Thelema-like qualit...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Thelema-like qualities of Thelema?  

Page 7 / 7
  RSS

 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
22/05/2010 10:20 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
It's just like you to result to insults

Irony!

"Azidonis" wrote:
In other words, you haven't worked through the A:.A:. System,

There you go with those assumptions again.

"Azidonis" wrote:
and therefore can neither confirm nor deny any of your accusations.

Have you accepted Jesus, now and forever, as your personal saviour, renouncing what you think your own will is, and achieved heavenly bliss? No? Then until you do, you're talking shit based purely from conjecture, and not from personal experience. Until you accept Jesus as your personal saviour, give up your own will and forever decide to serve his, you'll never be able to understand how I know your claim that taking a degree in religious studies to be your true will is false, and no amount of whining from you will serve any purpose whatsoever until you accept Jesus forever.

Or, let's take another tack. Have you achieved enlightenment by smacking yourself repeatedly on the head with a baseball bat? No? Then until you have achieved enlightenment in that way, you're not qualified to talk on the subject at all, so go away and come back when you have.

Do you see how utterly stupid your "argument" is? Resorting to bullshit matches on the subject of who can tell the most outrageous tales of religious experience in an attempt to settle disputed points is a sure sign of the total intellectual bankruptcy of the half-witted occultist proposing it. The only time anybody brings this up is when they want to quickly scamper away from a discussion they're on the losing side of.

Let's take a good example:

You: "Have you ever performed a successful Evocation?"

the implication being, of course, that only people who have performed "successful Evocations" are qualified to talk on the subject.

Now, since there are no demons or other spirits to evoke, there is no such thing as a "successful Evocation". Therefore, anyone who claims to have "performed a successful Evocation" has deluded themselves into believing they've evoked a demon or spirit. Therefore, what you're saying is that the only person you'll take seriously on the subject of evocation is a total bullshitter, and nobody else will do. Which, frankly, explains a lot about what you say.

And you want to talk to me about "experience"? What an absolute joke. Come back and see me when you have some, and when you have something more than empty bullshit.

"Azidonis" wrote:
I honestly don't care what you have to say

Then stop engaging me in discussion. Don't you have any self-control at all? Are you just desperate for my attention, or what?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
22/05/2010 10:33 pm  

Throw out words and belief systems and all you have left is status and money, which are all that really matter in the world. The physical world is all that really exists... everything else is delusion.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
22/05/2010 10:37 pm  

93,

Have you accepted Jesus, now and forever, as your personal saviour, renouncing what you think your own will is, and achieved heavenly bliss? No? Then until you do, you're talking shit based purely from conjecture, and not from personal experience. Until you accept Jesus as your personal saviour, give up your own will and forever decide to serve his, you'll never be able to understand how I know your claim that taking a degree in religious studies to be your true will is false, and no amount of whining from you will serve any purpose whatsoever until you accept Jesus forever.

Sickening.

"Erwin" wrote:
Or, let's take another tack. Have you achieved enlightenment by smacking yourself repeatedly on the head with a baseball bat? No? Then until you have achieved enlightenment in that way, you're not qualified to talk on the subject at all, so go away and come back when you have.

Exactly. If you haven't tried the experiment, there's no way of knowing what the outcome will be for you. To deny the experiment all together, then come up with some unweighted conjecture about the experiment, or even more-so the outcome of the experiment, is still conjecture.

"Erwin" wrote:
Do you see how utterly stupid your "argument" is? Resorting to bullshit matches on the subject of who can tell the most outrageous tales of religious experience in an attempt to settle disputed points is a sure sign of the total intellectual bankruptcy of the half-witted occultist proposing it. The only time anybody brings this up is when they want to quickly scamper away from a discussion they're on the losing side of.

Actually, all I asked you for was validation that you had attempted the practices that you have chosen to disdain. If you haven't done them, then you haven't done them. That's all there is to it.

"Erwin" wrote:
Let's take a good example:

You: "Have you ever performed a successful Evocation?"

the implication being, of course, that only people who have performed "successful Evocations" are qualified to talk on the subject.

No. I never implied that you can't talk about the subject. I'm saying that you are bitching about how pointless Evocation is, when you have never even tried to do it. That's like saying, "Broccoli tastes like shit" when you have never tasted broccoli.

"Erwin" wrote:
Now, since there are no demons or other spirits to evoke, there is no such thing as a "successful Evocation". Therefore, anyone who claims to have "performed a successful Evocation" has deluded themselves into believing they've evoked a demon or spirit. Therefore, what you're saying is that the only person you'll take seriously on the subject of evocation is a total bullshitter, and nobody else will do. Which, frankly, explains a lot about what you say.

Again, you are trying to avoid admitting that you are condemning something of which you have no direct experience. "Downtown San Diego has dirty streets" doesn't mean anything coming from someone who has never been to downtown San Diego.

And you want to talk to me about "experience"? What an absolute joke. Come back and see me when you have some, and when you have something more than empty bullshit.

You still never answered the questions. Your continued avoidance says nothing about me, regardless of how you want to try and take the attention away from yourself. You condemned all of the things I questioned you about, and haven't tried one of them. Furthermore, you are defending your armchair philosopher position by attempting to remove the attention from yourself that you created.

I didn't make your original statements. I just asked you for proof that you had actual experience with those things you are condemning, which you have failed to provide.

"Erwin" wrote:
Then stop engaging me in discussion. Don't you have any self-control at all? Are you just desperate for my attention, or what?

Yet a further attempt to get me to leave you alone about it.

Answer the questions, and I'll leave you alone about it.

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
22/05/2010 11:35 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
Again, you are trying to avoid admitting that you are condemning something of which you have no direct experience. "Downtown San Diego has dirty streets" doesn't mean anything coming from someone who has never been to downtown San Diego.

So, you think can't find out whether or not demons exist until you actually meet a demon?

And you don't see anything wrong with this?

"Azidonis" wrote:
"Erwin" wrote:
Or, let's take another tack. Have you achieved enlightenment by smacking yourself repeatedly on the head with a baseball bat? No? Then until you have achieved enlightenment in that way, you're not qualified to talk on the subject at all, so go away and come back when you have.

Exactly. If you haven't tried the experiment, there's no way of knowing what the outcome will be for you.

Amazing.

By your own admission, you don't know whether or not beating yourself in the head with a baseball bat will bring enlightenment. By your own admission, you think "there's no way of knowing what the outcome will be for you" if you do beat yourself in the head with one.

That, as they say, is just about all that needs to be said about you.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
22/05/2010 11:47 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
I didn't make your original statements. I just asked you for proof that you had actual experience with those things you are condemning, which you have failed to provide.

And as for this nonsense, I'll happily do so just as soon as you provide proof of your own experience.


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 1126
23/05/2010 12:05 am  

I am seriously disappointed by the complete lack of moderation here. I don't intend to contribute further to this website.


ReplyQuote
spike418
(@spike418)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 213
23/05/2010 12:27 am  
"Erwin" wrote:
Now, since there are no demons or other spirits to evoke, there is no such thing as a "successful Evocation". Therefore, anyone who claims to have "performed a successful Evocation"

"I see no ships" therefore ships do not exist.
It's easy really.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
23/05/2010 12:29 am  

93,

"Erwin" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
I didn't make your original statements. I just asked you for proof that you had actual experience with those things you are condemning, which you have failed to provide.

And as for this nonsense, I'll happily do so just as soon as you provide proof of your own experience.

Actually, this isn't a "you show me yours, I'll show you mine" debate. You made the following claims:

"Erwin" wrote:
At any rate, the "work of the A.'.A.'." is not the "perilous and demanding path" that only the few have the aptitude to accomplish that he seems to think it is;
"Erwin" wrote:
in reality, that work is for the religious, credulous dunces who can't figure out they're being taken for a ride by people who are no more "advanced" than they are.
"Erwin" wrote:
You're not going to "attain" anything by pretending to conjure demons,
"Erwin" wrote:
concentrating on the end of your nose,
"Erwin" wrote:
eating cakes made from menstrual blood,
"Erwin" wrote:
or cutting your forearms with razor blades,

My questions:

1. Have you actually done the work of the A:.A:. System?
2. Have you ever actually met anyone in the A:.A:., physically?
3. Have you ever performed a successful Evocation?
4. Have you actually practiced and obtained success in Dhyana and Dharana?
5. Have you ever eaten real cakes of light?
6. Have you ever successfully performed Liber Jujorum?
7. Do you have the scars to prove it?

Thus far you've done nothing but banter. Analogies and insults, and blah blah blah. Quit trying to deflect the initial post and answer the questions.

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
23/05/2010 1:25 am  
"Azidonis" wrote:
You made the following claims:

And as I've already told you, if, for instance, you need to try cutting your forearms with razor blades for an extended period of time before being able to conclude whether or not cutting your forearms with razor blades is going to lead to enlightenment, or if you need to try evoking demons in order to conclude whether or not demons exist, then you're a total idiot who's completely wasting his time thinking about enlightenment in the first place. Any person who thinks in this way needs basic schooling and some actual real-life experience, not a protracted period of time mincing around in the dark pretending to cast spells.

Those claims simply do not rest on the answers to the questions you seek. Your insistence on seeking answers to them is just a distraction to try to get you out of having to explain some of the stupid things you've said recently. Quite apart from that, if all it takes to sway your conclusions is me making random claims on the internet then you're a numbskull who has no business engaging in this type of discussion in the first place.

"Azidonis" wrote:
My questions:

I've already told you what you need to do to get answers to your irrelevant, time-wasting questions. If you're not prepared to do that, then that's too bad for you. If you don't put the work in, then you don't get the results you want. It makes no difference to me either way.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
23/05/2010 2:12 am  

93,

You're scared to answer, admit it.

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
23/05/2010 2:30 am  
"Azidonis" wrote:
You're scared to answer, admit it.

You're neither good enough nor smart enough to successfully employ schoolboy tactics like this with me, sonny. Wishful thinking might work a treat for your magic spells, but you're wasting your time blowing it my way. You've been told what you need to do to get what you want. If you're not prepared to do that, then you can bluster till Christmas for all I care, it won't do you any good.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
23/05/2010 2:48 am  

My suggestion as an alternative to arguing over various approaches to Thelema:

Question for all: Behind all various approaches to Thelema, what is the essential quality of Thelema?

"Azidonis" wrote:
"wellredwellbred" wrote:
Out of all work concerning Thelema - your work to from Thelema, discard all extraneous nonsense - is the one I am most in sympathy with, Erwin.

Your opinion of Erwin's work. Perfectly okay.

Not as an opinion of his work in its totality, but as an expression of strong sympathy with his approach concerning Thelema, the word 'work' for me here being understood as synonymous with the word 'approach.'

"wellredwellbred" wrote:
In this your work of clarifying Thelema, do you also discard Crowley's designs - as referred to in the quote from Patriarch156 below - for realizing ones infinite will (attainment), as nonsense, extraneous to Thelema?
"Azidonis" wrote:
Would you mind telling us where/ how Patriarch156 "discarded" anything as "nonsense" exactly?

Your question here is relating to my posting Posted: May 22, 2010 - 04:46 PM on page 10 of this thread, it is right below your posting Posted: May 22, 2010 - 04:30 PM with your joke: "My Karma ran over my Dogma... har har"

Your question is "where/ how Patriarch156 "discarded" anything as "nonsense" exactly?"

I am now repeating the sentence in question with the part between the two lines, - and -, which relates to the quote from Patriarch156, being underlined:

"In this your work of clarifying Thelema, do you also discard Crowley's designs - as referred to in the quote from Patriarch156 below - for realizing ones infinite will (attainment), as nonsense, extraneous to Thelema?"

The first and the last line, -, in the underlined part of the sentence right above this one, indicates that what is between these to lines, is for carefull reading, careful reading starting after a puse by the first line, and ending by a new pause by the second line. The reason this part of the sentence has been marked like this, is for careful reading, and this is because its content is referring to something outside the sentence where it can be found.

This outside stuff is a quote from the last part of an earlier reply from Patriarch156 to you, where Patriarch156 covers the works of the A.'.A.'. and infinite will, among other things.

To make this more clear i will now remove everything underlined including the two lines, and the content between those two lines, to show you that this part of the sentence, only reffering to something outside of rest of the sentence(= the parts of Patriarch156's reply to you that I am pointing Erwin in the direction of), was only to point Erwin in direction of Patriarch156's more details about works of the A.'.A.'. and infinite will. Now I repeat for you the sentence without any pointers or any refference to Patriarch156's more details:

"In this your work of clarifying Thelema, do you also discard Crowley's designs for realizing ones infinite will (attainment), as nonsense, extraneous to Thelema?"

As you can see from the sentence above, Azidonis, it does makes sense, but if I had asked Erwin a question using the sentence above, he likely would have responded: "What do you mean by "Crowley's designs for realizing ones infinite will (attainment)", you must give me more details before I can understand your question and answer it."

So, no Azidonis, Patriarch156 "discarded" nothing as "nonsense" according to what I wrote, instead I am actually asking Erwin if he discardes what Patriarch156 wrote to you about works of the A.'.A.'. and infinite will, as nonsense alien and irrelevant to Thelema.

The outside stuff I used the two lines mentioned in the explanation above to, to point Erwin in direction of, is the quote below from parts of Patriarch156's earlier reply to you in this thread, namely the last part of Patriarch156's earlier reply to you in this thread, a part where Patriarch156 writes to you about works of the A.'.A.'. and infinite will. You will find that the quote below from Patriarch156, is also found in my posting Posted: May 22, 2010 - 04:46 PM on page 10 of this thread. And that is the one of my posting in this thread, that your question here is about.

"Patriarch156" wrote:
As for your last question, according to the designs of Crowley there is a distinct difference between realizing ones finite will (i.e. what you are fitted for) and your infinite will (attainment).

As such the work of the A.'.A.'. would be ever-present and important for those few who have the aptitude and ability to walk that perilous and demanding path.

"Azidonis" wrote:
I really shouldn't keep doing this...

Please keep on quoting, but do it with care.

"Azidonis" wrote:
Wellbredwellfed actually asked Patriarch156 directly what he meant, to which he did not respond. It is possible that what he said was directed more or less at me, seeing how we brought our conversation to PM after that.

I asked Patriarch156 no such question, in relation to "finite will" versus "infinite will."

But my educated guess is that Patriarch156 being both knowledgeable about various bits and pieces on A. Crowley, and a bishop in the largest OTO, is bound to publish a book someday, a book that among other things, might also cover "infinite will" in more detail.

I for instance would like more details on why the enigmatic The Book of The Law, is not published by the O.T.O. - both in print and online - together with Crowley's own exegesis(= a critical explanation or interpretation of a text, especially a religious text) for it, consisting of no more then 44 page. This exegesis is not automatically known by every possible reader of The Book of The Law, to be found within the document The Equinox of the Gods, Vol. III No. III An I x Sol in Libra SEPTEMBER MCMXXXVI E.V - A.'.A.'. Publication in Class E, and/or easily located by every possible reader in print and/or online.

I hope it is not some irrational dogmatic adherence to something "authoritative" from the always itching to write A. Crowley, on how this most holy text within Thelema shall be published, that still prevents the O.T.O. from publishing this enigmatic text in a more effective way.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
23/05/2010 3:44 am  
"Erwin" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
You're scared to answer, admit it.

You're neither good enough nor smart enough to successfully employ schoolboy tactics like this with me, sonny. Wishful thinking might work a treat for your magic spells, but you're wasting your time blowing it my way. You've been told what you need to do to get what you want. If you're not prepared to do that, then you can bluster till Christmas for all I care, it won't do you any good.

93,

Blah blah blah. What I want is for you to answer my initial questions.

You made the claims, and I want to know what experience you have with the claims in question, is all. Don't make it out to be more than it is.

If you can't answer them, or refuse to, or are scared to, or whatever, just say so.

I'll even do one better. Answer the questions, and I promise not to comment on the answers in this thread, or anywhere in the near future. Hell, I really don't care what you answers are. I'm more interested in the fact that you refuse to support your claims. At any rate you are absolved from criticism, at least from me, about your answers.

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
23/05/2010 3:46 am  

93,

"Patriarch156" wrote:
As for your last question, according to the designs of Crowley there is a distinct difference between realizing ones finite will (i.e. what you are fitted for) and your infinite will (attainment).

As such the work of the A.'.A.'. would be ever-present and important for those few who have the aptitude and ability to walk that perilous and demanding path.

Nope, still don't see the word "nonsense" anywhere. Would you mind adding it for me a few more times? I like to laugh.

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
23/05/2010 4:19 am  
"Azidonis" wrote:
What I want is for you to answer my initial questions.

Then stop your crying and do what it takes to get the answers you want so much. The ball's in your court; pleading with me isn't going to get you anywhere.

"Azidonis" wrote:
Answer the questions, and I promise not to comment on the answers in this thread, or anywhere in the near future.

You appear to be labouring under the delusion that I care what you say one way or the other.

"Azidonis" wrote:
I'm more interested in the fact that you refuse to support your claims.

As usual, you're more interested in the contents of your fevered imagination than in reality. We've already been through this, and pretending that we haven't isn't going to help you any more than begging me is.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
23/05/2010 4:30 am  

93,

"Erwin" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
What I want is for you to answer my initial questions.

Then stop your crying and do what it takes to get the answers you want so much. The ball's in your court; pleading with me isn't going to get you anywhere.

"Azidonis" wrote:
Answer the questions, and I promise not to comment on the answers in this thread, or anywhere in the near future.

You appear to be labouring under the delusion that I care what you say one way or the other.

"Azidonis" wrote:
I'm more interested in the fact that you refuse to support your claims.

As usual, you're more interested in the contents of your fevered imagination than in reality. We've already been through this, and pretending that we haven't isn't going to help you any more than begging me is.

Again, trying to put it off. If you would have answered the questions initially this would not have taken so much time.

It's okay, I get it. Your answer to every question is "no". You have no experience with the work you disdain so much in your post. As such, you are just an armchair Thelemite. You sit on the sidelines and bitch about what everyone is doing on the playing field, and that makes you feel better about sitting on the sidelines while you try and think your way to victory.

Your refusal to answer my very simple questions has been demonstrated over and over again in this thread. They are very simple questions, with very simple answers. The fact that you refuse to answer those direct questions makes you, sir, a coward.

Good day, Erwin the Coward Hessle.

93 93/93

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
23/05/2010 4:38 am  

This is starting to look a bit like some of the discussions on Clifford Pickover's mailing list.

The essential quality of Thelema is simple: "know thyself." 🙂


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
23/05/2010 4:42 am  
"Azidonis" wrote:
Again, trying to put it off.

Yes, it looks like you are. No surprise there, then.

"Azidonis" wrote:
Good day

Bye bye. You know where to find me if you ever feel like putting your money where your mouth is.


ReplyQuote
sonofthestar
(@sonofthestar)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 375
23/05/2010 6:06 am  

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

Question for all: Behind all various approaches to Thelema, what is the essential quality of Thelema?

Great synchromorph! ...It would possibly get the thread back on course for at least...
a little while...
perhaps,
...if each one of us can answer the question in one sentence, and no more
than one sentence.

My answer would be:

That which I have already proved, and what I will prove.

There you have it---as being sufficient enough of a very short answer,
to the original question,
so far as "I" am concerned.

Eventually, we can see if most of us have the same basic concept in mind,
though worded in uniquely different ways;
or if such answers are wildly divergent in a very most apparent way.

Love is the law, love under will.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
23/05/2010 6:24 am  
"sonofthestar" wrote:
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

Question for all: Behind all various approaches to Thelema, what is the essential quality of Thelema?

Great synchromorph! ...It would possibly get the thread back on course for at least...
a little while...
perhaps,
...if each one of us can answer the question in one sentence, and no more
than one sentence.

My answer would be:

That which I have already proved, and what I will prove.

There you have it---as being sufficient enough of a very short answer,
to the original question,
so far as "I" am concerned.

Eventually, we can see if most of us have the same basic concept in mind,
though worded in uniquely different ways;
or if such answers are wildly divergent in a very most apparent way.

Love is the law, love under will.

93,

In my opinion, the two "Big Steps", the K&C and the crossing of the Abyss.

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
23/05/2010 6:41 am  
"Azidonis" wrote:
"Erwin" wrote:
Have you achieved enlightenment by smacking yourself repeatedly on the head with a baseball bat? No? Then until you have achieved enlightenment in that way, you're not qualified to talk on the subject at all, so go away and come back when you have.

Exactly. If you haven't tried the experiment, there's no way of knowing what the outcome will be for you. To deny the experiment all together, then come up with some unweighted conjecture about the experiment, or even more-so the outcome of the experiment, is still conjecture.

Come on now. We all know that hitting yourself in the head repeatedly with a baseball bat won't lead to enlightenment -- in just the same way that jumping off a tall building won't lead to enlightenment. We don't need to verify claims like those through "personal experience" to know that they won't work.

We need to look at the goal -- to attain to the true will -- and see if the methods are suitable to that goal.

The claim that "you have to have tried something personally to know that it won't work" is deeply flawed, and that's the point Erwin was getting at with the "have you accepted Jesus" example. All of us here know that Christianity is bullshit, and we don't have to have "personal experience" of it first to reach that conclusion.

Let's take an example: cutting your arm, a la Jugorum. The obvious point of the practice isn't the specific "punishment" applied when you violate the oath -- the point is the training of the will (or, more precisely, the raising of one's awareness of the way that the mind and body operate, usually very imperfectly controlled).

The results are just as easy to obtain with a rubber band snapping against your wrist as they are with a blade cutting into your arm. Anyone who stresses the importance of the cutting of the arm -- just 'cause Crowley said so -- has missed the entire point.

You don't have to cut your arm up to come to that conclusion, any more than you have to accept Jesus as your savior before you can conclude that Christianity is incorrect.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
23/05/2010 7:08 am  
"Los" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
"Erwin" wrote:
Have you achieved enlightenment by smacking yourself repeatedly on the head with a baseball bat? No? Then until you have achieved enlightenment in that way, you're not qualified to talk on the subject at all, so go away and come back when you have.

Exactly. If you haven't tried the experiment, there's no way of knowing what the outcome will be for you. To deny the experiment all together, then come up with some unweighted conjecture about the experiment, or even more-so the outcome of the experiment, is still conjecture.

Come on now. We all know that hitting yourself in the head repeatedly with a baseball bat won't lead to enlightenment -- in just the same way that jumping off a tall building won't lead to enlightenment. We don't need to verify claims like those through "personal experience" to know that they won't work.

We need to look at the goal -- to attain to the true will -- and see if the methods are suitable to that goal.

The claim that "you have to have tried something personally to know that it won't work" is deeply flawed, and that's the point Erwin was getting at with the "have you accepted Jesus" example. All of us here know that Christianity is bullshit, and we don't have to have "personal experience" of it first to reach that conclusion.

Let's take an example: cutting your arm, a la Jugorum. The obvious point of the practice isn't the specific "punishment" applied when you violate the oath -- the point is the training of the will (or, more precisely, the raising of one's awareness of the way that the mind and body operate, usually very imperfectly controlled).

The results are just as easy to obtain with a rubber band snapping against your wrist as they are with a blade cutting into your arm. Anyone who stresses the importance of the cutting of the arm -- just 'cause Crowley said so -- has missed the entire point.

You don't have to cut your arm up to come to that conclusion, any more than you have to accept Jesus as your savior before you can conclude that Christianity is incorrect.

93,

The argument is one-sided Los, for all intents and purposes.

You can say that you don't have to cut your arm up, etc. It is still a one-sided argument.

Saying that you don't have to "be there" or "experience" something to know it is a load of shit is a fallacy.

Here's an example:

1) A man and your wife/girlfriend go into your house, into your bedroom, close and lock the door. You come home to find the door locked with them inside. 2) Or, she calls you at work telling you that she and another man are in your bed.

1) You can only infer what might be going on in your bedroom when you arrive at home. You do not actually know beyond a shadow of a doubt what exactly was going on in, or why they felt the need to lock the door.

2) You can only infer that she is either telling the truth or lying by what you know of her, and you can only assume what they may be doing on your bed.

It's the other side of the argument. To say, 'you don't have to cut your arm to obtain Jujorum results' (noted paraphrase) doesn't necessarily mean that you would have obtained the same results if you had cut your arm. Without actually cutting your arm, you will never know ('you' in the general sense).

The questions I asked Erwin were specific to his case. His reply with the bat, etc. was typical and expected. He still has refused to answer the questions. A "Yes" on all of them would have been quite fine. However, that he absolutely refused to acknowledge more than one side of the argument (ie. any side that is not his) indicates a fallacy in his logic. Not only that, he does such constantly and without reprieve, which indicates that his condition could be pathological. Not that any of it matters to many of us on these forums, but there are people who take his every word as 'gospel', and those are the people who are actually hurt by it.

To Erwin: Maya... you cannot prove that unicorns do not exist anymore than you can prove that the Eiffel Tower does exist unless you are speaking only of the material plane. Therefore, for every argument that says the sylphs do not exist there is an argument that says they do. Don't get pissed at people just because you cannot see them.

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5304
23/05/2010 7:33 am  

Moderator's Note

I have received a complaint regarding certain posts in this thread and am not currently in a position to moderate it effectively, using a slow connection in Egypt. It is therefore locked and will be reviewed in due course.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5304
29/05/2010 3:16 pm  

Moderator's Note

Having returned to the UK after my holiday and research trip to Luxor, I've had the opportunity to review this thread in its entirety and wanted to take the opportunity to make some observations on its contents.

It occurs to me that this thread represents the very best and the very worst aspects of the LAShTAL.COM Forums. Some of the contributions are of the greatest possible value, presenting refreshing and interesting observations based on factual content; others, though, fail to meet even the most basic standards expected and required of members as described in the Guidelines. It's made abundantly clear in numerous places on this site that membership and participation is conditional on compliance with those Guidelines, so this thread is especially disappointing.

And talking of disappointment, it is especially irritating to me and, I know, to many others, when members leave the topic of the thread in order to make unacceptable insults against other members. These insults often take the form of accusations relating to the intelligence and motivation of members and are usually combined with a quite extraordinary willingness to make psychological assessments on the basis of a handful of forum posts.

There's also a remarkably poor signal-to-noise ratio in many of the posts: lots of shouting and name-calling and very little reference to source data or even informed interpretation.

I am especially unhappy that Ian Rons has taken the brunt of so much of the abuse. Ian's participation on LAShTAL.COM goes back many years: his technical administration of the site for a long period ensured that it has been able to continue to develop in scope, scale and content, and he was for a long time a very effective fellow moderator. He has moved on from direct participation and also, it would appear, from Thelema and Aleister Crowley, and in this latter aspect he is not alone (cf. David Tibet). What stands out, though, when reviewing his posts over many years, is the high quality of his contributions to the threads, often including independent research, the results of which he has shared freely and openly. For all these reasons he deserves the respect and politeness of fellow members, as, of course, do we all.

The thread remains locked and it stands as an example of how badly things can go wrong on these Forums and as a lesson to me to ensure robust and continuous Moderation of the Forums in the future.

Paul

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
Page 7 / 7
Share: