Thelemic Practice
 
Notifications
Clear all

Thelemic Practice

Page 10 / 17

wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1114
 
"Los" wrote:
"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
What do you consider to be the major difference between all the instances where direct experience is all you need to know as far as the "reality" of something goes, and all the instances where direct experience is not all you need to know as far as the "reality" of something goes?

Oh, I get what you're saying now. Thank you, that was much clearer.

You're suggesting that there's a discrepancy between saying, on the one hand, that a person can know that the True Will exists by experiencing it (which I have indeed said) and saying, on the other hand, that merely having an experience that seems like leaving the body isn't sufficient to know that the person in question actually has left the body (which I have also said).

No, my question quoted at the beginning of this posting, was not made to make a suggestion. The said question was inspired by Hessle's claim quoted in my preceding posting in this thread, a claim about that direct experience is all you need to know as far as the "reality" of will goes. And this claim made me curious about if it implied that there were also instances where direct experience were not all one needed to know, as far as concerning the "reality" of something [experienced].

"Los" wrote:
But there's not a discrepancy because I'm not saying that the experience of the True Will reveals anything about what it is: just that it's there. In the same way, the experience of apparently leaving one's body does not reveal anything about what that experience actually is: just that one is having the experience.

If you want to talk about what the True Will actually is -- whether it's a spirit or a something rooted in the physical world, for example -- we would have to reason and discuss, just like if you want to talk about what "astral projection" actually is -- whether it's a person really leaving the body or just a dream -- we would have to reason and discuss.

In the aforementioned claim from Erwin Hessle, it is both stated that "direct experience has no explanatory power - only rational interpretation has explanatory power.", and also implied that rational interpretation is needed to figure out how what one has directly experienced, does work and what benefits it might bring.

Is it possible Los, to base, or make, a rational interpretation, on the basis of a direct experience of "astral projection"?

My hypothetical example of that it is indeed possible to so, is that a person after a direct experience of "astral projection, can figure out where to search for a missing object, akin to how the same person after a direct experience of dreaming, can figure out the same.


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1114
 

I have added the word in bold within the following quote from the end of my preceding posting in this thread, to improve the grammar and intelligibility of the text within this quote:

"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
Is it possible Los, to base, or make, a rational interpretation, on the basis of a direct experience of "astral projection"?

My hypothetical example of that it is indeed possible to do so, is that a person after a direct experience of "astral projection, can figure out where to search for a missing object, akin to how the same person after a direct experience of dreaming, can figure out the same.


ReplyQuote
Yeheshuah
(@yeheshuah)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 92
 

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

Los,

We should indeed evaluate claims.  But in order to do so, we cannot build into our system of evaluation a presumption against a set of claims.  So we need a category that describes what it is mystics take themselves to experience.  This is only a category.  It may not have any objects in it.  It may be an empty set.  It seems that you may be conflating my linguistic points with metaphysical assertions.  So what I am arguing for is not a special meaning, but simply the meaning of mystical claims as described by mystics themselves. 

It may very well be that all mystical claims get classified as referring to the inward experiences you mentioned.  But if we don't allow for alternative classifications, we are simply fixing the game.  So to start we must allow for the possibility of meaningfully asserting contradictions and for meaningful discussion of something beyond the categories of being and nothingness, reality and imagination.

The correspondence theory of truth will only work with a subset of all possible claims, if we make the allowances just mentioned.  (Where the reality/non-reality distinction ceases to be exhaustive, propositions are no longer properly categorized as corresponding or not corresponding.)  The subset is the set of all possible propositions regarding reality.  So the reason I don't have much of a problem with your correspondence theory, even while recognizing it has problems due to its theory-laden nature, is that when we talk about reality, one of the things we may want to talk about is the way the world is.  Mystical claims speak of such weirdness as reality springing forth from the Ain, after we allow for developments of the Ain into more and more concrete manifestations.  That is, mystical claims speak of something ontologically prior to reality. 

I am just guessing, but I think what I just said usually leads you to wonder if I am talking in purely symbolic terms when I speak of the mystical.  Not at all.  What transcends the real is not imaginary.  It is more than reality. 

Once we have in place a set of categories that does not preemptively define all mystical experience as either mere non-sense or about inward experience, then we can begin to ask how to evaluate such claims.  And if we don't allow for the set of categories I am asking for, then there is nothing much left to evaluate.

Another way to think of what I am asking for here is this: I want a system that does not presume anything, allows for anything.  By argument, evidence and proof we will whittle down the sets of things that are real, beyond real, meaningless and imaginary.

Yeheshuah

Love is the law, love under will.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 
"Los" wrote:
"Shiva" wrote:
Joeph Smith envisions Moroni and Jesus

Joseph Smith was called a prophet, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb

Hahah South Park delivers again.  3m16s "even though nobody else ever saw them" killed me as did "aww he is??!" at 5m57s.

That is brilliant nearly as good as the banned Scientology episode.

"Michael Staley" wrote:
Thank you for making your position so clear, Los. I'm glad we've agreed to differ.

Michael I have to ask , do you like South Park?


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
Topic starter  
"Yeheshuah" wrote:
we cannot build into our system of evaluation a presumption against a set of claims.

Once again, nobody's doing this. The system that I have explained can indeed evaluate mystical claims: most of these claims seem to be attempts to describe inner experiences.

You are the one who argues that there's a certain group of claims that must be evaluated in a different way than all other claims are evaluated, but you haven't explained why this should be, other than to say "'cause mystics say so." I'm not sure what you want me to say to such an unconvincing argument, and I'm not sure what you think you're gaining by repeating your assertion, rather than justifying it.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
Topic starter  
"david" wrote:
"Los" wrote:
"Shiva" wrote:
Joeph Smith envisions Moroni and Jesus

Joseph Smith was called a prophet, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb

Hahah South Park delivers again.  3m16s "even though nobody else ever saw them" killed me as did "aww he is??!" at 5m57s.

"Why would he make it up?"

"If God got mad at you, you must be telling the truth!"


ReplyQuote
Yeheshuah
(@yeheshuah)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 92
 

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

Los,

So that we don't get trapped in another log jam, let me try another tack to help you see what it is I am getting at.  The basic point, in the end, will be this: concepts and categories cannot be justified without observing their uses.  So if we want to understand a mystic's set of categories, we must look at how the mystic uses her categories rather than a system of categories and relations I bring to the table from previous linguistic experiences. 

The system that I have explained can indeed evaluate mystical claims: most of these claims seem to be attempts to describe inner experiences.

This is a gloss on the experience of mystics which allows you to fit their experiences in with a point of view you brought to the table.  That is, you have a view of the world that prevents you from considering the mystical experience from any other angle.  If you want to grasp the categories I am proposing, then the categories must be granted and explored in practice. 

So consider this: imagine I wouldn't grant the use of a correspondence theory of truth.  If you want to justify its use, how will you do so? There is no concrete relationship you can point to, because correspondence is not a thing.  You can't hold the words "There is a blue sky out today" up to the sky in order to realize the correspondence between my words and the condition of the sky.  It is in practice that such a matter will become clear.  So what do you propose to resolve a dispute over the use of truth without me granting such use? Humor me, because your answer here will make clear what you think a justification of a category looks like as well as, I hope, help to bridge the current chasm between us.

Yeheshuah

Love is the law, love under will


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5803
 
"Los" wrote:
... mystical claims: most of these claims seem to be attempts to describe inner experiences.

Indeed. A "description" of an experience may be difficult but, in general, it should not be impossible. It is when an "interpretation" creeps into a "description" that problems may arise. Or worse, when other concepts are inserted in order to "explain" an experience or, worser yet :o, when a "claim" is made.

... a certain group of claims that must be evaluated in a different way than all other claims are evaluated ...

Hmmm ???  It seems like something is true, or not true (false), or cannot be confirmed or denied (undetermined) due to lack of evidence. I cannot fathom why a "different" form of evaluation is required, and I also am interested in what manner of "different" evaluation is needed?


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5803
 
"Yeheshuah" wrote:
... imagine I wouldn't grant the use of a correspondence theory of truth.

You should not grant a "correspondence theory of truth." Correspondences are not the thing they seem to mirror. The map is not the territory ... although it may be similar. But a lot of explorers got/get lost because they misread a map, or a cartographer was drunk. Correspondence theory is an example of "introducing other concepts."

Mystical experiences are always (almost always? invariably always?) associated with hallucination (in the case of falsity) or loss of the sense of "self" (the so-called ego-loss)(which is a valid experience called Dhyana). So what? It's when people start making claims about such experiences that we must look closer.

Humor me, because your answer here will make clear what you think a justification of a category looks like as well as, I hope, help to bridge the current chasm between us.

This is either over my head, or beneath my "dignity," I don't know which. So I'll bow out for the moment and let more learned folks tackle the categories.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
Topic starter  
"Yeheshuah" wrote:
So consider this: imagine I wouldn't grant the use of a correspondence theory of truth.  If you want to justify its use, how will you do so?

Sigh. I tried to anticipate this objection in my very first post in this sub-thread. Remember this part:

"Los" wrote:
What I'm going to do first is outline a method for evaluating claims that I find to be the most accurate and reliable (and, not coincidentally, the method that I am convinced that nearly everybody uses when evaluating the vast majority of claims they encounter in their daily lives).

[...]

I think it's necessary that we establish from the start what we mean when we say that we consider a statement "true." What I mean when I say that a statement is "true" is that it corresponds with reality. It's true that I'm sitting in a chair right now, and it's not true that I'm sitting on a dinosaur.

Please note that when I say things like this, I'm not making any ultimate ontological claims. I'm merely saying that a "true" statement is one that appears to be consistent with reality, so far as I'm able to tell. It's thus pointless to try to argue against me by suggesting that I'm in the Matrix: even if I were in the Matrix, it's still true that I'm sitting on a chair (in the Matrix), and it's not true that I'm sitting on a dinosaur (in the Matrix).

I don't suspect you would raise that objection, but I want to be sure that we're as clear as we can be from the get-go.

[...]

As a system for evaluating claims, where do you disagree with anything that I've said?

If you didn't agree with how I was using the term "true," the time to bring it up was then, not many pages afterwards.

If you're saying that you don't use the word "true" in the way that I do, then it's going to be awfully difficult for us to talk to each other. I don't "justify" my definition of "true." I *define* the word as meaning that a statement corresponds with reality so far as I can tell. As far as I can tell, that's how the word is generally used, so if you want to operate with some non-standard definition, you're going to have to make that clear.


ReplyQuote
Yeheshuah
(@yeheshuah)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 92
 

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

Los,

Don't get me wrong.  I am not retracting what I said earlier.  The exercise I proposed was to help us get clear on what it means to have a justified category.

So here is one place where you ask for a justification:

You are the one who argues that there's a certain group of claims that must be evaluated in a different way than all other claims are evaluated, but you haven't explained why this should be, other than to say "'cause mystics say so." I'm not sure what you want me to say to such an unconvincing argument, and I'm not sure what you think you're gaining by repeating your assertion, rather than justifying it.

I agree with you on the following: "I don't "justify" my definition of "true." I *define* the word as meaning that a statement corresponds with reality so far as I can tell."  This is where it all get's difficult.  To learn the language of truth, we must observe it in practice.  That is my point, more or less.  Otherwise, your definition will fall flat.  What is a correspondence? How could you hope to communicate such a thing to someone who does not seem to share your conceptual framework?  One way to do so is to get me to accept certain statements as instances of the proper use of "correspondence," and then, hopefully, I will see through the examples and achieve a grasp of your concept.

Yeheshuah

Love is the law, love under will.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 
"Los" wrote:
"Why would he make it up?"

"If God got mad at you, you must be telling the truth!"

Ha.  I'm watching it again!


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
Topic starter  
"Yeheshuah" wrote:
To learn the language of truth, we must observe it in practice. [...] One way to do so is to get me to accept certain statements as instances of the proper use of "correspondence," and then, hopefully, I will see through the examples and achieve a grasp of your concept.

But this is where you're being disingenuous (and where the comparison you're drawing starts to break down). You don't need someone to "get [you] to accept" my usage of "true." You already use this usage in your daily life when talking about 99% of claims. Nobody learns how to talk, think, or communicate as a child by being persuaded of a conceptual framework. Nobody's parents sit them down and read them from a textbook: "Truth is defined as that which corresponds to reality. Reality is defined as....Correspondence is defined as.....Examples are as follows....."

No, no one first learns to communicate that way. This is not how knowledge arises. Instead, all healthy developing minds discover that there is a relatively consistent universe revealed by our senses, that there are arbitrary labels we've come up with for aspects of that consistent universe, and that when we use labels to make a statement that is consistent with reality, we use the label "true" to designate such statements.

If you're asking me to "justify" the method that basically everybody uses to evaluate basically all the claims we encounter in our daily lives, it goes back to the foundations of thinking: reality is reality. If we're going to talk about the reality that we all encounter, then we need words to label parts of that reality. We also need a word that describes when other words accurately describe reality. That latter word is "true." Back in the day when language was being formed, people could have equally chosen the word "wuzzle wazzle," but they went with "true" instead.

What you seem to be proposing is that -- in a limited number of arbitrarily selected cases ("mystical claims") -- we ought to deviate from the way we evaluate all claims in all other cases. I don't see the justification for doing this. "Some guy says we should" is not exactly a compelling argument.


ReplyQuote
Yeheshuah
(@yeheshuah)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 92
 

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

Los,

You object that we do not learn language from a textbook, but you quote me as pointing to practice as the source of our learning.  Your attempts to win a rhetorical battle rather than find understanding is tying your argument up a bit here.

As to the set of cases I would point to being arbitrary:  "I do not think that means what you think it means."  The mystics made their claims before I hit the scene.  The cases are given rather than being taken up arbitrarily.

Finally, since you claim that 99% of our language is assessed in terms of truth, we should note that that is strictly speaking false.  Most of the time we just say what we say, no assessment necessary. 

Yeheshuah

Love is the law, love under will.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
Topic starter  

Yeheshuah,

I feel like you're doing an elaborate (and nitpicky) tap dance to avoid having to address my central point. I've already explained the justification for evaluating claims the way I do.

I'm waiting to hear your justification for declaring that a tiny group of claims need to be evaluated in an entirely different way. "Some guys say so" isn't a valid justification.


ReplyQuote
Yeheshuah
(@yeheshuah)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 92
 

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

Los,

The nitpicking is an unfortunate side effect of my having mirrored your own philosophical moves for you.  The point being made is that we can fight rhetorical battles or work toward understanding.

As to the justification question, I respond as you did: my linguistic usages are not something I justify.  Rather they are practices I have learned and inherited from others.  If you want to understand me, we need to get beyond the rhetoric and examine practices.  That requires the abandonment, only temporarily, of the way you approach reason and logic.  Consider it an empirical investigation into the possibilities of thought.

Yeheshuah

Love is the law, love under will.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5803
 
"Los" wrote:
I'm waiting to hear your justification for declaring that a tiny group of claims need to be evaluated in an entirely different way. "Some guys say so" isn't a valid justification.

Yes, Y.'., I'm waiting for that same "justification." You made the claim that mystical experience needs to be evaluated differently than, say, the exact hour-minute-second time of sunrise on a given date (tomorrow, for example). Nobody in their right mind will go along with you simply because "the mystics say so." I'm as good a mystic as any of them, and I don't say so 8)

You are avoiding the point with "linguistics" shuffling." The point is no longer "Did Jesus rise from the dead?" (which was never answered in a coherent manner), but now it is "Justify why a special approach needs to be made toward mystical experience."

In response to most direct questions, you are falling back on linguistic rhetoric and claiming special circumstances. Please proceed to the point or I'll have to consult with the other 41 judges about declaring a mistrial.

Whispered: "Can't we compel the witness to answer the question?

Answer: "No, only Thoth can do that ... and he's busy right now taking notes."[/align:14kzqz2n]


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 4132
 
"david" wrote:
"Los" wrote:
"Why would he make it up?"

"If God got mad at you, you must be telling the truth!"

Ha.  I'm watching it again!

What a pity, david, that you don't have something better to do with your time.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 
"Michael Staley" wrote:
"david" wrote:
"Los" wrote:
"Why would he make it up?"

"If God got mad at you, you must be telling the truth!"

Ha.  I'm watching it again!

What a pity, david, that you don't have something better to do with your time.

An entire 6m36s of my time.  You're not a fan then? 

P.S.

DWTWSBTWOTL


ReplyQuote
Yeheshuah
(@yeheshuah)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 92
 

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

Shiva,

For your sake and the sake of the other judges, let me try to make my position clearer.  As Los pointed out when I asked for his justification of his use of the language of truth, it is not something he justifies.  He defines the word "truth", and then uses the word in light of his definition.  And definitions, in linguistics, are rules for usage.  So I point to the need to look at practice.  No special tools for assessment are required.  I expect only to be allowed to rely on practice as much as Los relies on practice.

Los's "justification" for his use of the language of truth is what I had wanted him to point out to us all.  There is no clear sense to the demand for justification of usage.  We must observe usage, for use is something we do. 

I am not trying to dodge here.  The point (or a point) is that Los's reliance on reason is a practice rather than a realization of the fundamental laws of nature.  Los uses language in a particular way that leads him to make claims according to what he sees as the laws of reason.  That is fine, but it is a choice being made rather than a demand of the universe. 

The question as to whether Jesus rose from the dead was, in fact, addressed, but, from the perspective of reason, it was an incoherent mess.  But speaking in contradictions is by definition incoherent.  (And I have admitted to speaking in contradictions from the very beginning, as far as I remember.)  Incoherence in logic is a technical term for the assertion of a contradiction.  It is no wonder then that my response seemed incoherent.  It was.  But only from a certain perspective. 

How can I assert that there is another perspective from which to view contradictions? Practice.  But that does not reveal anything to anyone but the practitioner as far as I am aware.  So I have been working to get Los to try and examine language use from a different perspective, in the hopes that the view from where I stand will make things clearer.  No games.  Just an attempt to share a perspective.

The conversation, if we were to get to a point where Los could attempt to look at things from a different perspective, would begin by taking note of some favorite contradiction and trying to hold onto it without resolving it via tricks and equivocations.  So I would propose we stay with Thelemic contradictions, and look at: "This is so complete that not only 'Black is White,' but 'The Whiteness of Black is the essential of its Blackness.' 'Naught = One = Infinity'; but this is only true because of this threefold arrangement, a trinity or 'triangle of contradictories.'" (Book 4, the big blue brick, pg 41)  Others, of course, we can dig up if another contradiction is preferred.

Exploration and observation is what I am trying to get to. 

Yeheshuah

Love is the law, love under will.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5803
 
"Yeheshuah" wrote:
I am not trying to dodge here.

I believe that, and you seem both intelligent and sincere in trying to lead us into some alternate reality. Or is the term, separate reality ???

The point (or a point) is that Los's reliance on reason is a practice rather than a realization ...

Well, yes. We have been told, "Also reason is a lie; for there is a factor infinite & unknown; & all their words are skew-wise."

The question as to whether Jesus rose from the dead was, in fact, addressed, but, from the perspective of reason, it was an incoherent mess.

Uh huh!

But speaking in contradictions is by definition incoherent.

Oh yes. The American Indians (a contradiction in itself, as Colombo never reached India like he thought, yet the term persists) call it "White Man speaks with forked-tongue." Also, the Zen guys are really good at it.

It is no wonder then that my response seemed incoherent.  It was.  But only from a certain perspective.  How can I assert that there is another perspective from which to view contradictions? Practice.

You asked the right question. But your answer is "practice?" Practice implies doing something over and over again. Musical practice, baseball practice, asana practice. Well, in the case of medicine, a medical practice is where a doctor experiments on patients, and "patients" are supposed to be patient while waiting in waiting rooms and waiting to get cured.

So now I guess you have to define your version of "practice."

But that does not reveal anything to anyone but the practitioner as far as I am aware.

Oh no!  Then we're all lost?

So I have been working to get Los to try and examine language use from a different perspective, in the hopes that the view from where I stand will make things clearer.  No games.  Just an attempt to share a perspective.

Okay. That's fair enough. But why don't you just explain "where you stand" and what "your perspective" is from that viewpoint. When I say "explain," I mean in the common language. You see, nobody can change anybody else's perspective. Well, maybe if you use truth-serum drugs.

The conversation, if we were to get to a point where Los could attempt to look at things from a different perspective, would begin by taking note of some favorite contradiction and trying to hold onto it without resolving it via tricks and equivocations.

Holding on to a contradiction is the Zen practice I mentioned earlier. It is designed to "stop the mind" and produce "enlightenment. As U.G. said (quoted much earlier by me): "... what we call psychic powers -- clairvoyance, clairaudience, etc. -- are already there in the animals. We also have them in us. In the case of some, through techniques of meditation and such gimmicks, thought slows down. Then they experience these so-called powers, temporarily, and they think that they are all spiritual experiences."

So I would propose we stay with Thelemic contradictions, and look at: "This is so complete that not only 'Black is White,' but 'The Whiteness of Black is the essential of its Blackness.' 'Naught = One = Infinity'; but this is only true because of this threefold arrangement, a trinity or 'triangle of contradictories.'"

Yes, this is very exciting (to quote Crowley as he describes a mind breaking down). But Black is not White in everyday Malkuth. Black is black and White is white, and never the 'twain shall meet, except in the asylum ... or in the case of Gray. Crowley was a great one for always seeing opposites and always measuring some concept against its opposite. But it's just that old Zen stuff again. One cannot pull this stuff off in a court of law, or with a bank teller. Only in the realm of theoretical philosophy can one (you) get away with it and not end up in jail. "Philosophy is the enemy of Magick." - AC

Anyway, this forum has now gone on for pages and pages since you entered with Christ at your side. I mean, that's okay, but it's getting boring - because it's getting nowhere. Maybe Los will change his perspective now that you've explained to me what you want of him. But remember that old saying, "Don't hold your pranayama" 😀


ReplyQuote
Tao
 Tao
(@tao)
Member
Joined: 7 years ago
Posts: 316
 
"Shiva" wrote:
"Los" wrote:
I'm waiting to hear your justification for declaring that a tiny group of claims need to be evaluated in an entirely different way. "Some guys say so" isn't a valid justification.

Yes, Y.'., I'm waiting for that same "justification." You made the claim that mystical experience needs to be evaluated differently than, say, the exact hour-minute-second time of sunrise on a given date (tomorrow, for example). Nobody in their right mind will go along with you simply because "the mystics say so." I'm as good a mystic as any of them, and I don't say so 8)

For what it's worth, this particular assessor never understood Y to mean that mystical experience in particular required special treatment. I've understood Y's position to be that any item under discussion should be assessed on its own terms. Mystical experience just happens to be the current item under discussion. I believe this is what's being demonstrated in his recent post:

"Yeheshuah" wrote:

The system that I have explained can indeed evaluate mystical claims: most of these claims seem to be attempts to describe inner experiences.

This is a gloss on the experience of mystics which allows you to fit their experiences in with a point of view you brought to the table.  That is, you have a view of the world that prevents you from considering the mystical experience from any other angle.  If you want to grasp the categories I am proposing, then the categories must be granted and explored in practice.

Los seems to have already decided that "most" claims "seem" to be something. If that's where this discussion begins, there is very little hope of exploring experience reports with any expectation of unbiased objectivity because the lens through which he's going to view them has already been chosen.

You had a vision of the sun? That's most likely an inner experience.
You astrally projected across town? That's most likely an inner experience.
You united with Godhead and became eternity? That's most likely an inner experience.

None of these evaluations are based on an examination of the actual case at hand, they've already been decided by a particular way an individual person reads the world because he believes that 99% of humanity is identical to him. If the realm of "mystical experience" is deserving of special status, I should have thought it to be that it actively works to break that "common sense", hard-wired at childhood understanding of reality in order to allow one direct perception of what truly is.

If I'm wrong about this, please feel free to set me straight but, thus far, this is what I've been watching unfold from the jury box.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
Topic starter  
"Yeheshuah" wrote:
As to the justification question, I respond as you did: my linguistic usages are not something I justify.

But that's not how I responded. Here's how I responded:

If you're asking me to "justify" the method that basically everybody uses to evaluate basically all the claims we encounter in our daily lives, it goes back to the foundations of thinking: reality is reality. If we're going to talk about the reality that we all encounter, then we need words to label parts of that reality. We also need a word that describes when other words accurately describe reality. That latter word is "true." Back in the day when language was being formed, people could have equally chosen the word "wuzzle wazzle," but they went with "true" instead.

The justification for my method -- the one that, as far as I can tell, most people use -- is that reality exists and those who want to talk about reality need words for doing so and a word for describing when words accurately describe reality.

You apparently don't have a justification for whatever you're talking about.

If you want to understand me, we need to get beyond the rhetoric and examine practices.

No. We're talking about how to analyze claims, which is an entirely rational process. One evaluates the results of practice by applying reason to those results.

That requires the abandonment, only temporarily, of the way you approach reason and logic.

No. It requires us to discuss how to apply reason to the results of your practice. You are asserting that reason should be applied in a special way to the results of your practice, and I'm asking you why. You don't have an answer.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
Topic starter  
"Yeheshuah" wrote:
Los's reliance on reason is a practice rather than a realization of the fundamental laws of nature.

You're once again returning to this after we've been over it. Your statement here relies on the laws of thought, like all the statements you've made.

it is a choice being made rather than a demand of the universe.

No. The correct application of reason isn't a "choice" in the sense of being some arbitrary decision. There really are objective ways to correctly apply reason that do not depend on any single person or even the existence of people or minds at all.

I would propose we stay with Thelemic contradictions, and look at: "This is so complete that not only 'Black is White,' but 'The Whiteness of Black is the essential of its Blackness.'

Indeed. By conceiving of something, one is necessarily distinguishing it from everything that it is not, such every thought is dependent upon not-that-thought. It's in this sense that every thought can be said to have two "sides" to it, and each one is as essential to it as the two sides of the stick are to its stickness.

When I think of my desk, the essence of that idea is bound up in not-my-desk. The thought of the desk can't exist without not-my-desk. This is why every thought is only half-formed because the standard way that consciousness operates is to pay attention to only one "side" of a thought at once. We're always preferring one side of a thought to the other: that preference is what constitutes the thing we call "self."

Becoming cognizant of the process of thinking is indeed a new perspective. But it's not a new way to evaluate claims. This is where you're getting all confused. Your practice does open up new perspectives. That's what good practice does. But practice doesn't open up some new way to evaluate claims.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 4132
 
"david" wrote:
"Michael Staley" wrote:
"david" wrote:
"Los" wrote:
"Why would he make it up?"

"If God got mad at you, you must be telling the truth!"

Ha.  I'm watching it again!

What a pity, david, that you don't have something better to do with your time.

An entire 6m36s of my time.  You're not a fan then? 

P.S.

DWTWSBTWOTL

I don't watch much television, prefering to listen to the radio - in particular, Radio 4 and Radio 4 Extra, and sometimes Radio 5 Live when there's an Arsenal match featured. Above all I love listening to radio plays, relishing the stimulus to imagination.

No, if you want to watch South Park or anything else, great; I couldn't give a toss how you spend your time, obviously. I feel similarly when seeing someone eating a MacDonalds or - god forbid - KFC; garbage in, garbage out, but - as you intone - DWTWSBTWOTL.

Good round 'ere, innit?


ReplyQuote
Yeheshuah
(@yeheshuah)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 92
 

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

Los,

The judges have spoken.  The war is over.  Let's go home and leave with light hearts.

Yeheshuah

Love is the law, love under will.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5803
 
"Yeheshuah" wrote:
The judges have spoken.  The war is over.

I don't recall an armistice or a vistory-defeat being declared. Nor was a mistrial found to be valid.

Let's go home and leave with light hearts.

Those with "light hearts" may pass on to stand before the Dread Lord of the West (Osiris-Jesus), and then proceed further into the Tuat. There is no "going home." Whosoever "goes home" gets eaten by Ammit and has to reincarnate and do it all over again 'til he gets it right ("it" being a "light heart").

Of course, anybody can just quit the game at any time. That's why it is written: "It is wise to destroy your computer after the first round."


ReplyQuote
Yeheshuah
(@yeheshuah)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 92
 

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

Shiva,

Well, we don't want to disappoint.  If the war isn't over, then let us continue the fight ;D!

Los,

You seem to think that because you have said something, the case has been settled:

You're once again returning to this after we've been over it. Your statement here relies on the laws of thought, like all the statements you've made.

That is a pretty weak vision of dialogue.

What I have done is offered you the chance, however briefly you wish to travel down the rabbit hole with me, to consider matters in another light.  It is an offer of experience, experiment, empiricism and observation.  Put it this way: if you don't want to try out my categories, what basis do you have beyond a faithful clinging to reason for rejecting them?

Your laws of thought, by the way, are not held universally.  This, I think, you recognize.  The argument you are making is that they are implicit in all human thought.  So try on another way of thinking and see what happens to your laws.  Surely there is no danger in my proposal, is there?

Indeed. By conceiving of something, one is necessarily distinguishing it from everything that it is not, such every thought is dependent upon not-that-thought.

This last quote I just wanted to touch on before I finish my notes here.  That is an empirical psychological claim.  When I think that I am going to get a cup of coffee, I do not at the same time have the explicit thought that it is not the case that I am not going to have a cup of coffee.  By saying the page is white, I do not at the same time think that it is not black.  Logical implications don't map onto thought in this way.  You are preaching psychology without the data.

Yeheshuah

Love is the law, love under will.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 4132
 
"Yeheshuah" wrote:
Los,

You seem to think that because you have said something, the case has been settled:

Yes, that's pretty much it. Also sprach Los, as my young friend Friedrich Nietzsche might have put it.

Time to consider more fruitful pursuits perhaps, such as bashing one's head repeatedly against a brick wall, or watching paint dry.

Weary, weary, saith the scribe . . .


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5803
 
"Michael Staley" wrote:
Time to consider more fruitful pursuits perhaps, such as bashing one's head repeatedly against a brick wall ...

[sup:2venayri][/sup:2venayri]
;D Keep a knockin' but you can't come in! ;D[/align:2venayri]


ReplyQuote
Aleisterion
(@aleisterion)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 348
 

Michael  Staley wrote:

"Time to consider more fruitful pursuits perhaps, such as  bashing one's head  repeatedly against a brick wall, or watching paint dry."

Hilarious!  You know, los couldn't have been more wrong when he declared (ex cathedra, of course, as he always does), that you contribute nothing to a conversation. With a short sentence you turn a dull and arduous going into a laugh-fest! Thank you for that.

You're right, though, which is why I never take the bait these days and engage in argument. I've learned that applying Thelemic Law to every aspect of life really does make for better living. E.g., "argue not; convert not; talk not overmuch!" Arguing with someone who has made up his mind is a complete waste of time and energy. Of course one could go on and on with him, but he will never appreciate where one is coming from, as he lacks the same set of experiences that form one's differing perspective. It isn't merely a single extraordinary event, or even a few, that lead to such a perspective, but countless of the same -- so many in fact that the possibility of coincidence becomes nil.

I could be wrong, naturally. Unlike los, I admit to being fallible. But if I am, then at least I can say that it is one hell of a ride on which I find myself. His way is hardly as exciting and enthralling as this. He may paint me as wrong to his heart's content, but I'd rather spend my time doing the work that thrills me so than waste it in fruitless and boring argumentation.


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1114
 
"Los" wrote:
... I submit that it is impossible to discover the True Will without having a crystal clear understanding of one’s goals, how one’s practices enable one to achieve these goals, why one would think that such practices *would* enable one to achieve these goals, and the criteria by which one judges success in these practices.

As a result, it is in the interest of every practitioner to interrogate his or her methods of working with a sharp critical eye.

I have thought about the above quote from the OP to this thread, where it is claimed that "... it is impossible to discover the True Will without having a crystal clear understanding of one’s goals ...", in respect of The Book of the Law, wherein it in verse 44. in the first chapter, is claimed that "... pure will, unassuaged of purpose, delivered from the lust of result, is every way perfect."

And I am curious about how it is that the said claim within the OP of this thread, concerning that one can not discover one's True Will without a clear understanding of one’s intended results, does not contradict The Book of the Law's claim concerning that "... pure will, unassuaged of purpose, delivered from the lust of result, is every way perfect."

Within verse 34 of the first chapter of The Book of the Law, it is also claimed that "... the ordeals I write not: the rituals shall be half known and half concealed: the Law is for all."

But if "... it is impossible to discover the True Will without having a crystal clear understanding of one’s goals ...", it might be the case that The Book of the Law's claim concerning that "... the Law is for all.", is true only on the condition that all on an individual and personal basis, have "... a crystal clear understanding of one’s goals, how one’s practices enable one to achieve these goals, why one would think that such practices *would* enable one to achieve these goals, and the criteria by which one judges success in these practices." 


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1114
 

(All emphasis added by me:)

As already noticed bye me earlier in in this thread, it is within the OP to this thread, claimed that "... it is impossible to discover the True Will without having a crystal clear understanding of one’s goals, how one’s practices enable one to achieve these goals, why one would think that such practices *would* enable one to achieve these goals, and the criteria by which one judges success in these practices."

And I am also curious about how the aforementioned claim, does not contradict the following verses quoted from the second and middle chapter of The Book of the Law:   

"27. There is great danger in me; for who doth not understand these runes shall make a great miss. He shall fall down into the pit called Because, and there he shall perish with the dogs of Reason. 28. Now a curse upon Because and his kin! 29. May Because be accursed for ever! 30. If Will stops and cries Why, invoking Because, then Will stops & does nought. 31. If Power asks why, then is Power weakness. 32. Also reason is a lie; for there is a factor infinite & unknown; & all their words are skew-wise. 33. Enough of Because! Be he damned for a dog!"


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
Topic starter  
"Yeheshuah" wrote:
Los,

You seem to think that because you have said something, the case has been settled

I think that when I make a solid argument and you have no valid response, the good bet is that the one of us who can actually make and defend a position is correct.

What I have done is offered you the chance, however briefly you wish to travel down the rabbit hole with me, to consider matters in another light.  It is an offer of experience, experiment, empiricism and observation.  Put it this way: if you don't want to try out my categories, what basis do you have beyond a faithful clinging to reason for rejecting them?

We've been over this already. I explained why I use reason, and you agreed that using reason as a reliable tool is not equivalent to religious faith. That being the case, why should someone use a different method of evaluating claims?

You're dancing like mad to avoid giving an answer to that question. You don't have an answer because what your position boils down to is that you're just randomly deciding to use a different method of evaluating a certain number of claims because you personally want those claims to mean something more than the simple fact that you had a meaningful inner experience.

What it sounds like to me is that you've had a powerful inner experience as a result of practice and you then developed an elaborate framework to try to justify to yourself that what you experienced was something more than an inner experience. The problem is, when you come up against someone who asks you to explain and justify your framework, you can't do it.

I'm not saying that your experience wasn't important to you. I'm saying that you have no reason to think that it was anything other than an inner experience.

When I think that I am going to get a cup of coffee, I do not at the same time have the explicit thought that it is not the case that I am not going to have a cup of coffee.

Correct. But in order to have the thought, your brain has to separate out that thought from everything that's not that thought. Not-getting-a-cup-of-coffee is essential to getting-a-cup-of-coffee. The one couldn't exist without the other. We might even say that not-getting-a-cup-of-coffee is the getting-a-coffee-ness of getting-a-cup-of-coffee.

On the path to the highest levels of attainment, one puts each thought next to its opposite and refuses to prefer either. Refuses to prefer. That's the important part, because "preference" is what constitutes "selfness." The Master of the Temple doesn't prefer getting a coffee over not-getting-a-cup-of-coffee. But he also doesn't prefer not-getting-a-cup-of-coffee, so when it's his True Will to go get one, he has no reason to stand in the way of that Will.

"Above the abyss" doesn't refer to being in some kind of blissed-out trance at all times, nor does it involve claims that have to be evaluated in new and strange ways. It refers, basically, to being aware of the process of thought, which is how the illusion of a "thinker" (and a "self") is produced in the first place.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
Topic starter  
"Aleisterion" wrote:
I never take the bait these days and engage in argument.

Except for just a few posts back on this thread, of course.

I've learned that applying Thelemic Law to every aspect of life really does make for better living. E.g., "argue not; convert not; talk not overmuch!"

Nice work applying your weird interpretation on this thread.

Arguing with someone who has made up his mind is a complete waste of time and energy.

Well, that's just false. I've personally had the experience of changing the minds of people who had previously made up their minds. What do you think, that making up one's mind is some magical absolute irreversible state? 

[Los] lacks the same set of experiences that form one's differing perspective.

No two people have the same experiences. But that doesn't make the weak-sauce arguments you were presenting earlier in this thread any better. 

Unlike los, I admit to being fallible.

You don't actually read my posts, do you?

[Los'] way is hardly as exciting and enthralling as [the "hell of a ride on which I find myself"].

This is exactly what you religionists always say. You think reality is too "boring," and you think that pretending that magic is real is "exciting" -- or pretending that Jesus is your savior is "enriching," or whatever your particular flavor of religion is.

I'm looking forward to enjoying your performance of your magical power of silence.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
Topic starter  
"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
I am also curious about how the aforementioned claim, does not contradict the following verses quoted from the second and middle chapter of The Book of the Law:   

"27. There is great danger in me; for who doth not understand these runes shall make a great miss. He shall fall down into the pit called Because, and there he shall perish with the dogs of Reason. 28. Now a curse upon Because and his kin! 29. May Because be accursed for ever! 30. If Will stops and cries Why, invoking Because, then Will stops & does nought. 31. If Power asks why, then is Power weakness. 32. Also reason is a lie; for there is a factor infinite & unknown; & all their words are skew-wise. 33. Enough of Because! Be he damned for a dog!"

http://thelema-and-skepticism.blogspot.com/2011/09/profiles-in-ignorance-2-misinterpreting_10.html


ReplyQuote
Aleisterion
(@aleisterion)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 348
 

Los,

I never said that minds cannot be changed through healthy debate. What I said was that arguing with fixed minds is pointless. You seem to have made up your mind that you're right on the matter and that everyone who thinks otherwise is flat-out wrong. I on the other hand am willing to admit -- in spite of so many transmundane experiences indicating otherwise -- that I could be mistaken. Also you lump everyone in the same category. I am not a religionist at all in the same way that a fundamentalist Christian is. There is a huge difference between one who abuses children, for example, by denying them medical attention in favor of prayer, and one whose notion of divinity is an extension of human/animal consciousness and is in agreement with science. The latter has a healthy view of reality, whereas the former clearly does not, and denies that science is valid because it differs with the bible.

Another thing you do is insult those with whom you disagree. I don't really mind that you refer to my interpretations as "weird", but you draw conclusions like this without making a real effort first to try to understand exactly what I'm saying. Your recent drunken ad hominem attack on Michael Staley, however -- asserting that he contributes nothing -- is an excellent case in point. He has contributed many excellent works, ideas, and practices, here and elsewhere, that have done a lot more to expand on the work of Aleister Crowley than you have done. I'm not trying to insult you, I'm simply saying that it might be nobler to show a bit more respect rather than hurling insults and jeers.


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1114
 
"Aleisterion" wrote:
Los,[...] You seem to have made up your mind that you're right on the matter and that everyone who thinks otherwise is flat-out wrong. [...] Also you lump everyone in the same category. I am not a religionist at all in the same way that a fundamentalist Christian is. There is a huge difference between one who abuses children, for example, by denying them medical attention in favor of prayer, and one whose notion of divinity is an extension of human/animal consciousness and is in agreement with science. The latter has a healthy view of reality, whereas the former clearly does not, and denies that science is valid because it differs with the bible. ...

The quote from Los at the bottom of this posting, quoted from page 5 a thread titled The expression "True Will", clearly demonstrates an approach to Crowley's writings concerning Thelema, or to what Crowley considered to be the most holy book of Thelema, The Book of the Law, that is not religious. Because Crowley's writings concerning Thelema, within the said approach, are understood as being trumped by The Book of the Law itself, and the latter book itself, is understood as trumped by reality. 

So even if you Aleisterion are "not a religionist at all in the same way that a fundamentalist Christian is.", Los' approach to the Thelema associated with Aleister Crowley, an approach which is not religious but subordinate to reality, will still be in conflict with your approach to the said Thelema, Aleisterion, if your approach to the said Thelema, does not correspond to reality.

"Los" wrote:
As I said in an earlier post, I think that what we call "Thelema" primarily comes from Crowley's writings (his interpretations of the Book of the Law), but that his writings are trumped by the Book itself, and the Book itself is trumped by reality. That is to say, if Crowley says something that can be demonstrated to be in conflict with the Book, then I'll go with the Book over Crowley. And if the Book says something that can be demonstrated to be in conflict with reality, then I'll go with reality.

ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 4132
 
"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
Because Crowley's writings concerning Thelema, within the said approach, are understood as being trumped by The Book of the Law itself, and the latter book itself, is understood as trumped by reality.

Understood by who? This certainly isn't my understanding.

What's this "reality" to which you refer? What's your definition of it?


ReplyQuote
Yeheshuah
(@yeheshuah)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 92
 

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

Los, 

About the use of reason, this is actually what I wrote:

On your point that the use of logic and evidence is not the same as religious faith, I am inclined to agree with your point.  But clinging to a logical system uncritically, as clinging to a particular geometry or outdated picture of the solar system, moves the thinker from a position of conditioned knowledge toward something like religious faith.

So if you do not want to experiment with alternative modes of thinking, there may be a pull on you toward the religious end of the spectrum.  (Your arguments lately seem to come down to "But you said that..." while ignoring what I actually said... or misunderstanding what was said.  You talk alot more about what you think I am arguing then what I am arguing.)

On the issue of dancing, the frustration you are experiencing is your inability to get reason to work according to your will.  For instance, you talk alot about justification, but don't have a grasp of what that means.  In linguistic investigations, for instance, demonstrating that a category is used in a particular way is done simply by observing usage.  I have observed mystics speaking in contradictions.  So have you, apparently.  And many of us, though not all, understand those contradictions in ways that do not allow for resolution via equivocation and other moves that dissolve the contradiction.  Therefore, observed use favors my categories.  Justification in linguistic investigations is simply the observation of use.

You wrote:

in order to have the thought, your brain has to separate out that thought from everything that's not that thought.

This, again, is an empirical psychological claim for which you need data.  You can't derive facts of the world from philosophical premises.  You need to observe the world, engage it. 

Logic is basically a bunch of rules for transforming tautologies into other tautologies.  Nothing in the conclusion of a deductively valid argument can be new information.  So long as you carry on in your unfamiliarity with the textbook logic that you seem to despise, you will go on making up empirical claims without data and thinking your gaining insight into the way of the world. 

We can, by the way, stop the dancing, and just observe some contradictions for a while, see what we can learn, see what ways of holding contradictions are possible.

Yeheshuah

Love is the law, love under will


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 
"Michael Staley" wrote:

No, if you want to watch South Park or anything else, great;.... I feel similarly when seeing someone eating a MacDonalds or - god forbid - KFC; garbage in, garbage out, but - as you intone - DWTWSBTWOTL.

Good round 'ere, innit?

Have you actually watched any episodes?  So South Park is "garbage" TV and not really intelligent, witty, boundary-pushing satire? 


ReplyQuote
gurugeorge
(@gurugeorge)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 456
 
"Los" wrote:
Correct. But in order to have the thought, your brain has to separate out that thought from everything that's not that thought. Not-getting-a-cup-of-coffee is essential to getting-a-cup-of-coffee. The one couldn't exist without the other. We might even say that not-getting-a-cup-of-coffee is the getting-a-coffee-ness of getting-a-cup-of-coffee.

You've got to be careful here talking about "what the brain does".  The brain doesn't have thoughts, it doesn't cognize "coffee" or any such thing.  Those are artefacts of culture and mind, which are high level abstractions of "what people do" and "what brains do in the context of what people do".  The brain just gets patterned inputs from the senses and shuffles around biochemical and electrical signals, which results in the occurrence of the kinds of subtle visual, verbal and aural hallucinations we call "thoughts", and  also results in particular movements of the body.  Then, culture and mind are high level abstractions or "chunkings" of what one might call repeatable and recognizable styles of those doings (somewhat similar to the way an "A" is recognizable despite font).  Culture is a style of interaction of a people, a style of passing symbols to and fro (mythology, language); and one's mind is the style of one's particular brain working with those symbols.

The logic or semantics of the word "coffee" has these properties you're talking about, but that's an artefact of culture, which we introject, and play about with in our particular style (which is our mind).  It doesn't mean there's any process going on in the brain that's mirroring or representing that logic (although sometimes there can be, if one is working explicitly and self-reflexively with logic and symbols).  The mind, on the other hand, doesn't have "inner processes" (that's one of those tricky traps Wittgenstein warns us about).

To put this another way, it's quite ridiculous to think that a distinction that only makes sense in terms of language, has any actual meaning out there in the physical world.  The physical world is just synactics - clickety-clack, causal mechanisms all the way down.  Semantics and logic only appear at the level of mind and culture, which are not causal processes, but rather something more like dances or rituals which may involve picking things up and putting them down (everyday interactions), putting them in our mouths (e.g. eating), poking and prodding them (science).  It's the sequence of the "dance" that holds the meaning or logic (and in terms of reference to the real world, where and when our "dance" conforms to the way the world happens to go).  One learns to use words in a certain way, to pass symbols to and fro in a certain way - and while there is certainly a process going on "in the mind" (as we say) that involves characteristic thoughts (e.g. the word "coffee" might bring to mind a Proustian whiff of freshly ground coffee as a memory), that mental process has nothing to do with the meaning of "coffee", whose logic (i.e. "correct" or "incorrect" placement in conversation and squiggles like this) stands outside of any particular mind, and is something that individual minds have to conform to (or not).

On the path to the highest levels of attainment, one puts each thought next to its opposite and refuses to prefer either. Refuses to prefer. That's the important part, because "preference" is what constitutes "selfness." The Master of the Temple doesn't prefer getting a coffee over not-getting-a-cup-of-coffee. But he also doesn't prefer not-getting-a-cup-of-coffee, so when it's his True Will to go get one, he has no reason to stand in the way of that Will.

So what causes either the "refusal to prefer" or the getting or not getting of the cup of coffee?  It seems disingenuous to deny that it's simply one's preference, either to refuse to prefer, or to prefer.

It's a similar semantic knot, as with the concept of Fate: "what will be will be", certainly, but that is a totally empty and uninformative phrase, it's not saying anything concrete about the world, but just tracing one's finger around the grammar of terms that involve the concepts of time and causality.

Or again, it's a similar semantic knot with the concept of "will" as applied to True Will.  True Will as opposed to "False Will"?  But what on earth could that possibly mean?  All one's wills are one's "True Wills" in that sense. 

The correct resolution is really that the "true" in True Will is more like in the sense of an arrow that hits its mark, in the sense of "straight and true" - i.e. it's an effective will that actually gets something done.  For that to happen, the psychosoma needs to be "streamlined" and that's where a lot of what you are talking about comes in (the psychoanalytic aspect, so to speak).  Smoothing out one's complexes, un-complicating the "veils", sorting out one's thinking and being realistic about the world and about one's potentialities.

"Above the abyss" doesn't refer to being in some kind of blissed-out trance at all times, nor does it involve claims that have to be evaluated in new and strange ways. It refers, basically, to being aware of the process of thought, which is how the illusion of a "thinker" (and a "self") is produced in the first place.

Ay ay, as always I agree very much with some aspects of what you (and Erwin) are saying, but I still think there's something you guys are missing.  The trouble is it's really difficult to pin-point.

Perhaps one way of saying it would be: if it were as you say, then there'd be essentially little difference between Thelema and Zen, because what you're saying here is effectively just a paraphrase of numerous Chinese texts along similar lines, starting with the Xinxin Ming ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinxin_Ming).

But Thelema is not Zen.

Perhaps the problem is that you're so desperate to bring Thelema down to a level that you can understand, that you don't give room to the possibility of there being things you don't understand - yet.  (Or to put it another way, read the first chapter of the Eliphas Levi book that AC translated, where he talks about the distinction between science and religion, about the threshold between the known and the unknown.)

See, I kind of agree with a lot of the mockery you have of "traditional", "spooky" interpretations of this stuff.  Yes, the witchy goth posturing is often laughable, and often completely misses the mark, and some people here and on other boards connected with Crowley do talk the most godawful rubbish.  But on the other hand, I'd rather have all that variegated lunacy than your attempt to bring this stuff down to your level. 

There's something open, innocent, deeply honest and questing about the former, and something deeply dishonest and smug about what you're doing, even though it "makes sense" to a degree (cf. John St. John "hugging myself, as it were"). 

I think I quoted this AC bit before, but it's always apt in these conversations with you guys:-

Better get forty shillings or a month that live and die as lived and died John Bright!

Better be a Shaker, or a camp-meeting homunculus, or a Chataqua girl, or a Keswick week lunatic, or an Evan Roberts revivalist, or even a common maniac, than a smug Evangelical banker's clerk with a greasy wife and three gifted children -- to be bank clerks after him!

Better be a flagellant, or one who dances as David danced before the Lord, than a bishop who is universally respected, even by the boys he used to baste when he was headmaster of a great English public school!

That is, if religion is your aim: if you are spiritually minded: if you interpret every phenomenon that is presented to your sensorium as a particular dealing of God with your soul.

But if you come back from the celebration of the Eucharist and say, "Mr. Hogwash was very dull to-day," you will never get to heaven, where the good poets live, and nobody else; nor to hell, whose inhabitants are exclusively bad poets.

What you guys are trying to do with Thelema often seems to me to be reminiscent of the Great Sorcery that occurred with Christianity - the culling of the prophetic, the fixing of the gospel into a "canon", the tamping-down of individual madness, the bringing of it all down to something catholic that rational people can sensibly agree on and that anyone can get on board with because it's ever so rational, and has had all the embarrassing dangly bits snipped away.

No: the embarrassing dangly bits are part of it.  Not that there's anything wrong with a rational interepretation of Thelema.  It's true and necessary.  But the madness is also true and necessary and the mad will find their way, one way or another, while people like you and Erwin will remain, along with your intellectual and spiritual ancestors who derailed Christianity, "purse-proud penniless ones that stand at the door of the tavern and revile the guests."

Let the ship of fools go where it will.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 4132
 
"david" wrote:
"Michael Staley" wrote:

No, if you want to watch South Park or anything else, great;.... I feel similarly when seeing someone eating a MacDonalds or - god forbid - KFC; garbage in, garbage out, but - as you intone - DWTWSBTWOTL.

Good round 'ere, innit?

So South Park is "garbage" TV and not really intelligent, witty, boundary-pushing satire?  My instincts (high-speed assessment of environmental information) were right.

I didn't say that; nor did I infer it; nor did I intend it. My aside had in mind your DWTWSBTWOTL. However, doubtless your scrabble letters apply equally to your right to interpret a post "as thou wilt".


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5803
 

WARNING - Thread Deviation in progress. Personal preferences in dispute over non-Thelemic Practice ...

Unless we say "Man has the right to like what he will." ... or ... "Man has the right to dislike what he will."

And that being said, perhaps we should return to the Hall of Ma'at, where Ani is in danger of being devoured by Ammit (Hamid?) and the whole outcome being in a state of delicate balance over the definitions of Logic and Reality.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 
"Shiva" wrote:
WARNING - Thread Deviation in progress. Personal preferences in dispute over non-Thelemic Practice ...

Unless we say "Man has the right to like what he will." ... or ... "Man has the right to dislike what he will."

And that being said, perhaps we should return to the Hall of Ma'at, where Ani is in danger of being devoured by Ammit (Hamid?) and the whole outcome being in a state of delicate balance over the definitions of Logic and Reality.

End of South Park discussion for me.  Continue.


ReplyQuote
Yeheshuah
(@yeheshuah)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 92
 

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

Los,

Since you appear not to be schooled in logic, relying on the three laws alone won't get you too far, I thought it would be interesting to ask you to try and find where I have made a fallacious move and then see if we can classify it for you. 

Also, I was thinking you all may enjoy the following article on intelligence estimates and levels of training: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect .  It is pertinent to the current debate, I assure you.

Yeheshuah

Love is the law, love under will.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5803
 
"gurugeorge" wrote:
True Will as opposed to "False Will"?

Yes, I've asked that same question. Oriental Medicine defines Zhi ("Will") as the "aspect" of the Water element - the Kidney organ. But then, like Chi, Zhi has various aspects (there are 28 to 31 types of Chi defined), including those categories we would define in English as Ancestral, Inherited [DNA], Reproductive, Vitality, Essence, Source, etc., all of which are a form of Will. But there is no "False Will."

All one's wills are one's "True Wills" in that sense.

😉 

True Will ... it's an effective will that actually gets something done.

"Success is your proof."

But Thelema is not Zen.

No it isn't ... but there are some similarities. When Y.'. offers exercises in holding two contradictory concepts at the same time, he is coming closer to Zen than to Christianity.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 
"Los" wrote:
"david" wrote:
an Indian faith healer, Shashi Sharma Sr who murdered a woman because she walked in on him in one of his "ceremonies" where he was sexually molesting a young girl.  He had so much respect within that Canadian-Indian (Toronto) community that none of the (idiots) people would believe that he was up to no good.  They used to pay him substantial amounts of money for healing ceremonies and spiritual guidance.  He was also a bhakti practitioner.  You see where this is going?  Then we have the revered Catholic priests who get away with child abuse.  Now, don't get me wrong if these guys were materialist-atheists then they would've probably been equally twisted but..they weren't so we don't know.  People accepting strange ideas without question is a recipe for disaster.

Well, I think the important point here is not that believing wacky things necessarily makes people act in such harmful ways, but that there are a lot of harmful people who are protected by the gullibility and credulousness of the people around them, traits that are strengthened by the idea that it's good to accept beliefs uncritically.

What religious people often promote is a species of credulousness: "I felt it, so I believe it, and that's good enough for me." Michael basically said as much earlier in the thread, and so did Aleisterion. These sorts of people don't care if there are objective criteria for evaluating their claims: they've got a few special claims that they want to accept, so they do, and if someone points out the problems in their position, then they dismiss these critiques as "just an opinion."

This credulousness would be fine if each person lived in a bubble where our thoughts, words, and deeds never affected anybody else, but that's obviously not the world we live in. The problem is that credulousness is dangerous. Uncritically accepting ideas -- and promoting the uncritical acceptance of ideas -- poisons people's minds by training their brains to give assent to claims that just are not justified.

Cases like the ones you cite are just the tip of the iceberg. Let's not forget the organized movements of people who want to fight gay marriage, who oppose the teaching of science in public schools, who want to criminalize abortion, who favor government subsidies for "faith-based" organizations (regardless of the qualifications of these organizations), who want to install Ten Commandment monuments on government land in America, etc., etc.

And all of that isn't going anywhere near the climate of regressive opinions people hold about sexuality, gender, free expression, etc.

And all of that isn't going anywhere near the threat posed to civilization by maniacs who think it's their religious duty to kill others in the name of Islam.

There's a common theme tying together these serious problems: people who refuse to think critically about their beliefs and who want to just accept stuff because it "feels" right to them.

People who promote the uncritical acceptance of claims are ultimately aiding and abetting these dangerous groups.

Yes and in some respects, therefore we are still in the Dark Ages. 


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 
"Yeheshuah" wrote:
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law!

As to the justification question, I respond as you did: my linguistic usages are not something I justify.  Rather they are practices I have learned and inherited from others.

Does that include how you would evaluate that it can be demonstrated that e.g.  ten pieces of wood minus three pieces of wood equals seven pieces of wood?

"Yeheshuah" wrote:
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law!

Shiva,

For your sake and the sake of the other judges, let me try to make my position clearer.  As Los pointed out when I asked for his justification of his use of the language of truth, it is not something he justifies.  He defines the word "truth", and then uses the word in light of his definition.  And definitions, in linguistics, are rules for usage.  So I point to the need to look at practice.  No special tools for assessment are required.  I expect only to be allowed to rely on practice as much as Los relies on practice.

Although there are no direct historical traces of the emergence of complex language, what were pre-speech hominids using in relation to how they functioned within their environment e.g. in organizing a hunting session?  Presumably they gestured and grunted without grammar, verbs or nouns or written symbols like any other primates.  Even in modern times there have been highly unusual cases where children have had to rear themselves in the wild without learning language and they hunted animals to survive.  Is complex linguistic communication necessary in order to evaluate claims that are likely to be true?  In both these examples they would e.g. know that they  were hungry, they saw that there were wild boars (etc) and they would know from experience that their sharpened sticks would do the job.  Likewise when I'm hungry I see what I have stored and then I cook a meal.  There's hardly any recourse to abstract "buts" and "what ifs" involved in those decisions.  You also function in this manner when you feel hungry don't you?


ReplyQuote
gnosomai
(@gnosomai-emauton)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 29
 
"david" wrote:
Is complex linguistic communication necessary in order to evaluate claims that are likely to be true?

If we are to believe your own guru's guru, then yes, it is. (emphasis mine):

In other words, what we call “truth” is itself a rational phenomenon arising from whether or not our rational faculty decides a particular candidate for truth is in accordance with its own rational rules. It is not possible, in a sense, to evaluate the “truth-detecting” ability of reason by comparing it to some kind of “absolute truth”, because the “truth” we begin with it itself a rational phenomenon, and cannot be evaluated outside of that context. Fortunately for us, this is empty philosophical speculation, because not only does this notion of comparison to “absolute truth” make no practical difference to anyone or anything, but the whole concept of “absolute truth” (i.e. “absolute” meaning outside of the human reason) becomes completely meaningless when we remember that “truth” is a rational concept in the first place. You might as well attempt to argue that smelling is philosophically untenable if you are unable to detect “absolute smells” outside of any individual’s sensory apparatus. “Truth” is a standard created by and contained within the reason; it makes no sense at all to try to look for it somewhere else in the universe, and the inability to do so should therefore be no source of concern whatsoever. The religious-occult tendency to believe “truth” to be some actual thing out there in the universe to which “rational truth” should be approximated should be resisted, because there is no such thing. “Truth” is merely a rational measure of how well our mental approximations appear to match up with what is perceived by our senses, and the religious fantasy that there is some kind of “absolute truth” existing out there somewhere should be discarded.

http://www.erwinhessle.com/blog/?p=402

"david" wrote:
In both these examples they would e.g. know that they  were hungry, they saw that there were wild boars (etc) and they would know from experience that their sharpened sticks would do the job.  Likewise when I'm hungry I see what I have stored and then I cook a meal.  There's hardly any recourse to abstract "buts" and "what ifs" involved in those decisions.  You also function in this manner when you feel hungry don't you?

It seems as if you're speaking of experiential knowledge here rather than reasoned "truth". You are experiencing pangs of hunger which is providing you with direct gnosis, courtesy of your nephesh/guph. However, the reuse of sharpened sticks is a case of reasoned deduction that did include "buts" and "what ifs", very likely motivated by a few dead primates in the early testing stages.

Unless you're willing to step out of your rational box for a bit and come play with the experiential hippies and weirdos, the pangs -- as you are generally so willing to point out -- have no explanatory power, do they? Unless you're speaking of Absolute Truth here? The kind that only Religionistas and Robed Victorian Masons believe in? It couldn't be that, could it?

Your usage confuses.


ReplyQuote
Page 10 / 17
Share: