June 9, 2018 at 2:29 pm #107687
Sorry for double post but if you think that Business degrees do not require any work involving logic and maths then you are wrong. They do at various stages.June 9, 2018 at 3:33 pm #107688
Yes, i know- i taught them how to get high enough grades on math and logic on their entrance exams to get into biz school.
It’s just that the testing for MBA programs is far less rigorous than for law or medical school or grad school in the humanities or sciences. The people taking the GMAT exam are typically much less intelligent than those taking the LSAT, MCAT, or GRE. Some people make a lot of money off the fact that many businesspeople are not very smart. Presumably they are the clever ones- or perhaps just lucky.
My father had an MBA (on the way to his PhD in econ), and was no dummy, nor were many of his pals from grad school. Of course they were top students in one of the two or three best B-schools in the US.
In any case, this thread is probably digressive enough without more discussion of my opinions of the relative intelligence of my exam-prep students.
A random but interesting factoid is that the students who did the best on the very rigorous law school logic material were strikingly often members of one of two groups: Jamaican women and Orthodox Jewish men (there were never any Jamaican men, or Orthodox women). Jamaican schools and Orthodox yeshivas both apparently teach the basics of logic (unlike American high schools).June 15, 2018 at 9:23 am #107771
Los is a lot of things but if there are two things he isn’t 1, he’s not a Thelemite, and 2, he’s not a skeptic whatsoever.
He’s a class A troll though, he gets off to baiting people (occultists in particular) – probably his only enjoyment in life.June 15, 2018 at 10:06 am #107772
Los is a lot of things but if there are two things he isn’t 1, he’s not a Thelemite, and 2, he’s not a skeptic whatsoever.
Whether or not he’s a sceptic I don’t know, not do I really care. However, in my opinion he is a Thelemite, i.e. someone who has accepted the Law of Thelema; I don’t think there’s any other definition, is there?June 15, 2018 at 12:32 pm #107773
Ignant that second link on logic has questions but there are no answers provided at the end.June 15, 2018 at 1:23 pm #107780
That is true- this is designed as an elementary course for university freshman or sophomores to be administered by grad students or professors as part of a course in philosophy, math, or computer science.
The authors assume that such instructors will have little difficulty in determining the answers to what they refer to as “elementary” exercises in the rather brief “Instructor’s Guide” [last page].
If you are in doubt as to what the answer is to one of the questions on the exercises, this means you should review the material in the chapter the exercise covers. Some of the questions do not have definite answers (most do)- if you are stuck on one of the “open ended” questions, you are making progress.
Do not expect to grasp the material in one or two readings. This is hard stuff at first.June 15, 2018 at 9:31 pm #107781
However, in my opinion [S.’. H.’. Fra. Los, 8=3] is a Thelemite, i.e. someone who has accepted the Law of Thelema; I don’t think there’s any other definition, is there?
While the ever-reasonable Michael is clearly correct here- a Thelemite is a person who says he/she is one, more or less, it is worth bearing in mind that The Hand Of A Hanged Man himself is not so charitable.
On more than one occasion (in fact, it is his main and constant schtick), our esteemed Magister Templi has told us that Aleister Crowley was “No True Thelemite” because he believed in “ooky-spooky” “goblins” and “spacemen”, and that the only true Thelema is “Skeptical Thelema” aka “Los-ianity”/”Erwinism”.
The rest of us, according The Phallus Of A Goat, are deluded and gullible boobs who lack Los’/Erwin’s superior understanding of Thelema, an understanding that they say is superior to the understanding of the man a) who made the whole thing up; and/or b) had it transmitted to him by a praeternatural intelligence (aka “goblin” and/or “spaceman”).June 16, 2018 at 6:48 am #107782
39 pages into this thread can anyone tell me if Los has posted in this thread any response to these posts?
Also, what is Los profile on Lashtal can someone link to it?
I always got the impression that although there is ample evidence that Aleister Crowley “made the grades” and did the work in most of the societies and groups he was part of, he also was keen to give himself titles on a whim whether it be for humor, playing a role, or for stature trying to impress upon other his importance in the world.
Chess Master is one example. I’m sure there are other examples. Chess Master is a title earned in competition and awarded by FIDE or USCF or some other chess organization. It isn’t something you bestow upon yourself.
Is this Los guy any different?June 16, 2018 at 11:04 am #107785
Crowley said that anyone can claim 8=3 but as Ignant claims, not just anyone can practically claim certain things in reality.
Note that when asked how can Los prove that he knows he is 8=3, his analogy was that we also all know when we are hungry. That’s why I posted the youtube link on ‘the munchies'(was expecting a lol at least but never mind).
He came in p25 to p27 of this thread and then followed up shortly after here; https://www.lashtal.com/forums/topic/annihilate-the-personality/ where he described to Tiger what happens when one becomes 8=3. In the course of doing this (and not that I’m being vindictive towards the lad I’m strictly scientifically impersonal) it appeared that Arthur ‘ripped him a new asshole’ as they say with rergards to a bad analogy involving a dismembered chair and a dismembered personality. I say this because he didn’t challenge Arthur’s analysis.
He also refrained from challenging another of Arthur’s analyses on an essay he wrote based on a quote by Crowley claiming that the laws of logic are the codification of thought. Arthur and Ignant both pointed out that Los had in fact displayed a remarkable incapacity for grasping undergrad logic. Again, not being vindictive but I asked Los to respond and so far he hasn’t. Why? I can’t predict that.June 16, 2018 at 11:04 am #107786
Yes, The Great And Powerful Los, 8=3, did indeed honor us with an appearance in this thread, though not for long- maybe around page 10 or so? [i see david was replying at the same time i was, see his reply above for more accurate directions than mine]
You ask an interesting question. AC liked to pose and pretend- that he was a Scottish laird, or an Irish revolutionary, or a Persian prince. Some might say his many grandiose mystical attainments were more of the same.
So why is this particular 8=3 claim so very funny, and sad?
When your online persona is devoted to mocking grandiose occult claims, ridiculing others as self-deluded believers in “goblins” and “spacemen” for believing that anything beyond quotidian “reality” as perceived by the senses could exist (and mocking others who think AC believed in things like “praeternatural intelligences”), and proclaiming “science”, “logic”, and “reason” to be supreme (while constantly unintentionally demonstrating that you understand little about any of these), and then proclaim yourself to be “preeminently the Master of Mysticism”, you kind of have to expect that folks will laugh and point.
June 16, 2018 at 11:48 am #107790
- This reply was modified 3 months, 1 week ago by ignant666.
. AC liked to pose and pretend- that he was a Scottish laird, or an Irish revolutionary, or a Persian prince. Some might say his many grandiose mystical attainments were more of the same
Don’t We know that some of these weird-assed master of disguise games could’ve been part of the Jugorum exercise?June 16, 2018 at 4:56 pm #107795
Ig: While the ever-reasonable Michael is clearly correct here- a Thelemite is a person who says he/she is one, more or less, …
Less, I would say.
You can’t be a card-carrying communist if you don’t have a card issued to you. If you forge your own card, then you’re a spy and subject to assassination, imprisonment, or bad press.
In this case, anyone (any individual person) can claim 8*=3, but it really doesn’t matter, does it? Because said Magister grade is only valid in the world of men (and women), including LAShTA, is only valid if it is recognized or affirmed by independent approval. That is, at least ONE person must recognize said anyone as an 8*=3. If not, then there is no link, no two-way bridge, FROM the Supernal Nirvanaish Understanding jn the shadowland of Atma, the true Self, TO or WITH the incarnated body-mind of SOME OTHER PERSON. It’s called a lineage, a line, a succession, a transmission (both automatic and manual), and it MEANS that the Motel is empty, but nobody’s staying in it. Well, maybe for one night, just to see if the amenities are okay. If they’re not, then who would stay in that Motel again?
It doesn’t take long to find poor amenities. The ATTITUDE (the visible, outward expression of the desk clerk) usually provides the rfirst crack in the egg of acceptable amenities.
But all this [^] is mere chatter. People can establish their own definition of Thelema and an actual Thelemite (“It’s a religion,” “He’s a Thelemite,” “It’s a Philosophy,” “He’s not a Thelemite,” etc), but in this case the Holy Scribbling (er, make that Scriptures) tells us:
Who calls us Thelemites will do no wrong, if he look but close into the word. For there are therein Three Grades, the Hermit, and the Lover, and the man of Earth. Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
The central phrase of the eloquent prose of the entire Liber is nestled into the same “line” as the SPECIFIC definition of a Thelemite (looking but closely into the word).
In another space and place, the delineation of the tasks (of the three grades) is listed as:
Behold! there are three ordeals in one, and it may be given in three ways. The gross must pass through fire; let the fine be tried in intellect, and the lofty chosen ones in the highest. Thus ye have star & star, system & system; let not one know well the other!
But i the end (at the end of this dreary thread) it comes down to:
Yet there are masked ones my servants: it may be that yonder beggar is a King. A King may choose his garment as he will: there is no certain test: but a beggar cannot hide his poverty.
59. Beware therefore! Love all, lest perchance is a King concealed! Say you so? Fool! If he be a King, thou canst not hurt him.
Therefore strike hard & low, and to hell with them, master!
Get it? There is no certain teat.
So we must resort to our natural inclination: If we like all of a continuous output stream of some theoretically liberated person, then we should prop up his/her 8*=3 with admiration, money, blood, and support.
If we find most of a continuous output stream of some theoretically liberated person to be biased, or mathematically incorrect, then we should tear down his/her 8*=3 with non-attachment, conservation of funds and chi, no blood donations, and the greatest form of non-support: Silence.
We’re not in a position to judege the persona of the claimant. After all, VVVVV had one of the foulest personas to grqace the planet. No, we must “judge him by his fruits or his works. Leaving the vegetable kingdom aside for the moment, what do anyone’s WORKS say? You know, do their expressed ideas count in a practical, working sense?
On the other hand, if we’re going to FOLLOW or BELIEVE in a person’s illumined status, it would help if we could like him/her.June 16, 2018 at 5:09 pm #107796
Ig: When your online persona is devoted to mocking grandiose occult claims, ridiculing others as self-deluded believers in “goblins” and “spacemen” for believing that anything beyond quotidian “reality” as perceived by the senses could exist (and mocking others who think AC believed in things like “praeternatural intelligences”), and proclaiming “science”, “logic”, and “reason” to be supreme (while constantly unintentionally demonstrating that you understand little about any of these), and then proclaim yourself to be “preeminently the Master of Mysticism”, you kind of have to expect that folks will laugh and point.
A superb summary statement.
dom: Don’t We know that some of these weird-assed master of disguise games could’ve been part of the Jugorum exercise?
“We” know no such thing. The term, “could’ve,” suggests speculative guessing at long shots. The guy liked to act the part or royalty, and he dressed accordingly.June 28, 2018 at 1:12 am #107859
Ignant that second link on logic has questions but there are no answers provided at the end.
I’m happy to volunteer to look over your work. You can send it to my forum name @theborg.June 29, 2018 at 12:17 am #107871
I’m happy to volunteer to look over your work. You can send it to my forum name @theborg.
Thanks Arthur I’ll message you my answers when I’m ready. I went into other related research including AND gates and their use in electronics as well as how each of the four functions can sometimes be used to define each other (e.g. p.q is merely a shortened form of symbolism for ∼(∼p ∨∼q))
…. so yeah I haven’t abandoned it.
- You must be logged-in to reply to this topic.