about all of this, he believes this concept is true.
Shiva is suggesting that ol fun loving Sanguine Chuck's text is devoid of anything meaningful.
Basically, you are ... raving.
Shiva, I am not sure exactly what you mean by "raving", but I get a picture of "wildly flapping about" with lots of energy but with nothing practical to come of it.
If that were true, I would likely make many contradictions that I would also be unaware of, no?
Well, if you are claiming this, then you are full of it. I don't think this "paralingo" is spoken around these parts, but it does seem like paralingo is your interpretation of reality.
The only way you could know if "paralanguage" is "spoken around these parts" is if you already understand paralanguage.
Your text makes it clear to me, at least, that you do not yet even have the concept.
If you do not yet even have the concept, likely best to ask questions instead of putting forth a bunch of soldiers, no?
You could simply ask "Hey Sanguine Chuck, what do you mean exactly by paralanguage?"
And you could have asked that two weeks ago.
Take a look at your language, look at what you are "actually" communicating.
Do you notice anything "territorial" in your words? "...is spoken around these parts.." I mean is that a line from a cowboy movie?
A fella from out of town, talking funny around these here parts?
Issues and concepts around territory, specifically any form of "my territory" and "your territory" are all circuit 3 conversations, as Tim Leary would say.
Even False concepts point to certain truths!
Sincerely replying, I don't think you have a single supporter who claims to understand your dilemma, your solution, or, or what caused you to lose your equilibrium.
Well, I suppose you already took that vote in your mind/concept?
And since I assume you introduce your concept about the environment as me being the least most popular boy in the high school auditorium, you wish to suggest this is how you, and the community, should value my text, which I present rationally, honestly, with falsification?
By calling me names?
My friend Shiva, look at your mirror.
Come to the dojo, if it ever opens again.
I am here in the dojo with you right now.
I formally declare a State of Acute Trollism, coupled with dementia or condescension, and I am forced to resort to the ultimate response ...
Shiva, another opportunity to look into the mirror, see your projection clearly, which you are revealing in text without your conscious awareness.
I am having a fun, calm, rational conversation about a very specific subject, and you are doing nothing more than flexing and name calling.
Its 2021, we all are clearly aware what trolls do in the conversation.
[Silence]
It's your only hope, really.
That and simple honest, rational conversation.
So far I see evidence of you avoiding both!
"If you have come to help me, then you are wasting your time, but if you are here because your liberation is bound together with mine, then let us work together." Lilla Watson
I still haven't got the time to go all through your Writings On The Secret Key to Liber L, but I had the chance to wikipedia "paralanguage". Obviously paralanguage is not about text, but all about presenting text as a bodily entity. About *spoken* language. About presentation. (which is probably important for you to make money for you and others) Which sounds good with "listen to the numbers and the words" but less good with "change not the style of a letter". Am I correct then in thinking you claim that the key to Liber L lies in presenting it, reading it to someone else? So far I don't see where "shit" comes into play or how it was written ("spit" for anyone knowing Crowley's handwriting), because if you present it as "shit", it is "shit" for the observer (at least the one who doesn't know about it).
I might look for some other easy mis-readings and see what happens.
Love=Law
Lutz
Obviously paralanguage is not about text, but all about presenting text as a bodily entity. About *spoken* language.
Excellent!
The word "paralanguage" was coined in 1950, when the mediums of television and radio where the mainstream channels of communication, and written text, like you and are I exchanging, was not yet the phenomenon, because that would come much later with the advent of the internet. So it would be vague then to even try to apply it to text in communication in the 1950s.
Surely, however, a sweet love letter, received from an admirer in 1935, scented with perfumes and dried flowers, would be a para language to the text in the letter, right? Same concept.
So, this does not mean that written text does not contain paralanguage, it was just applied to the naturally occurring paralanguage found in the spoken word, the word "most heard" through the screen and radio, and the word coined for this was "paralanguage".
Dont confuse the word paralanguage with what paralanguage is!
Well, in 2021 we do happen to know that written text has paralanguage, and this is what many in the academic fields are describing as what is happening online at the moment, with misinformation, troll farms, etc.
The word they use is "context collapse" within text, applied to online speech. The "context" would be the paralanguage, its gone now, or too hard to find.
So with written text, just like "spoken" text in the 1950's, the "paralanguage" is just the medium and environment the text comes "wrapped" in.
"The Medium is the Message" is how McLuhan would refer to paralanguage in text.
The para-logic and paralanguage of 0, 1, and 2 is easy tho.
Very simple.
All life evolved to read, move, perceive, receive, transmit, and mate with this language.
The language is an ordering principle, so even though it is obvious, it is often too obvious and we miss it.
For millions and millions of years, life has evolved to distinguish between daytime, when the sun appears in the sky, with lots of light and activity, and between night time, when there is no sun, no light, no warmth, only the opposite.
And life also evolved to notice that those two opposites come together as one whole system every time there is sunrise and sunset, a period of time each day that is, visually speaking, both night and day at once.
The whole system is always the absorption of what ever opposites it contains, so the earth is neither in daytime, nor in nighttime, for is always and eternally in both night and day, at once, from the viewpoint of the whole system.
Paralanguage is whole system language.
"If you have come to help me, then you are wasting your time, but if you are here because your liberation is bound together with mine, then let us work together." Lilla Watson
I might look for some other easy mis-readings ...
Why? Enough evidence has been presented (endless ramblings, fecal o9bsession) to make one think ...
Remember that Spanish Don who tried to sell us "preferences" for Will?
Remember how somebody tipped us to "wandering debaters" who are sent out onto the www in order to develop their reasoning and confusing skills? Seemingly through antagonistic interaction?
I remember both of those, and I am reminded to just bug off.
Throwing some stuff into the ring even before reading your entire writings (bad manner, I know, but I explained): I guess the only other "spit" occurence in the book in III:42 is then also "shit" for you, while even harder to read as such?
And while we're at it: when you said it would be strengthening the meaning of "spit on it" or "I spit on your crapulous creeds", really wouldn't you agree that this is not right. Spitting is the ultimate condescending gesture, requiring no time or effort, just a little moisture (which normally can be produced at all times easily) while shitting is quite complex, it requires filled bowels, getting rid of your clothing in the designated area, a good standing, quite some time actually. So, while it might sound more hilarious to the juvenile, it also is way less condescending and making-a-point in my view.
Love=Law
Lutz
Sorry for double-posting!
Well, in 2021 we do happen to know that written text has paralanguage, and this is what many in the academic fields are describing as what is happening online at the moment, with misinformation, troll farms, etc.
Care to provide some sources for that? I haven't been able to find this in all the paralanguage sources I found so far. Only to confirm that "we" are actually we, and not you (it is a common thread in the occulture that occultists liek to use "we" when they actually should say "I").
Love=Law
Lutz
I see Shiva had very little integrity with his own concept of "silence", for we see him contradicting his own declaration, quite quickly I might add!
Remember how somebody tipped us to "wandering debaters" who are sent out onto the www in order to develop their reasoning and confusing skills?
Shiva now wishes to introduce into the consensus, which he is referencing in his mind as some concept like the high school auditorium, where I have 0% of the popular vote, and Shiva higher, much higher, likely is winning in the popular vote concept in his mind, a "new way" with which we can use to falsify my claim about the "secret word" of Liber al Vel Legis.
He suggests that instead of using brevity, honesty, rational thinking, and clear intuition, all of us should consult our memory banks, concepts from the past, easily corruptible, and recall a story about an event, a concept he has about some mysterious insider who had some inside scoop about some sort of "infiltrator" or "other", and that concept must somehow be the true definitive concept about my participation here.
Shiva reveals a "keyword" here, something which he believes "links" this conversation to the "actual" truth of this "insider" who had this "scoop" on infiltrators.
Seemingly through antagonistic interaction?
Those would be called troll farms. I take delight in busting them up in my real life.
The key word is "antagonistic".
I am clearly collaborative, and if we use my text and your text to determine intention, I've yet to call you one name other than "brother", I have expressed gratitude, sincere, towards you. I have taken great care and time to explain things in simple language to you, over and over.
In the process, you have called me crazy, insane, a raving madman, and now, it sounds like you are about to go full paranoia, perhaps I am a secret scientologist!
Watch those reverse images amigo!
You're looking into a mirror forgetting its a mirror.
"If you have come to help me, then you are wasting your time, but if you are here because your liberation is bound together with mine, then let us work together." Lilla Watson
@sangewanchuck56
If you have 20 years of learning how to read and write in paralanguage as a designer of financial and contextual architectures that need to scale to millions and hundreds of millions of people, and need to be able to prove these algorithms can work to get investment dollars;
then maybe you could bend my ear as your shrink, i charge $200 an hour to start.
So lets get back down to to the muck and tell us again about this Tantric paralanguage and the shit involved.
then maybe you could bend my ear as your shrink, i charge $200 an hour to start.
So lets get back down to to the muck and tell us again about this Tantric paralanguage and the shit involved.
Do you know how to communicate nicely to people?
Do you know how to treat them with dignity in a conversation?
Until you show me you have those basic life skills, I am quite un-inclined to view you has having any value as any form of a therapist!
Perhaps you can rephrase your question?
Converse with me as an equal?
"If you have come to help me, then you are wasting your time, but if you are here because your liberation is bound together with mine, then let us work together." Lilla Watson
Do you know how to communicate nicely to people?
I thought that was a fitting reaction by @Tiger to someone who just claimed that paralanguage and paralogic works so well, but we're just left with your word here. You are free to show us how successful you really are in real life and how this has to do with para-language and -logic, or you try to see that communicating like this (proving your claims by unproven claims) also isn't exactly nice.
Just a suggestion
Love=Law
Lutz
P.S. This has nothing to do with the fact that people working in finances are mostly "shit" to me.
@chucky:
"Both of those statements "I don't avoid the..." and "I think the claim is nonsense" are inherently contradictory, because if you already know the claim is nonsense, that means you can falsify my claim, without insulting me, moving me down the tree below you in some way, you can falsify my claim, right?"
It's YOUR responsibility to PROVE your thesis...
It's not OUR responsibility to DISPROVE your thesis.
Too dualistic for you, oh great one?
Please note that my [Silence] only pertains to one person who, in the great tradition of Mathers, Crowley, Reuss, and Motta, has been expelled from my dialog. This [Silence] does not extend to sane people.
i charge $200 an hour to start.
And just hopw much does it run up to after one gets going?
This has nothing to do with the fact that people working in finances are mostly "shit" to me.
This also has nothing to do with Non-Duality in Thelema. See what happens when people get to post really long letters,b deviate from the thread topic, and fall into anti-personnel condescension ... all while "being nice." (See: 333).
The para-logic and paralanguage of 0, 1, and 2 is easy tho.
Maybe it is. But you are the one claiming that I, II and III is now 0, 1 and 2. It's a legal attempt, I guess. But see, whenever someone comes with a theory that is based on totally new and personal grounds, I am extremely cautious.
So, please, clear this up. I don't see the easy-ness you claim.
Love=Law
Lutz
There is no PROOF here of anything. I suspect that you are mad (crazy). I must therefore resort to the ultimate referral (It is not "Go to Hell" or "Reproduce Yourself"), which is ...
See a doctor.
The rest of your post rambles endlessly, making no practical point. When you see the doc, give him/her/it the referral diagnosis ...
Exuberant Egomania.
Y'see the giveaway was the rebellion against the manic multiple posting, it's a Circuit 2 thing. I'll quote Ignant "the new guy we all like" .......is presently receiving the Shiva treatment.
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
I thought that was a fitting reaction by @Tiger to someone who just claimed that paralanguage and paralogic works so well, but we're just left with your word here.
Tiger has been in this convo for I think almost two weeks now, and has been less than shy about his concepts about me as a human being, but I do take your point!
However, I have not just "claimed" this, this is what I have been claiming for the past two weeks, we've just finally evolved the conversation so we have a think a little more understanding of the topic now than before.
I have also provided proofs in these conversations, but I understand that it may still be challenging to tease apart. That's okay, I don't mind repeating it from other angles, sometimes that is the only way to properly communicate it.
I promise you I will do the very best I can, k?
You are free to show us how successful you really are in real life and how this has to do with para-language and -logic, or you try to see that communicating like this (proving your claims by unproven claims) also isn't exactly nice.
My apologies! I did not mean to communicate my work into the conversation to brag, allow me to explain, kindly.
I said what I did to let you know that I understand that I have 20 years of experience in working with paralanguages, so naturally it appears easier for me now 20 years later, but I understand in the beginning it is challenging concept to "catch".
My "success" is not material wealth, I can assure you that is not my lifestyle and I do not wish to project that, my "success" means that within my work, I design systems that employ this exact paralogical language within a programmatic architecture, and that architecture has to be vetted by "experts" in the fields of finance, computer science, law, mathematics, etc and they have, and they have been successfully demonstrated.
So that is all I meant, apologies for any misunderstanding, that was not an instagram post!
P.S. This has nothing to do with the fact that people working in finances are mostly "shit" to me.
Brother I can assure you what my work is not the concept you have there! I am merely a designer who has a functioning design principle, and it is astounding to me the continual application of the design principle itself, taking me into areas that otherwise I would have no expertise in, none at all.
I absolutely do not want to draw attention to myself personally, so I do not want to share any more publicly, however I don't want anyone to think that I am trying to brag or deceive anyone, if there was a member here who is rational, can hold a decent conversation with a fellow human being, we could arrange a ZOOM, and I can walk through a presentation I give quite often, from everyone to mathematicians, neuroscientists, computer scientists, psychologists, even teenagers, and they can report their experience back here, as long as they agree to respect my privacy.
I hope my proposal is way to boring for anyone to consider, putting me off the hook!
@chucky:
Yes!
Sozy?
It's YOUR responsibility to PROVE your thesis...
Correct!
However, I am not presenting a scientific hypo-thesis, I am presenting an interpretation based on a set of rules. So the proof is in following the rules, like an algorithm or a math formula.
And I have already done that, that is the "proof", it is obviously just not yet drawn out yet in this conversation that everyone can understand, yet.
It's not OUR responsibility to DISPROVE your thesis.
huh? Where did you learn that?
If I am providing you a "proof", something deductive, if I am providing you with axioms, statements, etc expressed in a clear rational manner, then yes it is your responsibility to DISPROVE my thesis if you want to make claims about my thesis.
If you want to criticize my thesis, yes that is on you.
You are the one making a claim about reality too!
Regarding the subject, you are claiming that it is somewhat nonsense.
yet you provide no clear way with which we can see how you arrived at that conclusion, and I have repeated my steps to everyone in this conversation dozens of times by now, over and over.
Too dualistic for you, oh great one?
Yes, as in "incomplete". You started off on the right foot, and then tripped over it.
I prefer Sanguine Chuck, please 🙂
"If you have come to help me, then you are wasting your time, but if you are here because your liberation is bound together with mine, then let us work together." Lilla Watson
Trying to stumble along with this thread in Lurk Mode.
lets get back down to to the muck and tell us again about this Tantric paralanguage and the shit involved
Do you know how to communicate nicely to people?
Do you know how to treat them with dignity in a conversation?
Until you show me you have those basic life skills, I am quite un-inclined to view you has having any value as any form of a therapist!
With all due respect...aren't you the same poster who wrote:
remember, I stand on the shoulders of giants, for Dom is my superior in the AA, and Tiger my Holy Guru!
Was that a genuine spiritual maneuver or simple sarcasm?
Maybe it is. But you are the one claiming that I, II and III is now 0, 1 and 2. It's a legal attempt, I guess. But see, whenever someone comes with a theory that is based on totally new and personal grounds, I am extremely cautious.
So, please, clear this up. I don't see the easy-ness you claim.
Love=Law
Lutz
I am super happy someone rational is officially in the conversation! Yay! I may write this day down on the calendar, add it to the "Thelemic" holidays, hehe.
And I deeply encourage you to keep your cautiousness as much as you can, keep your skepticism.
I will provide this now in the quickest and simplest of text, and you tell me where it makes sense to you, or does not make sense, k?
My rule I devise is directly from Nuit, it is her rule, not mine.
She tells us in plain language, in many different ways.
I am going to show you the quickest way.
How do we understand the text of Liber al Vel Legis?
We only need to understand Nuit
I am Nuit, and my word is six and fifty.
Divide, add, multiply, and understand.
That's it, it is all in this answer.
What is the answer? Well don't trust me what the answer is, trust the author, Aleister Crowley.
Aleister Crowley tells us that the division of fifty into 6 is 0.12.
He also tells us, directly, that this is the same as Nuit, Hadit, and RaHoorKhuit.
He also tells us to contemplate this to understand the utter simplicity and paradigm shattering revelation of Liber al Vel Legis.
Okay, so you asked, how does 0, 1 and 2 relate to chapters 1, 2 and 3?
Do you see the answer to your question now, referring only to Crowley and to Liber al Vel Legis?
There is no question that 0, 1, and 2 relate to Nuit, Hadit, and RHK, Crowley tells us this in the plainest of language, and so does Nuit.
Right?
So the real question is, how do we come to assign 0 to RHK, 1, to Nuit, and 2 to Hadit, right?
Let me know if you follow so far, I dont want to get to far ahead. If you follow so far, i'll move on to the next steps.
Kindly advise if you agree with my steps so far, and if you feel if I have strayed to far from the direct text.
"If you have come to help me, then you are wasting your time, but if you are here because your liberation is bound together with mine, then let us work together." Lilla Watson
I have 20 years of experience in working with paralanguages, so naturally it appears easier for me now 20 years later, but I understand in the beginning it is challenging concept to "catch".
It is not a challenging concept at all. Not even closely. This is about that all what I have learned about paralanguage today (which seemed quite logical), nothing, and I mean NOTHING AT ALL EVEN IN THE MOST PARALANGUAL MEANING I HAVE ENCOUNTERED, ever was about a foolish misreading of a written word. Since paralanguage is a BIG part of your theory, and I can't see how it applies here, I will be unconvinced for now. So, please, what has paralanguage to do with your little "shit" joke?
Love=Law
Lutz
It is not a challenging concept at all. Not even closely.
Well good! I am happy to read you write that!
I agree, it is easy conceptually to understand.
However it took me many years to realize I was working with paralanguages!
This is about that all what I have learned about paralanguage today (which seemed quite logical), nothing, and I mean NOTHING AT ALL EVEN IN THE MOST PARALANGUAL MEANING I HAVE ENCOUNTERED, ever was about a foolish misreading of a written word.
Well you haven't read the paralanguage of Liber al Vel Legis yet, I just started walking you through it in my post above, please confirm you are following my steps.
Since paralanguage is a BIG part of your theory, and I can't see how it applies here, I will be unconvinced for now. So, please, what has paralanguage to do with your little "shit" joke?
You will see how it applies when you read the paralanguage with me along with the text, understanding the underlying paraLOGIC that is 0, 1, and 2, and the underlying paralanguage, which is also 0, 1, and 2.
Please lets continue this where we left off, you tell me if you follow my last steps, and I will walk you through it.
"If you have come to help me, then you are wasting your time, but if you are here because your liberation is bound together with mine, then let us work together." Lilla Watson
Divide, add, multiply, and understand.
That's it, it is all in this answer.
What is the answer? Well don't trust me what the answer is, trust the author, Aleister Crowley.
Aleister Crowley tells us that the division of fifty into 6 is 0.12.
He also tells us, directly, that this is the same as Nuit, Hadit, and RaHoorKhuit.
So we have the division. We don't have the addition, the multiplication and (of course) the understanding. Since I don't want to go through all these files, where does he tell us (directly, no less) that this is 0.12 (which is true of course) and also Nuit, Hadit and RaHoorKhuit. This would be helpful.
Love=Law
Lutz
With all due respect...aren't you the same poster who wrote:
remember, I stand on the shoulders of giants, for Dom is my superior in the AA, and Tiger my Holy Guru!
Was that a genuine spiritual maneuver or simple sarcasm?
It was BOTH sarcasm and "sincere spiritual maneuver".
And it floundered perhaps.
The sincere spiritual maneuver, as you call it, was on the one hand communicating a true and sincere tantric technique as a way to interact with others, and I added theater to the "guru yoga" of the approach, which I was going to detail next in the conversation, but then Shiva had a melt down and I realized the language was going over people's heads.
So look into my words, closely please!
The words I used to refer to Tiger and Dom were "Holy Guru" and "Superior in the AA", hardly demeaning taken at face value, right?
And, I was also genuinely practicing that yoga with you all, and I still am!
Its beautiful, imagine everyone in this conversation is secretly trying to enlighten you.
I was hoping some of the wizards here would have picked up on that.
Rats.
All they saw was sarcasm, and from a dualistic perspective, ouch!
I'll do better next time!
"If you have come to help me, then you are wasting your time, but if you are here because your liberation is bound together with mine, then let us work together." Lilla Watson
It was BOTH sarcasm and "sincere spiritual maneuver".
I suspected you'd write that.
And it floundered perhaps.
Like fish in the tank who fails to make it to the other shore.
Gate, Gate, Paragate, Parasamgate, Bodhi Svaha HUM!
But as long as we're using the English language, it's bound to happen.
I've always appreciated the line from a Daniel Amos song where Terry Taylor sings:
Language is weak-but I'll keep on speaking.
but then Shiva had a melt down
He really doesn't have melt-downs. Not saying he's perfect but he IS a "Wise One."
The words I used to refer to Tiger and Dom were "Holy Guru" and "Superior in the AA", hardly demeaning taken at face value, right?
They become demeaning if sarcastic. It is clear that Liber AL is not a book addressed at the "face value" mindset of the masses.
And, I was also genuinely practicing that yoga with you all, and I still am!
I think the issue I am observing is that you seem to have switched into the polarity of "Teacher Mode" and abandoned "Beginner/Chela/Pupil/Learner" mind. So you "really" aren't interested in interacting with the ALL through DOM and TIGER. Now, I could be wrong about this. I don't know you or what is really going on in your inner spaces. And thus I am, genuinely, respectful and have no quarrel to offer here. We've not really engaged much on this forum but I have, personally, found some of your enthusiastic contributions to be both interesting and entertaining.
Its beautiful, imagine everyone in this conversation is secretly trying to enlighten you.
We both know this is the approach to our Universe at large. It's the reply of Chogyam Trungpa when he was asked if he recognized anyone living as a true and genuine guru. Trungpa replied: "Situations are my guru" (this is from Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism).
I was hoping some of the wizards here would have picked up on that.
There are more who lurk than you may know.
Rats.
Spelled backwards is STAR.
All they saw was sarcasm, and from a dualistic perspective, ouch!
You have no idea what the wizards saw.
I'll do better next time!
You'll do as good as we do. And in the end, there is no difference. 🙂