Home Forums Thelema Thelema A new resident of the City of the Pyramids!: Los

Viewing 15 posts - 346 through 360 (of 475 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #100931

    dom
    Participant

    @ignant666

    David: I don’t see “True Will” mentioned here- are you sure this is the article you intended?

    In case this was the article you intended, you can’t seriously be suggesting that all happy people by definition are doing their True Will?

    It’s a tricky one but yes I was.

    @christibrany

    I said I wouldn’t post in this thread anymore because it truly is pointless, but I just had to underline the immense disgusting arrogance and egotism behind this statement:

    “Thelema (that is, the way I present Thelema, which is the way that Thelema actually is, as opposed to the fantasy weirdness that many others present it as)” by Los

    My word…enough said.

    Where is that lifted from exactly?

    @shiva

    D: I agree that Zen is lacking insofar as it has no vocab that involves the concept of True Will. In other words Zen Buddhists appear to have no “course correction” thereby.

    I had a teacher/guru, back in the mid 70s, who said the Japanese “skip a step.” They go for the final goal directly without dealing with intermediate principles. It’s like climbing the Tree via the middle pillar. As a result, their attainment(s) is/are fragile.

    I never really understood this statement/explanation, but your pointing out of their lack of Will (as a concept) brings it into focus.

    I think it’s Jim Eshelman who said that such old aeon “attainments” are equivalent to what we can now class as 5=6. That’s why they are lacking.

    #100933

    ignant666
    Participant

    So, david, “happiness” is a sure sign of doing one’s True Will? What about deluded “religionists” who are happy knowing what a friend they have in Jesus?

    And here i thought i was engaged in hyperbole when i said a few years ago (in a discussion that included you, david/dom/williams) that

    “Los-ianity” combines the spiritual/psychological practices of Oprah Winfrey (the central doctrine of “Los-ianity” that doing the Great Work means “overcoming societal programming and listening to your True Inner Voice/’preferences’”), the epistemology and hermeneutics of “The Amazing Randi” (half-baked “materialist” “skeptical” “debunking” in a mocking tone), and the ethics of Ayn Rand (see any of the “Los” posts advocating “moral nihilism”, aka infantile selfishness and narcissism). (post # 87778, 11/30/14, “Implict proof of Crowley’s belief in reincarnation”)

    #100934

    Michael Staley
    Participant

    @dom

    I think it’s Jim Eshelman who said that such old aeon “attainments” are equivalent to what we can now class as 5=6. That’s why they are lacking

    So Satori is now classed as an old aeon “attainment” – rabbit’s ears indicating that it’s not really an attainment in any case, just a so-called attainment. Presumably Samadhi too is relegated to the same category? Atmadarshana? Shivadarshana? Yes, all of them, consigned to the dustbin of the old aeon.

    Pass the sick-bag, Alice.

    #100935

    dom
    Participant

    ignant666 said

    So, david, “happiness” is a sure sign of doing one’s True Will? What about deluded “religionists” who are happy knowing what a friend they have in Jesus?

    And here i thought i was engaged in hyperbole when i said a few years ago (in a discussion that included you, david/dom/williams) that

    “Los-ianity” combines the spiritual/psychological practices of Oprah Winfrey (the central doctrine of “Los-ianity” that doing the Great Work means “overcoming societal programming and listening to your True Inner Voice/’preferences’”), the epistemology and hermeneutics of “The Amazing Randi” (half-baked “materialist” “skeptical” “debunking” in a mocking tone), and the ethics of Ayn Rand (see any of the “Los” posts advocating “moral nihilism”, aka infantile selfishness and narcissism). (post # 87778, 11/30/14, “Implict proof of Crowley’s belief in reincarnation”)

    yeah I said it’s a tricky one when you’re talking scientifically measuring True Will.

    Equating “moral nihilism” with infantile selfishness and narcissism? Disingenuous? Good and evil. Isn’t that an ancient slave-class invention?

    If True Will isn’t overcoming societal programming and listening to your True Inner Voice/’preferences’ then what is it? Some see it as plugging into one’s cosmic overlord who resides in a different solar system or something. Others see it as letting one’s inner eternal Atman out ie the Hare Krsna world-view. I’m not mocking as such, i’m just asking what is it? What are the symptoms? Hour-long ephemeral trances that fade when we clock in to our job or self-employment regime or when it rains outside?

    • This reply was modified 2 months ago by  dom.
    • This reply was modified 2 months ago by  dom.
    #100938

    dom
    Participant

    @michaelstaley

    So Satori is now classed as an old aeon “attainment” – rabbit’s ears indicating that it’s not really an attainment in any case, just a so-called attainment. Presumably Samadhi too is relegated to the same category? Atmadarshana? Shivadarshana? Yes, all of them, consigned to the dustbin of the old aeon

    I don’t know. Vague and ancient Oriental terms (pre Age of Reason). It was a suggestion for discussion not an announcement. Book 4 gives a good attempt at analysis. Things take place when we get to “dharana” i.e. the things are “species of trance(s)”. I know Los and Erwin don’t hold these trances in high regard but they value the practice as a form of training.

    #100939

    Jamie J Barter
    Participant

    @dom :

    It’s a tricky one.
    Yes I’m sure it is — like all questions are that wouldn’t immediately be locatable under Los’s answers to FAQs. Maybe it’s time to ‘fess that you “DON’T KNOW” again? Or to quit while you’re behind just like ignant666 suggested you do many pages back!

    I think it’s Jim Eshelman who said that such old aeon “attainments” are equivalent to what we can now class as 5=6. That’s why they are lacking.
    Er — “Where is that lifted from exactly?” I find it hard to imagine on what basis Mr Eshelman might write such a thing if indeed he did. Do you accept him as an 8=3 as well out of interest?

    I know Los and Erwin don’t hold these trances in high regard but they value the practice as a form of training.
    Ah yes, from their own personal experience I’m sure, where Los at least will no doubt have practiced them all assiduously for many long years (with lots of [what he thought were] “results”) before he realized how stupid it was (and how dumb he was being).

    Straight from the horses’s mouth
    N Joy

    #100942

    Tiger
    Participant

    I know Los and Erwin don’t hold these trances in high regard but they value the practice as a form of training.

    I guess they confused the Trances as a practice and a form of training for yoga.

    But then again i don’t think they have high regard for anything except their system or spin.

    #100943

    dom
    Participant

    @jamiebarter

    What’s the problem with not knowing something as of yet? I don’t see what you’re on about.

    — “Mr Eshelman wrote about attainment on his forum. Is he 8=3? I don’t know and how would anyone know?

    #100944

    Jamie J Barter
    Participant

    @dom :

    What’s the problem with not knowing something as of yet? I don’t see what you’re on about.
    No, I don’t suppose you do.

    Your posts are always more revealing about what they don’t say as much as what they do.

    — “Mr Eshelman wrote about attainment on his forum. Is he 8=3? I don’t know and how would anyone know?
    I believe he made the claim in connection with his A.’. A.’. lineage somewhere, although similar to yourself I don’t have exact references to hand.

    Los wrote about attainment on his forum, as 8=3.  Is he 8=3?  You obviously think he is, but how would anyone know?

    N Joy

    #100945

    ignant666
    Participant

    Has anyone else ever wondered if david/dom/williams is just S.’. H.’. Fra. Los when he is drunk?

    It would explain the “same arguments made more ineptly” thing so many have noticed, and the fact that david/dom/williams never had a thought that S.’. H.’. Fra. Los (PBUH) didn’t have first.

    Could it be we have been having a “conversation” with, not the monkey, but the inebriated organ-grinder?

    • This reply was modified 2 months ago by  ignant666.
    #100947

    arthuremerson
    Participant

    Has anyone else ever wondered if david/dom/williams is just S.’. H.’. Fra. Los when he is drunk?

    I have considered various versions of the hypothesis that David is Los, yes. Whatever David’s story is, it seems a sad one.

    • This reply was modified 2 months ago by  arthuremerson.
    • This reply was modified 2 months ago by  arthuremerson. Reason: too much coffee
    • This reply was modified 2 months ago by  arthuremerson. Reason: Final coffee edit. Promise
    #100951

    ignant666
    Participant

    Arthur: Having a “conversation” with david/dom/williams’ mentor & Goo-Roo, S.’. H.’. Fra. Los, was always rather like arguing with a particularly obtuse and annoying brick wall.

    I have long held out hope for young david. He may be starting to notice the rather obvious cracks in the “I am a rigorous materialist reductionist, who also believes in metaphysical concepts like ‘True Will’ and ‘The Abyss'”, aka “Skeptical Thelema”, position.

    I thought his earlier rejection of Crowley, and indeed Los/”Skeptical Thelema”, for promulgation of 1970’s-style Dr. Tim Leary-at-his-most-nutty “Comet Kohoutek [1973] Is A Message From the Space Brothers!” might have led to a new, reformed, and more thoughtful, david, but instead we have the new zealot dom persona.

    Despite my several queries in this thread, he has not yet explained what brought him back from his “Space Migration” advocacy to re-adoption of his prior “Los Is My Goo-Roo” position.

    A thing i have never understood is why folks, like S.’. H.’. Fras. Erwin, Los, and their disciple/sock puppet/alter ego david, with inclinations towards kneejerk “I am a rigorous materialist reductionist” “skepticism” would seek to clothe their rather trivial “just be yourself” advice in so much “transcendentalist” regalia, or would be attracted to AC’s work in the first place.

    #100952

    the_real_simon_iff
    Participant

    “A thing i have never understood is why folks, like S.’. H.’. Fras. Erwin, Los, and their disciple/sock puppet/alter ego david, with inclinations towards kneejerk “I am a rigorous materialist reductionist” “skepticism” would seek to clothe their rather trivial “just be yourself” advice in so much “transcendentalist” regalia, or would be attracted to AC’s work in the first place.”

    My guess is this: while it is quite impossible to claim a “professor” or “doctor” title in real science, it is indeed quite easy to claim advanced and spurious titles in the occult world. Which seems – to me – a very important thing for them. Because I never heard of a thelemite of any kind except the “Skeptics” who ever claimed he’s got it all right, and all others got it wrong. It is kind of defining them. The fancy picture of being right. I guess it must be pretty troubling for them, being attracted in some way to this supernatural stuff while unable to accepting it for what it is. Beyond our comprehension but still somehow real.

    At this momemt in time – judging from what goes online – they are more marginal than your average Chtulhu Cult. But always waiting for science to back them up some day.

    It’s pathetic…

    Love=Law
    Lutz

    #100953

    dom
    Participant

    @ignant666

    I have long held out hope for young david. He may be starting to notice the rather obvious cracks in the “I am a rigorous materialist reductionist, who also believes in metaphysical concepts like ‘True Will’ and ‘The Abyss’”, aka “Skeptical Thelema”, position.

    Yeah I accept the fact that Crowley made a lot of statements that do not fit the materialist view. As you say /he said it’s immaterial if (planes etc) exist of not. I admit that maybe it is confirmation bias to force his materialist quotes into being his all pervasive philosophy.

    I thought his earlier rejection of Crowley, and indeed Los/”Skeptical Thelema”, for promulgation of 1970’s-style Dr. Tim Leary-at-his-most-nutty “Comet Kohoutek [1973] Is A Message From the Space Brothers!” might have led to a new, reformed, and more thoughtful, david, but instead we have the new zealot dom persona.

    No it was the 8 brain-circuit model I was more interested in not the ESP group. You won’t find any enthusiastic posts of mine about Starseed.

    Despite my several queries in this thread, he has not yet explained what brought him back from his “Space Migration” advocacy to re-adoption of his prior “Los Is My Goo-Roo” position.

    You’re misrepresenting me but anyway….

    A thing i have never understood is why folks, like S.’. H.’. Fras. Erwin, Los, and their disciple/sock puppet/alter ego david, with inclinations towards kneejerk “I am a rigorous materialist reductionist” “skepticism” would seek to clothe their rather trivial “just be yourself” advice in so much “transcendentalist” regalia, or would be attracted to AC’s work in the first place.

    I have seen through my own knee-jerk “sceptical” tendencies. Maybe angels and spirits do exist for example. It’s immaterial if they exist or not as by doing certain things certain things happen.

    #100954

    Michael Staley
    Participant

    @dom

    Yeah I accept the fact that Crowley made a lot of statements that do not fit the materialist view. As you say /he said it’s immaterial if (planes etc) exist of not. I admit that maybe it is confirmation bias to force his materialist quotes into being his all pervasive philosophy.

    It’s good to have this acknowledgement from you, dom. As an occultist, I have long been aware of the sceptical elememnts that co-exist with Crowley’s mystical and magical outlook. Similarly, I have a great admiration for Nietzsche, in particular his later work (‘The Dawn’ onwards, culminating in ‘Zarathustra’), but there are areas of his work which do not interest me and from which I take nothing. To an extent we’re all magpies, taking inspiration from a variety of sources and synthesising it through our own experience to arrive at our own understanding.

Viewing 15 posts - 346 through 360 (of 475 total)
  • You must be logged-in to reply to this topic.