Thelemic Practice
 
Notifications
Clear all

Thelemic Practice

Page 6 / 17

Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 2195
Topic starter  
"Yeheshuah" wrote:
Again, you are factually incorrect about logic.

In fact, you are incorrect. I know this because I had the deep, meaningful experience of a transcendent, almighty ham sandwich telling me that you're wrong, and I know the ham sandwich to be infallible. How do I know this? I have constructed a logical system that confirms this, and my conclusion cannot be questioned by your typical "logics," so therefore I say you're wrong.

Reducing a many-valued logic such as the one that I described to a two-valued system loses information, specifically the information about what propositions are indeterminate rather than false or true.

I didn't "reduce" it -- I pointed out that even within the system you proposed, it's still the case that a statement is true or not-true. In other words, the system you suggested isn't a violation of the categories "true" and "not-true": it simply enumerates one of the subcategories in the not-true category.

In the interest of actually having a conversation, I'm going to try to figure out where you're coming from because I think it might be useful to both of us, so I'm going to lay a little ground work. Let's use the claim "Jesus rose from the dead" as our test case, because I think it's likely we have different positions on this claim.

I've pointed out that it's the case that either (1) a living person literally died and literally returned to life 2,000 years ago or (2)  this did not literally happen. In terms of what actually occurred, those are the only two options. [And if you disagree here, I'd be very interested in hearing you explain in detail exactly what the third option is]

However, our beliefs about what actually happened are not limited to these two options. Beliefs about what actually happened are actually beliefs about two separate claims:
Claim 1: a living person literally died and literally returned to life 2,000 years ago
Claim 2: a living person did not literally die and did not literally return to life 2,000 years ago

A person can be
1) convinced of claim 1
2) not convinced of claim 1

Additionally, a person can be
A) convinced of claim 2
B) not convinced of claim 2

A person cannot hold the positions (1) and (A) simultaneously, but other combinations are possible (including 2 and B...a person may be in a position of not being convinced of either claim).

If you're actually interested in a conversation, then I would be interested in hearing you explain very specifically and in great detail where exactly you disagree with anything that I've said above.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 6440
 
"Los" wrote:
"christibrany" wrote:
I reccomend the Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna.  It fell on my head literally in the library one day ...

So we have Ramakrishna to blame?

No. You missed the obvious ... it was the blow to the head that led to illumination.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 2195
Topic starter  
"Shiva" wrote:
it was the blow to the head that led to illumination.

Why am I not surprised?


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1688
 
"Los" wrote:
If you're actually interested in a conversation, then I would be interested in hearing you explain very specifically and in great detail where exactly you disagree with anything that I've said above.

Yeh yeh yadda yadda yaddahhh, yeah yeah?

Cluck cluck cluuuck… (that’s not an easter chick by the way) ... meanwhile have a happy Easter (& don’t scoff too many eggs ;D)
N Joy


ReplyQuote
Yeheshuah
(@yeheshuah)
Member
Joined: 7 years ago
Posts: 92
 

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

Los,

You wrote that:

In fact, you are incorrect. I know this because I had the deep, meaningful experience of a transcendent, almighty ham sandwich telling me that you're wrong, and I know the ham sandwich to be infallible. How do I know this? I have constructed a logical system that confirms this, and my conclusion cannot be questioned by your typical "logics," so therefore I say you're wrong.

As I have mentioned on a number of occasions now, you are unfamiliar with both the technical aspects of philosophy and logic.  I do not claim objective validity for my faith claims.  While this would make clear how the above quote goes wrong with respect to your holy ham sandwich, I do not expect you to understand this point quite yet.  Take a break and read up on objective validity and subjective validity.  It will be a breath of fresh air for you.

On your objection that you did not reduce the three-valued logic to a two-valued logic, it will become clear if you try to sort out two statements as to which is indeterminate, A and B, where both are classified as non-true in your system.  Since you do not have a third value, there is no semantic difference between the two claims. 

Given that you have opted for the route of puerile insults, I will be happy to answer your query if you can answer mine.  Given that classic logic is defined in terms of a True-False dichotomy, rather than a True-Non-True dichotomy (choose any textbook you please, and you won't find classical logic laid out in the terms you have dictated for yourself), how can you show that your system preserves the traditional qualities of soundness and completeness?

Let me suggest to you why you can't preserve soundness and completeness.  In traditional logic, if ~A is T, then A is F.  Conversely, if A is T, then ~A is F.  This does not hold when you construe F as non-true rather than false.  Why? Because a negated indeterminate sentence does not imply a True sentence.  To make an indeterminate sentence false, you need its corollary to be either T or F, either one will do.  So a negated indeterminate sentence A implies either A is T or A is F.  You need all three values to account for this behavior.

Yeheshuah

Love is the law, love under will.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 6440
 
"Yeheshuah" wrote:
I do not claim objective validity for my faith claims.

Then you shouldn't be dialoging with Los.

Take a break and read up on objective validity and subjective validity.  It will be a breath of fresh air for you.


ReplyQuote
Tao
 Tao
(@tao)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 316
 
"jamie barter" wrote:
Like you, I too am a greatly enamoured devotee of Kali (although stopping just short of being a thuggee) but I would be interested to know though how the terrible goddess might have led you to the tao ?

I visited her temple in Kolkata last month. Must've brought some of her back with me.  ;D


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 2195
Topic starter  
"Yeheshuah" wrote:
I do not claim objective validity for my faith claims.

So when you say that you believe Jesus rose from the dead, am I correct in surmising that you are not claiming that a literal man literally rose from the dead 2,000 years ago?

I'm still waiting for a clear answer on this.

While this would make clear how the above quote goes wrong with respect to your holy ham sandwich, I do not expect you to understand this point quite yet.

Sorry, but the infallible ham sandwich has informed me that you're still wrong. And there's no arguing about the ham sandwich because my claims about it are in a special category that can't be evaluated by your logic. Sorry, you lose.
 

On your objection that you did not reduce the three-valued logic to a two-valued logic, it will become clear if you try to sort out two statements as to which is indeterminate, A and B, where both are classified as non-true in your system.  Since you do not have a third value, there is no semantic difference between the two claims.

What in the world are you talking about? I do have a "third value." I also have a fourth and fifth and lots and lots of values. I classify statements in all sorts of ways: true statements, false statements, misleading statements, paradoxes, word games, contradictions, nonsense statements, and more.

But my point was that all of those categories are subcategories of the larger groups "True" and "Not-True." A statement is either one or the other and cannot be both in the same way at the same time. Those two categories comprise a mutually exclusive dyad that can be used to classify all statements because any statement actually falls into one and only one of those two categories. Now, we might not have enough information at the moment to tell where it belongs, in which case the appropriate thing to do would be to say "I don't have enough information to accept this claim as true" (This would also mean that we do not have enough information to accept it as not-true, but when it comes to beliefs, it's what we accept as true that informs our actions, so what we're talking about is whether or not we accept a belief as true).

But if we *do* have enough information, we can classify the statement. And if, for example, we have enough information to tell that a statement is not-true, then we might also have enough information be able to further slot it in a more specific sub-category ("Hmmm, this statement is an internal contradiction").

All of this is just a long way of saying that something is what it is, is not what it's not, and cannot be both in the same way at the same time.

Given that classic logic is defined in terms of a True-False dichotomy, rather than a True-Non-True dichotomy (choose any textbook you please, and you won't find classical logic laid out in the terms you have dictated for yourself)

I don't give a fuck what a textbook says. You're talking to me, not a textbook. And I'm telling you that "True" and "Not-True" is an actual dichotomy that can be used to classify all statements, while "True" and "False" is not an actual dichotomy and cannot be used to classify all statements. Coming up with subcategories for "Not-True" doesn't change any of those facts.

It would help if you responded to me and what I actually say, instead of trying to respond to some position you read in a book once.

how can you show that your system preserves the traditional qualities of soundness and completeness?

The ham sandwich says so.

In traditional logic, if ~A is T, then A is F.  Conversely, if A is T, then ~A is F.  This does not hold when you construe F as non-true rather than false.  Why? Because a negated indeterminate sentence does not imply a True sentence.

Correct. To use another example, "not true" includes things like nonsense statements, and the negation of nonsense is just more nonsense. The claim "Egg walks west of midnight because blue" is not-true, and so is "Egg does not walk west of midnight because blue."

What point do you think you're making here? How does this have anything to do with saying that you believe Jesus rose from the dead but meaning that you don't believe anything like that? Are you claiming that...your Jesus belief is nonsense?


ReplyQuote
Yeheshuah
(@yeheshuah)
Member
Joined: 7 years ago
Posts: 92
 

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

Los,

Why don't we take it down a notch? Rather than flailing about and hurtling insults and f-bombs, let's respect the guidelines of this board and simply, respectfully dialogue with one another... or not at all.

You asked my for my point.  Well, my point is quite simple and obvious to those familiar with logic.  Soundness and completeness are the fundamental properties of any truth-preserving logical system, properties which I gave some reason for suspecting do not hold for your own system, which is the basis of your critique.  If you are so unfamiliar with logic that such points are lost on you, why go on talking? Why not learn something instead?

Yeheshuah

Love is the law, love under will.


ReplyQuote
gnosomai
(@gnosomai-emauton)
Member
Joined: 7 years ago
Posts: 29
 

Huh. This meta-discussion around Los's grasp of modern logic rings strangely familiar to several discussions on heruraha.net just under a year ago that led to him picking up his toys and going home. His "ham sandwich" at the time was "8D logic" because he wasn't up to snuff on multi-dimensionality and its challenges to traditional 2-valued logic, but the profanity slinging and misdirection are the same. Next step is for him to blanket-deride the low-quality of discourse on the forum as a whole before stomping off into the sunset.

It seems the fancy picture he's created of himself doesn't deal well with challenges to its intellectual foundation. I wonder what kind of Thelemic Practice might help with that.


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

You asked my for my point.  Well, my point is quite simple and obvious to those familiar with logic.  Soundness and completeness are the fundamental properties of any truth-preserving logical system, properties which I gave some reason for suspecting do not hold for your own system, which is the basis of your critique.  If you are so unfamiliar with logic that such points are lost on you, why go on talking? Why not learn something instead?

Yeheshuah

Love is the law, love under will.

If we propose that all dogs have four legs and Fido is a dog therefore Fido has four legs then this is accordingly, a logically valid statement.  If someone protests and starts claiming that Fido might not be a dog because blah blah or that the opening statement is abstract or is a generalization or is indeterminate then they are misapplying the inherent confines of logic and are talking drivel.    It's that simple.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 2195
Topic starter  
"Yeheshuah" wrote:
let's respect the guidelines of this board and simply, respectfully dialogue with one another... or not at all.

Engaging with your position is being respectful of you, even if it's not respectful of your position.

You'll know when I'm not being respectful of you.

You asked my for my point.

Yes, your point as it relates to the religious claims you were making. We went on this big long tangent about logic and the process of classifying claims just to arrive at a place where -- apparently -- we both agree that that there are more values than "true" and "false" (duh) and that just because something doesn't fit into one of the categories grouped under "not true," it doesn't necessarily fall into the "true" category.

I was asking you what in the world this has to do with your claim that Jesus rose from the dead. I take it that you think the claim "Jesus rose from the dead" falls into some category aside from "True" and "False." Can you...elaborate on this? What do you call this category, what are its properties, why do you think the claim "Jesus rose from the dead" falls into this category, and would you agree with me that this category -- if it actually is a valid category -- would fall under the umbrella of "Not True" (along with different categories like "false," "internal contradiction," "nonsense," etc)? Why or why not? 


ReplyQuote
Yeheshuah
(@yeheshuah)
Member
Joined: 7 years ago
Posts: 92
 

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

Los,

As I said, I will answer your query when you answer mine: What account of the soundness and completeness of your logical system can you offer? Just so as I am not hiding anything and the relevance is clear, let me explain.  If you cannot give such an account, it is not clear what grounds you have for thinking your critique of my position is objectively valid.  That is, the complaints of nonsense seem to come to nothing more than a complaint that you don't understand what I am saying.  In that situation, we would have done better just to treat all claims as subjectively valid, while hoping for something more substantial.  Continued, respectful, though frustrating, dialogue would be the prescription for lack of understanding.

If you don't have an account to give, that is at least honest.  I will answer your question, but with all claims understood in the appropriate light of your answer.

Yeheshuah

Love is the law, love under will.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 2195
Topic starter  
"Yeheshuah" wrote:
What account of the soundness and completeness of your logical system can you offer? […] If you cannot give such an account, it is not clear what grounds you have for thinking your critique of my position is objectively valid.

I reject your premise that someone can validly critique a position only if that person can rigorously give an account of the soundness and completeness of his or her “logical system.”

But we’re not even there yet. You haven’t even explained your position. You’re the one who apparently believes that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, and you have yet to explain what you mean by it. What I or anyone else is capable of saying about logical systems is utterly unrelated to the question of whether you can explain what your position exactly means and why you think your position is correct.

Remember, I haven't claimed that I can account fully for the soundness and completeness of logic. You did claim that Jesus Christ rose from the dead.

When you’re ready to stand behind your claim, I’ll be ready to listen.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 6440
 
"Los" wrote:
You haven’t even explained your position.

Agreed. I am unable to determine what is being debated.

Not that I even count. I'm just a spectator.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 2195
Topic starter  
"Shiva" wrote:
Agreed. I am unable to determine what is being debated.

Well, this would indeed be an appropriate day to hear what our friend Yeheshuah means when he says that JC rose from the dead. It would be an even better day to hear why he thinks that.

Not that I even count. I'm just a spectator.

Ah, you're bein' too modest.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 2195
Topic starter  
"Los" wrote:
Well, this would indeed be an appropriate day to hear what our friend Yeheshuah means when he says that JC rose from the dead. It would be an even better day to hear why he thinks that.

Have you heard the good news?


ReplyQuote
christibrany
(@christibrany)
Yuggothian
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 2957
 
"Los" wrote:
So we have Ramakrishna to blame?

Why play the blame game?  It's never productive.


ReplyQuote
christibrany
(@christibrany)
Yuggothian
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 2957
 
"jamie barter" wrote:

"christibrany" wrote:
I reccomend the Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna.  It fell on my head literally in the library one day and led me to Kali, and she led me to Daoism and Daoism led me to Grant and Grant led me to Crowley and here I am.

A most unusual route there chris.  Most people come to Grant through Aleister rather than the other way around.  Like you, I too am a greatly enamoured devotee of Kali (although stopping just short of being a thuggee) but I would be interested to know though how the terrible goddess might have led you to the tao ?

Hiya- I was at university at the time and taking Daoism courses and a friend in one invited me to his qi-gong class and that's how that started.  But I feel the energy of the bhakti was transformative in making me more open and interested in furthering my spiritual studies in all directions.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 
"Shiva" wrote:
"Los" wrote:
You haven’t even explained your position.

Agreed. I am unable to determine what is being debated.

Not that I even count. I'm just a spectator.

Pretty sure it started on page 14. The actual logic discussion was interwoven with religious theories, bhakti, and (of course) the Abyss (lol).

So now Los is playing his "religious gobbledy -gook" card, and Yeheshuah is telling Los his logic doesn't meet up with traditional logic, that it basically isn't logical.

And now, Yeheshuah is refusing to explain his "religious gobbledy-gook" (even though he already somewhat has), until Los explains how his, "You are talking to me now" logic is valid enough for Yeheshuah to waste (yes, waste) the effort.

Meanwhile, Los is refusing to explain his "You are talking to me now" logic, until Yeheshuah explains his "religious gobbldey-gook".

Yeheshuah did get Los to use profanity though. I remember when Los and I used to play like that. How cute.

Enjoy the next 6 pages of the "No you explain yourself", "No, you first [expletive]" pissing match.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 2195
Topic starter  
"Azidonis" wrote:
And now, Yeheshuah is refusing to explain his "religious gobbledy-gook" (even though he already somewhat has)

Has he? He seems to be implying that he has some unique logical system that is capable of categorizing the claim "Jesus rose from the dead" in a special category. Nowhere, to my knowledge, has Yeheshuah explained what he means by the claim, what category he puts the claim in, and what his justification for his method is.

As the one making the claim, he's the one with the burden to explain what he means.

Meanwhile, Los is refusing to explain his "You are talking to me now" logic

Not only is my "logical system" not the subject of the discussion, I reject the implicit claim that someone needs to give a rigorous accounting of logic before being able to use it.

What I'm "refusing" is to get sidetracked on an irrelevant point that will distract from the fact that Yeheshuah cannot support the claims he makes.

I remember when Los and I used to play like that.

Good for you, kid. Run along now.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 6440
 
"Azidonis" wrote:
Enjoy the next 6 pages of the "No you explain yourself", "No, you first [expletive]" pissing match.

But I'm confused. Did Jesus actually rise up from a clinical death state and walk around? Why can't we just examine the death certificate and watch the aftermath on YouTube, and see for ourselves?

Oh!  The records have been lost, you say?  Okay, the records are always lost by the government in controversial cases like this.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 2195
Topic starter  
"Shiva" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
Enjoy the next 6 pages of the "No you explain yourself", "No, you first [expletive]" pissing match.

But I'm confused. Did Jesus actually rise up from a clinical death state and walk around? Why can't we just examine the death certificate and watch the aftermath on YouTube, and see for ourselves?

Oh!  The records have been lost, you say?  Okay, the records are always lost by the government in controversial cases like this.

It's worse than that. There are no contemporary eye-witness accounts of any aspects of Jesus' life. The four Gospels are anonymous texts dating from some time between 30 and 90 years after the supposed Jesus Christ died.

Of course, Yeheshuah was implying earlier that he doesn't think the claim "Jesus rose from the dead" is a claim about literal history. I'd be curious to hear more about this.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 2195
Topic starter  
"Los" wrote:
It's worse than that. There are no contemporary eye-witness accounts of any aspects of Jesus' life. The four Gospels are anonymous texts dating from some time between 30 and 90 years after the supposed Jesus Christ died.

And while I'm thinking of it, we also have no originals of these anonymous texts. We're relying on copies of copies of translations of copies of copies.

This is not anything even remotely resembling evidence for the claim that a historical individual literally rose from the dead. As a point of comparison, consider that there are living people walking around today who can tell you their eye-witness accounts of being abducted by aliens, and we tend not to believe that these people were actually abducted by aliens. How much less should we be inclined to believe the claims contained in texts that are copies of translations of copies of texts written by anonymous individuals thousands of years ago?

Happy Easter!


ReplyQuote
Yeheshuah
(@yeheshuah)
Member
Joined: 7 years ago
Posts: 92
 

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

Los, et al.,

This is surely a wearying conversation, but it may get us somewhere yet.  It seems to me that productive conversations can take time and twists and turns.

Los, the premise you reject is not a declarative but an imperative.  Because you have chosen to engage in belligerence, we need to establish that you want to engage in a dialogue rather than win points.  If you can't give an accounting of the foundations of your logical system in terms of soundness and completeness, then your embrace of logic is faith-based or a quirk of personality, and merely subjectively valid. 

Yeheshuah

Love is the law, love under will.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 2195
Topic starter  
"Yeheshuah" wrote:
If you can't give an accounting of the foundations of your logical system in terms of soundness and completeness, then your embrace of logic is faith-based or a quirk of personality, and merely subjectively valid.

No. This is like arguing that if a swimmer cannot give a full, rigorous accounting for the physics that allow him to swim then his confidence that he can swim is "faith-based." It's just not. The swimmer is confident that swimming works because he uses swimming to obtain useful results, and in no way does his confidence depend on being able to explain fully how swimming works or to account for the physical laws underpinning motion.

Again, all of this is irrelevant to whether you can explain and justify your claim. You're just trying to distract from the issue at hand, and it's becoming really transparent. 


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 
"Los" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
And now, Yeheshuah is refusing to explain his "religious gobbledy-gook" (even though he already somewhat has)

Has he? He seems to be implying that he has some unique logical system that is capable of categorizing the claim "Jesus rose from the dead" in a special category. Nowhere, to my knowledge, has Yeheshuah explained what he means by the claim, what category he puts the claim in, and what his justification for his method is.

As the one making the claim, he's the one with the burden to explain what he means.

Actually, he pointed directly to bhakti. He even at one point agreed that faith is a logical fallacy, as it "begs the question". He did distinguish his view of bhakti as different than his view of faith, however.

"Los" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
Meanwhile, Los is refusing to explain his "You are talking to me now" logic

Not only is my "logical system" not the subject of the discussion,

Oh really? Yeheshuah seems to think so, and I'm sure he's not the only one:

"Yeheshuah" wrote:
Los, at the heart of our disagreement is, in part, a difference in the sort of logic we are using.
"Los" wrote:
I reject the implicit claim that someone needs to give a rigorous accounting of logic before being able to use it.

Sure, use it all day long. But don't use it in a context that requires an explanation of it, and then fail to give said explanation. That doesn't facilitate the conversation. Now, in case you are too blind to see it, your once 'brilliant conversation about how logic defeats religion' has come to an impasse, as you are either unwilling or incapable of logically explaining your own logic in a manner that your opponent (Yeheshuah) understands and accepts, so that the conversation can move forward.

"Los" wrote:
What I'm "refusing" is to get sidetracked on an irrelevant point that will distract from the fact that Yeheshuah cannot support the claims he makes.

You haven't supported yours. He at least pointed to bhakti and Liber Agape as examples, wherein you are sitting at the keyboard slinging profanities for four pages, mad because he has asked you to explain your logic, as it is not in accordance with traditional logic. At the same time that you are yelling, "I don't have to", you are asking him to explain his faith.

And this IS the point, not a sidetracked point. You waving your wannabe "You are talking to me " around, as though you are some kind of self-appointed authority, only serves to add yet another chapter in the display of your own megalomania.

"Los" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
]I remember when Los and I used to play like that.

Good for you, kid. Run along now.

Don't patronize me with some cliche' you learned on the internet. I was only pointing out the blatent fact that after all these years, you are still pursuing the same old crap that you were when you and I used to go back and forth. Some progress you have made...


ReplyQuote
Yeheshuah
(@yeheshuah)
Member
Joined: 7 years ago
Posts: 92
 

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

Los,

The swimmer is surely not an authority on physics. 

Yeheshuah

Love is the law, love under will.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 
"Los" wrote:
"Yeheshuah" wrote:
If you can't give an accounting of the foundations of your logical system in terms of soundness and completeness, then your embrace of logic is faith-based or a quirk of personality, and merely subjectively valid.

No. This is like arguing that if a swimmer cannot give a full, rigorous accounting for the physics that allow him to swim then his confidence that he can swim is "faith-based." It's just not. The swimmer is confident that swimming works because he uses swimming to obtain useful results, and in no way does his confidence depend on being able to explain fully how swimming works or to account for the physical laws underpinning motion.

What? Are you saying that you are 'swimming', and that he is watching you 'swim', and asking you to explain how you are doing it, and you are telling him that you don't have to explain how you are doing it, so that he understands what the hell is going on, he just has to accept the fact that you are swimming, without an explanation of how it is working (as you are, in this example, 'swimming' in a way that is not supported by traditional swimming techniques), and you are telling him, "Look, I'm swimming, dude. I don't have to explain it. You don't have to learn how to do it. Just take my word for it, because you are talking to me, and I don't have to explain myself.

"Los" wrote:
Again, all of this is irrelevant to whether you can explain and justify your claim. You're just trying to distract from the issue at hand, and it's becoming really transparent. 

... but he has to explain himself! Laughable!

Stop being a douchebag and just explain your logic. If it is really so great, as you claim, then maybe it will even accomplish your goal of 'breaking his faith', so that he has to only depend on logic. That's what you want, right? To convert him to your point of view?


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 6440
 

Oh, my goodness; all this excitement on Holy Easter Day.

"Los" wrote:
It's worse than that. There are no contemporary eye-witness accounts of any aspects of Jesus' life. The four Gospels are anonymous texts dating from some time between 30 and 90 years after the supposed Jesus Christ died ... And while I'm thinking of it, we also have no originals of these anonymous texts. We're relying on copies of copies of translations of copies of copies.

Yes, I'm aware of that. My question was rhetorical, or silly, whichever the case may be.

It is my understanding, and "belief" as well, that there might (or might not) have been an initiate of some degree called Jesus, which is short for JHShVH (pronounced Yeheshuah, courtesy of Golden Dawn terminology, which means "savior" in Herbrew (Aramaic?) lingo ... upon whom (real or imagined) various preceding concepts, sayings and legends were super-imposed and written down. Then this guy called Saul/Paul came along and (after having a vision of JC on the Road to Damascus), correlated, combined and created his version of the myth.

Sayings attributed to Jesus are also found in docs from India, Persia, etc that were/are more ancient than Zero BC/AD, so either he was parroting things/ideas that he encountered in his travels and studies, or somebody superimposed these sayings/aphorisms upon him or his image. The legend of Osiris (Asar) from Khem (Egypt) was fundamental in the historical memory of the Hebrews, even if Mosheh tried to abrogate everything but IHVH upon his people. As we know, Osiris was resurrected, although in a Frankenstein manner, by Isis, and reanimated by a "spell" she got from Thoth. So, resurrection  was not an uncommon theme in those days.

Then Constantine the Great got involved and a Supreme Grand Council was called (in Nicea?), where learned (biased?) dudes picked and chose various documents to constitute a Christian "Book of the Law." It is rumoured that they even fiddled with the translations, for example: removing any reference to reincarnation (you can't face a Last Judgement if you have another several chances to "get it right").

Aramaic to Greek (?) to Latin to German (courtesy of Martin Luther, who was convinced that the Pope was the Antichrist) to various English translations (King James still being available), and then on to the interpretation by various priests, ministers and revs, as well as [gasp :o] the individual parishioner.

I say, let's go study the arising of Asar in greater detail, and then re-examine the Jesus resurrection.

... there are living people walking around today who can tell you their eye-witness accounts of being abducted by aliens, and we tend not to believe that these people were actually abducted by aliens.

Oh, you would have to bring that (them) up!  Due to (many of) their tales, it seems likely that (some of) them actually did experience such a thing. But it is likely that their experiences were an astral or an archetypal encounter. Some Thelemic practices (the title of this forum) actually encourage such encounters, but we have been warned not to attribute them to objective reality. Yet, guess what? Thelemites everywhere go through a stage of superimposing these visions on their concept of "reality."

"Yeheshuah" wrote:
If you can't give an accounting of the foundations of your logical system in terms of soundness and completeness, then your embrace of logic is faith-based or a quirk of personality, and merely subjectively valid.

Maybe we need to remember that the brain has two sides, which we may identify as left-brain (Hod) and right-brain (Netzach). Left-brain deals with analysis, correspondences and (possibly) decision making. Hod is (theoretically) really objective.

Right-brain deals with images, creativity and devotion (including "faith"). Netzach is (theoretically) really imaginative, and many of the images were placed there by parents, grandparents, teachers and ministers.

So, as a spectator ;), it seems Los is trying to keep us honest by being objective, while Yeheshuah is trying to express some concepts that are subjective, or at leat Netzactive. Now, this is not a final judgement, but merely a preliminary assessment, not as a spectator :o, but as one of the 42 judges who are watching the original "Last Judgement."

Do You Recognize me anywhere in the top row?

Let's get down to the Final Judgement
[/align:36mkl0sz]

Tahuti actually makes the decision by noting the balance-point of the scale. If Ani's heart is heavy, he gets eaten by Ammit, that ugly croc-dog and (some say) he either disappears or goes someplace bad or is re-incarnated. If Ani's heart is light as a feather, he gets escorted to Osiris on the Throne, who is the archetypal Jesus - who admits the candidate to the remainder of the Tuat (all this is taking place in just one chamber of the Tuat), where he/she undergoes various transformations and eventually rises as the Sun with Ra at the ene of the tunnel. And that's the proverbial Light at the End of the Tunnel.

I don't see that Light in this forum yet. So the end is not near. Unless Ammit eats somebody. But, until then, keep lifting and hauling ...

[/align:36mkl0sz]


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 
"Azidonis" wrote:
And this IS the point, not a sidetracked point. You waving your wannabe "You are talking to me " around, as though you are some kind of self-appointed authority, only serves to add yet another chapter in the display of your own megalomania.

You're distorting what is, probably because you're unnecessarily smarting from being called "kid".  The use of the (you're talking to) "me" was written within the context that Yehsh was being brought down from his Ivory Tower of pie in the sky (text book) abstraction to having a practical and real conversation with a human being who is trying to converse within the confines of common sense ie basic logic that anyone takes for granted. 

You actually thought it was an assertion of egotism?  Wow.


ReplyQuote
Tao
 Tao
(@tao)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 316
 

The rooting out of "common sense" in one's thinking and training oneself to stop taking things for granted are the targets of any preliminary practices on the Path. If conversing within the confines of them is what Los is actually trying to do, it might explain why he meets resistance at every turn.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 
"david" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
And this IS the point, not a sidetracked point. You waving your wannabe "You are talking to me " around, as though you are some kind of self-appointed authority, only serves to add yet another chapter in the display of your own megalomania.

You're distorting what is, probably because you're unnecessarily smarting from being called "kid".  The use of the (you're talking to) "me" was written within the context that Yehsh was being brought down from his Ivory Tower of pie in the sky (text book) abstraction to having a practical and real conversation with a human being who is trying to converse within the confines of common sense ie basic logic that anyone takes for granted. 

You actually thought it was an assertion of egotism?  Wow.

Read it again, as usual.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 2195
Topic starter  
"Azidonis" wrote:
Actually, he pointed directly to bhakti. He even at one point agreed that faith is a logical fallacy, as it "begs the question". He did distinguish his view of bhakti as different than his view of faith, however.

"Bhakti" isn't an explanation for the claim "Jesus rose from the dead." If all this Yeheshuah dude means is that he had a deep inner experience that he just calls "Jesus rose from the dead" -- and that this is nothing more than an inner experience that correlates in no way to events in the world outside of him -- then he's being unnecessarily obfuscatory in his use of language. But I don't know -- he hasn't explained what he meant.

Sure, use [logic] all day long. But don't use it in a context that requires an explanation of it, and then fail to give said explanation.

We're not in a "context that requires an explanation of it." As I have been asserting, it is not necessary to give a full accounting for a complete logical system in order to analyze arguments. One can use logic in the same way that a swimmer uses the techniques of swimming: to obtain practical results. In neither case does an inability to "account" for logic or for physics affect the ability of someone to use the techniques.

your once 'brilliant conversation about how logic defeats religion' has come to an impasse

Right, because the religionist has a cute little word game that conveniently excuses him from having to justify claims he makes. As I've been saying, anybody could use this line of argument to justify any claims they like. What a joke.

"Los" wrote:
Yeheshuah cannot support the claims he makes.

You haven't supported yours.

I'm not claiming I can account for logic. Nowhere in this thread have I claimed that. Yeheshuah does claim that Jesus rose from the dead. The person who's making the claim has the obligation to explain what he means by it and why he accepts it.

He at least pointed to bhakti and Liber Agape as examples

So what? How do that practice and that text show that Jesus rose from the dead?

mad because he has asked you to explain your logic

Oh, trust me. You'd know if I were mad.

At the same time that you are yelling, "I don't have to", you are asking him to explain his faith.

Again, because only one of us is making a claim. Pay attention.

You waving your wannabe "You are talking to me " around, as though you are some kind of self-appointed authority, only serves to add yet another chapter in the display of your own megalomania.

It's not "megalomania" to insist that a person address what his conversation partner actually says.

Don't patronize me

I'll do what I like.

you are still pursuing the same old crap that you were when you and I used to go back and forth

You were a much better contributor to this forum when you kept your mouth shut, except for an occasional weird comment about duality.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 2195
Topic starter  
"Azidonis" wrote:
What? Are you saying that you are 'swimming', and that he is watching you 'swim', and asking you to explain how you are doing it, and you are telling him that you don't have to explain how you are doing it, so that he understands what the hell is going on, he just has to accept the fact that you are swimming, without an explanation of how it is working

No, I'm saying that Yeheshuah and I both use logic and reason in mostly the same way when analyzing, at a guess, 95% or more of the claims we come across in our lives. 

For example, I'm willing to bet that Yeheshuah would not be convinced by someone arguing that Yeheshuah has a horrible curse on him and that the only way to be rid of the curse is to paypal Los $500. Let's say someone actually makes that claim and supports it by saying, "I know this claim is true because I had a vision of it, and I've had other visions that turned out to be true before, too!"

The fact of the matter is, that argument does not demonstrate the claim, and everyone reading this post knows this to be the case (Yeheshuah, if you think otherwise, please PM me for paypal details).

A person does not need to "account" for logic or for the "completeness" of logic in order to correctly conclude that the argument given by our hypothetical visionary is flawed. I've written before on the topic of how logic seemingly cannot be proven by logic and how there may, in fact, not be any way to demonstrate the absolute correctness of logic. But this point is entirely irrelevant because nobody is making absolute claims; instead, everybody uses logic in a practical context without having to "justify" it in a rigorous, complete way. And I mean everybody: if somebody disagrees, my paypal account is waiting.

There's actually a branch of Christian apologetics that argues for Christianity by saying that God is what accounts for logic and that no other worldview can account for logic. Gee whiz! They've solved the problems of induction and hard solipsism! That sounds awfully nice until you realize that this is just a bald assertion and does not actually "account" for anything at all.

... but he has to explain himself!

Yes. The person making the claim has to explain himself. The guy who claims that Jesus rose from the dead has the burden to explain and justify his position.

That's what you want, right? To convert him to your point of view?

No. I don't care what he believes. Honestly, the world would be awfully boring if there weren't a bunch of idiotic points of view kicking around.


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Elderly American druggie
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3805
 

I have been enjoying this "conversation", yet another episode of that ongoing lashtal series "'Los' encounters the educated", wherein people who do not agree with "Los" turn out to be much smarter and better educated than he, and proceed to argue rings around him, and he, while apparently failing to notice this, gets very mad. This is either some quite sophisticated bot-programming, or "Los" may in fact be the megalomaniacal and uneducated "Internet 'Adept'" the posts portray.
If the "Los" posts are not, as i had previously conjectured in these forums, the product of a computer science Turing-bot experiment, and are, in fact, as this recent exchange with Yeheshuah seems to indicate, actual posts by a human who imagines himself in a position to offer us authoritative information about Crowley's work, and apres-Abyss matters, all i can say is "Yikes!".
Also, while i never paid much attention in Sunday School, isn't this the day, where if Jesus sees his shadow when he rises from the tomb, there are six more weeks of winter?


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 2195
Topic starter  
"ignant666" wrote:
I have been enjoying this "conversation"

You mean like the last time you tried talking to me, when you ended up drunkenly mischaracterizing my argument and made a complete fool of yourself?

Obviously someone like you would be impressed by Yeheshuah's transparent attempts to deflect the conversation away from his inability to defend the claims that he makes.


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Elderly American druggie
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3805
 

Oh, dear, "Los" has said something mean about me? Have I been accused of... drinking? On the forums of the ACS, no less? The shame!
Los: Your inability to even comprehend that the "logic" you like to invoke is an actual practice, with, like, rules and stuff, with which you clearly lack even a basic undergraduate-level understanding, is among the many reasons that you continually imagine you are the "winner" in your many helpful interventions on these and other forums. I suggest you look up the Dunning-Kruger effect:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
I would not have imagined, as all this got started that i would be on the side of the Jesus-dude in any debate, but your churlish and ignorant posts in response to our Christly frater leave his frankly rather bizarre, and certainly novel, perspective looking rather good in comparison.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 
"Azidonis" wrote:
"david" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
And this IS the point, not a sidetracked point. You waving your wannabe "You are talking to me " around, as though you are some kind of self-appointed authority, only serves to add yet another chapter in the display of your own megalomania.

You're distorting what is, probably because you're unnecessarily smarting from being called "kid".  The use of the (you're talking to) "me" was written within the context that Yehsh was being brought down from his Ivory Tower of pie in the sky (text book) abstraction to having a practical and real conversation with a human being who is trying to converse within the confines of common sense ie basic logic that anyone takes for granted. 

You actually thought it was an assertion of egotism?  Wow.

Read it again, as usual.

Ditto.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 
"ignant666" wrote:
I have been enjoying this "conversation", yet another episode of that ongoing lashtal series "'Los' encounters the educated", wherein people who do not agree with "Los" turn out to be much smarter and better educated than he, and proceed to argue rings around him, and he, while apparently failing to notice this, gets very mad. This is either some quite sophisticated bot-programming, or "Los" may in fact be the megalomaniacal and uneducated "Internet 'Adept'" the posts portray.

You always seem to rear your head with unconstructive distractions, sweeping generalizations  and personal insults when people engaging with Los are functioning from the emotional level because their Mad Hatter logic is shown for what it is.  It's like iron filings responding to a magnet. If you have something to say to clarify how Los's logic isn't logic then why not explain?  I suspect you don't have an explanation.         


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 4218
 
"david" wrote:
"ignant666" wrote:
I have been enjoying this "conversation", yet another episode of that ongoing lashtal series "'Los' encounters the educated", wherein people who do not agree with "Los" turn out to be much smarter and better educated than he, and proceed to argue rings around him, and he, while apparently failing to notice this, gets very mad. This is either some quite sophisticated bot-programming, or "Los" may in fact be the megalomaniacal and uneducated "Internet 'Adept'" the posts portray.

You always seem to rear your head with unconstructive distractions, sweeping generalizations  and personal insults when people engaging with Los are functioning from the emotional level because their Mad Hatter logic is shown for what it is.  It's like iron filings responding to a magnet. If you have something to say to clarify how Los's logic isn't logic then why not explain?  I suspect you don't have an explanation.         

Some of us - myself included - are making the exchanges somewhat bad-tempered. Let's avoid throwing petrol on the fire. As Paul F***** says in another thread:

"Paul F*****" wrote:
I hope you enjoy your membership here - the Forums have been better, to be honest, and I'm hoping that new members will work towards improving them through the open, honest and polite sharing of knowledge and ideas.

Let's just move on.


ReplyQuote
Yeheshuah
(@yeheshuah)
Member
Joined: 7 years ago
Posts: 92
 

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

Los,

You have, in fact, made claims about statements being meaningless.  That is, in part, why I want you to lay out the groundwork for your logic.  If you can't do so, fine, but be honest about it.  I will answer you honestly with the degree of honesty you offer.  Since you chose to derail this conversation with epithets and angry rhetoric, I am asking you to restore the balance.

As to your swimmer, when she gets out of the pool she may turn out to be an Aristotelian, a Newtonian, or a contemporary quantum physicist... or she may have no theory of physics at all.  Swimming is irrelevant.  And if action was relevant here, none of us really have any idea how successfully you navigate life, so we have no basis for recognizing your claims of having a working logic in place. 

Yeheshuah

Love is the law, love under will.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 5352
 
"Yeheshuah" wrote:
Since you chose to derail this conversation with epithets and angry rhetoric...

Enough, for goodness sake!

I sincerely doubt that Los - whose contributions to these Forums are as interesting, as flawed and as valid as anyone's - intended to 'derail' the conversation. If you don't like a post, do what the vast majority of members do: rise above it, ignore it and move on.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 2195
Topic starter  
"lashtal" wrote:
Enough, for goodness sake!

I sincerely doubt that Los - whose contributions to these Forums are as interesting, as flawed and as valid as anyone's - intended to 'derail' the conversation. If you don't like a post, do what the vast majority of members do: rise above it, ignore it and move on.

Good advice, as usual, Paul.

For my part, I'm willing to take a moment to step back and examine how the discussion has been unfolding.

"Yeheshuah" wrote:
You have, in fact, made claims about statements being meaningless.  That is, in part, why I want you to lay out the groundwork for your logic.

To be clear, I wasn't asserting that I can demonstrate that your claim is meaningless. I was saying that you haven't explained your claim sufficiently so that I even understand what you're saying. I'm apparently not the only one who can't figure out what in blazes you're talking about.

Again, I'm not really clear on the details, but it sounded like you were saying that the claim "Jesus rose from the dead" does not refer to a literal, historical event, so I'm curious about what you actually mean by it and what convinces you that Jesus did in fact "rise from the dead" in whatever sense you mean.

It also sounded to me as if you were invoking some unique system of logic -- one that you do not employ to evaluate over 95% of the claims that people usually come across -- in which this claim could be somehow true and not-true at once (in the same sense?). If this is what you're doing, then this requires explanation. After establishing what you mean by the claim, you need to explain why you would use a unique system of logic to analyze this one claim and not all of the other claims that you encounter; then you need to explain exactly what this system entails (is there some special truth value assigned to the claim "Jesus rose from the dead"? What are the properties of this value? On what basis do you decide to accord this particular claim -- and not other claims --a special value)? 

Of course, you don't "need" to do any of this in an absolute sense. If you just want to say, "Well, I just believe it, so there!" then fine. But we're having a conversation about why you believe it. If you want to participate in that conversation, then you -- as the one who believes it -- have got some work to do.

Whether you can justify your claim or make it clear what you even mean in the first place is one question. A separate issue is the question of how people "account" for logic. Whether or not others can account for logic -- and whether it's even possible to account for it -- has nothing to do with whether you're capable of defending the claim that you actually made.

I'm primarily familiar with the question of whether logic can be "accounted for" from watching the antics of certain Christian apologists, who use questions very much like yours not as honest invitations to conversation but as "gotcha!" games. They'll ask how atheists account for logic: after all, it would be circular to use logic to prove that logic is valid, so how do atheists account for the logic they use? How do they make sense of their worldview? The Christian can make sense of the world, they claim: why, God accounts for logic! So how does someone without God account for logic? Oh, can't do it? Well, well, it looks like you've just got faith in logic, then.

This line of argumentation is deeply dishonest, and I'd rather not spend the several paragraphs it would take to explicate all of its problems, especially since it's irrelevant to the point under discussion.

As to your swimmer, when she gets out of the pool she may turn out to be an Aristotelian, a Newtonian, or a contemporary quantum physicist... or she may have no theory of physics at all.  Swimming is irrelevant.

Precisely. The swimmer doesn't need to "account" for physics in order to swim. In the same way, an individual does not need to "account" ultimately for logic in order to analyze arguments.


ReplyQuote
Tao
 Tao
(@tao)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 316
 

Actually, I have to be honest, it has seemed to me that this whole "Did Jesus literally raise from the dead?" ploy has been a multi-page derailment strategy. Yeheshua never actually made that truth-claim but Los has ridden it as far as it will take him. It stemmed from rather thoughtful analyses in replies #198 and #205 about the balance maintained in Bhakti work between statistically believable "facts" and faith-based "facts" within which Yeh admitted that the Work, as he understands it, requires him to play the part of The Fool and to sometimes believe Foolish things in order to experience deeper truths. As he pointed out, had he started down a Sufi path, his subjective beliefs would likely include other objectively difficult items rather than a Jesus-zombie. Los then found his easy target, reframed the discussion in objective/literalist terms, began demanding that Yeh defend a position that he never claimed within a logical structure that doesn't fit the conversation, and any discussions of actual "Thelemic Practice" have been missing from the thread ever since.

If he were actually interested in the answer to his question, he'd need to look no further than the post that ostensibly raised it:

"Yeheshuah" wrote:
When I grapple with the question of resurrection myself, I admit that it is something I hope for, long for, but not that it is something I know to be in my future.  My hope is buoyed by the promise of the Jesus story, but is the Jesus story a historical fact? There is much evidence to the contrary, since even the scholars who do research into the historical Jesus accept that the Gospels are fabrications written decades after when they believe Jesus died. Thelema allows me to admit my skepticism while maintaining my affection for the Gospel.  I long for evidence, I do not claim to have knowledge with regard to the Gospel.  I am secure both in my hope and in my knowledge.

If someone were to take Aphrodite as her deity of devotion in Bhakti practice, would we really be demanding of her an explanation of how she can logically support her belief in a literal birth from sea-foam? Of course not. We'd accept that as a tool being used in the practice, regardless of the fact that Aphrodite is in no way a "Thelemic" deity.

This discussion appears to be nothing but a redirection of "the most important thread that's possibly ever been on the forum" into a sideline attack on Christian "belief" simply because the subjective requirements of Bhakti yoga contradict the objective reality bias in the questioner. This most recent post which introduces "the antics of certain Christian apologists" even though they are "irrelevant to the point under discussion" just serves to underline this bias: He's got an axe to grind and is looking for any available stone.

Unfortunately for him, the practice of Bhakti was heartily endorsed by the founder of the very "Thelema" on which this thread is ostensibly hung so, at some point, whether he decides to continue ignoring my posts or not, he will have to give some sort of explanation for how a practice built on subjective beliefs that may be objectively un-provable fits into his conception of what his objective "Thelema" actually is.

Rising, ignoring, and moving on...


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 
"Yeheshuah" wrote:
How can I know such things about the way language functions if I have not transcended my current position? The answer is that I am not making knowledge claims in the traditional sense of justified, true belief... or something along those lines.  To be a mystic I must be a Fool.  That foolishness catches me up into a bootstrapping process: my bhakti practice led me to interpret my experiences in a certain way.  Practices and speculations based on that initial filtered set of experiences led to corroborating experiences, practices and speculations, deepening my devotion.  I imagine that if I had chosen a sufi path I would have had a similar experience that I would go on to filter through a sufi conceptual framework.  Dislodging a view such as the one I am describing is difficult because it undermines the use of reason.  Establishing such a view is equally difficult... if it is done with concern for all that reason has achieved.  (It is obviously easy enough to give oneself up to miracles and ghost stories.)  Care must be taken to keep an eye on my nonsense if I am to avoid losing myself to irrationality. 

Yeheshuah

Love is the law, love under will.

I am curious as to where are you on True Will and HGA?  How do you reconcile the Thelemite pursuit of True Will/HGA with your devotion (belief) to Jesus? 

I suppose it relates to my present signature maybe? 

"Theosophists call him the Higher Self, Silent Watcher..The Golden Dawn calls him the Genius.  Gnostics say the Logos.  Egyptians say Asar-Un- Nefer...AbraMelin calls him Holy Guardian Angel...I adopt this."

The Equinox

In other words as I asked you earlier in the thread, are you using bhakti devotion to Jesus as a preliminary tool to find your HGA or don't you care about that?  If you don't care then how can you identify yourself as a Thelemite as, I'm sure everyone here agrees, this is the first major goal of Thelema?

Also, where are you on aeons?  Do you accept that this is a new aeon of Horus which renders the Abrahamic religions obsolete?  Again, if you don't then how can you identify yourself as a Thelemite? 

How do you feel about (or interpret) the following from Liber Al?

With my Hawk's head I peck at the eyes of Jesus as he hangs upon the cross


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 

Yeheshua I can sympathise with your goal.  I know where you're coming from as I was brought up in the Catholic Church and we had to celebrate various events and get involved in various devotional ceremonies and practices (stations of the cross, holy communion etc).  I really felt that I was "plugging into something" ancient, powerful and mysterious during these events (sometimes anyway).  I live in the same village where this childhood programming took place and I can still feel the devotional feelings within my ajna (devotional) "chakra" sometimes when I drive past the same church I had to attend (not that chakras actually exist.)  However I don't get suckered into it, into Christ or christianity.  It's just consciousness and conditioning.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 6440
 
"david" wrote:
"Theosophists call him the Higher Self, Silent Watcher..The Golden Dawn calls him the Genius.  Gnostics say the Logos.  Egyptians say Asar-Un- Nefer...AbraMelin calls him Holy Guardian Angel...I adopt this."

And the Transhimalayan White Brotherhood (Theosophy-Arcane School- Lighted Way-Ascended Masters, etc) calls him the Christ or Christ-principle or Christ consciousness. He/it is presented as an individual principle. In the East, he is called The Bodhisattva (as opposed to a bodisattva, who is the same as any Magister, who is simply a dude who has attained "liberation" but has returned to assist humanity.

And these Transhimalayan lineages treat Will with respect and as a goal. Thelema means "Will," but it's not alone in seeking out that state/concept.

... are you using bhakti devotion to Jesus as a preliminary tool to find your HGA or don't you care about that?

That's a good question. We know that we're "supposed" to practice devotion (to somebody, some deity, some guru) at Netzach, but one we "attain" (dhyana/samadhi with the object), we're "supposed" to move on.

If you don't care then how can you identify yourself as a Thelemite ...

It's just a name, a label. If anyone is simply trying to find their "True" Will, or attain to their "Natural State," or simply attempting to "fulfil their genetic programming" (Ming - destiny), and they're using so-called Thelemic practices, then they're on their way.

I'm sure everyone here agrees, this is the first major goal of Thelema?

Well, there's a few other things to get out of the way first, like control of the various aspects of the personality. But, essentially, you're right - the main task for most folks is the so-called HGA. By the way, it's theoretical for most aspirants. ~75% quit, and most of them pilgrims drop out at Netzach. That's according to AC, and Jerry Cornelius, on his Facebook page) who just had a lengthy assessment of "why" these failures happen at Netzach, and it's also my own specific experience of watching aspirants work hard for 2 or 3 years, and then they flip out at sphere #7. Of course, it's not the devotion that kills their aspiration, it's their imprinted childhood, cultural programming.

Anyway, I know you're asking Y.'. these questions, but you're sort'a including "everyone here," so I thought I'd comment.


I thought I was just a spectator
but then the ham sandwich made me one of the
42 judges
in the Hall of Ma'at
::)[/align:vgvlkqns]

It's just consciousness and conditioning.

So are many things "over here" in Thelema land.


ReplyQuote
christibrany
(@christibrany)
Yuggothian
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 2957
 

Call me stupid but it seems like both of the major 'contestants' on this game show thread (Los and Jesus err Yehsehua) are saying the same thing.  Therefore they will both never get anywhere.
In other words it seems like they are both saying 'MY EXPERIENCE IS LIKE THIS AND THIS IS WHY IT IS RIGHT AND WHY I THINK IT.' then when the other person says something antagonistic, the other never ever answers the question or addresses the issue, they just keep repeating themselves.  Maybe it's like oil and water and they are never going to mix or understand each other, because they are both using the same flawed stances over and over again.  Just my two cents on what it seems like to me. 

How about both of you try and step outside the box for a second and really explain yourselves?  Instead of talking in riddles?  Or maybe I am just not clever enough to understand where you are coming from; but it feels like egotistical obfuscation on both sides.  I like plain language meself.... ie. 'No, I don't know, and I'm willing to admit it.' that kind of thing...


ReplyQuote
christibrany
(@christibrany)
Yuggothian
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 2957
 
"Shiva" wrote:
"david" wrote:
"Theosophists call him the Higher Self, Silent Watcher..The Golden Dawn calls him the Genius.  Gnostics say the Logos.  Egyptians say Asar-Un- Nefer...AbraMelin calls him Holy Guardian Angel...I adopt this."

And the Transhimalayan White Brotherhood (Theosophy-Arcane School- Lighted Way-Ascended Masters, etc) calls him the Christ or Christ-principle or Christ consciousness. He/it is presented as an individual principle. In the East, he is called The Bodhisattva (as opposed to a bodisattva, who is the same as any Magister, who is simply a dude who has attained "liberation" but has returned to assist humanity.

And these Transhimalayan lineages treat Will with respect and as a goal. Thelema means "Will," but it's not alone in seeking out that state/concept.

... are you using bhakti devotion to Jesus as a preliminary tool to find your HGA or don't you care about that?

That's a good question. We know that we're "supposed" to practice devotion (to somebody, some deity, some guru) at Netzach, but one we "attain" (dhyana/samadhi with the object), we're "supposed" to move on.

If you don't care then how can you identify yourself as a Thelemite ...

It's just a name, a label. If anyone is simply trying to find their "True" Will, or attain to their "Natural State," or simply attempting to "fulfil their genetic programming" (Ming - destiny), and they're using so-called Thelemic practices, then they're on their way.

I'm sure everyone here agrees, this is the first major goal of Thelema?

Well, there's a few other things to get out of the way first, like control of the various aspects of the personality. But, essentially, you're right - the main task for most folks is the so-called HGA. By the way, it's theoretical for most aspirants. ~75% quit, and most of them pilgrims drop out at Netzach. That's according to AC, and Jerry Cornelius, on his Facebook page) who just had a lengthy assessment of "why" these failures happen at Netzach, and it's also my own specific experience of watching aspirants work hard for 2 or 3 years, and then they flip out at sphere #7. Of course, it's not the devotion that kills their aspiration, it's their imprinted childhood, cultural programming.

Anyway, I know you're asking Y.'. these questions, but you're sort'a including "everyone here," so I thought I'd comment.


I thought I was just a spectator
but then the ham sandwich made me one of the
42 judges
in the Hall of Ma'at
::)[/align:7hhsmuld]

It's just consciousness and conditioning.

So are many things "over here" in Thelema land.

Siva buddy 🙂
Because I dont want to be one of those who flip out and leave (like we can control that right?) I am still curious about your sources about Cornelius; can you share these case studies please?  Just because me no gwine do a social media ya 😛


ReplyQuote
Page 6 / 17
Share: