You don't think you'll have to figure it out on your own? Do you really think books, or other people, are going to lead you to the K&C?

Do you just have your head that far up some yours, or someone else's ass, or what?

I know. Try not to gush too much.

Way to miss the point. First of all, I can't recall off the top of my head if there's any place where Crowley directly says that he thinks the reason -- that is, the main or only reason -- to accept Thelema is that it comes from a preternatural intelligence, but let's grant this claim for the sake of argument. Suppose Newton had said that the reason to accept Calculus is that it was delivered to him by God. Wouldn't Newton have been incorrect on that point? Would it not be the case that Calculus is -- in and of itself -- a useful tool whose usefulness is unrelated to its purported origins? Would it not be the case that the actual, valid reason to accept Calculus is that it is useful, not that it supposedly came from a God?

And in our hypothetical world where Newton hypothetically attributed Calculus to the Christian God, it still wouldn't be a "no true Scotsman" fallacy to point out that the actual system of Calculus is unrelated to its purported origins.

You're the one who keeps bringing up "belief"; others speak of "certainty".

Yes, lots of religious folks are quite certain in their beliefs. You can find lots of people who are certain that they have a "relationship" with Jesus Christ and are certain that you, ignant666, will burn forever in Hell for being a dupe of Satan. They are certain of this because they are certain that they have "experienced" Jesus. They have lots of beliefs and lots of certainty about those beliefs, backed up by their "experience."

Religious people often construct beliefs about their experiences ("I had an experience...and my rational mind concludes it was an experience of Jesus!" or "I had an experience...and my rational mind concludes it was an experience of a preterhuman intelligence!"). The more certain they feel about these beliefs, the less likely they are to notice gross errors that their rational minds have made in drawing these conclusions and constructing these beliefs. If they weren't so quick to embrace their feelings of certainty, they might question those rational conclusions, as the Book of the Law warns us to do.

All of that is to say that certainty is for idiots. Of that, I am close to certain.

Sure.

The gist of the passage is that we cannot draw conclusions about the ultimate validity of anything, but our inability to do so -- happily for us -- has no impact at all on our ability to draw practical conclusions.

Crowley explicitly says as much toward the end of the passage:

It might be supposed that the above chain of reasoning made all conclusions impossible. But this is only true when we investigate the ultimate validity of our propositions. We can rely on water boiling at 100 degrees Centigrade

So in other words, Crowley spends much of the passage you quoted arguing -- as he does in several places -- that knowledge, when it is conceived as ultimate or absolute, is circular and that absolute knowledge is therefore impossible. Near the end of the passage, he explains that the inability to have absolute knowledge does not prevent us from having practical knowledge.

I'm not sure where you're getting your interpretation from:

First of all, I'll just set to the side your childish use of the words "holy science," which is a lame attempt on your part to imply -- quite falsely -- that people with sensible views of the world treat science like a religion.

Second of all, Crowley's purpose here is not at all to show that science "fails at finding true answers," as demonstrated by the fact that he points out that people can determine the temperature at which water boils. His purpose is to show that our ideas about reality are not absolute. We can draw valid conclusions about things, but these conclusions aren't absolute statements that hold true in all circumstances and at all times.

He even provides a great example of this at the end of that passage: it's true that water boils at 100 degrees, but that statement is not an absolute, super-precise truth in all cases. Every instance of boiling water is a little different, and the exact boiling point -- if we were able to measure each instance of boiling with super-precision -- would appear to be a little, tiny bit different each time. If we want to go even further, as Crowley reminds us, we can't absolutely "know" what water is because the word "water" can only be defined in terms of other words, which can only be defined in other words, etc., etc.

So the point is that -- if we're speaking in terms of absolute knowledge -- it's impossible to know for sure what water is or at what temperature it boils. Yet, for all that, people do recognize water when they see it, and they do know what temperature to heat it to in order to get it to boil. That's not a paradox: it's just using the word "know" in two very distinct ways.

Here's a perhaps more concrete example: let's say that you, Chris, go to the roof of a very tall building and leap off and flap your arms very quickly. Do you know what will happen to you? We could argue that, in a strictly philosophical "absolute" sense of the word "know," you cannot know for sure what will happen. After all, every situation is different. Other people have fallen from great heights, but your situation will be different in so many gazillion tiny little ways that there's no basis for comparison. You can't be absolutely certain that the same thing that happened to other people who fell from great heights will happen to you. Furthermore, we must examine our terms. What do we even mean by "chris" or "roof" or "leap" or "height"? Those individual terms only have meaning in relation to each other and in relation to other terms that are equally ill-defined, so we can't say that we "know" what any of those terms mean in any ultimate, absolute sense. All of which is to say that, ultimately, nobody knows what will happen if you leap off a tall building.

However, the fact remains that you know perfectly well what will happen to you in that situation. The reason for this is that when we say that we "know" something in everyday speech, we're not talking about absolute knowledge: we're talking about practical knowledge, the kind that Crowley demonstrates when he reveals that he knows the temperature at which water boils.

So, the fact that you can't *absolutely* know what will happen in that situation is irrelevant because absolute knowledge doesn't exist. Practical knowledge does.

This distinction between absolute knowledge and practical knowledge is a theme that Crowley returns to often in his writing, and you can study this idea more here in this essay of mine: http://thelema-and-skepticism.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-soldier-and-hunchback.html

So why is it so important to demonstrate that absolute knowledge doesn't exist? Well, in the context of the passage you quoted, you need to pay attention to the verse on which it is commenting: "Every number is infinite; there is no difference." This verse does not mean that everything is exactly the same. Quite the contrary: it means that each individual thing is unique, such that it is impossible to compare them (it is impossible to make a difference between them, to anticipate I:22). That is to say, it makes no sense to say that cheese is "better" than Thursday. There's no "difference" between them because there is no basis of comparison. Each one just is what it is. One is not inherently better than the other. Most people have no trouble grasping that example, but if we change the example slightly, people run into difficulties: many people *do* think that feeding the homeless is "better" than going to a fancy party. But it's the same example: each one just is what it is, a unique circumstance. There's no basis for saying that one is "better" than the other in any absolute way.

And there's that word again: absolute. People who believe in morality -- defined broadly as any sense of how people "should" behave -- tend to believe that their moral beliefs are absolute. They tend to be "certain" that their moral beliefs are "ultimately true."

The idea that one has -- or can have -- absolute knowledge is poisonous to actual attainment -- not merely because there is no such thing as absolute knowledge, but because deluding yourself into thinking you have it blinds you to the minute but important things that make each situation unique and that make it impossible to say that one thing is "better" than another in any ultimate way.

So, in short, Crowley is not advocating that truth is "subjective" in this passage, nor does he say that there is an absolute truth that our minds are "not equipped" to perceive. He is attacking the idea of certainty in thought, in the process of commenting on a verse that informs us that absolute "differences" between things cannot be drawn because each thing is unique.

So then, "I give unimaginable joys on earth: certainty, not faith, while in life, upon death;" doesn't actually mean certainty when it says "certainty"?

I'm reading over that extract and your "interpretation" of it again, and I'm just baffled by how you got this interpretation out of the extract.

For example, at no point in the extract does Crowley claim or even imply that truth is "subjective." Just the opposite. He makes lots of statements that he clearly thinks are true, independent of what other people think of them. For example, he says, "It is similarly inaccurate to speak of 'repeating' an experiment. The exact conditions never recur." And clearly he thinks that what he just said is true, independent of what other people happen to think: Crowley is not saying that for some people it's *accurate* to speak of repeating an experiment; he's implying that people who *think* that it's accurate to say this are *wrong* because the truth of the matter is that it's inaccurate.

Furthermore, nowhere does Crowley say or even imply that science fails at finding truth. He very specifically points out that it's apparently "impossible" (his word) to draw conclusions that have "ultimate validity" (his phrase), but that this doesn't mean that it's impossible to draw practical conclusions.

He's echoing The Soldier and The Hunchback here:

Again, we can't "ultimately" know things, but that doesn't stop us from drawing practical conclusions. We can't "absolutely" say what will happen to you if you jump off a building, but we can draw a conclusion about what's likely to happen (and our conclusion can be so likely that we can say, for all intents and purposes, that we indeed know what will happen to you).

Nowhere in the passage you quoted does Crowley say or even imply any of this.

What I strongly suspect is happening is that you're taking things you *already* believe ("truth is subjective, science fails at finding truth, and this means we need spirituality") and reading your already existing beliefs into Crowley's writings. But that's not interpretation. What you appear to be doing is hunting through Crowley's works to find anything that kind of sounds like it might support stuff you already believe and jumping to conclusions about it.

I'm not trying to pick on you -- I think this is a common kind of mistake that many people make, and not just with reading Crowley but with reading all kinds of texts. Your pre-existing ideas about reality (which we can attribute to Hod on the Tree of Life) are coloring and distorting the way that you perceive/interpret reality (which we can attribute to Malkuth), and these misinterpretations feed into and reinforce your faulty inner map of reality (Yesod).

It's a really nice illustration of how paths 31 and 30 work, how reason can mislead people -- which is exactly why the Book of the Law warns us about reason. You can read here and here for more info.

Also known as "Drawing The Target Around The Bullets", or "No True Scotsman"; one then proceeds to ignore or ridicule anything that doesn't fit with the tidy system one's ego has set up.
One could, with this approach, perhaps even reach the patently ludicrous conclusion that AC's Thelema is a relentlessly quotidian set of practices rooted in a farrago of poorly-understood received ideas about "Logic" and "Science", aimed at finding out if one really likes coffee or not, and devoid of transcendental or gnostic elements
There may be some pot/kettle issues here?

I wonder if Los plans to answer the question Tao has posed so directly?
Or perhaps this is one of the cases where "reality" (as viewed by The Great And Powerful Los) trumps Liber AL (which is convenient)?

93!

As so often, Los is absolutely right here. Of course he forgets to mention that Thelema is a philosophy of individual conduct that also in no way requires a disbelief in anything supernatural. It simply has nothing to do with it.

Love=Law
Lutz

Well said, Lutz.

Oh, it undoubtedly means "certainty." My question is, "Certainty? As in I have had this experience, so I need not rely upon faith?" Okay, that's cool!

But "Certainty - as in absolutely knowing the truth, during one's daily life and upon (at/after) death?" Come on, now. This phrase is more like poetic longing, or a fanciful sermon.

Whatever "certainty" means, it's part of Liber AL that is inspirational, not fact. Certainty - as in "I am perplexed," when approaching death? 🙁

Well, that would be a ludicrous conclusion. Thelema isn't a set of practices, quotidian or otherwise. It's a philosophy of individual action. Various practices, many of them esoteric or occult, may be used in its service.

I wonder if Los plans to answer the question Tao has posed so directly?

I don't intend to speak to him. If you want an answer to it, ignant, you ask the question.

Obviously, one can practice Thelema and believe in the supernatural, so you're right that Thelema doesn't "require" disbelief in that sense. But since Thelema requires one to practice skepticism, and since skepticism necessarily leads to atheism and naturalism/materialism, I would argue that properly practicing Thelema inevitably leads one to the positions of atheism and naturalism/materialism.

If you disagree, then you have two main routes to argument against me: 1) you could try arguing that Thelema does not require skepticism, or 2) you could try arguing that skepticism does not necessarily lead to atheism and naturalism/materialism.

I'd be really curious to see people try to argue one or the other.

Is it? I would agree with your first paragraph that it's pointing toward replacing faith with the certainty of experience, but my read of the verse gives it a bit more specificity than your second paragraph, pushing it more towards "fact". Previous to this, Nuit has dismissed the standard day-to-day understanding of joy and pain as "little" and "weak". She instructs us: "For these fools of men and their woes care not thou at all!" Then, she sets us apart as her "chosen ones" (by this, I presume she means all earnest readers of this book), and further instructs us to "Obey my prophet! follow out the ordeals of my knowledge! seek me only! Then the joys of my love will redeem ye from all pain." Translating this back into practical instructions, if we the "chosen ones" commit ourselves to achieving the experience of "the union with the all/not", we will experience the "Joys of Nuit" here on earth.

After 26 verses of diversion, we finally return to those "joys" in the verse in question. "I give unimaginable joys on earth: certainty, not faith, while in life, upon death; peace unutterable, rest, ecstasy; nor do I demand aught in sacrifice." Grammatically parsed, a paraphrase of this verse might be:

The results you will experience once you've attained "the union with the all/not" are unimaginable in your present condition but they are actual results that will affect your earthly being. Some of these results can be labeled: certainty about death, unspeakable peace, rest, and ecstasy. The certainty you will have about death will not require faith nor will you need to wait until after the moment of physical death to achieve it. You will have certainty while in life.

That's my first read of it anyway. Crowley's comment seems to support that but, if there's a better/different way to read it, I'd love to hear it. The more I get to know this book, the more intriguing I'm finding it.

If my kids pulled this bullshit on me, they'd be grounded. That a supposed adult continues playing this petty game is ludicrous. Do as you will, if that gets your rocks off, but I can't imagine why anyone bothers to continue to engage with you. Your paranoid petulance is pathetic.

Or did the programmers just inexpertly re-tune the Turing bot? What think you, ignant?

I'd argue that Thelema does not require scepticism. Thelema simply requires one to discover her true will and then to do it and nothing else. Full stop.

If you disagree with this, I'd be really curious to see where in the Book you find a requirement for scepticism, either as you choose to define the word or as Crowley did.

These couple of lines strike me as a bit ironically funny in a discussion that you started about Thelemic practice:

So you've established that Thelema is not a set of practices but does require this one practice of skepticism. So to realize one's inherent dream is to simply be a skeptic? So the term "Thelemites" should now be replaced with "Skeptikistes" or "Skeptikoi"?

And how did you come to suppose that skepticism leads to atheism and naturalism/materialism? Skepticism usually just leads to more skepticism until one just decides for oneself to stop and determine what is useful and not useful. Skepticism is questioning and investigating. Atheism and naturalism/materialism constitute types of belief systems to further be skeptical of. Why stop there?

There's no discrepancy between defining something as a philosophy -- distinct from a set of practices, such as ritual practices -- that requires one to engage in certain modes of thought. The fact that a single word ("practices") can be used both to label formal rituals (or specific tasks) and the employment of modes of thought is just a quirk of language. Communication is full of these quirks. For example, if I were to say, regarding the sport soccer/football, "I hate ties!" and then a few minutes later gush about the attractive new tie I purchased to wear around my neck, it wouldn't be ironic or funny at all. It would be the fact that the same word can mean different things.

And how did you come to suppose that skepticism leads to atheism and naturalism/materialism? Skepticism usually just leads to more skepticism until one just decides for oneself to stop and determine what is useful and not useful. Skepticism is questioning and investigating. Atheism and naturalism/materialism constitute types of belief systems to further be skeptical of. Why stop there?

Atheism and materialism are not beliefs, nor are they systems of belief. They are the lack of particular kinds of beliefs. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods, and materialism is the lack of belief in worlds other than the physical one that we currently inhabit.

Skepticism involves, essentially, apportioning one's ideas to evidence and not accepting claims for which there is insufficient evidence. When there is insufficient evidence for a claim, a skeptic is unlikely to accept it. And while skeptics commonly grant mundane claims that don't matter very much -- example: I'd have no problem accepting that you own a cat merely on your say-so because that's a super-mundane claim and also because I really don't care -- skeptics generally don't accept claims that they feel are extraordinary without very convincing evidence.

The fact is that there is insufficient evidence for the existence of gods or the existence of worlds other than the physical one. Which is why someone who is properly skeptical -- who does not believe claims without sufficient evidence -- would, as a result, not accept that there are gods (atheism) and not accept that there are worlds other than the physical one (materialism).

You could, of course, have a go at explaining why you think there are gods or why you think there are worlds other than the physical.

Yeah, you're right. I probably should have been more explicit with what I really meant here. Atheism and materialism are love affairs just like all other ideological -isms.

Atheism is the lack of belief in gods, and materialism is the lack of belief in worlds other than the physical one that we currently inhabit.

Disagree. Atheism amounts to believing there are no gods and materialism amounts to believing there exists nothing beyond the phenomenal/physical world. So yes these particular -isms lack the beliefs of their opposing -isms but require beliefs of their own, i.e. they demand to be fed your love and faith as much as any other demon would.

Los, if you don't mind sharing, how do you feel right now?

93!

Kindergarden megalomania!

Thelema does not require skepticism. But it seems to be a nice "religion" for all those who regard themselves as skeptics. Usually these skeptics tend to think of themselves as better Thelemites, or at least as better explainers of Thelema. And usually they look increasingly silly defending their belief in a book, a commentator to that book, and the existence of a "true" will.

Love=Law
Lutz

Bingo.

"Do not arouse the wrath of the Great And Powerful Los!..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWyCCJ6B2WE

In response to Tao's query, i have tentatively concluded that Los is not in fact a Turing-bot, but may in fact be what he purports to be: an immensely pompous and smug "internet adept", who imagines he has The One True Key To It All, and is bringing Light to the Superstitious Masses.
The Los postings have abandoned the former style of barrages of out-of-context AC quotes amid the poor reasoning, which was what initially caused me to speculate that he might be a computer science experiment trolling us.
That the position he advocates ("'Los-ianity' is The One True Thelema And Crowley's Writings Clearly Say This") is self-evidently absurd is an admitted problem with accepting that Los is sincere, and not a bot, but the petulance and immaturity typical of the Los posts is too convincingly human to be bot-programming- perhaps I have failed the Turing test.
I assume Los' using a masculine pronoun for Tao is part of Los' whole "Tao is Gnosomai" paranoid trip (as parroted by young david above), which i speculated arose because both clearly have the rigorous philosophy background Los equally clearly lacks, and thus answered his arguments in similar terms.

As to substance, Los' proposed distinction between Thelema as a philosophy, and Thelema as a set of practices (a praxis), makes little sense. Thelema is about "doing" will, isn't it?

The spell of Descartes Evil Demon abounds
Peh

for Los it is not
The Method of Science, the Aim of Religion.”

Reply #671 on May 15, 2015, 01:52:45 pm:

This reminds me a bit of (the answers to) those old Eleven-Plus verbal reasoning type tests, where e.g.

"BOAT is to LINER        as          CANOE is to BOAT"

as in,

“LOS it to ERWIN as DAVID is to LOS”

Someone asked me about this reference to the “Eleven-Plus” who was unfamiliar with it.  I suppose this goes to show my age.  It was the exam taken by nearly all UK schoolchildren at the age of ~10 to determine where they would attend secondary school at “11+” – those with the highest scores usually going on to attend grammar schools, those with the lowest either “techs” (technical schools) or “secondary moderns”.  The intention following the abolition of the 11+ was to combine all types (apart from private ‘public’ schools) into universal “comprehensives”, which were meant to represent the best aspects of each system but which a lot of people thought did the reverse.  “Passing” the exam meant going to the school of your, or more likely your parents’, choice: very often the “grammar” type of school being seen as the ticket to the good life.

The exam usually consisted of an arithmetic test (basic maths, using pre-decimal currency and imperial measures); writing (maybe a précis, compositional essay or a comprehension exercise); and general knowledge or verbal reasoning, an example of the type of which is above.  In this the candidate was given a ‘multiple choice’ selection of four or five answers: in addition to the correct answer, one was a devious & treacherous close call, most difficult to differentiate between at first spotting; one, sometimes evidence of a bizarre sense of humour, was often an absurd ‘joke’ entry; the other one (or two) were usually somewhere between a reasonable possibility up to a complete rank outsider.  So, for example in the above instance, the correct answer “david” would be selected from a list consisting of

(a) david  (b) wellreadwellbred  (c) aleister crowley  (d) shiva  (e) paul (feazey)

One usually had to deal with about 60 of these in the space of three quarters of an hour, and were deliberately designed so that no one would manage to complete them all (also testing one’s resources and ability to function under pressure, imo).

I trust this may clarify any uncertainty around this side subject.  (Please do not attribute any “hidden meanings” to any of my choice of examples, largely arbitrary.  There aren’t any)

Talking about which, though ("[un]certainty"):

Reply #702 by Los on: Yesterday at 03:22:31 am:

[Yadda yadda yadda … ] All of that is to say that certainty is for idiots. Of that, I am close to certain.

Even though he discounts Absolutism in this case, Los has strongly implied – may even have directly stated somewhere, I don’t have the time to search for it(!) – that, for him, personally satisfying “[successful] evidence” is to be found in the course of making his “valid” sceptical enquiries and arguments and justifications.  But really this comes down to it being “a possibility”.  Like groovy space aliens from Sirius are, also, a possibility, in which case Los has to concede that on some level they “might” exist.  And, arguably, anything else you’d care to suggest - what’s the difference in the end, possibility-wise?  It all comes down to size of likelihood, or magnitude of probability, not the actuality or otherwise of its existence.

Very magnanimous of Los to offer such reassurances here that he wasn’t “picking” – I’m sure it was badly needed.  But who is this “we” when they’re at home?  And why necessarily attribute ideas about reality to just Hod in particular?  It would be possible to make a similar case out for Tiphereth.  Or even Chesed, in some instances.

What, so that you can then ignore the points raised in both if you don’t like the look of them, you mean?  Rather a waste of time that would be for anyone bothering, wouldn’t you say?

One could also parse/ view this particular verse as reading:

I give unimaginable joys on earth: certainty, not faith, while in life

To be continued, after a pause or stop “as thou wilt”, with

; upon death: peace unutterable, rest, ecstasy [...]

This would put another different perspective on things. 😀

Incidentally, with regard to

No True Scotsman

I was wondering whether Samuel Liddell “MacGregor” Mathers would stand as an example of such a creature?  There are questions around whether he was a true Scotsman or not, and if so how much of a true Scotsman he then really was.  And the same goes with our own “Laird of Boleskine and Abertarff” (laying aside A.C.’s other similar possibly “untrue” or exaggerated claims to being a “True Irishman” as well - see the tearing up of his passport at the Statue of Liberty incident, etc.)?

N joY

This false notion that atheism is a belief is pretty common.  You don't understand what scepticism is but it was explained clearly; only accepting facts as likely to be true which can be backed up by evidence.  This is not a belief, nor is it faith.  Hopefully that has set you straight.  I get it and I don't have a doctorate.

They're not similar to believing.  There's no method of enquiry in believing in God or angels or demons. 

In fact I think your using false equivalence.  Materialism, atheism and religion all demand to be fed love therefore they are all just belief systems?  No. 

From wiki;

A common way for this fallacy to be perpetuated is one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result. False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence doesn't bear because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors. The pattern of the fallacy is often as such.

The following statements are examples of false equivalence:
"They're both soft, cuddly pets. There's no difference between a cat and a dog."

Indeed, that's how the line seems to want to flow and how I did read it at first; however, that semicolon in the middle wouldn't let me rest until I gave it its due. I'm pretty sure it's meant to be a mark of separation, not elaboration, marking the divide between one clause and the next. The stops as ye will, though, so I guess a case could be made for whatever is most expedient (and, given that none of us be the Prophet, we could likely get away with changing a few letters and styles as well, though I understand that led to a bit of a dust up a few years back  😉 ).

Actually I'm delighted that Los leads the discussion to materialism. I'm absolutely certain that Crowley wrote, somewhere (I'm not sure where at the moment, I no longer have the books I once had and it's much harder finding quotes by scrolling than by flipping pages), that materialism poses an even greater threat to the future of humanity than the outrageous superstition of the Christians, Muslims, and the like. Not that it would matter at all; I've already established that Crowley believed in the existence of praeterhuman intelligence and it failed to matter to the believers of disbelief. We're veering away now from a discussion of Thelemic Practice to one of Thelemic Theory (or Doctrine), but I think this is of some importance to the discussion.

First, though, just to make it clear I'm not exactly in the same boat as many religious folk, I'd like to point out that my view of praeterhuman intelligence is not that of mere theists, who merely wish to appease a superior being. I am nearer in my thinking to certain Buddhists, who envisage praeterhuman intelligence more as an extension of human consciousness, outside the circles of time, rather than as a god demanding obedience and service. All Thelemic Practice, of course, originates from the Book of the Law -- not to dismiss Rabelais, whose satire I view as veiling real prophecy. Yet if the Book of the Law is not what it claims to be, i.e. the work of a praeterhuman intelligence (referring to itself as Aiwass) through the minds and hands of a man (Aleister Crowley) and a woman (Rose Kelly, whom I'm certain played a much larger role than that with which she was credited), then there really is no need to embrace all that is written therein. Which is why some pick and choose from the book, dismissing what they dislike, because they believe it was but the work of a man, even though Crowley was emphatic that, although the other holy books or class A documents were his own work (albeit in an enlightened and exalted state of consciousness), the Book of the Law was not his work at all, except possibly L 2:69. The kind of Thelemic Practice we adopt will depend more or less on whether we regard the instruction of Liber Legis as of maximum import to humanity, being the words of an intelligence that knows our future, or as merely the product of a brilliant clown.

It is easy to dismiss all the paranormal elements and teachings of the book when it is regarded as the mundane writing of a mere man. The extraordinary prophecies -- not all of which pointed at Crowley even though it may in some cases have seemed so to him at first (e.g. the prediction pointing to Achad), and some of which I see as having come to pass, for example that of 3:46 -- are easily disregarded as such, interpreted as metaphorical teachings instead. The doctrine of the eternal existence of consciousness is also dismissed. The importance of the formulae of the Aeons, the symbols, rituals, all the words and signs, all go out the window without the significance of the teaching as deriving from a praeterhuman source. Why bother with the celebration of holy days, if they are not holy? If this is the teaching not of supernal intelligence through mankind, but merely the product of the animal known as man, then why should we take seriously the injunction to "Be not animal"? Why, in fact, should we make the distinction between true will and mundane will, if all will is mundane? Why not simply do whatever one wants to do, without pursuing the knowledge and conversation of true will at all?

Los has branded my form of thinking as representing a dangerous threat; if misunderstood, it could manifest that way. But as I see it, the kind of profane Thelemic movement being discussed here -- which Los calls the true Thelemic movement, ominously echoing the early Roman Catholic Church -- could lead to no small amount of trouble. "There is division hither homeward"? Maybe.I actually doubt that this is it. While there are those who see Thelemic theory and practice in this limited light, I don't think there are many; and even if there were, I believe the situation would in time be rectified, especially with the advance of science.

You don't seem to be in a position to determine what I understand and don't understand. You know nothing about me whatsoever. Your desire to set others straight may be your biggest obstacle.

Skepticism has nothing to do with accepting facts based on evidence but does have a lot to do with doubting the possibility of achieving real knowledge. A skeptical perspective would bring even what appears to be evidence into constant question and definitely would bring what has been said about anything into question. And it shouldn't stop there as we would have to question the abilities of our very limited nervous systems to even come close to being able to accurately evaluate and interpret all of this sensory input which brings us back to the impossibility of ever achieving real knowledge of anything... at least in the fashion that you and Los seem to be attempting to go about it. There is no acceptance at all with a skeptical perspective. The acceptance you're talking about I would equate to belief which means to hold something dear or to love it; to believe an idea means to accept it and be in love with it.

Skepticism, in its original philosophical sense, seems closer to me to the more updated meta-perspective termed model-agnosticism which may be viewed as a broader, perhaps vernacular take on the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum physics. Nothing we can say, let alone what we choose to believe,  can or will portray any experiences we have of the phenomenal and noumenal world in any accurate fashion.

In the context of magical practices and their results, whether Thelemic or not, all that matters is that whatever one does will result in an experience ("by doing certain things certain results will follow"). How that experience is interpreted or what ends up being believed about it always boils down to a final decision of the practitioner (a leap of faith for lack of a better way to put it) and, for all practical purposes, is entirely irrelevant to anyone else but the practitioner (to keep silent). A metaphysical or materialist interpretation, theistic or atheistic interpretation; all are irrelevant and none are really worth testifying to and attempting to uphold and/or defend as many try to do here. Every perspective that has been mentioned and/or discussed in this entire thread was falsified the second it was stated and the "post" button was clicked. I don't say a great deal on these forums for that reason alone. There is entirely too much "in the head" going on in these discussions for my own personal taste. My whole take on that was summed up in one of my previous posts here with that picture of the Ten of Swords; the heart of the matter (or master) has been annihilated with the analysis. I would think that magicians would know the value of their weapons here. No magic can happen by wielding only the sword.

I just wanted to share that I think Los's quote: '...skepticism necessarily leads to atheism and naturalism/materialism, I would argue that properly practicing Thelema inevitably leads one to the positions of atheism and naturalism/materialism. ' is one of the most ridiculously arrogant and inaccurate things I have read on this message board.

According to Los, skepticism is a gateway drug to atheism, naturalism, and materialism?

The main thing Los' 'skepticism' is a gateway for is megalomania.

And this is why. There is no "True Will" that is better than any other, in the sense of "My True Will is better than your True Will".

Your reasoning was fallacious.  I showed you how; false equivalence.  Please address this then we can start talking about Crowley and the sword.

I've heard all this before, the unreliability of our senses as proven by physics as an argument against evidence based enquiry.  This too is fallacious.  You don't carry an electron microscope around with you all day and hold it against every physical thing that you encounter before you deal with it.   

Furthermore, challenging common sense evidence based enquiry by evoking Crowley's apparent "Pyrrhonic-Zoroastrianism" i.e. scepticism of scepticism; an ancient "philosophical scepticism".  Frankly, imo that is ludicrous.  It's a shoehorning and it allows for the opening of a portal which, in turn allows for all kinds of folly; anti-Darwinism, Mormon space-gods, sasquatch, the Loch Ness monster, Santa Claus, the Mothman, Jehoavah's Witness apocalypse-predictions, aliens in UFOs (who seem incredibly timid and standoffish for an advanced civilization), people joining cults ...so on.  This is the sort of thing that got Socrates murdered.  You know and I know what scepticism is.  If I told you I just bought a pink unicorn from a pet-shop, you would be an idiot not to think that I was lying or delusional.  You would want some sort of real world evidence.

Scepticism does not say that there is no place for feel-good trance-states (where judgement is suspended.) 

Yes, this seems to be the emerging consensus.

Materialism, correctly considered within the limitations of our knowledge of "material things" as reflected by the senses, and the limitations of mind to organize those sense impressions, may also be a gateway drug to the numinous, for those with only their feet in mire, as opposed to other bits.

Good Golly Gosh!
Young david has truly exceeded his previous standards for the posting of gibberish in the name of "skepticism"!
And as to "skepticism" as a gateway drug to megalomania, Q.E.D.?

Yes, this may be a "consensus" on this forum but at an evolutionist convention (or any scientific meeting) the sceptical-naysayers would in fact be the minority (or, to be frank, the laughing stock).  Scepticism is open-mindedness.  We saw it when we started digging up those strange geo-structures known as fossils.  What were they?  Mere strange random rock- patterns or some sort of strong evidence for pre-mod extinct species?    What about heavier than air flight or wireless radio?  These proposals were dismissed but the progressives were open to these concepts.  Scepticism is in fact progressive. 

Do you ever think before you post, david?
Do you perhaps mean at a "creationist" convention?
Certainly an interesting way to characterize those here at lashtal.

Am I going to tell you to google "evolutionist" or is someone else?

Maybe i am missing something, but what i get when i do as you have advised, and google "evolutionist" is that "evolutionist" refers to "a person who believes in or supports a theory of evolution, especially in biology."
At a meeting of such people, you say, the "the sceptical-naysayers would in fact be the minority (or, to be frank, the laughing stock)."
Are the "skeptical-naysayers" (with whom i assume you sympathize) at the "evolutionist" meeting meant to be creationists who don't accept evolution?
I assumed you were saying at a creationist meeting (lashtal), the evolutionists (skeptics) would be the minority/laughing-stock?
Help me out here if your analogy makes sense- are you now skeptical about evolution?

Are you drunk, david? Crowley wrote: "The method of science, the aim of religion". Why would any of us be against science or evolution? Religion is but a utensil. Have you read, much less practised, Liber Astarte? Means to an end; the means matter not, and the religious aspects carry along none of the nonsensical exoteric dogma of belief.

Drunk on the blood of the saints, no doubt.
Or perhaps one of those drinking games Los likes to force on his friends?
I wonder if Los ever regrets his choice of chela, or david of his guru?

Doubtful.

I actually think, this time around, david managed to put the right words in the right order, but they were so breathlessly typed with an inflamed sense of righteous truthiness that the meaning was lost in the rambling. I believe what he's getting on about is that the evolutionists represent his brand of scepticism and the rest of us religionist heathens with our "Mormon space-gods" and "Jehoavah's [sic] Witness apocalypse-predictions" are the "sceptical-naysayers" (i.e. those who say nay when confronted by the sceptical ivory tower). What david seems to miss is that the scepticism Crowley utilised (beautifully synopsised by NKB above) is actually more rigorous than his supposed scientific model. When he tells us that he bought a pink unicorn we will, indeed, doubt him. But we will also doubt him if he tells us he bought a perfectly ordinary tabby cat. Even once he posts a photo of himself with said tabby and a receipt from the shop. Because true scepticism doubts the existence of cats. And matter. And every other aspect of the phenomenal world.

But... that's been pointed out to him many times over and he's not currently reading my posts so we'll have to assume that that particular facet of his misunderstanding will continue.

Tao: I applaud your charity in attempting to pull some coherence out of what some have theorized are david's drunken rantings.
However, recall that david's overall point was that the "emerging consensus" of lashtal posters that "skeptics" tend to megalomania was wrong, and that those who decry the consensus are sometimes brave pioneers who are right and invent lighter than air radios etc., so the majority (the "convention") has to be wrong, and the "naysayers" right, for his analogy to make any sense at all.
You are of course right on the substantive point that our doughty "skeptics" utterly misunderstand AC in supposing he meant the same thing by "skepticism" that The Amazing Randi does.

Your tendency to jump straight to these kinds of assumptions may be why you tend to be an impossible individual to engage in a meaningful exchange of ideas. Common sense is not as common as you think.

You know and I know what scepticism is.

I know what it seems to be based on my own use of it as a gauge to ground my own flights of fancy but I have my doubts about what you seem to be peddling, and I feel I have an inkling of an idea of the spirit of what those ancient skeptics had in mind which strikes me as more relevant than any modern re(mis)interpretation of it. But since trying to dig down to the root of an idea is "ludicrous" to you then I feel that discussing anything much further with you may be a bit fruitless.

If I told you I just bought a pink unicorn from a pet-shop, you would be an idiot not to think that I was lying or delusional.  You would want some sort of real world evidence.

As I stated before, you don't know me so don't be so presumptuous. If you came to me with this claim I would probably ask you why you didn't pick me up a purple one while you were there; you know, the purple one with tiny green dots on its horn? I'd be good for paying you back for it. It's more likely I just wouldn't care if you made this claim though. If the pink unicorn fulfills a needs for you then great.

By the way, unlike you, I intentionally encourage the opening of portals that "allows for all kinds of folly". I wouldn't be much of a magician if I didn't.

Ignant, I'm not a grammar nazi and I'm not a gotcha merchant.  Having said that maybe you should do a reading comprehension course or something?

Thanks for the compliment Tao. I only noticed it after I last posted when I went back to read over what others had said up there.

Well, david, it's not just me- at least three posters have been baffled by your recent word-salad (one said he thought you must have been drunk), so I guess several of us may need the reading comprehension course you mention.
Can you recommend a good one?

@NKB, what can I say?  Pie in the sky philosophy is for the college classroom only imo.
Having said that it is a form of self-amusement also whereas real world facts aren't, as such.

93, david!

Why not declare yourself a Thelemite at any scientific convention and see who's the laughing stock?

But seriously, Thelema is NOT about skepticism but about True Will (the existence of which you seem to accept without questions). Now, there are obviously some who think Thelema requires rigorous skepticism and there are some (maybe in larger quantities, including Mr. Crowley himself) who don't share this view. Hopefully both parties will manage to find this legendary True Will. And remember: a fancy picture is a fancy picture, for the skeptic as well as for the "supernaturalist" or maybe better the "less skeptic".

And once again: Thelema is NOT skepticism and the Law is for all.

Love=Law
Lutz

Did I say I was drunk?  Pretty below the belt isn't it?  Sort of like a fascist dictatorship which does away with their enemies using lame excuses.  I only drink at weekends with friends if at all.  (Sigh) projection eh?

You're probably going to be joining Tao and JB on the no-go zone soon. Its difficult to discuss things with the intolerable.

Yes Liber Astarte I've done.

I don't know anything about college classrooms so I can't speak on that. You seem to be amusing yourself with what you think are "real world facts" and the verbosity of discussions like what this present thread demonstrates. Unfortunately "real world facts" (whatever those "are") remain more elusive than that pink unicorn. What most of us are confronted with on a daily basis are gambles not facts; interpretations informed by beliefs. Whether our own or others and no matter how lucid some of us strive towards being we still find ourselves subject to it. That seems to be the "real world fact" at the root of it.

I propose that there is but one Thelemic practice that I'm sure many of you that have posted before me here probably agree with: Do what thou wilt. I know that may be a novel idea for you david but you might take it into consideration. All the rest of this is just a snare for those who have not uncovered their own authenticity.

Sigh indeed!

I was going to abstain from this increasingly wearisome exchange – you also seem to be a little outnumbered (however doesn’t that tell you something?) – but, as I seem to have been directly brought in...

This “no-go zone” threat seems to be your equivalent of the naughty step in kindergarten, david.  In connection with which you seem to be a bit of a “slow learner” of lessons, and it’s evident that very little of any advice your peers are giving is percolating through.  But to carry on the analogy, there isn’t any remedial class for you here (only life itself).

I suppose your boycott means I’ll never find out from you, for example, how many veils of Paroketh there are (and I was rather looking forward to that, too!)

I notice you have apparently returned to referring to Tao as being just one person and I’m sure that ignant666 must be quaking in his shoes at the prospect of joining our august company.  Meanwhile, it’s nice that your ‘tag’ partner Los is backing you up to the hilt (or maybe I should put: “it would be nice”)? 

Continue to have fun!
N Joy

Interestingly, I was reading through The Message of the Master Therion last night as a start on the A.'.A.'. curriculum and ran across the following:

So then, this settles it, right? There is but one Thelemic Practice (Do what thou wilt) and the best way to discover that will is the practice of the Magical Memory (until and unless such others are appointed).

Easy peasy.  8)

You would think, right? 😮 In honor of your name we can make it even more simple for those who can't get their heads OUT of The Way: "Do what Tao Te shall be the whole of the Law."