Thelema and radical...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Thelema and radical honesty.  

Page 1 / 4
  RSS

Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
15/06/2015 10:27 am  

Radical honesty is self-explanatory.  To clarify , as a "movement" it is about being radically honest with ourselves and in turn, our relationships with others; family, colleagues, buddies, potential sex-partners, present romantic partners etc... every single person we interact with.  From the website;

Lying is the major source of all human stress. It kills us. When people engage honestly, energy that was wasted maintaining a performance to make an impression is suddenly available for real creativity. When we admit our pretenses we can refresh our relationships and powerfully create our future together. Radical Honesty is direct communication that leads to intimacy in relationships.

At the Center for Radical Honesty, we are building communities of intimate friends who are creating a revolution in consciousness through direct, open and honest conversation.
Radical Honesty works for couples, families, communities and nations – much better than the mess most of us  humans live in now

Now, to me my first impressions on checking out the website is that this "movement" is all a bit buy-these-products orientated but if we forget the "movement" aspect of it and just take the principles of it then would you say that this is in line with Thelemic practice?

I must point out that like any great idea it becomes abused by imbeciles.  In this case it would be delinquent-types whose primary motive is to get off on hurting the feelings of others with a radically honest observation i.e. a social display of rudeness. 

Being radically honest obviously goes against the grain but as it is said in Liber Tzaddi;

19. But you who have defied the law; you who have conquered by subtlety or force; you will I take unto me, even I will take you unto me.

.
and Liber Legis ;  Ye are against the people, O my chosen!

In other words radical honesty is a stripping away of the layers of social programming.  This could easily be a description of Crowley's advice on how to achieve Knowledge and Conversation of the HGA/True Will; 

From Little Essays (1938)

What is my True Will?' ... until we become innocent, we are certain to try to judge our Will by some Canon of what seems `right' or `wrong'; in other words, we are apt to criticise our Will from the outside, whereas True Will should spring, a fountain of Light, from within

From Liber Aleph:

Give Ear, give Ear attentively; the Will is not lost; though it be buried beneath a life-old midden of Repressions, for it persisteth vital within thee (is it not the true Motion of thine inmost Being?)

From Magick Without Tears (written 1940s, published 1954):

As you travel inward, you become able to perceive all the layers which surround the `Self' from within

From the Confessions, where Crowley explains to J.W.N. Sullivan:

Initiation, which implies the liberation and development of the genius latent in us all (is not one of the names of the `Holy Guardian Angel' the Genius?)

Crowley wrote:
You, being a man, are therefore a star. The soul of a star is what we call genius. You are a genius. This fact is obscured by moral complexes which enmesh it, or lack of adequate machinery to express it in terms of action.

Interestingly enough, Christ (who was probably a mythic figure) had his moments of radical honesty which led to his crucifixion. 


Quote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3951
15/06/2015 12:34 pm  
"david" wrote:
Radical honesty is self-explanatory.

What's "Radical Honesty" as distinct from, say, the ordinary or non-radical variety, david?


ReplyQuote
William Thirteen
(@williamthirteen)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1088
15/06/2015 12:48 pm  

"this one goes to Eleven"


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4511
15/06/2015 2:14 pm  

In paragraph #1 of the OP, it says, "From the website;"

What website?

What is this thread about? I'm lost already. Either it's true or it's false. Either you try to be honest or you weave a false [s:onwvteiz]tail[/s:onwvteiz], er, [s:onwvteiz]trail[/s:onwvteiz], er, tale.

Some people have too much time on their hands, and they would be better off doing asana or pranayams or playing the (dishonest) stock market.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
15/06/2015 6:56 pm  
"Shiva" wrote:
In paragraph #1 of the OP, it says, "From the website;"

What website?

What is this thread about? I'm lost already. Either it's true or it's false. Either you try to be honest or you weave a false [s:tuy5otn9]tail[/s:tuy5otn9], er, [s:tuy5otn9]trail[/s:tuy5otn9], er, tale.

Some people have too much time on their hands, and they would be better off doing asana or pranayams or playing the (dishonest) stock market.

http://radicalhonesty.com/  Wouldn't you know it's at radical honesty dot com.  Lol.

Anyway, gay banter aside, are you telling us that you are 100% honest about what's on your mind in your relationships and with other people in general? 


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
15/06/2015 6:58 pm  
"Michael Staley" wrote:
"david" wrote:
Radical honesty is self-explanatory.

What's "Radical Honesty" as distinct from, say, the ordinary or non-radical variety, david?

Strictly speaking there isn't a dichotomy but because people are full of lies, the term "radical honesty" has been used as a way to address the reality of the situation we find ourselves in.  Anything that challenges the norm is radical isn't it? 


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3951
15/06/2015 8:17 pm  

So to be honest, radical honesty is . . . err . . . honesty; mutton dressed up as lamb, so to speak.

Glad we sorted that one out.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
15/06/2015 8:34 pm  
"Michael Staley" wrote:
So to be honest, radical honesty is . . . err . . . honesty; mutton dressed up as lamb, so to speak.

Glad we sorted that one out.

Michael, it's not like you to try and play semantic, nit-picking gotcha games.  Are you ok?  Do you honestly think that this movement would've been more effectual if it had named itself "Honesty"? 

Sometimes I wonder about you. 


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3951
15/06/2015 9:25 pm  
"david" wrote:
Sometimes I wonder about you.

Only sometimes? Are you being honest here?

I'm still no wiser about this thread. I don't regard myself, nor my colleagues, as being "full of lies". Obviously I've told lies from time to time, but that doesn't make me "full of lies", which you seem to think is the lot of us all.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5304
15/06/2015 9:27 pm  
"WilliamThirteen" wrote:
"this one goes to Eleven"

Well, it made me laugh! 🙂

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4511
15/06/2015 9:29 pm  
"david" wrote:
Anything that challenges the norm is radical isn't it?

Radical means "root." It's use in defining extremism is common, but not correct. Unless the radical extremists want to change the "root" of a situation. To simply "challenge the norm" is not radical, but misuse it that way if you want.

Are you ok?  Do you honestly think that this movement would've been more effectual if it had named itself "Honesty"?

Who knows? But you have named it in connection with "Thelema."  Like there's ethics or morals or "root honesty" involved. Yes, one should be honest with one's self.

Sometimes I wonder about you.

You have many fans yourself ... wondering.

... would you say that this is in line with Thelemic practice?

Please define "Thelemic practice." Is it a Liber or an Asana or a Moral attitude?


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
15/06/2015 9:56 pm  

Keeping it OT; It is a lie, this folly against self.The exposure of innocence is a lie


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
15/06/2015 9:59 pm  
"Michael Staley" wrote:
"david" wrote:
Sometimes I wonder about you.

Only sometimes? Are you being honest here?

I'm still no wiser about this thread. I don't regard myself, nor my colleagues, as being "full of lies". Obviously I've told lies from time to time, but that doesn't make me "full of lies", which you seem to think is the lot of us all.

Most people. Is this forum "most people"?  Well I would think not.

What's the thread about?  Do you ever hold back?  Are you aware at how much you hold back saying what you want to your friends, boss, significant other, neighbour and so on?  Does this impact upon your path to do your will?

Welcome to the discussion!!   


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
15/06/2015 10:04 pm  
"Shiva" wrote:
Please define "Thelemic practice." Is it a Liber or an Asana or a Moral attitude?

It can be all of those things. 


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
15/06/2015 11:09 pm  

Again OT; There is a veil: that veil is black. It is the veil of the modest woman; it is the veil of sorrow, & the pall of death: this is none of me. Tear down that lying spectre of the centuries: veil not your vices in virtuous words: these vices are my service; ye do well, & I will reward you here and hereafter

The entire three chapters are a display of radical honesty, which is fitting.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
16/06/2015 3:37 am  
"david" wrote:
What's the thread about?  Do you ever hold back?  Are you aware at how much you hold back saying what you want to your friends, boss, significant other, neighbour and so on?  Does this impact upon your path to do your will?

If I'm understanding correctly what david is trying to say -- and I have to admit it's taking somewhat of an effort to puzzle it out -- his point is that Thelema is, at its heart, about honesty: learning to be honest with one's self about what one actually wishes to do (as opposed to the stories that the mind is always telling).

The boy who would be happier at sea than being a doctor; the married man who would be happier in a polyamorous relationship; the guy who's actually gay but lives a life of quiet desperation attempting to live up to his culture's ridiculous ideas of masculinity: these cases and thousands more we could think of are all cases in which the individual would benefit greatly from a practical application of the Law of Thelema, and the common thread is that the problem in each case is that people are lying to themselves. By far the greatest obstacle to doing one's True Will is between the ears.

So, in that sense, Thelema might be said to involve the most radical form of honesty: learning to be honest with yourself about who you are. And if you -- and by "you," I specifically mean "you, the person reading these words right now" -- think that you don't bullshit yourself in a thousand ways from sunrise to sunset, then I think it's very, very likely that you lack self-awareness.

That being said, this is the first I've heard of "radical honesty," and it would be very helpful to have some kind of definition or explanation of it. I'm getting the impression that it's the idea that people should always been completely honest at all times and never lie, the idea being (I suppose) that complete and total honesty with everybody will lead to a happier world in the long run and (since we're theoretically talking about Thelema on this thread) lead to a world where it will be much easier for people to be honest with themselves, since there will be far less nonsense in the culture for people to internalize. Someone might even argue -- to select an issue that's hot and current right now -- that a totally honest society would see traditional and strict gender roles loosen or even vanish, such that nobody would bat an eye at a transgender person like Bruce/Kaitlyn Jenner deciding to live as his/her authentic self.

This idea -- assuming that I have the idea more or less correct -- is a little reminiscent of the advice Crowley gave to his son in a letter near the end of his life, if I'm remembering correctly. Crowley said something along the lines of, You should never lie because it's an admission that you are afraid; a person who is not afraid has no reason to lie. Something like that -- I'm sure someone could look up and post the exact quote for me. [And, of course, we should consider that quote next to the whole "Fear is failure and the forerunner of failure" and all of that jazz].

Personally, I'm deeply skeptical that it's possible to live entirely without lies, and I'm far from sure it would be a better world in all ways. Like most utopian ideas, this "radical honesty" thing seems more than a little simplistic and not totally thought through. I think a Thelemite should be perfectly free to lie when necessary to accomplish his or her True Will (and, of course, should refrain from lying when it's not necessary). Practically speaking, I see no reason to tell my neighbor that I think his new car is ugly, when a smile, a wave, and a "Hey, nice car!" keeps him happy (and keeps him on my good side). Little white lies make the world go around, and they're completely harmless.

That being said, I'm all in favor of people, in general, getting rid of as much hypocrisy and bullshit as is reasonable. If people would only pay attention to reality, they would just naturally spend far less time worrying about what complete strangers are doing or think of them, and would greatly reduce the amount of time they spend trying to project an image of themselves as "virtuous."


ReplyQuote
tc
 tc
(@tc)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 40
16/06/2015 3:51 pm  

'Radical honesty'... the outcome of some blue-sky thinking I suppose.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
16/06/2015 9:21 pm  
"Los" wrote:
If I'm understanding correctly what david is trying to say -- and I have to admit it's taking somewhat of an effort to puzzle it out -- his point is that Thelema is, at its heart, about honesty:

Yes it's right there under our noses in the notion of True Will i.e. not- false will ; not dishonesty. 

"Los" wrote:
learning to be honest with one's self about what one actually wishes to do (as opposed to the stories that the mind is always telling).

The boy who would be happier at sea than being a doctor.....

Yes as I've been pointing out, Liber Al admonishes the reader about "lies" in various places.  Furthermore, Crowley in this example you cite is describing a dysfunctional family where communication has broken down between boy and parents in terms of expression of true feelings.  Crowley had a lot of personal experience of dysfunctional family structure. 

"Los" wrote:
.... the common thread is that the problem in each case is that people are lying to themselves. By far the greatest obstacle to doing one's True Will is between the ears.

So, in that sense, Thelema might be said to involve the most radical form of honesty: learning to be honest with yourself about who you are.

Yeah, Thelema and Horus, god of War, are intertwined and Geburah is the radical intelligence.  This is relevant as Crowley said (but any idiot could work it out) that the culture of the "old aeon" was about denial of facts, seen most glaringly in The Virgin Birth.  The Sin and suffering culture addressed in Think not, o king, upon that lie: That Thou Must Die: verily thou shalt not die, but live.

He said somewhere in Confessions that this denial of facts replaced, if I'm not mistaken, Roman republican virtue and the consequences were catastrophic for everyone, literally the machinations that led all the way to the Great War.  I am assuming that what he meant was the long pre War period of diplomatic breakdown?  In other words denial of facts brewed and brewed for centuries until there was an almighty explosion.  Hence the aeon of War.  Interesting though how the next aeon is the aeon of Truth 

Anyway this is all totally related to radical honesty which, when practiced,  must promote direct communication.  The symptom of dysfunctional families is lingering resentments and a lack of confronting problems and each others' feelings.  It carries over all the way into international relations I suppose.

As an aside, imagine if men who just wanted no-strings attached sex from a woman actually asked for just that.  Goodbye the hell of friends- zone and wasted time?  Most of these Colombine loonie-tune gun-toting cases appear to be friend-zone casualty types.       


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
16/06/2015 9:21 pm  
"Los" wrote:
That being said, this is the first I've heard of "radical honesty," and it would be very helpful to have some kind of definition or explanation of it.

Apparently it was started by a Dr, who has formed some sort of "cult" where like-minded folk get together to experiment in not lying.  It's about "sharing everything that goes through your mind, whether it is politically correct or not." I have copied/quoted heavily from the website as follows;

He has come up with a theory that we have 3 minds which restrict our capacity for honesty; our "reactive mind", made up of conditioned recorded memories. Secondly a "Personal Construct Mind" and thirdly, our Categorical Mind, or Mind Mapping Mind.  This is what we usually think of when we think of our mind. This mind kind of likes to play like it is in charge but it isn't. Mostly this mind is used to rationalize the reactions of the reactive mind and the warnings of the personal construct mind. So most ideas that seem to have occurred from rational thought, actually didn’t, we just got used to acting like they did so it's three minds in conflict.

This smacks of the bit in Liber Al about the distorting dangers inherent in "Reason" and "Because" as restrictions to will.

So, What Is A Person To Do? He asks.  Answer; You practice noticing first and thinking second…i.e. mindfulness.  He claims that throughout the history of our culture and our lives, thinking has been highly overrated as the ultimate answer to trouble, when, in fact it appears to be the primary cause.

The only way to have a chance at any clarity of all is by paying attention to our experience and being honest with each other.  1) what you notice outside of you right now, 2) what you notice in your body right now, and 3) what you notice going through your mind right now.  Then we share what we notice going through our minds and this is honesty.  He claims that people will think you are weird when you start doing this but do it anyway.  He claims that the greatest benefit of all this noticing instead of thinking is you will now feel your way though things instead of thinking your way around things and this produces "FORGIVENESS". You get over grudges, past hurts, attachments to other life constraining judgments of others as well as yourself.

The next important step is addressing the existence of "TROUBLE"—The reason we usually choose to not tell the truth is to avoid some kind of trouble. We lie to avoid trouble. The trouble with avoiding trouble is that you cause more trouble by avoiding trouble than the trouble you had in the first place!

Lots of times the trouble we worry about never happens. But sometimes trouble really might happen if we tell a particular truth. Go ahead! Life is trouble! Lying gets you in trouble. Honesty gets you in trouble. When you have three minds, life is trouble! The question then becomes “What is the best kind of trouble?”

And the answer is that the trouble that comes from honesty is the best trouble. Not only is it more fun, more easily handled, much more easily shared—it makes it possible to get some help figuring out how your mind has been interpreting incorrectly. When you are lying for the sake of self protection, you can’t get any of the kind of help from others that you need—vital  feedback for the quality of your life and theirs as well.

In personal relationships, by making the trouble from telling the truth, we actually end up with relationships that are real, lasting, authentic, and intimate etc etc

This interests me as in Chapter 3 of Liber Al, the god of War warns us that we "shalt have danger and trouble".  No way around it.  How's that for radical honesty?


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
17/06/2015 7:03 am  

To condense and sum up living via "radical honesty" it is this;

Be self-honest in order to....

1) Be mindful of what is in your environment right now
2) " " " what you notice in your body right now, and
3) " " " what you notice going through your mind right now.

Then we share what we notice going through our minds with others who are in our vacinity.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
17/06/2015 8:34 am  

That should be "vicinity" with an "i".

In The Book of Wisdom or Folly, Crowley tells Achad how Christianity is the root of al crime, something like that anyway.  I think, in general when Crowley used the term "christianity" it was an idiom.  He really meant the general malaise of "denial of facts" inherent in individuals within the "old aeon" cultures.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
17/06/2015 1:29 pm  

OP on: June 15, 2015, 10:27:38 am:

Interestingly enough, Christ (who was probably a mythic figure) had his moments of radical honesty which led to his crucifixion.

And also His moments of doubt & pain, as well, lest we forget … for after all, didn’t “Pilate wash his hands and seal his fate” (♫ ?)

"david" wrote:
"Shiva" wrote:
Please define "Thelemic practice." Is it a Liber or an Asana or a Moral attitude?

It can be all of those things.

Including a megapost of 827 (count ‘em!) replies! Of which yours, coincidentally & curiously enough, seems to have been the one out of all of them which broke the camel’s back – or toppled the jenga (to update the saying there), david!

"david" wrote:
Most people. Is this forum "most people"?  Well I would think not.

What's the thread about?  Do you ever hold back?  Are you aware at how much you hold back saying what you want to your friends, boss, significant other, neighbour and so on?  Does this impact upon your path to do your will?

Welcome to the discussion!!

Well I might say something to “join in” (as it were) but I think david and Los (even the new ‘improved’ Los version 2.0) prefer not to chew the cud with me 🙁 for fear I might – what, say the wrong ('radically dishonest'? 'unreal'?) thing, perhaps?  Heaven forfend!! ;D

"david" wrote:
That should be "vicinity" with an "i".

As opposed to what, exactly?  “Vicinity” spelled with an “a”, mayhap?! ???

Norma N Joy Conquest


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
17/06/2015 1:38 pm  

Jamie,

Do you have any valid points you want to make about this subject?  It's time for me to see how things are doing in the hornet's nest.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
17/06/2015 1:50 pm  

Not at just this minute, david – though thank you for doing the courtesy of asking!  Perhaps I will just hold the option open & bide my time a wee while further,

May you ever be the “Lord of the Hornets” (as Bob Calvert had it),
N Joy


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
17/06/2015 3:39 pm  

Ok.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
17/06/2015 3:54 pm  

okely dokely then!

N Joy


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4511
17/06/2015 5:19 pm  

Late Breaking Observation: This week we have hit a new low in dialogue, creativity, honesty and interest.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
17/06/2015 6:19 pm  
"Shiva" wrote:
Late Breaking Observation: This week we have hit a new low in dialogue, creativity, honesty and interest.

I take it you are referring to the period immediately before my latest scintillating and coruscating correspondence of this afternoon? 😮

Then that’s alright then - ;D
N Joy


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4511
17/06/2015 8:36 pm  
"jamie barter" wrote:
I take it you are referring to the period immediately before my latest ...

Yes. It's been going on all week. I'm ashamed to even be contributing my little bits of nothing. Is there no hope for the window's sun?


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
17/06/2015 9:03 pm  
"Shiva" wrote:
Late Breaking Observation: This week we have hit a new low in dialogue, creativity, honesty and interest.

What makes you say that?


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
18/06/2015 1:00 pm  
"Los" wrote:
If I'm understanding correctly what david is trying to say -- and I have to admit it's taking somewhat of an effort to puzzle it out -- his point is that Thelema is, at its heart, about honesty: learning to be honest with one's self about what one actually wishes to do (as opposed to the stories that the mind is always telling). [...]

Now this is what I like to see (=warms the cockles of my heart) – good team ‘tag’ work here in action…

"tc" wrote:
'Radical honesty'... the outcome of some blue-sky thinking I suppose.

You don’t think there might be a possibility of a hazy outlook ahead with intermittent patches of heavy fog?  😮 😀

"david" wrote:
[...] As an aside, imagine if men who just wanted no-strings attached sex from a woman actually asked for just that.  Goodbye the hell of friends- zone and wasted time?  Most of these Colombine loonie-tune gun-toting cases appear to be friend-zone casualty types.

This comes at the end of what seems a slightly confused post largely consisting of waffle about dysfunctional families and “denial of facts” – does your idea of radical dishonesty therefore boil down to it being a factual dishonesty, as it appears to do?

Lots of men do seem to do that though.  I‘ve myself spoken with several over the years who ‘conferred’ that this approach – usually undertaken when they were younger and in their more virile teens and twenties – resulted in a rebuff nine times out of ten but was just about successful enough to be worth persevering with.  I imagine it also applies just as validly with women also (although probably not so much in quantity in terms of sheer biological drive).

"david" wrote:
Apparently it was started by a Dr, who has formed some sort of "cult" where like-minded folk get together to experiment in not lying.  It's about "sharing everything that goes through your mind, whether it is politically correct or not." I have copied/quoted heavily from the website as follows;

I see you have not lost your knack for peerless citations style there, david: it’s a case here of – not for! – Doctor Who? 

This seems to have some of the “spontaneity" of that Dice Man, what was his name, Reinhart?  And where his toss of his die may lead (sometimes down the sometimes murky alleyways of the subconscious) …

"david" wrote:
He has come up with a theory that we have 3 minds which restrict our capacity for honesty; our "reactive mind", made up of conditioned recorded memories. Secondly a "Personal Construct Mind" and thirdly, our Categorical Mind, or Mind Mapping Mind.  This is what we usually think of when we think of our mind.

You wouldn’t mean “Doctor Hubbard” or one of his devotees there would you?

"david" wrote:
This interests me as in Chapter 3 of Liber Al, the god of War warns us that we "shalt have danger and trouble".  No way around it.   How's that for radical honesty?

I thought this warning was primarily addressed to “Thou … o prophet”, i.e., A.C. himself (in III: 11) - rather than “we”, i.e., “us”, “the general readership/ folk folly”?

And there’s “always” a way round something.  Or over.  Or in. Or out …

Howzat?!

"david" wrote:
To condense and sum up living via "radical honesty" it is this;

Be self-honest in order to....

1) Be mindful of what is in your environment right now
2) " " " what you notice in your body right now, and
3) " " " what you notice going through your mind right now.

Then we share what we notice going through our minds with others who are in our vacinity.

This could be condensed and summed up even further:

Be self-honest in order to....

Know Thyself.

Wasn’t there a Jim Carrey film about this – someone who couldn’t lie?  (In fact the subject was so appealing I think he made two, The Yes Man and Liar Liar)

Is it possible to get the matter straight – are you saying it is a virtue (in the simplest sense of it being a good, rather than a bad, thing) never to make it a practice of telling a lie to somebody else – and a “lie” can be even a teensy ickle white one like “say buddy your car looks hot” when it fact it may stink to high heaven? :-X Or would it in fact be more strategic, both selfishly speaking & in terms of carrying out what one believes to be one’s “true will” or life purpose, to be able to adapt expediently & immediately through one’s successfully pulling the wool over someone else’s eyes (which is more or less what it amounts to)?

N Joy


ReplyQuote
tc
 tc
(@tc)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 40
18/06/2015 7:23 pm  

Oh I don't think there's any need for a weather forecast. I was merely comparing one odious phrase with another.
Radical honesty= honesty, blue-sky thinking = thinking.  I'm quite sure you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.  😉


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4511
18/06/2015 9:26 pm  

[/align:20rk2bfu]


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
18/06/2015 10:02 pm  
"jamie barter" wrote:
Lots of men do seem to do that though.  I‘ve myself spoken with several over the years who ‘conferred’ that this approach – usually undertaken when they were younger and in their more virile teens and twenties – resulted in a rebuff nine times out of ten but was just about successful enough to be worth persevering with.  I imagine it also applies just as validly with women also (although probably not so much in quantity in terms of sheer biological drive).

Waffle? I think you're wrong.  It was a precise assessment.

Anyway, a man who only wants a short-term and non-monogamous relationship/episode (whatever his age) should be honest about it and he should be honest with himself if it only becomes the "Platonic" "friends-zone" and he is unhappy.  Liber Al addresses this. 

"jamie barter" wrote:
I see you have not lost your knack for peerless citations style there, david: it’s a case here of – not for! – Doctor Who? 

Dr Brad Blanton

"jamie barter" wrote:
This seems to have some of the “spontaneity" of that Dice Man, what was his name, Reinhart?  And where his toss of his die may lead (sometimes down the sometimes murky alleyways of the subconscious) …

I've heard of it and I have not read it.

"jamie barter" wrote:
You wouldn’t mean “Doctor Hubbard” or one of his devotees there would you?

I don't know, maybe.

"jamie barter" wrote:
I thought this warning was primarily addressed to “Thou … o prophet”, i.e., A.C. himself (in III: 11) - rather than “we”, i.e., “us”, “the general readership/ folk folly”?

That's a thread in itself; when are sentences in Liber Al specifically addressing the reader and when are we watching a discourse involving the prophet and the messenger?

"jamie barter" wrote:
Wasn’t there a Jim Carrey film about this – someone who couldn’t lie?  (In fact the subject was so appealing I think he made two, The Yes Man and Liar Liar)

Yes and Gervais did  a similar one called The Invention of Lying.

"jamie barter" wrote:
Is it possible to get the matter straight – are you saying it is a virtue (in the simplest sense of it being a good, rather than a bad, thing) never to make it a practice of telling a lie to somebody else – and a “lie” can be even a teensy ickle white one like “say buddy your car looks hot” when it fact it may stink to high heaven? :-X Or would it in fact be more strategic, both selfishly speaking & in terms of carrying out what one believes to be one’s “true will” or life purpose, to be able to adapt expediently & immediately through one’s successfully pulling the wool over someone else’s eyes (which is more or less what it amounts to)?

To tell you the truth (sic) I don't know I haven't had enough real world application of this concept.  For example, I was with a family member earlier and I was about to express what was on my mind but I didn't.  I am actually glad, now that I didn't and in actuality, everything worked out fine.  Therefore this one piece of evidence which dashes the Radical Honesty principles to pieces.  However, as time goes on I will experiment further with colleagues and friends etc.   


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
18/06/2015 10:06 pm  

@ Shiva;

Thanks.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
19/06/2015 5:47 am  
"david" wrote:
Yeah, Thelema and Horus, god of War, are intertwined and Geburah is the radical intelligence.  This is relevant as Crowley said (but any idiot could work it out) that the culture of the "old aeon" was about denial of facts, seen most glaringly in The Virgin Birth.  The Sin and suffering culture addressed in Think not, o king, upon that lie: That Thou Must Die: verily thou shalt not die, but live.

Ah, I see. You're pointing out that the so-called "Old Aeon" is based on lies at the core. It's more than just that the "Old Aeon" is based on religious stories that aren't true...when you come right down to it, the very model that Old Aeon thinking is based on -- the idea that there is a "calamity" in nature -- is a lie. The setting of the sun (and its analogue, physical death) is not a calamity at all from which we need to be "saved." It's merely a flaw in our perception: the sun doesn't actually "set" because it's still shining on the other side of the world; similarly, we don't actually "die" because "we" never existed to begin with. The idea of "death" -- and the attending idea that it's "bad" -- are just that: ideas. They're ideas that don't map to what actually is. Or, to put it another way, they're lies.

As david points out, the Book of the Law mentions "lies" several times in condemning these kinds of thought patterns. I don't necessarily agree the best course of action is to tell everybody every last thing that goes through your mind (though paying attention to all of it *is* a good idea for someone interested in self-knowledge).

Anyway this is all totally related to radical honesty which, when practiced,  must promote direct communication.  The symptom of dysfunctional families is lingering resentments and a lack of confronting problems and each others' feelings.  It carries over all the way into international relations I suppose.

No arguments here. The failure to communicate is one of the most problematic elements in interpersonal relationships of all kinds.

As an aside, imagine if men who just wanted no-strings attached sex from a woman actually asked for just that.

And, of course, imagine if women who wanted no-strings attached sex from men actually asked for just that. Even better, imagine if women who didn't want no-strings attached sex were left alone when they made their desires clear. Imagine if some men who get turned down didn't sometimes freak the fuck out because of the lies their culture has fed them about masculinity.

For what it's worth, I tend to very much dislike the term "friend zone" (unless it's being used ironically). Our culture insists on wrapping the sex act in far too much nonsense. Imagine if you wanted to play pool with your buddy, and he said he didn't want to play. Okie doke, you go ask someone else, then. You don't see your buddy's response as a judgment about your entire self. You don't tell yourself that your buddy has you in the "non-pool-player zone." You don't start telling yourself that all pool players are manipulative jerks. Of course you don't do that -- it would be ridiculous. But when some young men get turned down for sex, they go into hysterics. There's one symptom of being lied to one's entire life about masculinity. 


ReplyQuote
William Thirteen
(@williamthirteen)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1088
19/06/2015 7:12 am  

There's one symptom of being lied to one's entire life about masculinity.

There is a great difference between accepting comforting falsehoods - and actually being lied to.

I'd offer that this idea of 'radical honesty' (which seems hardly radical but hey, everybody needs a gimmick these days) is concerned with the former; not accepting comforting falsehoods offered to us, and not allowing ourselves to propagate falsehood in an effort to avoid discomfort in our relations with others.

Both of these behaviors are very tied up with the expectations of the social community. Living in Germany I can assure you, the natives here are already quite well versed in uttering uncomfortable truths. 


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
19/06/2015 4:57 pm  
"WilliamThirteen" wrote:
There is a great difference between accepting comforting falsehoods - and actually being lied to.

There is. But I was being metaphorical, in order to squeeze that particular topic into the theme of the thread.

I'd offer that this idea of 'radical honesty' (which seems hardly radical but hey, everybody needs a gimmick these days) is concerned with the former; not accepting comforting falsehoods offered to us, and not allowing ourselves to propagate falsehood in an effort to avoid discomfort in our relations with others.

Yeah. I think the "radical" part is the idea that one should never lie and should, in fact, always disclose everything that one is thinking. That does strike me as fairly radical -- and, overall, not a terribly great idea.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4511
19/06/2015 6:43 pm  
"Los" wrote:
I think the "radical" part is the idea that one should never lie and should, in fact, always disclose everything that one is thinking. That does strike me as fairly radical -- and, overall, not a terribly great idea.

It is my understanding that when one speaks (or writes) it's a good idea to be truthful, but we're not compelled to speak (or write) everything in our minds.

Even that has limitations. What if I'm a secret agent and I'm captured by the Evil Empire? What if I'm a politician (heaven forbid) and my sins are discovered by the media? What if I'm under-age and I want a drink?


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
19/06/2015 7:28 pm  
"Los" wrote:
Ah, I see. You're pointing out that the so-called "Old Aeon" is based on lies at the core. It's more than just that the "Old Aeon" is based on religious stories that aren't true...when you come right down to it, the very model that Old Aeon thinking is based on -- the idea that there is a "calamity" in nature -- is a lie. The setting of the sun (and its analogue, physical death) is not a calamity at all from which we need to be "saved." It's merely a flaw in our perception: the sun doesn't actually "set" because it's still shining on the other side of the world; similarly, we don't actually "die" because "we" never existed to begin with. The idea of "death" -- and the attending idea that it's "bad" -- are just that: ideas. They're ideas that don't map to what actually is. Or, to put it another way, they're lies.

Apparently this shift in perception is explained in the following sentence where Isa is Jesus and Asar (Osiris) also has an equivalence to Christ/Jesus; 
49. Abrogate are all rituals, all ordeals, all words and signs. Ra-Hoor-Khuit hath taken his seat in the East at the Equinox of the Gods; and let Asar be with Isa, who also are one. But they are not of me. Let Asar be the adorant, Isa the sufferer; Hoor in his secret name and splendour is the Lord initiating.

That is, Nuit, as it were, proclaims a new order ("the Equinox of the Gods") where the aforementioned lies are brought to light so Asar (the image of an Egyptian sacred bull) and Isa (a symbol for the Lord of the Gods that Crowley identified as Jesus) are alike i.e. objects of false worship. Therefore Nuit proclaims they "are one," and "they are not of me."  That is,  let Asar (the bull) be the adorant, or the one that the fools bow down to if they wish, and Isa (Jesus) continue to suffer on the cross.  The point of this verse is that "Hoor (Horus) is his secret name and splendour is the Lord initiating" and this is grounded in reality and not falsehoods. 

Also, the Virgin Birth primarily stole the procreative function of woman (and in turn, man ).

"Los" wrote:
As david points out, the Book of the Law mentions "lies" several times in condemning these kinds of thought patterns. I don't necessarily agree the best course of action is to tell everybody every last thing that goes through your mind (though paying attention to all of it *is* a good idea for someone interested in self-knowledge).

As I said earlier I was in a situation where it was better not to convey what was on my mind.  I acknowledged my feelings for myself and then worked it out.

"Los" wrote:
And, of course, imagine if women who wanted no-strings attached sex from men actually asked for just that. . 

I am imagining it and it would be great but it's far away from social reality due to the prevalent scornful attitudes of men and women both, towards female “directness” .  Then again e.g. "rock stars" (and the like) do apparently experience this with their "groupies" but that is just a minority.

"Los" wrote:
Even better, imagine if women who didn't want no-strings attached sex were left alone when they made their desires clear. 

They usually are.  If they’re not then it’s a police matter as that is harassment.  Besides we weren't necessarily discussing men who harass women or stalk them.  A man can be direct in his communication and be completely respectful of the star in the woman a la Liber Al i.e. he complies with her rejection.  This also relates to the homosexual community, I am using the hetero-example for convenience of argument.     

Also, it works conversely (and this isn’t back pedalling).  If a man actually wants a woman to live with and settle down with then equally he should be upfront about that.

Furthermore generally speaking I’d say that the type of man who doesn't leave them alone is the sort of man who cannot be direct and upfront about what he wants i.e. he  is a bitter and resentful person (misogynistic) because of his cowardly beating-about-the bush communication with the opposite sex.  I’ll get to this more later.

"Los" wrote:
Imagine if some men who get turned down didn't sometimes freak the fuck out because of the lies their culture has fed them about masculinity.

Exactly and once again this type of man is, in the main, lacking the balls to be upfront about what he really wants from the woman he's approaching. 

"Los" wrote:
Our culture insists on wrapping the sex act in far too much nonsense.

Yes there are many reasons for that and in terms of Thelema, sexual euphoria, gambling euphoria, competitiveness/victory euphoria, consumer euphoria  and other such fleeting highs can be used by the person who is divorced  from his True Will as a substitute for the permanence that True Will grants.  having said that , sometimes such activities are in harmony with the True will.

"Los" wrote:
For what it's worth, I tend to very much dislike the term "friend zone" (unless it's being used ironically)........ Imagine if you wanted to play pool with your buddy, and he said he didn't want to play. Okie doke, you go ask someone else, then. You don't see your buddy's response as a judgment about your entire self. You don't tell yourself that your buddy has you in the "non-pool-player zone." You don't start telling yourself that all pool players are manipulative jerks. Of course you don't do that -- it would be ridiculous. But when some young men get turned down for sex, they go into hysterics. There's one symptom of being lied to one's entire life about masculinity. 

I don’t think the analogy works because  we weren’t talking about “buddies” we were talking about two absolute strangers who meet for the very first time.  In that case, yeah if I was in a bar etc and I asked a total stranger (male) for  a game of pool and he refused then I would think he had a problem with my company.  I’d be right.  It’s a difficult analogy because i wouldn’t want to play pool in a bar with random strangers. 

Let’s take as an example our male who wants non-monogamous sex.  For all of the women he is attracted to and approaches, there are going to  be
a) women who will have sex with him without bother.
b) women who would like to have sex with him but who are afraid of being called a “slut” by society.
c) women who do not want to have sex with him but want him to stick around to use him for favours; a chat- buddy, free meals, chauffering, “dates” with the obligatory hug at the end but no sex  (i.e. the “friends zone”)
d) women who are just not attracted to him and do not want to have sex with him.   

If our male is direct in his communication about his horny demands, then categories d) and c) will be rooted out completely and instantly.  Category b) may give him some initial drama but that should soon fade as he holds his ground and she then moves into category a) for him.  Our male will not have any time wasted in his romantic affairs therefore.  It has to be said if she is in fact direct with him about only “just being friends” then it is up to him to be upfront about how he does not want that and it’s over.  If OTOH he enjoys psychological masochism then it’s  a good deal for him.

Does Liber Al address these issues?  Well the following sentence seems to be telling men to pander to their wives’ needs. I don’t understand.  “If she will” what?  If she wills to do what she wills?
 
41. The word of Sin is Restriction. O man! refuse not thy wife, if she will! O lover, if thou wilt, depart! There is no bond that can unite the divided but love: all else is a curse. Accursed! Accursed be it to the aeons! Hell.


ReplyQuote
Tao
 Tao
(@tao)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 316
19/06/2015 8:26 pm  
"david" wrote:
Apparently this shift in perception is explained in the following sentence where Isa is Jesus and Asar (Osiris) also has an equivalence to Christ/Jesus; 
49. Abrogate are all rituals, all ordeals, all words and signs. Ra-Hoor-Khuit hath taken his seat in the East at the Equinox of the Gods; and let Asar be with Isa, who also are one. But they are not of me. Let Asar be the adorant, Isa the sufferer; Hoor in his secret name and splendour is the Lord initiating.

That is, Nuit, as it were, proclaims a new order ("the Equinox of the Gods") where the aforementioned lies are brought to light so Asar (the image of an Egyptian sacred bull) and Isa (a symbol for the Lord of the Gods that Crowley identified as Jesus) are alike i.e. objects of false worship.

Though occasionally linked to bulls in general, I'd say it's a bit of a stretch to label Asar as the "image of an Egyptian sacred bull". Are you perhaps conflating him with Apis?

Similarly with Isa. He isn't a symbol that Crowley identifies with Jesus so much as the Arabic spelling of Jesus.

Therefore Nuit proclaims they "are one," and "they are not of me."  That is,  let Asar (the bull) be the adorant, or the one that the fools bow down to if they wish,

I believe you'll find that "adorant" means the one doing the adoring, not the adored.

The point of this verse is that "Hoor (Horus) is his secret name and splendour is the Lord initiating" and this is grounded in reality and not falsehoods.

Also, the Virgin Birth primarily stole the procreative function of woman (and in turn, man ).

How do these verses lead you to these conclusions?

"Los" wrote:
And, of course, imagine if women who wanted no-strings attached sex from men actually asked for just that. . 

I am imagining it and it would be great but it's far away from social reality due to the prevalent scornful attitudes of men and women both, towards female “directness” .  Then again e.g. "rock stars" (and the like) do apparently experience this with their "groupies" but that is just a minority.

Speaking from personal experience, I can assure you that it's only far away from your social reality because you haven't decided that you want to manifest it. Reading between the lines, it sounds as if you're hoping for some sort of global shift that will make your personal desires the status quo so that you can fulfill them without effort. If this is truly something you want in your life, it's not all that difficult to make happen. It just requires the will.

"Los" wrote:
Even better, imagine if women who didn't want no-strings attached sex were left alone when they made their desires clear.

They usually are.  If they’re not then it’s a police matter as that is harassment.

 
Once again, your perception of the world baffles me.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
19/06/2015 10:20 pm  
"Tao" wrote:
Though occasionally linked to bulls in general, I'd say it's a bit of a stretch to label Asar as the "image of an Egyptian sacred bull". Are you perhaps conflating him with Apis?

Well check this out. on the identity of Asar and the relationship to Apis the Bull;

www.touregypt.net/serapis.htm

on Asar-Hapi, or Serapis;

In connection with the history of the god Osiris mention must be made of Asar-hapi or Serapis, and in many provinces of the Roman Empire after that country had passed under the authority of the Caesars. The second part of the name, "Hapi, was that which was given to the famous bull which formed the object of worship at Memphis very early in the dynastic period of Egyptian history, and which is commonly known as the "Apis Bull," while the first part is, of course, nothing but the name of Osiris in its Egyptian form. The Greeks fused the names of the two deities together under the form Zaparrus, and, although the exact nature of the attributes which they assigned to Osiris and Apis united is not quite clear, it seems tolerably certain that they regard Serapis as the form which Apis took after death. According to the hieroglyphic texts which were found on stelae and other objects in the Serapeum at Sakkara, Apis is called "the life of Osiris, the lord of heaven, Tem {with his horns {in his head." and he is said to "give life, strength, health, to thy nostrils for ever." Elsewhere Apis-Osiris is described as, "the great god, Khent, Amentet, the lord of life forever

"Tao" wrote:
Similarly with Isa. He isn't a symbol that Crowley identifies with Jesus so much as the Arabic spelling of Jesus.

Ok, however I feel you're nit picking here.

"Tao" wrote:
I believe you'll find that "adorant" means the one doing the adoring, not the adored.

Yes thanks for the correction and in that case Nuit is asking the Bull to get down on it's knees and worship, as it were?

"Tao" wrote:
How do these verses lead you to these conclusions?

They don't, I should've stressed that it was an additional point not directly related to the quoted passage from Liber Al.  Ironically though it is relevant to Liber Al but not in that passage.  The Virgin Mary is directly addressed in cp 3.

"Tao" wrote:
Speaking from personal experience, I can assure you that it's only far away from your social reality because you haven't decided that you want to manifest it.

You're asking me if a woman has ever directly told me that she wanted me?  You seem to forget, I own a phial of rutvah y'know.  😉

"Tao" wrote:
Reading between the lines, it sounds as if you're hoping for some sort of global shift that will make your personal desires the status quo so that you can fulfill them without effort. If this is truly something you want in your life, it's not all that difficult to make happen. It just requires the will.

I don't know about global shift, I was merely describing reality as it is at present and how dishonesty involved in communication, keeps it that way.

"Tao" wrote:
Once again, your perception of the world baffles me.

Well, I'm going to have to ask you to elaborate on that.


ReplyQuote
Tao
 Tao
(@tao)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 316
20/06/2015 2:47 am  
"david" wrote:
Well check this out. on the identity of Asar and the relationship to Apis the Bull;

So, yes... when Asar, Apis, Zeus, and Helios (with a dash of Hades and Dionysus) were fused into a syncretic deity by the Graeco-Egyptian political machine, that new deity, named Serapis, was represented either as a Hellenic king (a la Zeus) or as a bull (a la Apis). Asar, on the other hand, was pretty universally represented as a mummy.

Ok, however I feel you're nit picking here.

Not in the least. You seem to want to present an analysis of lines from your favorite poem to support whatever it is you're trying to say about truth v. falsehood. I noticed more than a few misunderstandings in your read of the verse that undermine your conclusions. I thought it only right to point them out to you so that you could either adjust your thinking or acknowledge the mistake. Either way, this segment of your prior post can't stand on the legs you gave it.

"Tao" wrote:
I believe you'll find that "adorant" means the one doing the adoring, not the adored.

Yes thanks for the correction and in that case Nuit is asking the Bull to get down on it's knees and worship, as it were?

I don't read her as asking nor do I envision a bull nor do I understand why knees are necessary. Do you get down on your knees when you perform the Adorations of the Sun?

Check out Liber Pyramidos, specifically the invocation of Asar un-nefer into the Candidate, for perhaps a better understanding of Osiris' position in the new ritual order of things.

"Tao" wrote:
How do these verses lead you to these conclusions?

They don't, I should've stressed that it was an additional point not directly related to the quoted passage from Liber Al.  Ironically though it is relevant to Liber Al but not in that passage.  The Virgin Mary is directly addressed in cp 3.

1) In that case, what was the point you were trying to make with the verses cited?
2) How is this ironic?

"Tao" wrote:
Speaking from personal experience, I can assure you that it's only far away from your social reality because you haven't decided that you want to manifest it.

You're asking me if a woman has ever directly told me that she wanted me?  You seem to forget, I own a phial of rutvah y'know.  😉

I wasn't actually asking anything. I was noting your observation that "it would be great but it's far away from social reality due to the prevalent scornful attitudes of men and women both, towards female “directness”" and calling it out as bollocks.

"Tao" wrote:
Reading between the lines, it sounds as if you're hoping for some sort of global shift that will make your personal desires the status quo so that you can fulfill them without effort. If this is truly something you want in your life, it's not all that difficult to make happen. It just requires the will.

I don't know about global shift, I was merely describing reality as it is at present and how dishonesty involved in communication, keeps it that way.

Whose reality? You're certainly not describing mine.

"Tao" wrote:
Once again, your perception of the world baffles me.

Well, I'm going to have to ask you to elaborate on that.

You present yourself as living in a world wherein systemic dishonesty in communication has made it fundamentally impossible for an individual to request a sexual interaction with another individual and hold out the dreaded "friend-zone" as the consequent evil of our age. And yet I live in a world in which I do exactly that with some regularity. As does my wife. Sometimes we do it together.

You live in a world in which women who turn down unwanted sexual advances are "usually" left alone and, when they aren't, suddenly it becomes a police matter and they are rescued (or something) by the local PD. And yet throughout my life I have been regularly accosted by men and women whose advances I've turned down who hide behind the excuse of alcohol to project their own feelings of inadequacy onto me, sometimes violently. The police have yet to swoop in to save me.

When I say that your perception of the world baffles me, it's because it reads like someone who hasn't actually tried the things he claims are impossible and hasn't put himself in a position to experience the things he says don't exist. Instead, he riffs off of some generalised notion of what "social reality" "is" in order to excuse his inability to actually do what he wills and get what he wants.

For someone so seemingly taken with this notion of "Do what thou wilt" as a prescription for psycho-social self-improvement, it baffles me.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
20/06/2015 7:00 am  
"david" wrote:
"Los" wrote:
"Los" wrote:
Even better, imagine if women who didn't want no-strings attached sex were left alone when they made their desires clear. 

They usually are.

Strongly disagree. The vast majority of women I know are routinely harassed on the street, and most of them report that directly expressing that they don't like such treatment only makes things worse. I know one woman who was followed for several blocks by a stranger she tried to ignore.

Of course, I could be drawing conclusions from too limited a sample size, but based on the general impression I get from the culture at large, I think my assessment is more or less on the money.

Besides we weren't necessarily discussing men who harass women or stalk them.

Not necessarily, but if you want a world of more direct and open communication in terms of sex, a good place to start would be trying to promote a culture where such harassment is way less common.
   

Also, it works conversely (and this isn’t back pedalling).  If a man actually wants a woman to live with and settle down with then equally he should be upfront about that.

Yes. If you don't make your desires clear early in a relationship, you're just asking for trouble.

"Los" wrote:
For what it's worth, I tend to very much dislike the term "friend zone" (unless it's being used ironically)........ Imagine if you wanted to play pool with your buddy, and he said he didn't want to play. Okie doke, you go ask someone else, then. You don't see your buddy's response as a judgment about your entire self. You don't tell yourself that your buddy has you in the "non-pool-player zone." You don't start telling yourself that all pool players are manipulative jerks. Of course you don't do that -- it would be ridiculous. But when some young men get turned down for sex, they go into hysterics. There's one symptom of being lied to one's entire life about masculinity. 

I don’t think the analogy works because  we weren’t talking about “buddies” we were talking about two absolute strangers who meet for the very first time.  In that case, yeah if I was in a bar etc and I asked a total stranger (male) for  a game of pool and he refused then I would think he had a problem with my company.  I’d be right.  It’s a difficult analogy because i wouldn’t want to play pool in a bar with random strangers.

Well, maybe you wouldn't want to play pool with strangers, but I'll bet there are people who do. And if a stranger rejected my offer to play pool, it's no skin off my nose. Why would I care what a stranger thinks about me, anyway?

Let’s take as an example our male who wants non-monogamous sex.  For all of the women he is attracted to and approaches, there are going to  be
a) women who will have sex with him without bother.
b) women who would like to have sex with him but who are afraid of being called a “slut” by society.
c) women who do not want to have sex with him but want him to stick around to use him for favours; a chat- buddy, free meals, chauffering, “dates” with the obligatory hug at the end but no sex  (i.e. the “friends zone”)
d) women who are just not attracted to him and do not want to have sex with him.

Yeah, but you might be surprised how easily class (d) can become (a). In fact, that's one of the most basic acts of magick: the "love spell." The essence of the act is that the magician must attune himself to the situation, primarily by getting himself to see the woman in question as an actual person with agency and then expressing interest in her as a person. This is one of those instances where temporarily forgetting the goal of the operation actually is useful. Such a "spell" sometimes requires multiple "castings," but it's often quite effective, so long as there's an actual connection between personalities. While I don't deny that physical attraction is a powerful component and that lots of relationships (or at least "hook ups") are primarily about physical attraction, there are also lots of sexual relationships where the attraction is primarily on other levels.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
20/06/2015 7:04 am  
"david" wrote:
Does Liber Al address these issues?  Well the following sentence seems to be telling men to pander to their wives’ needs. I don’t understand.  “If she will” what?  If she wills to do what she wills?
 
41. The word of Sin is Restriction. O man! refuse not thy wife, if she will! O lover, if thou wilt, depart! There is no bond that can unite the divided but love: all else is a curse. Accursed! Accursed be it to the aeons! Hell.

Try reading this verse as a metaphor (consider the three "grades").


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
20/06/2015 7:47 am  
"Los" wrote:
"david" wrote:
Does Liber Al address these issues?  Well the following sentence seems to be telling men to pander to their wives’ needs. I don’t understand.  “If she will” what?  If she wills to do what she wills?
 
41. The word of Sin is Restriction. O man! refuse not thy wife, if she will! O lover, if thou wilt, depart! There is no bond that can unite the divided but love: all else is a curse. Accursed! Accursed be it to the aeons! Hell.

Try reading this verse as a metaphor (consider the three "grades").

On a more practical level, the verse is simply offering an elaboration on the idea of restriction. The injunction is not to restrict love (which applies to sex but also extends to all acts of will).

Keep in mind that there are at least two ways to read the first sentence.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
20/06/2015 1:54 pm  
"Tao" wrote:
So, yes... when Asar, Apis, Zeus, and Helios (with a dash of Hades and Dionysus) were fused into a syncretic deity by the Graeco-Egyptian political machine, that new deity, named Serapis, was represented either as a Hellenic king (a la Zeus) or as a bull (a la Apis). Asar, on the other hand, was pretty universally represented as a mummy.


49. Abrogate are all rituals, all ordeals, all words and signs. Ra-Hoor-Khuit hath taken his seat in the East at the Equinox of the Gods; and let Asar be with Isa, who also are one. But they are not of me. Let Asar be the adorant, Isa the sufferer; Hoor in his secret name and splendour is the Lord initiating
.

We have established that Isa is the Arabic name for Christ (the sufferer)?  I asked who or what is Asar in the above passage.  Liber Pyramidos has Asar as Osiris in his putrefying aspect it would seem, therefore Asar is now "with" Isa (Christ).  They are now both, not of Nuit because the religious "calamity" formula is over and Horus now takes the succession.  That's a fair assessment?   

"Tao" wrote:
1) In that case, what was the point you were trying to make with the verses cited?

As I said the dishonesty of the old aeon culture seen within the falsehoods of the religious formula of calamity and as also see in the concept of Virgin Birth.

"Tao" wrote:
I wasn't actually asking anything. I was noting your observation that "it would be great but it's far away from social reality due to the prevalent scornful attitudes of men and women both, towards female “directness”" and calling it out as bollocks.

Well I disagree that women are, in the main, direct in asking total strangers for what they want, sexually or romantically.  Maybe in Brazil, certainly not in the UK.

"Tao" wrote:
Whose reality? You're certainly not describing mine.

Whose reality?  The general populous.

"Tao" wrote:
You present yourself as living in a world wherein systemic dishonesty in communication has made it fundamentally impossible for an individual to request a sexual interaction with another individual and hold out the dreaded "friend-zone" as the consequent evil of our age. And yet I live in a world in which I do exactly that with some regularity. As does my wife. Sometimes we do it together.

Again, you and your wife are not a representation of the general populous and that’s fitting, as i wouldn’t expect members  of this forum to represent the wider society.
 

"Tao" wrote:
You live in a world in which women who turn down unwanted sexual advances are "usually" left alone and, when they aren't, suddenly it becomes a police matter and they are rescued (or something) by the local PD. And yet throughout my life I have been regularly accosted by men and women whose advances I've turned down who hide behind the excuse of alcohol to project their own feelings of inadequacy onto me, sometimes violently. The police have yet to swoop in to save me.

Well, yes ok a lot of that goes on but you could have reported it to the police if you so wished.  I understand there are a lot of jerks in our society who are forceful but they too are a minority and the fact is they are breaking  the law if they don’t take no for an answer.
 

"Tao" wrote:
When I say that your perception of the world baffles me, it's because it reads like someone who hasn't actually tried the things he claims are impossible and hasn't put himself in a position to experience the things he says don't exist. Instead, he riffs off of some generalised notion of what "social reality" "is" in order to excuse his inability to actually do what he wills and get what he wants.

For someone so seemingly taken with this notion of "Do what thou wilt" as a prescription for psycho-social self-improvement, it baffles me.

Again, I don’t understand you, as you are not being direct in your communication.  What are you actually saying I don’t try or do?  I don’t understand what you think my inability is that prevents me from “actually doing what I will and getting what I want”.      Could you tell me what you think that actually is? 


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
20/06/2015 1:55 pm  
"Los" wrote:
Strongly disagree. The vast majority of women I know are routinely harassed on the street, and most of them report that directly expressing that they don't like such treatment only makes things worse. I know one woman who was followed for several blocks by a stranger she tried to ignore.

Of course, I could be drawing conclusions from too limited a sample size, but based on the general impression I get from the culture at large, I think my assessment is more or less on the money.

It’s illegal to not take no as an answer.  We’re talking about real incidents here.  Likewise the following a woman for four blocks thing, it’s stalking,  again, not legal.  Whether the justice system is effective in curbing this activity is another story.   

"Los" wrote:
Not necessarily, but if you want a world of more direct and open communication in terms of sex, a good place to start would be trying to promote a culture where such harassment is way less common. 

Damn straight.

"Los" wrote:
Well, maybe you wouldn't want to play pool with strangers, but I'll bet there are people who do. And if a stranger rejected my offer to play pool, it's no skin off my nose. Why would I care what a stranger thinks about me, anyway?

Well me too.

"Los" wrote:
Yeah, but you might be surprised how easily class (d) can become (a). In fact, that's one of the most basic acts of magick: the "love spell." The essence of the act is that the magician must attune himself to the situation, primarily by getting himself to see the woman in question as an actual person with agency and then expressing interest in her as a person. This is one of those instances where temporarily forgetting the goal of the operation actually is useful. Such a "spell" sometimes requires multiple "castings," but it's often quite effective, so long as there's an actual connection between personalities. While I don't deny that physical attraction is a powerful component and that lots of relationships (or at least "hook ups") are primarily about physical attraction, there are also lots of sexual relationships where the attraction is primarily on other levels.

Yeah true.  Lots of like-minded people can easily hook up, particularly if they belong to some sort of sub-culture where fashion is the same i.e. where their like-mindedness is literally on show.  However if the connection is not glaringly obvious then our direct/honest male, in my example will avoid falling into the possible “friends zone” pit in that instance.  Others wouldn’t but it’s  a gamble all round.   


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
20/06/2015 8:46 pm  

There's another important element to this honesty in communication between the sexes.  I'm not talking about established  partners here but the pre-partnership (where the man seeks a short -term sexual relationship without any kind of long-term plan ).

Many women feel disappointed that they were "played" by men.  The men were not honest about wanting short-term sexual relationship and they led the women to believe that they were in it for a serious long-term relationship.  Women will often dismay that the men did not initially tell them what they really wanted.  Why did the men lie?  Well a) they were tricking the women because they were afraid that they would not have got the sex if they were upfront and b) they were afraid of being thought of as a pervert or weirdo.  They were not honest due to fear.

In fact there are four levels of possible communication that a man (who really wants short term non-monogamous sex) will engage in, when they meet a woman (I will leave type one until the end);

TYPE TWO

The guy who wants the woman to like him as a nice guy. He flatters, he entertains, he is a gentleman, is non argumentative, polite, and he will, eventually in time express that he wants sex but it will be a slow and delayed beat-around-bush sort of scenario.  He will talk incessant crap to her about what movies and books etc he likes.  These are the sort of men that women will call "sweethearts" or "top blokes" but these women will not be having sex with them.  This is the "friends zone" otherwise known as Hell (for the male) as follows;

There is no bond that can unite the divided but love: all else is a curse. Accursed! Accursed be it to the aeons! Hell.”

TYPE THREE

There are two sub-types;  1) Men who are too afraid to approach women and are afraid of rejection/humiliation.  2) The "player" liar-type who can approach and talk but he, falsely gives the impression he wants a long term, serious relationship.

In this case the "played" female is tasting the Hell from Liber Al as aforementioned.

TYPE FOUR

These are men who used to be Type Two or Type Three but they did not get sex and now they have given up approaching women and are bitter towards women.  This is also a product of the Hell from Liber Al as aforementioned.

They no longer attempt to pursue women unless it is a criminal motive to hurt and attack them.  Again this is also the result of fear-based behaviour.

The only honest ones whose communication is real are...

TYPE ONE

Such men are honest and fearless about what the want, there's no small talk, no fluff talk and no bitterness toward women.  However this type is not nasty or mean-spirited or abusive to women.  It is also very possible that this man may actually go on to develop a real, long-term relationship with such a woman who complies to his desires which are primarily sexual. 


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2666
20/06/2015 9:18 pm  

This has been a fascinating journey into your psyche and views on sexual politics, david; while certainly in keeping with "radical honesty", what on earth do these thoughts have to do with Thelema, other than your efforts to rationalize you difficulties with women with AL quotations?
As Tao has suggested, wherever you go, there you are. It may take more than ruthvah in some cases.


ReplyQuote
Page 1 / 4
Share: