True Will = True Na...
 
Notifications
Clear all

True Will = True Nature

Page 2 / 2

 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"Shiva" wrote:
"It" (the so-called un- or sub- or super-conscious) remains conscious - even when we are unaware of it? ::)

Hmmm. That's a stretch. It sounds like a formula for schizophrenia. You may have trouble defending such an idea. Does this mean that when a tree falls in a forest, there is a sound - even if nobody hears it? A sound, mind you, not an unheard vibration ... ?

Naturally, if no one hears the tree fall, it is an unheard vibration. The vibration itself exists, though.

What we call "a sound" is simply the perception we make out of certain vibrations.

So being conscious of something influences our perception of it, but does not necessarily determine whether or not it exists.

There are different levels of consciousness. Parts of you are conscious and intelligent and perceptive that your conscious mind is not (necessarily) conscious of.

It is not unusual for people to be motivated by unconscious drives (impulses they are not aware of). The body itself continuously accomplishes highly intelligent and complex autonomic work which you are not conscious of.

Now if you choose to define consciousness as solely that which you (your everyday persona or ego) are consciously aware of at any given moment, then it follows that any other aspect of you will be defined as not-conscious.

But in psychology, the unconscious is not considered "not conscious." It has its own knowledge, emotions, perceptions, ideas, memories, fantasies, etc., many of which would or could appall the conscious mind or vastly inspire it, as the case may be.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1688
 

Thank you aleks356, this now makes your position a lot more clearer as I feel (hope) Shiva would also agree & I am sure will inform if he doesn’t.

"Shiva" wrote:
Does this mean that when a tree falls in a forest, there is a sound - even if nobody hears it? A sound, mind you, not an unheard vibration ... ?

Re. this noise - or sound, to be precise - in the wood (or forest, to be precise): forget “unheard of vibrations” and all that, which just complicates the matter - how about looking at this old chestnut tree the following way?  If there was a tape recorder around, set to record – it would then register a noise, upon being fetched later and made to “play back”.  (Shows my age, doesn't it, this equipment – do people still use tapes?! ::))  Anyways, you would hear the definitely identifiable sound of a tree crashing on it, wouldn’t you?  The same way as if you had a radio transmitter or mobile phone on out there (he said, desperately trying to update).

This particular method wouldn’t work with the sound of one hand clapping, though.
N Joy


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 6458
 
"aleks356" wrote:
Now if you choose to define consciousness as solely that which you (your everyday persona or ego) are consciously aware of at any given moment, then it follows that any other aspect of you will be defined as not-conscious.

Yes. That is my choice and my definition. As was Jung's, which is why he used the term, "unconscious."

But in psychology, the unconscious is not considered "not conscious."

There are as many forms of "psychology" as there are versions of religion. Some of them may consider archetypes and complexes (demons) to be conscious.

{quote]It [the unconscious] has its own knowledge, emotions, perceptions, ideas, memories, fantasies, etc., many of which would or could appall the conscious mind or vastly inspire it, as the case may be.

I have no problem with most of this (^) statement. However, the concepts cited are "blind forces," and you make them sound like they are independent, sentient entities, when in fact are are pre-conditioned.

We are now discussing something similar to "Was/is Aiwass an independent entity, or is/was he a projected aspect of Crowley's (super-, un-)conscious mind? There is no proven answer; it's all subjective speculation. A younger person might have all kinds of speculation and wishful thinking. Older folks, like myself, have seen the elephant and found that sanity depends on dealing with what one's instrument has to see and say. There's nothing wrong with probing the sub-, super, un-conscious mind and coming back with info - just like Mr Barter can place a recorder in the forest and hear the trees fall.

But, as I implied earlier, if the unconscious is conscious, then we have a basis for schizophrenia. Simply saying, "the unconscious is conscious," does not prove the validity of that form of a zen koan.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"aleks356" wrote:
But in psychology, the unconscious is not considered "not conscious." It has its own knowledge, emotions, perceptions, ideas, memories, fantasies, etc., many of which would or could appall the conscious mind or vastly inspire it, as the case may be.

In Qabalah, this would be a textbook example to define the qlippah of Kether, or Thaumiel.


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 1092
 

I have been intrigued by an apparent contradiction presented implicitly in some of Los’ posts (“intrigued” and “apparent” because Los is, if anything, consistent). It got me speculating about what he might mean, or how to solve it. Stated simply, it is how, if True Will arises from the brain, how it can equally arise from the True Self which is “below the body and the mind.” Isn’t the brain part of the body, and the mind a function (or “emergent property”) of the brain?

Here are a couple of posts with statements of the kind I am thinking of – the bold parts are the important parts, surrounded by context:

http://www.lashtal.com/forum/http://www.lashtal.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=84868#p84868

"Los" wrote:

If we take the materialist viewpoint

I’ll rephrase that. If we accept the conclusion that seems most likely based upon evidence, that our consciousness is an emergent property of matter…

then all that we consider to be ourselves, our consciousness, our individuality, our preferences, our tendencies, are all functions of brain.

The True Will isn’t “physical” in that sense. And of course it’s not “measurable,” either. It’s something that each individual observes inside himself or herself.

But if we talk about where True Will *comes from* (or arises from, I guess we could say), then it appears to come from physical brains, like every single other aspect of a person appears to.

As an analogy, consider the faculty of creativity. I can’t “physically measure” my creativity, either, but that doesn’t demonstrate that my creativity doesn’t arise in my brain.

http://www.lashtal.com/forum/http://www.lashtal.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=85282#p85282

"Los" wrote:
First, let’s note that – once again – Crowley affirms that the Will is hampered when one “become[ s ] passive towards the thoughts and the senses.” These are the restrictions (the “veils”) that he speaks of elsewhere.

One becomes such a “slave” of be-cause by passively accepting these thoughts and sensations, by allowing the mind and body to “cause” one’s actions.

Instead, the True Will should spring from the interaction of Self (the authentic self, below the body and mind) with environment: by “uncaused,” Crowley means that the will is the “measure of the motion of the self in respect of any given object.” He says it’s thus an abuse of the word “cause” to say that the Will is “caused” by those objects.

Trying to make it consistent with a “materialist” worldview, I began to speculate that Los is referring to something like “laws of physics” that are indeed “below the body and the mind”, and that “emergent property”, referring to something like order arising out of chaos, linking up with such physical principles or laws, can be expressed and visualized as something like a fractal. So, he is suggesting that the True Will, or the True Self, is like a mathematical formula or function, which produces the body which produces the brain which produces the True Will as an expression of itself.

However, I probably went too far. I think now he is alluding to the Khu, which is orthodox Thelema, and of which Los’ words “the authentic self, below the body and mind,” reflect Crowley’s in the New Comment to I,8:

“This ‘star’ or ‘inmost light’ is the original, individual, eternal essence. The Khu is the magical garment which it weaves for itself, a ‘form’ for its being beyond form, by use of which it can gain experience through self-consciousness, as explained in the note to verses 2 and 3. This Khu is the first veil, far subtler than mind or body, and truer, for its symbolic shape depends on the nature of its star.”

This doesn’t resolve the contradiction I perceive, but I think it’s what he’s talking about. Perhaps he means then that the Khu is like DNA, the inherited characteristics, which can be expressed as a chemical formula and are below any given body as an idea (since they can be cloned, and yet each person produced thereby would still be different because of their experiences), or that the True Self is the person’s unique DNA, a potential person, but not yet a person with a Will, which can only come by being embodied as a zygote-embryo-foetus-baby-child-adolescent-adult.

But the fractal metaphor produced, if I may say so, some pretty cool contemplation.

Connecting emergent property to fractals (illustrated in the famous Mandelbrot Set, or Julia Sets), I wondered if he was implying that the True Will is a fractal. There would be infinite fractals in the body of Nuit, thus at any given point or level the same “True Will” would exist, allowing the notion of “reincarnation” in the sense that the same function reappears eternally, but at different levels of apparent order – a being or “by-coming” - depending on the point of view of the observer. If you could define yourself thus abstractly, you will find that a fractal identical to your formula will emerge with a periodicity, if you know where to look. You may find yourself elsewhere in nature; you may find yourself in the past, you may find yourself in the future.

Fractals express quite elegantly the Hermetic axiom “As above, so below”.

“In 1872 Karl Weierstrass presented the first definition of a function with a graph that would today be considered fractal, having the non-intuitive property of being everywhere continuous but nowhere differentiable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal
(this description of fractal properties sounds remarkably like Nuit’s “continuous” in CCXX I,22-30)

Just throwing it out there, and asking Los what he means. I put it here because it deals with our own understanding of True Will rather than just Crowley’s.


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Elderly American druggie
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3835
 

You truly surpass yourself (high praise given your usual standard of rigorous scholarship and richness of interpretation), belmurru, in extracting the rather fascinating idea of "True Will" as a fractal function of the body of Nuit from the postings of "Los" (who has not yet denied that he is a Turing-bot; you are correct in noting his almost inhuman consistency).
This notion resonates exactly with my understanding of AC's thinking here, especially as to his belief in reincarnation, despite being based on math that was years in the future when he died. Of course, scientific developments unforeseeable by the "Prophet" were just the sort of thing AC loved to cite as "proofs" of the veracity of Thelema.
This is an idea that might well merit exploration in a thread of its own, or here.
You are almost certainly correct that this is not at all what was intended by those responsible for the "Los" postings; we shall have to await a reply from the recently uncharacteristically-silent "Los".
Talk about spinning silk purses out of sows' ears!


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 2195
 
"belmurru" wrote:
I have been intrigued by an apparent contradiction presented implicitly in some of Los’ posts (“intrigued” and “apparent” because Los is, if anything, consistent). It got me speculating about what he might mean, or how to solve it. Stated simply, it is how, if True Will arises from the brain, how it can equally arise from the True Self which is “below the body and the mind.” Isn’t the brain part of the body, and the mind a function (or “emergent property”) of the brain?

You’re right to call it an “apparent” contradiction because it’s only a contradiction if you pay attention to the appearance of the words used to describe the subject, rather than the actual subject under discussion.

There are two separate things we’re talking about: 1) what the True Will “ultimately is” (that is to say, its ontology: whether we should class it as something natural, supernatural, physical, spiritual, mental) and 2) how we experience the True Will (that is, how we practically engage with it).

There’s no contradiction whatsoever in saying that the True Will may be (1) a natural thing rooted in the brain and (2) experienced as distinct from our experience of what we might normally term the “bodily impulses.”

However, if we were to use the word “body” or “physical” very broadly, we could say that it’s “physical” in one sense (1) but “not physical” in another sense (2). This could create the appearance of contradiction if our interlocutors are so hasty as to jump all over our posts with the glee of a "gotcha!" without bothering to pay attention to what is *meant* by the words.

In the exact same way, there’s no contradiction between saying my latest idea for a song is rooted in my brain but isn’t “bodily" in the sense that my digestive functions are "bodily." My song idea is "of the body" in one sense, but not in another. But there's no contradiction because words can have more than one sense simultaneously.

The distinction that I’m talking about here isn’t difficult to grasp at all. The fact that you haven’t twigged to it yet – or, at least, are acting as if you haven’t twigged to it yet – leads me to suspect that you are, for some bizarre reason known only to you, deliberately going out of your way to jump on the least charitable interpretation of everything I say. I have no idea why you’ve decided to behave this way all of a sudden.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 2195
 
"belmurru" wrote:
the True Self is the person’s unique DNA, a potenti but al person, but not yet a person with a Will, which can only come by being embodied as a zygote-embryo-foetus-baby-child-adolescent-adult.

Well, obviously the True Self has a strong genetic component, but I'm inclined to think that the True Self is the product of genetics and early conditioning.

Of course, it really makes no difference what the True Self "ultimately is" (point 1, above). The work of engaging with it (point 2) remains the same no matter how much "nature" and how much "nurture" it is.

I wondered if [Los] was implying that the True Will is a fractal. There would be infinite fractals in the body of Nuit, thus at any given point or level the same “True Will” would exist, allowing the notion of “reincarnation” in the sense that the same function reappears eternally, but at different levels of apparent order – a being or “by-coming” - depending on the point of view of the observer. If you could define yourself thus abstractly, you will find that a fractal identical to your formula will emerge with a periodicity, if you know where to look. You may find yourself elsewhere in nature; you may find yourself in the past, you may find yourself in the future.

No, I didn't mean this. Each True Self and True Will are unique. Even if we could clone you, it would be you in different circumstances, producing a different path through the universe. I do not think that there is some kind of "pattern" that can be found elsewhere in nature or in other temporal periods.

I do think, however, that each individual "reincarnates" countless times in the course of a natural lifespan -- in the sense that the self is destroyed and reborn with each experience. If we look at "reincarnation" in this light, we can make some kind of sense of the idea of the True Will as a motion that stretches across many "incarnations" and through which a molecule (Khabs) can become "more than it is" by acquiring the "illusion" of experience.


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Elderly American druggie
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3835
 

"Los": You mean the experience of "True Will" is not "natural" but "praeternatural", since it is "experienced as distinct from our [nomal] experience"?

"Los" wrote:
you are, for some bizarre reason known only to you, deliberately going out of your way to jump on the least charitable interpretation of everything I say.

Don't you hate when people (or bots) do that?


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 
"ignant666" wrote:
You truly surpass yourself (high praise given your usual standard of rigorous scholarship and richness of interpretation), belmurru, in extracting the rather fascinating idea of "True Will" as a fractal function of the body of Nuit from the postings of "Los" (who has not yet denied that he is a Turing-bot; you are correct in noting his almost inhuman consistency).
This notion resonates exactly with my understanding of AC's thinking here, especially as to his belief in reincarnation, despite being based on math that was years in the future when he died. Of course, scientific developments unforeseeable by the "Prophet" were just the sort of thing AC loved to cite as "proofs" of the veracity of Thelema.
This is an idea that might well merit exploration in a thread of its own, or here.
You are almost certainly correct that this is not at all what was intended by those responsible for the "Los" postings; we shall have to await a reply from the recently uncharacteristically-silent "Los".
Talk about spinning silk purses out of sows' ears!

Have you got nothing better to do that mindlessly perpetuate this "Turing-bot" silliness.  It's cringe worthy.  If you have something thoughtful to contribute then please do so, otherwise please step back.


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Elderly American druggie
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3835
 

Did you read the other parts of my post that you quote, besides the 14 words you are reacting to in Pavlovian fashion, david?
"Los" has yet to deny it, for what it's worth, or to post anything inconsistent with my interpretation.
In response to your very kind query, no i have nothing better to do with my time, no more than you.


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 1092
 
"Los" wrote:
I have no idea why you’ve decided to behave this way all of a sudden.

I’ve  never been trying to “getcha”. I have long admired your steadfast skepticism, rationalism, and persistent patience in explaining it. It is a consistent vision. But over the course of the last month or so, I have begun to notice apparent inconsistencies that have annoyed me, so that finally I have to point them out.

In this case, you seem to be using words in an uncharacteristic – for you - way, which suggests that you intend a deeper meaning, or you are being sloppy. The latter is very unlike you, so it must be the first.

If all you’re saying is “we subjectively experience True Will as deeper than anything we recognize as part of our consciousness, so whatever the origin of it is, it is useful to think of it as a different part of ourselves,” then why not just say that? The same can be said, of course, of spirits, ghosts, gods, angels, demons, the astral body, past lives, etc., and you therefore agree with Crowley in using these conventions as such, without the need to establish what is likely to be the objective truth. 

You’re right to call it an “apparent” contradiction because it’s only a contradiction if you pay attention to the appearance of the words used to describe the subject, rather than the actual subject under discussion.

The appearance of words is the only thing I have to go on in this medium. The word “body” appears to mean matter, and “mind” something produced by matter; i.e. still “material”. One’s subjective experience, being private and ultimately unknowable to any other person, thus establishing objectivity, seems beside the point.

I can only know what you write, unless you want to skype and get more information like body language, vocal intonations and facial expressions, which convey much more in my experience.

There are two separate things we’re talking about: 1) what the True Will “ultimately is” (that is to say, its ontology: whether we should class it as something natural, supernatural, physical, spiritual, mental) and 2) how we experience the True Will (that is, how we practically engage with it).

That’s fine. I think the ontology is important too, and whether it arises in the “body” or because of “bodily impulses”, it still seems weird to express it as originating “below” the body or that it “cannot be identified with the body or the mind”. Subjectivity might be experienced as “different” than body, but I still can’t see how it is “below” or “not identifiable with” mind.

There’s no contradiction whatsoever in saying that the True Will may be (1) a natural thing rooted in the brain and (2) experienced as distinct from our experience of what we might normally term the “bodily impulses.”

However, if we were to use the word “body” or “physical” very broadly, we could say that it’s “physical” in one sense (1) but “not physical” in another sense (2). This could create the appearance of contradiction if our interlocutors are so hasty as to jump all over our posts with the glee of a "gotcha!" without bothering to pay attention to what is *meant* by the words.

In the exact same way, there’s no contradiction between saying my latest idea for a song is rooted in my brain but isn’t “bodily" in the sense that my digestive functions are "bodily." My song idea is "of the body" in one sense, but not in another. But there's no contradiction because words can have more than one sense simultaneously.

The distinction that I’m talking about here isn’t difficult to grasp at all. The fact that you haven’t twigged to it yet – or, at least, are acting as if you haven’t twigged to it yet – leads me to suspect that you are, for some bizarre reason known only to you, deliberately going out of your way to jump on the least charitable interpretation of everything I say. I have no idea why you’ve decided to behave this way all of a sudden.

I don’t think it is uncharitable – your words appear to suggest that the True Self, where the True Will originates, is somehow categorically different than body or mind. The only thing I could think of that is neither, but still rational, is a principle or law like those of mathematics and physics, which, combined with your remarks about “emergent property”, brought me to fractals. I guessed, correctly, that this was not what you meant, so I have asked you to clarify, which you are trying to do.

Here is another comment like this (my bold)

http://www.lashtal.com/forum/http://www.lashtal.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=85154#p85154

"Los" wrote:
Altogether, the above quotes are a tiny smattering of ones that I could reproduce in support of this point, and they serve to underline the point that Crowley thought of the True Will as the natural function of each individual (a natural function that, nevertheless, cannot be identified with either the body or the mind).

Here you do not say “may be experienced as distinct from either the body or the mind”, but, apparently categorically, say that it cannot be identified with either the body or the mind.

Now this “cannot” might mean that either the True Self really can not be identified, objectively and empirically, with either the body or the mind, i.e. it is objectively something other than body or mind; or, that, no matter how much you analyze it, you yourself cannot find its locus, point of origin or basis in either the body or the mind.

Practically speaking, both of these meanings for “cannot be identified” result in the same ignorance of cause, and therefore leave one in a position of agnosticism in regards to the nature of the soul or True Self. But I know, or at least strongly suspect, that you are not so agnostic, and that you hold the origin of the True Self, or the perception of the True Self, to be in the body, or bodily impulses (which terms you use synonymously). Therefore it strikes me as unusual for you to use language suggesting that the True Self really is something other than body or mind, not just experienced as such and merely conventionally spoken of as such.

It is also puzzling that you continue to trivialize the core experience of selfhood and individuality by comparison with things like the “idea for a song”. I can definitely identify the idea for a song, both its source and development, with my mind, but you have explicitly precluded the same for my Self. How is the former a satisfactory analogy for the latter then? 

I don’t think most people would be satisfied with “True Will is a subjective experience, like a dream, falling in love, or the idea for a song, and there is no point in asking further about it. Just find out what it is , and do it.” People want to know WHAT it is, IF it’s real and can be therefore trusted, and thus need to understand what is being proposed as to its origin. It is supposed to be supreme, the center of one’s life, and so the ontological question is extremely important. It’s no different than a theist asking the honest question “Where does God come from?”


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

I don't wish to derail this conversation by diffusing its focus with another viewpoint, but I will be reading with interest. This exploration of the ontology of "True Will" is precisely what drew me into the other thread.


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 1092
 
"Tao" wrote:
I don't wish to derail this conversation by diffusing its focus with another viewpoint, but I will be reading with interest. This exploration of the ontology of "True Will" is precisely what drew me into the other thread.

Please do offer another viewpoint, Tao. I'm hoping this can be a more personal, here's my experience or theory kind of thread.

Obviously experience is more valuable than theory, but as we know, even experience, however real, is not always properly understood.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 2195
 
"belmurru" wrote:
I have long admired your steadfast skepticism, rationalism, and persistent patience in explaining it. It is a consistent vision. But over the course of the last month or so, I have begun to notice apparent inconsistencies that have annoyed me

Okay. It’s possible that I’ve been unconsciously picking up on your annoyance, which has manifested in frustration or annoyance on my own part. I’ll endeavor to watch for that kind of reaction and to be a little more patient.

your words appear to suggest that the True Self, where the True Will originates, is somehow categorically different than body or mind.

So let’s address this. In my parlance – and I would argue in Crowley’s as well, but that’s another thread -- the True Self is the actual individual (as distinguishable from the false ideas that individual might have about his or her nature).

The dynamic part of that Self – how the actual individual authentically interacts with a given environment – is the True Will.

Every individual, by definition, would therefore necessarily always be doing his or her True Will if it were not for the fact that things can hamper or impede that True Will.

In Thelemic philosophy, the primary impediments to the True Will are the body and the mind.

And this discussion leads inevitably to your question: how can an individual can be distinguishable from body and mind, particularly given the fact that there is no evidence for the existence of anything remotely like a soul or spirit? The answer to that question rests on how we’re defining what we consider to be the “actual individual.”

For example, just about every human individual has fingernails, but we don’t usually identify the individual with the fingernails. That is to say, a person could clip those fingernails and still remain an individual. The same goes for the foot, the hand, the eye, and even the vital organs. If you plucked out a dude’s heart a la Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, the dude wouldn’t cease to be an individual: he would be an individual who had just died (that’s why we could still identify the individual as an individual and say something like “Billy Joe Bob just had his heart ripped out!”)

The same goes with the conscious thoughts. The individual can’t be equated with any one of those thoughts. In fact, the individual could still all thoughts – as in meditation – and still be an individual.

An individual isn’t any single one of those body parts or thoughts: so what the hell *is* an individual?

The answer is that “individuality” is a concept that our minds impose on reality. I’m going to illustrate this idea with an analogy, one whose purpose is not to “trivialize” anything, but rather to illuminate the process by which our minds impose individuality (or “thingness”) on the flux of reality.

For example, is the chair I’m sitting on “one single thing” or a collection of smaller things? It can be considered either, depending on how I choose to look at it. I could consider it to be an “individual chair,” or I could consider part of it (for example, the seat part) to be the “core piece” of the chair, a piece surrounded by a bunch of other pieces that support the core piece and allow the core piece to function. In other words, I could consider that piece to be the “True Individuality of the Chair,” the piece that is linked to those other pieces but not identifiable with them.

Hell, I could even go further: what if I consider that “core piece” to be not a single individual “thing” at all, but a collection of billions of molecules? Well, it looks like I’ve just dissolved and annihilated the individuality of the chair.

That lengthy analogy gives one example of how our minds divide up the flux of reality into discrete “things,” imbuing each with the concept of individuality.

In a similar way, we might well choose to define a collection of a given person’s authentic inclinations as comprising the “actual individual,” the core individual. This “True Self” is a part that might be thought of as connected to other parts –  hands, feet, arms, conscious thoughts, hair, etc. – but not identifiable with any single one of those body parts or thoughts.

That is how we might legitimately consider the “True Self” to be something other than the body or the mind.

Now, why might we choose the authentic inclinations as the part to designate the True Self, and not the fingernails? I would point back to Crowley’s writings to justify my answer, but that’s evidently a discussion for another thread.

As a final thought, if we return to the analogy of considering the chair to be not an “individual thing” at all – or not even a collection of “parts” surrounding a “core part” – but rather a collection of molecules in flux, you’ll get a hint of how an individual might be “annihilated” yet still go on living; how one might “dissolve” the “self” yet still appear to others for all intents and purposes to be the exact same person.

This is the mystery of crossing the Abyss, which is a subject for another time.

If all you’re saying is “we subjectively experience True Will as deeper than anything we recognize as part of our consciousness, so whatever the origin of it is, it is useful to think of it as a different part of ourselves,” then why not just say that?

See my above answer for a more detailed treatment of the question of what I mean by saying the True Self is distinguishable from the body and mind. In general, I think it’s kind of vague to say “deeper than anything we recognize as part of our consciousness.” That could mean virtually anything, and I can easily see someone taking that phrase to mean that the True Will are the extra-special daydreams, the ones experienced as some kind of internal “revelation.”

When I speak of the True Will as distinguishable from body and mind, I’m usually trying to emphasize that the True Will is not 1) an individual’s conscious thoughts (including the imagination and including especially the subtle thoughts that the individual does not explicitly think “out loud” to himself…which is to say, including the rational framing assumptions that underlie the inductions and deductions the mind is constantly making), and the True Will is not 2) an individual’s immediate bodily impulse (for example, several times a day I need to empty my bladder, but I wouldn’t say that it’s therefore my “True Will” to piss right on the street where I’m walking).


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 
"belmurru" wrote:
People want to know WHAT it is, IF it’s real and can be therefore trusted, and thus need to understand what is being proposed as to its origin. It is supposed to be supreme, the center of one’s life, and so the ontological question is extremely important.

I agree. I'll also add that it is a central question of the Outer Order. Is the G.D. not supposed to achieve the K&C, thereby strengthening the possibility of getting answers those very questions?

I'm willing to bet there are as many answers concerning the concept of the HGA as there are people to give them.

"There are deep secrets in these songs. It is not enough to hear the bird; to enjoy song he must be the bird." - Liber VII, VI:14


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 2195
 
"Azidonis" wrote:
I agree.

Nope, sorry. Your answer contains duality. Invalid!


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 4221
 

Golly, an attempt at humour from Los. Who'd have thought it?


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 
"Los" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
I agree.

Nope, sorry. Your answer contains duality. Invalid!

Any words soever are dualistic. Are you new?


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 2195
 
"Azidonis" wrote:
Any words soever are dualistic.

Nope, sorry. This answer also contains duality. Invalid again!

You're bad at this game.


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

theres no way to NOT do your true will. But there are books and consciousness about it . . .


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

Los your reply #64 sounds almost identical to Hume's "bundle of perception" concept.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1688
 
"Azidonis" wrote:
"belmurru" wrote:
People want to know WHAT it is, IF it’s real and can be therefore trusted, and thus need to understand what is being proposed as to its origin. It is supposed to be supreme, the center of one’s life, and so the ontological question is extremely important.

I agree. I'll also add that it is a central question of the Outer Order. [...]

"Los" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
I agree.

Nope, sorry. Your answer contains duality. Invalid!

Anyone sure what the question was?  And who said duality was verboten in the answering of it? ;D
N Joy


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 

93

Los, you say:

"Every individual, by definition, would therefore necessarily always be doing his or her True Will if it were not for the fact that things can hamper or impede that True Will."

I have always tried to make the point that you are somehow throwing out these "mistakes" or things that hamper or impede actually DO so. IF we see the universe as something more interconnected (as nature seems to demonstrate another way with ecosystems etc and in nature all the time) everything that individual "allows" to impede or hamper him or her is part of some process.

How many famous people have come to their accomplishments through conflict and opposition and mistakes etc. We GROW and learn most of the time by "following" what we may be "true" for us. Is a person then according to you ALWAYS the same "authentically"? Or are each of us dynamic and changeable? Do you feel we can transform ourselves and change these inherent tendencies?

And last, if this is the True Will, the "actual individual" stripped of outside influences, what point does this have? Does this promise a better life? Just because "Albert" loves to eat ice cream, doesn't mean he will enjoy the repercussions to his health and life. It gets very complicated in society to NOT be influenced by anything outside these so called authentic preferences. We are raised from birth by them You may as well say the origins of True Will then is social conditioning and genes. Stripped down to a materialistic "random" biological type of theory, it simply makes no sense. Why would we need or necessarily benefit from doing our True Will in that case?

Just a few thoughts. Love the thread.

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 2195
 
"Jason Resh" wrote:
Is a person then according to you ALWAYS the same "authentically"? Or are each of us dynamic and changeable? Do you feel we can transform ourselves and change these inherent tendencies?

If you're asking whether a person's authentic inclinations can change, then I would say yes. Even if those inclinations always remained exactly the same, they would interact differently with different environments, and the environment is always changing. You cannot step into the same river twice.

And last, if this is the True Will, the "actual individual" stripped of outside influences, what point does this have?

I didn't say that the True Will is the individual "stripped of outside influences." True Will is the dynamic aspect of the True Self, which is how the Self interacts with the environment. You and I have been through this before.

Does this promise a better life?

Depends on what you mean. Nothing is going to produce a "better" life in the sense of one thing being objectively "better" than another because, from the perspective of the universe, one thing is as good as any other (see AL I:22). The idea is that discovering the True Will produces a life more satisfying to the individual. At least, that's what Crowley thought. Take it up with him, if you disagree (just be sure not to interpret him on that other thread...only direct quotes and vague ramblings, thank you very much!).

Just because "Albert" loves to eat ice cream, doesn't mean he will enjoy the repercussions to his health and life.

Obviously. A person can have an inclination to eat ice cream, but have a stronger inclination not to be a huge fat ass.

You don't seem to grasped many of my points since the last time we spoke, so I'll leave it there.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 
"Jason Resh" wrote:
93

Los, you say:

"Every individual, by definition, would therefore necessarily always be doing his or her True Will if it were not for the fact that things can hamper or impede that True Will."

I have always tried to make the point that you are somehow throwing out these "mistakes" or things that hamper or impede actually DO so. IF we see the universe as something more interconnected (as nature seems to demonstrate another way with ecosystems etc and in nature all the time) everything that individual "allows" to impede or hamper him or her is part of some process.

How many famous people have come to their accomplishments through conflict and opposition and mistakes etc. We GROW and learn most of the time by "following" what we may be "true" for us. Is a person then according to you ALWAYS the same "authentically"? Or are each of us dynamic and changeable? Do you feel we can transform ourselves and change these inherent tendencies?

And last, if this is the True Will, the "actual individual" stripped of outside influences, what point does this have? Does this promise a better life? Just because "Albert" loves to eat ice cream, doesn't mean he will enjoy the repercussions to his health and life. It gets very complicated in society to NOT be influenced by anything outside these so called authentic preferences. We are raised from birth by them You may as well say the origins of True Will then is social conditioning and genes. Stripped down to a materialistic "random" biological type of theory, it simply makes no sense. Why would we need or necessarily benefit from doing our True Will in that case?

Just a few thoughts. Love the thread.

93 93/93

The Oath of a Magister Templi

I, __________________, a member of the Body of God,
hereby bind myself on behalf of the Whole Universe,
even as we are now physically bound unto the cross of
suffering:

that I will lead a pure life, as a devoted servant of
the Order: that I will understand all things:

that I will love all things: that I will perform all
things and endure all things: that I will continue in the
Knowledge and Conversation of my Holy Guardian
Angel:

that I will work without attachment: that I will
work in truth: that I will rely only upon myself:

that I will interpret every phenomenon as a
particular dealing of God with my soul.

And if I fail herein, may my pyramid be profaned
and the Eye closed to me.

Witness my hand [motto] __________________________

The Task of a Magister Templi

Let the Magister Templi cross the Abyss.[/align:bv46ogxb]


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 2195
 
"Azidonis" wrote:
The Oath of

Nope, this post also contains duality. Invalid!


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 6458
 

Every Oath, Statement, Concept, Idea and State contains or lives in Duality.


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 1092
 

Well, it's more fun than being alone.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1688
 
"Azidonis" wrote:
The Task of a Magister Templi

Let the Magister Templi cross the Abyss.

Hasn’t the ”Magister Templi”, by definition, already crossed the Abyss?

"Los" wrote:
You don't seem to grasped many of my points since the last time we spoke, so I'll leave it there.

In other words, "you absolute thickie!" (quoth the schoolmaster)

N Joy


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 
"jamie barter" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
The Task of a Magister Templi

Let the Magister Templi cross the Abyss.

Hasn’t the ”Magister Templi”, by definition, already crossed the Abyss?

Surprised me too, when I first read it way back when. Consider, for example, how the Adeptus Minor has the Task of achieving the K&C, but the K&C is the mark of the Adept! It is the crowning accomplishment of the Grade.

There is no Grade for Babe of the Abyss. The crowning accomplishment of the Exempt Adept is to be thrust into the Abyss. The crowning accomplishment of the Magister Templi is finishing the Abyss venture. As One Star in Sight alludes, "The essential Attainment [of the Magister Templi] is the perfect annihilation of that personality which limits and oppresses his true self."


ReplyQuote
Page 2 / 2
Share: