Delivered from dual...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Delivered from dualism (delivered from lust for result.)  

  RSS

dom
 dom
(@dom)
Member
Joined: 5 years ago
Posts: 2012
16/02/2019 6:35 pm  

Apologies for the double post here.

I thought that PJC in his Liber Null presented an advanced explanation of what is going on when pure Will is "delivered from lust for result". I'm still investigating if he did. See what you think i've referred to passages from said book.

PJC's Liber Null is presented as a course " an exercise in the disciplines of magical trance, a form of mind control having similarities to yoga, personal metamorphosis, and the basic techniques of magic" At the outset, there's no explanation of what magic is and why someone should do it but then he goes straight into MIND CONTROL which involves motionlessness and motionlessness when you get a chance, not just in your yoga room the way Crowley taught it.

Next we get a definition of magic as the science and art of causing change to occur in conformity with will .and an explanation of the inadequacies of desire due to our dualistic nature ; If an attempt is made to focus on some form of desire, the effect is short circuited by lust of result. Egotistical identification, fear of failure, and the reciprocal desire not to achieve desire, arising from our dual nature, destroy the result.
Have you ever experienced this conflict of desire due to an inherent fear of failure? Did AC ever describe this problem of dualism and the inherent human will to destroy their own desires before they manifest or is PJC making it up as he goes a along? Maybe he borrowed/stolen it from Freud's irrational Thanatos concept?

Regardie covered habit control in his classic on magic in which he borrows AC's Jugorum technique. PJC calls it "Metamorphosis The transmutation of the mind to magical consciousness" and defines this as the Great Work which has a far-reaching purpose leading eventually to the discovery of the True Will.
Even a slight ability to change oneself is more valuable than any power over the external universe. Metamorphosis is an exercise in willed restructuring of the mind
Then he's off on his dualism trip again as follows ; All attempts to reorganize the mind involve a duality between conditions as they are and the preferred condition. Thus it is impossible to cultivate any virtue like spontaneity, joy, pious pride, grace, or omnipotence without involving oneself in more conventionality, sorrow, guilt, sin, and impotence in the process.
Religions are founded on the fallacy that one can or ought to have one without the other. High magic recognizes the dualistic condition but does not care whether life is bittersweet or sweet and sour; rather it seeks to achieve any arbitrary perceptual perspective at will

So he 's saying don't be fooled by self-improvement because you're more than likely to fuck things up due to your human dualistic tendencies.? Again with the Freudian self conflict obsession?

So get used to the sweet and sour of it all and you're closer to your true will (also known as achieving the Great Work) i.e. don't be a child or a teenager shall be the whole of the law?. Does that mean children and teenagers with their mood swings and emotional protests can't do the Great Work? I suppose it does.

. Any state of mind might arbitrarily be chosen as an objective for transmutation, but there is a specific virtue to the ones given. i.e. in order to achieve metamorphoses (habit breaking) as a means to achieving "magical states" which are in turn a means to "find one's True Will" we need certain states of mind available as follows;
"By the ones given" (states of mind) I presume he means the following 2 forms of meditation;

: 1) Laughter/Laughter
i.e. learn to laugh at everything. EVERYTHING because presumably laughter is the closest thing to Ain Sop Aur and is the nearest thing to transcendental neutrality? As follows;
Consider laughter: it is the highest emotion, for it can contain any of the others from ecstacy to grief. It has no opposite. Crying is merely an underdeveloped form of it which cleanses the eyes and summons assistance to infants. Laughter is the only tenable attitude in a universe which is a joke played upon itself. The trick is to see that joke played out even in the neutral and ghastly events which surround one. It is not for us to question the universe's apparent lack of taste. Seek the emotion of laughter at what delights and amuses, seek it in whatever is neutral or meaningless, seek it even in what is horrific and revolting. Though it may be forced at first, one can learn to smile inwardly at all things.
Is that a "state of mind"?
and
2) Non-attachment/Non-disinterest
Non-attachment/Non-disinterest best describes the magical condition of acting without lust of result. It is very difficult for humans to decide on something and then to do it purely for its own sake. Yet it is precisely this ability which is required to execute magical acts.
so we desire true will and we must therefore give up all of our attachments to our desires but still maintain those desires. simultaneously ( ah damn! Jeannie won't go to the prom with me!!") and so on. Don't we desire true will? Don't humans decide on things and then to do it purely for its own sake daily?


Quote
dom
 dom
(@dom)
Member
Joined: 5 years ago
Posts: 2012
16/02/2019 6:36 pm  

Only single-pointed awareness will do. Attachment is to be understood both in the positive and negative sense, for aversion is its other face.
Presumably AC touched on this with his formula involving face that which disgusts you until you can control your disgust however his life story smacks of aversion and attachment.

Presumably an Obama supporter who was a genuine magician would unflinchingly attend Trump rallies? Ha hah
PJC goes on with ;
Attachment to any attribute of oneself,
one's personality, one's ambitions, one's relationships or sensory experiences — or equally, aversion to any of these — will prove limiting. On the other hand, it is fatal to lose interest in these things for they are one's symbolic system or magical reality. Rather, one is attempting to touch the sensitive parts of one's reality more lightly in order to deny the spoiling hand of grasping desire and boredom. Thereby one may gain enough freedom to act magically

So keep your personal ambitions and goals but don't care about them ever happening but not to the extent where you "lose interest" in them because "losing interest" in your desire is giving up that desire.....isn't it?

So boredom and grasping desire are the big no-no,s to be avoided i.e we must have an aversion to them, I guess that that is not contradictory? Avoid attachment to desires and avoid non- attachment to desires but hold an aversion to boredom and grasping desire because that stops you from being non-dualistic?
So keep your desires but train yourself not to care if they don't happen because in that neutral state you are more likely to have them happen for you because you will be closer to your "non dualistic" true will and then it won't matter?
Apparently there's a third meditational exercise and he describes it as "active form of metamorphosis,"
and this involves one's everyday habits. "however innocuous they might seem" , habits in thought, word, and deed are the anchor of the personality. The magician aims to pull up that anchor and cast himself free on the seas of chaos. To proceed, select any minor habit at random and delete it from your behavior: at the same adopt any new habit at random. The choices should not involve anything of spiritual, egocentric, or emotional significance, nor should you select anything with any possibility of failure. By persisting with such simple beginnings you become capable of virtually anything. All works of metamorphosis should be committed to the magical diary.
As he described in the outset "Metamorphosis The transmutation of the mind to magical consciousness" i,e, the Great Work,

Ill spare you the theoryb of Chaos, Esctacy and Gnosis and go straight to the sigils becasu eit's more relevant to this OP.

MAGIC Success in this part of the syllabus is dependent on some degree of mastery of the magical trances and metamorphosis. …... Before proceeding with sigils or dreaming,
Sigils The magician may require something which he is unable to obtain through the normal channels. It is sometimes possible to bring about the required coincidence by the direct intervention of the will provided that this does not put too great a strain on the universe
strain on the universe eh?
this imo is the interesting bit because we're back to 'desiring something but not really desiring it in order to avoid the inherent desire not to have it' thing again.

. The mere act of wanting is rarely effective, as the will becomes involved in a dialogue with the mind. This dilutes magical ability in many ways
. The desire becomes part of the ego complex; the mind becomes anxious of failure
Speak for yourself mate?
. The will not to fulfill desire arises to reduce fear of failure. Soon the original desire is a mass of conflicting ideas.
Ditto.
Boy this boy sounds liek he had a neurotic chidlhood. No?

Often the wished for result arises only when it has been forgotten. This last fact is the key to sigils and most forms of magic spell. Sigils work because they stimulate the will to work subconsciously, bypassing the mind. There are three parts to the operation of a sigil.
The sigil is constructed,
the sigil is lost to the mind,
the sigil is charged.
In constructing a sigil, the aim is to produce a glyph of desire, stylized so as not to immediately suggest the desire. It is not necessary to use complex symbol systems.

Constructed. Lost to the mind but then charged when it's lost to the mind? Presumably he means charging involves mind-loss?

He goes on;
To successfully lose the sigil, both the sigil form and the associated desire must be banished from normal waking consciousness. The magician strives against any manifestation of either by a forceful turning of his attention to other matters. Sometimes the sigil may be burnt, buried, or cast into an ocean. It is possible to lose a word spell by constant repetition as this eventually empties the mind of associated desire.

Admittedly i'd say that 98% of people who do sigils have misread this next bit or just plain ignored it or have never read it. Probably the latter. ;

The sigil is charged at moments when the mind has achieved quiescence through magical trance, or when high emotionality paralyzes its normal functioning. At these times the sigil is concentrated upon, either as a mental image, or mantra, or as a drawn form.
This bit;
or when high emotionality paralyzes its normal functioning. At these times the sigil is concentrated upon, either as a mental image, or mantra, or as a drawn form. Some of the times when sigils may be charged are as follows: during magical trance; at the moment of orgasm or great elation; at times of great fear, anger, or embarrassment; or at times when intense frustration or disappointment arises. Alternatively, when another strong desire arises, this desire is sacrificed (forgotten) and the sigil is concentrated on instead.
Most folk think that "charging sigils" is all about the sexual climax. As you can see it's not. Even AC missed this methodology ...or did he?

After holding the sigil in the mind for as long as possible, it is wise to banish it by evoking laughter. A record should be kept of all work with sigils but not in such a way as to cause conscious deliberation over the sigilized desire


ReplyQuote
dom
 dom
(@dom)
Member
Joined: 5 years ago
Posts: 2012
17/02/2019 12:11 pm  

Here is AC's interpretation of 1:44;

AL I,44: “For pure will, unassuaged of purpose, delivered from the lust of result, is every way perfect.”

This verse imo implies instructions on how to approach yoga and not a direct reference to how to manifest desires via spells which it is usually attributed to..

The Old Comment
44. Recommends “non-attachment.” Students will understand how in meditation the mind which attaches itself to hope of success is just as bound as if it were to attach itself to some base material idea. It is a bond and the aim is freedom.
I recommend serious study of the word unassuaged which appears not very intelligible.

The New Comment

This verse is best interpreted by defining 'pure will' as the true expression of the Nature, the proper or inherent motion of the matter, concerned. It is unnatural to aim at any goal. The student is referred to “Liber LXV”, Cap. II, v. 24,

(i.e. And I laid my head against the Head of the Swan, and laughed, saying: Is there not joy ineffable in this aimless winging? Is there not weariness and impatience for who would attain to some goal?)

and to the “Tao Teh King”. This becomes particularly important in high grades. One is not to do Yoga, etc., in order to get Samadhi, like a schoolboy or a shopkeeper; but for its own sake, like an artist.
“Unassuaged” means “its edge taken off by” or “dulled by”. The pure student does not think of the result of the examination.

Don't do yoga etc like a schoolboy or a shopkeeper? Not sure about the grammar there as what if our schoolboy or shopkeeper are getting busy and 'in the zone'? Maybe schoolboys can't do their true will, maybe he echoes my earlier point about children's self-piteous and lazy protests on having to do tasks.

Anyway I guess it's a difficult concept to articulate.


ReplyQuote
Tiger
(@tiger)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 1503
17/02/2019 1:50 pm  

“But the phrase may also be interpreted as if it read “with purpose unassuaged”—i.e., with tireless energy. The conception is, therefore, of an eternal motion, infinite and unalterable. It is Nirvana, only dynamic instead of static—and this comes to the same thing in the end. “
https://hermetic.com/crowley/libers/lib2

so i continually recite the mantra -
I banish the Shells unto their habitations.
whenever i wake and remember
i got caught up drifting,
caught in the tide and wung about; that is .

That's my angle for now .

Possibly, the school boy races the car to win
the racer just races the car ;
just do .

i have heard meditation teachers say don’t worry about samadhi
just meditate .

“Strive ever to more! “

yeah difficult to pin .


ReplyQuote
dom
 dom
(@dom)
Member
Joined: 5 years ago
Posts: 2012
18/02/2019 12:57 pm  

Initially AC was not going to use the term Magick in the title as it gave the wrong impression i.e. "base materialists" who "want stuff" would miss the point.,


ReplyQuote
Jamie J Barter
(@jamiejbarter)
Member
Joined: 5 years ago
Posts: 1409
18/02/2019 1:34 pm  

Apologies for the double post here.
You mean tripe post, don’t you?

I thought that PJC in his Liber Null presented an advanced explanation of what is going on when pure Will is “delivered from lust for result”. I’m still investigating if he did.
No, I don’t think so. Save your time!

See what you think i’ve referred to passages from said book.
As usual dom, you do not provide page references for your quoted passages which makes it harder for people to check the context and verity of your sources. Is this just laziness, ignorance of procedure, wilful sadistic obstruction, or what? Professional, competent, obliging and accommodating however – it is not. Doubtless though, you would appreciate it if it was the other way around and somebody who was contesting a point with you helpfully provided a specific source for something which you wanted to check?

Next we get a definition of magic as the science and art of causing change to occur in conformity with will .[…] is PJC making it up as he goes a along?
I don’t know whether PJC made this up as he went a along, but he certainly didn’t with “his” definition of magic, which is presented as if his own conception with no mention at all of Crowley or any accompanying quotation marks. If someone new to “the occult” was reading Liber Null without being particularly acquainted with the writings of AC beforehand they could well assume the axioms as PJC’s own, as no credit to him whatsoever is given (nothing new with PJC though). Never mind Freud, he “borrowed/ stole” this from Crowley’s concept wholesale!

PJC calls it “Metamorphosis The transmutation of the mind to magical consciousness” and defines this as the Great Work which has a far-reaching purpose leading eventually to the discovery of the True Will.
Strange therefore that PJC has such antipathy – animosity even - elsewhere towards the concept of the True Will...

Does that mean children and teenagers with their mood swings and emotional protests can’t do the Great Work? I suppose it does.
Oh, Yeah - suppose so!

: 1) Laughter/Laughter
i.e. learn to laugh at everything. EVERYTHING because presumably laughter is the closest thing to Ain Sop Aur and is the nearest thing to transcendental neutrality?

WHY is it that you suppose laughter to be the closest thing to “Ain Sop Aur”?

As follows; Consider laughter: it is the highest emotion, for it can contain any of the others from ecstacy to grief.
Somewhat redolent of Elron Hubbard’s “Emotional Tone Scale” here?

It has no opposite.
An absurd statement, since EVERYTHING below the Supernals has an opposite.

Laughter is the only tenable attitude in a universe which is a joke played upon itself. The trick is to see that joke played out even in the neutral and ghastly events which surround one. It is not for us to question the universe’s apparent lack of taste.
But The Book of Lies put it better

2) Non-attachment/Non-disinterest
Non-attachment/Non-disinterest best describes the magical condition of acting without lust of result.

Isn’t just “disinterest” meant here, not “Non-disinterest”? Otherwise it would be “interest” which is shown (a bit like double negatives)…

I won’t deal with the second post as it's not very well thought out (even by existing standards) & life’s just too short. Moving swiftly onto the third then…

This verse imo implies instructions on how to approach yoga and not a direct reference to how to manifest desires via spells which it is usually attributed to..
It implies and does nothing of the kind; as clearly stated it’s about the perfect nature of pure will.

Don’t do yoga etc like a schoolboy or a shopkeeper? Not sure about the grammar there
You mean the same style of grammar as employed by one of the greatest prose writers in the English language?

Maybe schoolboys can’t do their true will, maybe he echoes my earlier point about children’s self-piteous and lazy protests on having to do tasks.
Maybe this is pretty much all drivel dom?

Anyway I guess it’s a difficult concept to articulate.
You guess right! Similar to: “the Tao which can be put into words cannot be the real Tao”.

4/10 “Could do better”
Norma N Joy Conquest


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2666
18/02/2019 4:33 pm  

[T]ripe post...

Shurely shome mishtake here? Or not.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4505
18/02/2019 6:03 pm  

Quoted from some lost source: Consider laughter: it is the highest emotion, for it can contain any of the others from ecstacy to grief.

The Ancient Chinese understood this, and it has been passed along in Oriental Medicine. Laughter in a "tone of voice" constitutes the Fire element (phase). The Fire phase does not "contain" the others ... it consumes them.

There's a place for everything, and it's certainly nice when everything's in its place. There is a time and place for laughter. But excessive laughter (that is, as a dingy, loose-screw joker) is the first and most prominent sign of mental instability. If untreated, or otherwise restrained in some manner ... usually by prescribing water-phase herbs ... the end result is commonly called "insanity."

JB: Isn’t just “disinterest” meant here, not “Non-disinterest”?

Right, and you saw the otherwise" as right. We (the Illuminati) don't WANT to be interested. But if we have to actively work at being non-attached, then we are showing our attachment to being non-attached, detached, or disconnected from any result.

Ignant, Please send more electrons. I feel a need for electroshockery coming on.

It's really safest to not give a toot about anything, and just do your thing while accepting the apparent nature of all things.

JB: Maybe this is pretty much all drivel ... ?

Tedious drivel.

"Is there no hope for the widow's son?"


ReplyQuote
dom
 dom
(@dom)
Member
Joined: 5 years ago
Posts: 2012
18/02/2019 9:56 pm  

@ignant666

Shurely shome mishtake here? Or no

I eagerly await your next post; Which brand of tobacco did Crowley smoke?

@jamiebarter

References page 1 to 22. Can be found here;
https://zalbarath666.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/peter-j-carroll-liber-null-psychonaut.pdf

p13 to p18 is the MIND CONTROL section and p19 to p22 the MAGIC section on sigils and the like. On perusing I have a feeling that the rest of the book is not going to interest me much., "chaos" ," kia", "gnosis",? What? No, the first 22 pages are interesting imo.

we get a definition of magic as the science and art of causing change to occur in conformity with will .and an explanation of the inadequacies of desire due to our dualistic nature on p15

“Metamorphosis The transmutation of the mind to magical consciousness" p16

Then he’s off on his dualism trip again as follows ; All attempts to reorganize the mind involve a duality between conditions as they are and the preferred condition. also p16

: 1) Laughter/Laughter

2) Non-attachment/Non-disinterest p17

Sigils p20-p22.

I don’t know whether PJC made this up as he went a along, but he certainly didn’t with “his” definition of magic, which is presented as if his own conception with no mention at all of Crowley or any accompanying quotation marks

Yeah I agree.

Strange therefore that PJC has such antipathy – animosity even – elsewhere towards the concept of the True Will…

Does he? Any evidence?

WHY is it that you suppose laughter to be the closest thing to “Ain Sop Aur”?

Because as far as I know laughter, like he said cannot be pinned down or boxed off into strict yin-yang compartments like other human expressions. It is therefore unique and neutral. If we, the Crowns of Creation, microcosms to the Macrocosm have one form of expression which also ironically encompasses the entire spectrum of emotional expression then yes we would be reflecting the omnipotence of the Macrocosm thereby when developing that neutral expression .

What if some aspirant is laughing at the news channel stories of e.g. tsunami induced destruction and his parents walk in unbeknownst to him? That could be a problem, I guess PJC means by Laughter/Laughter an inward bemusement but kept hidden.

Somewhat redolent of Elron Hubbard’s “Emotional Tone Scale” here?

I wouldn't know...thanks.

An absurd statement, since EVERYTHING below the Supernals has an opposite

What's the opposite of laughter?

The Book of Lies

Onion Peelings, amazing so you think PJC is borrowing from this?

Re 2) Non-attachment/Non-disinterest
Non-attachment/Non-disinterest best describes the magical condition of acting without lust of result.
you ask

Isn’t just “disinterest” meant here, not “Non-disinterest”? Otherwise it would be “interest” which is shown (a bit like double negatives)…

Yes good point, non-disinterest is a double negative and means 'interest' so for clarity's sake it should instead have been 2) Non-attachment/interest,

However what isn't so clear is that forward-slash he uses there (in 2) ). Forward slashes usually represent inclusive 'or' or an exclusive 'or'. I suspect he meant to say non-attachment but stay interested. i.e. he should've maybe used a conjunction and not a "/". Then again maybe an inclusive 'or' covers this.

There are clues as to what it is further along on at p17 and p18 where he says as follows;

Attachment to any attribute of oneself, one's personality, one's ambitions, one's relationships or sensory experiences — or equally, aversion to any of these — will prove limiting.

On the other hand, it is fatal to lose interest in these things for they are one's symbolic system or magical reality

So (notwithstanding the confusing introduction of the 'aversion to any of these' for the moment) he uses the term 'however on the other hand thereby establishing a negation. So he therefore equivocates 'attachment to any attribute of ….one's ambitions etc' with ~ ~ interest ( i.e. with interest). So it looks like he meant originally 'attachment or (inclusively) interest'.

But let's get back to this further confusing 'throwing in' of the third factor 'aversion' . 'Attachment or aversion' must surely be an exclusive 'or'? That is, 'both either attachment to desire or aversion of desire' and 'it is not the case that both attachment to desire and aversion of desire' are equivocated with being 'interested in desire' once we clear up PJC's mire of confused terms.

That analysis (of mine) appears to make sense because if someone has a desire (averse to it or not) they were, by dint of having that desire, inherently interested in it weren't they? The 'aversion' would appear to be some sort of after- effect maybe a repression or sublimated attempt of running away from it Desires don't get destroyed do they? .

So due to the equivaocation i think we can even take his notion of 'interested' out of the equation anyway. With that said, instead of 2) Non-attachment/interest he should've just simply have said 2) Non-attachment and spared us the confusion.

I'm assuming that attachment means non disappointment if the desire didn't manifest and non anguish whilst anticipating the desire. I further assume that it means not being stunned or unbalanced if the desire does manifest. .


ReplyQuote
Tiger
(@tiger)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 1503
18/02/2019 11:31 pm  

lusting after trying to figure it out ?

Freeze .

kiss the demon .
Caught up in her clutches
make a pact .

Ask her to release you
back to just an interest;
but promise to come back
to the borderland;
a year hence .

And you will vow
to be ready to consummate
the urge .

Should you break
or fail the bond

you will for ever wander
hither and tither
among the hungry ghosts
in the land of the craving .


ReplyQuote
dom
 dom
(@dom)
Member
Joined: 5 years ago
Posts: 2012
19/02/2019 12:07 am  

Sorry I just noticed an error in this paragraph of mine;

So (notwithstanding the confusing introduction of the ‘aversion to any of these’ for the moment) he uses the term ‘however on the other hand thereby establishing a negation. So he therefore equivocates ‘attachment to any attribute of ….one’s ambitions etc’ with ~ ~ interest ( i.e. with interest). So it looks like he meant originally ‘attachment or (inclusively) interest’.

I meant . "So it looks like he meant attachment or (inclusively) interest’ here. He was not discussing 2) Non attachment/non disinterest here in that passage. He switched to talk about 'attachment' which is now equivocated with 'interest' which basically adds to confusion to what the hell he is talking about per se anywhere,

Nevertheless my paraphrase later on dealing with 'on the other hand' as negation;this was my reasoning;

As an analogy;'Jimmy is a good person on the other hand he is a weekend football hooligan'.

The second statement negates the first.

So simialrly with the PJC passages we had 'Attachment to any attribute of …. one’s ambitions... or equally, aversion to any of these — will prove limiting.;

On the other hand, it is fatal to lose interest in these things for they are one’s symbolic system or magical reality.

If I'm not mitsaken it holds.


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1827
19/02/2019 1:20 am  

"To take an attitude of neither indifference nor attachment toward all things-this is what is meant by realising one's own Essence of Mind for the attainment of Buddhahood."

-Hui Neng

(from The Sutra of Hui Neng, translated by A.F. Price and Wong Mou-Lam and published by Shambhala, 1985 p.29)


ReplyQuote
dom
 dom
(@dom)
Member
Joined: 5 years ago
Posts: 2012
19/02/2019 2:46 am  

Let's try again.

It's looking like 2) Non-attachment/interest (double negative eliminated) i.e. non attached but not so non-attached as to lose interest totally.

At p17 and p18 he's on about attachment and interest again when he says as follows;

Attachment to these things etc— will prove limiting.
On the other hand, it is fatal to lose interest in these things etc for they are one’s symbolic system or magical reality

I was on the right track earlier because here he is paraphrasing Non attachment as a better option when he said "attachment will prove limiting" so we still have Non attachment etc etc on the other hand "losing interest".

Losing interest is '~ interest' but the OTOH negates it and we are back to the double negative leaving us with 'interest'. There is therefore a consistency here with the earlier 2) Non-attachment/interest presumably as inclusive 'or' in the "/".

But let’s get back to this further confusing ‘throwing in’ of the third factor ‘aversion’ .

In the p17 p18 section he in fact says

Attachment to these things etc etc — or equally aversion to these things — will prove limiting on the other hand "losing interest" would be fatal. .

So 'aversion to these things will prove limiting' becomes 'non aversion' as a better option which is equivalent to 'interest'. Was there any need to bring 'aversion will be limiting' into it? It just became another way of saying 'non attachment' as it is in fact just equated to 'interest' according to PJC.

so it's 2) non attachment/non aversion/interest i.e. just non attachment.


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1827
19/02/2019 3:16 am  

What the hell is all of this???

Hui Neng-who was illiterate-clapped it all out. Fortunately, someone wrote it down.

At this point, can you say anything about your own personal experience which exemplifies whatever it is you are saying?


ReplyQuote
dom
 dom
(@dom)
Member
Joined: 5 years ago
Posts: 2012
19/02/2019 10:32 am  

What the hell is all of this???

I'm trying to apply sentential logic to the writings on 'dualism, attachment and magic' of a well-respected modern writer of the occult, founder of 'chaos magic'.

At this point, can you say anything about your own personal experience which exemplifies whatever it is you are saying?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3XD3XOmBOU


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3951
19/02/2019 12:00 pm  

@dom

Whatever the merits of Pete Carroll's presentation of the subject, if you're interested in non-dualism there is a wealth of material out there. My own introduction to it many years ago was through reading The Way of Zen by Alan Watts. Later I discovered the works of the pseudnonymous Wei Wu We (actually a 20th Century Irish diplomat), which led me to the works of Ramana Maharshi, and such Cha'an Masters as Hui-Neng, Huang-Po, and Hu-Flung-Dung. More recently I've been imbibing the books and discources of Sri Atmananda with relish (pickled chilli and broccoli, matured for 17 years - zany or what?). There are several contemprary advaitins writing in the West, such as Tony Parsons and Terence McKenna. All this is a platform for meditation, where it is grist to the mill.


ReplyQuote
Tiger
(@tiger)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 1503
19/02/2019 12:40 pm  

" What the hell is all of this??? "

It’s called quickly going over ones tracks
taking a step to insure
a step wasn’t missed .


ReplyQuote
Jamie J Barter
(@jamiejbarter)
Member
Joined: 5 years ago
Posts: 1409
19/02/2019 1:31 pm  

@dom :

Which brand of tobacco did Crowley smoke?
I believe “Perique soaked in rum” is the accepted answer. Put that in your bowl and puff it!

References page 1 to 22. Can be found here;
I suppose you haver ascertained “©opyright clearance” over this!? A bore and a dreadfully tiresome business, I know. Still, you wouldn’t want to get anybody into any trouble about it, would you?

On perusing I have a feeling that the rest of the book is not going to interest me much., “chaos” ,” kia”, “gnosis”,? What? No, the first 22 pages are interesting imo. [… O]nce we clear up PJC’s mire of confused terms. …
Dom, you never cease to amaze me: unlike as with Confessions, I thought you’d actually READ the book? (=Liber Null). Does this mean you’re no longer banging a drum for PJC & chaos magic anymore? Has he fallen from the ranks of lofty gurudom in yr estimation (cf Leary, Los et al)?

Any evidence [that PJC has such antipathy – animosity even – towards the concept of the True Will elsewhere] ?
Plenty! Too much to quote here. Check out Will & The Wisp, should you be fortunate enough to have access to a copy. If not, and your enquiry’s serious, ask again & I may give one or two examples.

WHY is it that you suppose laughter to be the closest thing to “Ain Sop Aur”?
Your reply still doesn’t answer the question. It’s like going into a shop and asking to buy a mile of aquamarine. And the fact that it “cannot be pinned down or boxed off into strict yin-yang compartments … it is therefore unique and neutral” could just as well refer to Kether.

What if some aspirant is laughing at the news channel stories of e.g. tsunami induced destruction and his parents walk in unbeknownst to him?
Then I’d say his parents would probably suggest it was way past his bedtime and time to ascend the wooden stairs all the way to Bedfordshire…

I guess PJC means by Laughter/Laughter an inward bemusement but kept hidden.
Why hidden? You mean, that it has a mocking, snidey quality to it ?

What’s the opposite of laughter?
The answer is “not-laughter”, just as everything which is not-laughter is laughter. What is the opposite of tomatoes? Of gallantry? Of brickwork? Same rules apply. Or are you sticking to your assertion that there is one thing, one single solitary exception amongst all things below the Abyss, which does not have an opposite? Why on earth would that be, if so?

The Book of Lies Onion Peelings, amazing so you think PJC is borrowing from this?
Well don’t you?

Yes good point, non-disinterest is a double negative and means ‘interest’ so for clarity’s sake it should instead have been 2) Non-attachment/interest,
NO!! For fuck’s sake, it should have been DISinterest!! (Assuming, that is, PJC is intending - as you eloquently phrased it - an “inclusive forward slash”)

On the other hand, it is fatal to lose interest in these things for they are one’s symbolic system or magical reality
Hardly “fatal”, is it. “Fatal” means you would drop down dead. “Debilitating”, perhaps.

That analysis (of mine) appears to make sense
Says you! We’ll be the judge of that though…

because if someone has a desire (averse to it or not) they were, by dint of having that desire, inherently interested in it weren’t they?
By dint, yes. By jingo!

The ‘aversion’ would appear to be some sort of after- effect maybe a repression or sublimated attempt of running away from it
It simply means that showing aversion would be taking notice of whatever it is in the same way that attachment or interest would take notice of it as well - in other words, by entering (and complicating) the consciousness it would fail the object of the exercise. It's a bit like somebody saying "Don't immediately think about a square".

Desires don’t get destroyed do they?
No – they just hang around for all eternity! Hadn’t you heard?

With that said, instead of 2) Non-attachment/interest he should’ve just simply have said 2) Non-attachment and spared us the confusion.
Yeah!

I’m assuming that attachment means non disappointment if the desire didn’t manifest and non anguish whilst anticipating the desire. I further assume that it means not being stunned or unbalanced if the desire does manifest. .
Yeah!!

[.…] which basically adds to confusion to what the hell he is talking about per se anywhere
Yeah!!!

As an analogy;’ Jimmy is a good person on the other hand he is a weekend football hooligan’.
The second statement negates the first.

Not necessarily though. What about if Jimmy decides to help little old ladies across the road (for example) on the way back home from his weekend footie match?

[…] Sorry I just noticed an error in this paragraph of mine
[…] If I’m not mitsaken it holds.
Let’s try again. [etc.]

From the “OPERATOR’S MANUAL for the Human Brain (20th/21st century edition)”:
“With web communications, remember to make sure that the mind is in correct gear before engaging (typing) hand, as this will significantly affect the level of (non)sense ensuing. It is recommended not to press ‘Send’ until you have worked things out sufficiently beforehand and similarly it might also be advisable to avoid narcotics or strong alcohol prior to posting. …”

N Joy


ReplyQuote
dom
 dom
(@dom)
Member
Joined: 5 years ago
Posts: 2012
19/02/2019 10:06 pm  

@jamiebarter

Jamie do you know what a double negative is in sentential logic?

I just want to clear this double negative issue up before I go any further otherwise entanglement in confusion will abound.

NO!! For fuck’s sake, it should have been DISinterest!! (Assuming, that is, PJC is intending – as you eloquently phrased it – an “inclusive forward slash”)

What? He saidl

2) Non-attachment/Non-disinterest
Non-attachment/Non-disinterest best describes the magical condition of acting without lust of result. It is very difficult for humans to decide on something and then to do it purely for its own sake. Yet it is precisely this ability which is required to execute magical acts.

If it's an inclusive 'or' then the two factors both 'Non-attachment' and 'Non-disinterest' merge ie are similar at least.. Let's assume it is inclusive. It doesn't help that he used a forward slash in his laughter/laughter either.

Anyway his term ' non-disinterest' is the double negative isn't it in terms of if we are looking at 'being interested' . Maybe we can't deconstruct the word 'disinterest'. I'll explain; This is what I thought you meant by 'double negative';

If one is disinterested in something then one is not interested in it. Am I right?

The first negation then is 'disinterest' which is represented as ' ~ interest', right?
'Non disinterest' therefore is the negation of ' ~ interest' so we are left with a double negation ' ~ ~ interest'.

' ~ ~ interest' is the negation of '~ interest' so finally, we are left with 'interest' as double negatives are always cancelled out.

If i am not 'not a cricket fan' then i am a cricket fan.


ReplyQuote
christibrany
(@christibrany)
Yuggothian
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 2380
19/02/2019 10:43 pm  

What, if anything, does anyone want to say to my idea that 'trying' to be non-dual always leads to the middle path which is a combination of both sides?


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3951
19/02/2019 11:07 pm  

@dom

If i am not ‘not a cricket fan’ then i am a cricket fan.

Why would you want to be not 'not a cricket fan'? I ask the question out of non-disinterest.

This is surely the most hilarious thread on LAShTAL for some time. Thank God I wore my corset, etc.


ReplyQuote
dom
 dom
(@dom)
Member
Joined: 5 years ago
Posts: 2012
19/02/2019 11:15 pm  

Why would you want to be not ‘not a cricket fan’? I ask the question out of non-disinterest.
This is surely the most hilarious thread on LAShTAL for some time. Thank God I wore my corset, etc

Hilarious in what way?


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3951
19/02/2019 11:51 pm  

@dom

Hilarious in what way?

Hilarious in the sense that it makes me laugh out loud. Non-disinterest, for God's sake! I suppose it's good that, in these dark days as we hurtle towards our doom, we have something to laugh about. There may well be "that which remains"; let's hope so, eh?


ReplyQuote
dom
 dom
(@dom)
Member
Joined: 5 years ago
Posts: 2012
19/02/2019 11:52 pm  

Hilarious in the sense that it makes me laugh out loud. Non-disinterest, for God’s sake! I suppose it’s good that, in these dark days as we hurtle towards our doom, we have something to laugh about. There may well be “that which remains”; let’s hope so, eh?

Have remoaners transcended dualism?

Bye bye EU gravvy train.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgfdhM9X1aY


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2666
20/02/2019 12:10 am  

You are, of course, pro-Brexit, david (in a non dualistic way, of course)?

Looking forward to getting off that gravy-train, are we? At least Trump is a temporary self-inflicted political wound.


ReplyQuote
Jamie J Barter
(@jamiejbarter)
Member
Joined: 5 years ago
Posts: 1409
20/02/2019 12:14 am  

@dom :

Jamie do you know what a double negative is in sentential logic?
If I say "no I don't think so" will that mean I do?

I'll take it you're in complete agreement with everything else I wrote, then. (Or cogitating deep in thought: unable to sleep, with your brow furrowed into the night.)

Hilarious in what way?
Four words, and there were four modifications in the same post there - how did you manage that? That's quite funny in itself (not side-splitting, tho)

Not Not N Joy


ReplyQuote
dom
 dom
(@dom)
Member
Joined: 5 years ago
Posts: 2012
20/02/2019 12:16 am  

Brexit schmexit i'm not interested. I'm disinterested hah.

@jamiebarter

If I say “no I don’t think so” will that mean I do?
I’ll take it you’re in complete agreement with everything else I wrote, then. (Or cogitating deep in thought: unable to sleep, with your brow furrowed into the night.)

So you're playing silly buggers as well then?. Tuit tut tut. So we're leaving the PJC definition of non attachment/non disinterest up in the air then? You don't know what he means either?

If you give me a sensible answer then i can move on to your other points yeah.


ReplyQuote
Jamie J Barter
(@jamiejbarter)
Member
Joined: 5 years ago
Posts: 1409
20/02/2019 1:09 am  

@dom :

So you’re playing silly buggers as well then?
What - as well as you, you mean?

So we’re leaving the PJC definition of non attachment/non disinterest up in the air then?
I'm sorry, I thought you'd adequately covered it yourself above? Do we really need to go through all this again? (Michael's corset might not be able to take it...)

You don’t know what he means either?
Not really - as you yourself so splendidly said above as well, when commenting on the "... confusion [as] to what the hell he [PJC] is talking about per se anywhere"

If you give me a sensible answer then i can move on to your other points yeah.
By "sensible", do you mean "have to be in agreement" with you?

Hoping this Is sensible enough for your exacting standards and finding it time for my bedtime cocoa now,
N Joy


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1827
20/02/2019 1:30 am  

This IS becoming a bit of an odd thread. Although I, personally, am finding it interesting (with my active non-disinterest).
When I cited Hui Neng, I did so because I felt his words (or at least the english translation of an account of what he said) hit the nail on the head with "sublime simplicity" (although Mr. Neng would be keen to quickly point out that there is no nail...nor anything to hit it with).

With regards to PJC's "non attachment/non disinterest," I don't see any need to focus on double negatives or such. The second portion of this "formula" seems to be a comment upon the first as "non attachment" may signify "disinterest" for the general reader.

It does derive from Crowley and his admonition to work without Lust of Result. Of course, Crowley is deriving from earlier sources which are woven into his system.

There has been a little criticism of PJC's "stealing" from Crowley. As I recall, his Liber Kaos recommended reading as much Crowley as one can in the Suggested Reading section at the end of the book.

PJC does seem to switch gears with Psybermagick and attacks some of the key Thelemic idea(l)s. I'm wondering if Dom has read this work?

My own interest (or non-disinterest) is in the mystical consciousness the quote from Hui Neng points toward. I am also interested in the relationship between the Magical Powers (Siddhis) and their corresponding Illuminated States of Initiation. In Tibetan Buddhism, these things work in tandem and the latter may significantly color how one understands the former.


ReplyQuote
dom
 dom
(@dom)
Member
Joined: 5 years ago
Posts: 2012
20/02/2019 11:45 am  

@jamiebarter

No seriously don't be defensive and by that i include silly insulting comments also. You don't know what a 'double negative' is. Right? You thought you were reprimanding me with the "NO!! For fuck's sake etc" when i explained it to you but I'll now give you the benefit of the doubt and you can explain to me my error.

If you;re going to borrow a term from sentential logic trhen i have to be sure that you know what you're talking about otherwise, well otherwise i'm talking to someone who isn't on the same page at all.

@michael and kidneyhawk

thanks for the references on those writers of zen and dualism however I wouldn't mind you providing some sort of quote from those guys on the very subject so we can have a proper discussion about it.


ReplyQuote
pegasus
(@pegasus)
Member
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 98
20/02/2019 12:10 pm  

quoting DOM Consider laughter: it is the highest emotion, for it can contain any of the others from ecstacy to grief. It has no opposite.

Crying is merely an underdeveloped form of it which cleanses the eyes and summons assistance to infants.

Laughter is the only tenable attitude in a universe which is a joke played upon itself. The trick is to see that joke played out even in the neutral and ghastly events which surround one. It is not for us to question the universe’s apparent lack of taste.

The laughter comes with seeing what cannot be unseen.

laughter IS indeed the opposite end of the scale to crying. One can even cry with laughter, it encompasses both as crying also contains ecstasy and grief as laughter can.. BOTH are a way of releasing tension, dealing with a happening, feeling an emotion... infants for example use "crying" as their basically first communication method, at that moment of time crying holds life..... which gives crying a depth of importance across the board.. and if this deliverance from dualism is to be believed, laughter is the final step to accomplishing deliverance...

Crying is echoed above as below, the rains cleanse the earth, refresh and renew, giving life and movement and renews just as crying does to the entire being.

BUT this was written by a man, in a time where men didn't cry and so were not in touch with the value and necessity of crying.

.

DOMRegardie covered habit control in his classic on magic in which he borrows AC’s Jugorum technique. PJC calls it “Metamorphosis The transmutation of the mind to magical consciousness” and defines this as the Great Work which has a far-reaching purpose leading eventually to the discovery of the True Will.
Even a slight ability to change oneself is more valuable than any power over the external universe. Metamorphosis is an exercise in willed restructuring of the mind

. To proceed, select any minor habit at random and delete it from your behavior: at the same adopt any new habit at random. The choices should not involve anything of spiritual, egocentric, or emotional significance, nor should you select anything with any possibility of failure. By persisting with such simple beginnings you become capable of virtually anything. All works of metamorphosis should be committed to the magical diary.

MAGIC Success in this part of the syllabus is dependent on some degree of mastery of the magical trances and metamorphosis

the above quotes contradict the following

DOM
or when high emotionality paralyzes its normal functioning. At these times the sigil is concentrated upon, either as a mental image, or mantra, or as a drawn form. Some of the times when sigils may be charged are as follows: during magical trance; at the moment of orgasm or great elation; at times of great fear, anger, or embarrassment; or at times when intense frustration or disappointment arises. Alternatively, when another strong desire arises, this desire is sacrificed (forgotten) and the sigil is concentrated on instead.

* no mastery with "great fear" "anger" and especially "embarrassment" they should of been well outgrown and shed, as with "sigils" by this time of their journey

* at the moment of orgasm, great elation, finding joy and laughter with everything should be utilized by the Magi to charge THEMSELVES not an object, in this case a sigil. which is a weakness in the work

This verse is best interpreted by defining ‘pure will’ as the true expression of the Nature, the proper or inherent motion of the matter, concerned. It is unnatural to aim at any goal. The student is referred to “Liber LXV”, Cap. II, v. 24,

It is actually natural to aim at one goal, which the great work is all about, - the self "improving" "growing" "learning" "becoming"

true will = INSTINCT
a lost part of our genetic"ness"

(i.e. And I laid my head against the Head of the Swan, and laughed, saying: Is there not joy ineffable in this aimless winging? Is there not weariness and impatience for who would attain to some goal?)

* goals keep you going, spark you on, yes each day brings adventure, yes treat everything as a joke and laugh ( but try and do it silently in a court of law) yes live in the day, enjoy just being... but goals can be adventure and joy and ..

* serenity in knowing goals can fail, falls happen, life can be completely different in 1 2 or 6 months time, plans can be diverted... BUT the "banking on" the goal being obtained at all or say within a time frame or successfully... that part of it is the problem... the emotions, toll and total of that failure... AND so not the fool

impatience .. ???

state of mind to overcome - is achieved by patience

Weariness

comes from wariness - a state of mind to overcome

“Unassuaged” means “its edge taken off by” or “dulled by”. The pure student does not think of the result of the examination.

once "pure" is achieved one is no longer a student. Students who do not think of the result of the examination are just going to be students.

and to the “Tao Teh King”. This becomes particularly important in high grades. One is not to do Yoga, etc., in order to get Samadhi, like a schoolboy or a shopkeeper; but for its own sake, like an artist.

Don’t do yoga etc like a schoolboy or a shopkeeper?

Not sure about the grammar there as what if our schoolboy or shopkeeper are getting busy and ‘in the zone’? Maybe schoolboys can’t do their true will, maybe he echoes my earlier point about children’s self-piteous and lazy protests on having to do tasks.

It means Schoolboys learn because they have to not want to. Shopkeepers are only in it for the money and on that note a child is the refection of their environment self pity and laziness are learned from so called adults...

"an hour three times a week at a yoga class two days" "a week of martial arts" you will not know Yoga, you will not learn the essence of yoga

remember it from your core. You hold the memories "hello" who weren't out there building dams and tending fields or warring and were out in fields, climbing mountains, studying nature, the learners students, teachers who used the knowledge and secrets of Yoga to Be.

to sum that up Yoga flows but you have to find the tune inside


ReplyQuote
Tiger
(@tiger)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 1503
20/02/2019 2:17 pm  

Regardie covered habit control in his classic on magic in which he borrows AC’s Jugorum technique. PJC calls it “Metamorphosis The transmutation of the mind to magical consciousness”

when high emotionality paralyzes its normal functioning.

at the moment of orgasm or great elation; at times of great fear, anger, or embarrassment; or at times when intense frustration or disappointment arises.

At these times the sigil is concentrated upon, either as a mental image, or mantra, or as a drawn form. Some of the times when sigils may be charged are as follows: during magical trance

when another strong desire arises, this desire is sacrificed (forgotten) and the sigil is concentrated on instead.

Our minds are obscured by propensities and delusions .
Until we have dispelled the clouds,
drive away the hindrances and clear the interference,

OM KHANDAROHI HUM HUM PHAT

purify the ordinary conceptions and appearances ;
train
the mistaken conception/appearance,
and let all the distracting conceptual thoughts cease;

we will not be able to transform the mind;
and allow the practitioner to travel/awaken to
the place from where death comes from,

and advance beyond imputed conception
and let the substances of dualistic appearances subside
into lack of inherent existence .


ReplyQuote
Jamie J Barter
(@jamiejbarter)
Member
Joined: 5 years ago
Posts: 1409
20/02/2019 6:40 pm  

@dom :

No seriously don’t be defensive
Moi?

and by that i include silly insulting comments also.
Where? *

You don’t know what a ‘double negative’ is. Right?
Wrong!

You thought you were reprimanding me with the “NO!! For fuck’s sake etc” when i explained it to you but I’ll now give you the benefit of the doubt and you can explain to me my error.
NO!! I thought I was contrasting this with your "for clarity's sake" for comical effect.
(* Apart from this, that is)
It doesn't appear to have worked, however.

If you;re going to borrow a term from sentential logic trhen i have to be sure that you know what you’re talking about otherwise, well otherwise i’m talking to someone who isn’t on the same page at all.
I wasn't aware I was making a specifically "sententially logical" remark but will bow down to you O superior master of logic, as this seems to be what you're after: your "gotcha"'s got me ok?!

"Seriously", this is all getting a bit over-anal-ytical isn't it?

Moving on & off to the (Visconti/Woodmansey) holier holier place,
N Joy


ReplyQuote
Tiger
(@tiger)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 1503
21/02/2019 1:52 pm  

"Dao is neither being nor not-being in any sense which Europe could understand. It is neither existence nor a condition or form of existence. At the same time, TO ON gives no idea of Dao. Dao is altogether alien to all that class of thought. From its connection with "that principle which necessarily underlies the fact that events occur" , one might suppose that the ‘Becoming’ of Heraclitus might assist us to describe the Dao. But the Dao is not a principle at all of that kind. To understand it requires an altogether different state of mind to any with which European thinkers in general are familiar. It is necessary to pursue unflinchingly the path of spiritual development on the lines indicated by the Sufis, the Hindus and the Buddhists; and having reached the Trance called Nerodha-Sammapati, in which are destroyed all forms soever of consciousness, there appears in that abyss of annihilation the germ of an entirely new type of idea, whose principal characteristic is this: that the entire concatenation of one's previous experiences and conceptions could not have happened at all, save by virtue of this indescribable necessity ."

The Equinox V No 3 pg 64,65 A.C.

"In Brahmin philosophy, the Rishis explained the Universe by saying that God created it. The question instantly arose, “ Who created God ? “ To answer this it was necessary to make God self-sustaining, and therefore they proceeded to analyze His attributions. In the end it was found that any positive attributions not only implied limitations, but led directly back to the original mass of ignorance; and they were accordingly forced to conclude by denying all qualities or quantities soever to the Supreme God, Parabrahman.

In other words, they found themselves obliged to reduce their God to Nothing .

The Chinese, being more practical, cut out all the waste work and started with the Nothing of the “ Great Extreme “ , which we may consider as really the equivalent of the Dao . WE represent this Dao geometrically by a point. But since since this Dao is not only Nothing but also non-existent in respect to all other possible predicates, it turns out on analysis that a thing which is in no way no thing may just as well be regarded as something ."

The Equinox V No 3 pg 472 A.C.


ReplyQuote
arthuremerson
(@arthuremerson)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 157
21/02/2019 9:33 pm  

David,

In the context of the non-disinterest discussion, Jamie made reference to the grammatical 'double negative', not the logical 'double negation'. The former takes as its referent a grammatical construction, which is not identical to the notion we find logic (sentential or otherwise). Now, you are right to think that we can symbolize these grammatical constructions in logic. However, sentential logic is not appropriate here for a couple of reasons. Firstly, sentential logic, as its name suggests, takes sentences as its atoms, not singular terms (the very first sentence of chapter 2 in our book says just this). So when we translate into the formal syntax of sentential logic, we translate all and only sentences. Take the following sentence, for instance, which I derive from the section of Liber Null in which this odd locution appears: non-disinterest is a state of mind. We could just symbolize this as, M (or whatever, the letter is arbitrary), but you (should) already know this. Secondly, sentential logic is just too weak to do any robust work for us in conceptual analysis general, let alone here. That it won't work here follows from the observation that sentences are the atoms of sentential logic- it simply can’t be brought to bear on an analysis of Carroll’s bizarre “non-disinterest”, since it is not a sentence. We need the more robust machinery of predicate logic, which will afford us the distinction between predicates and singular terms that will allow us to deal with this particular problem.

Since you seem to have intuited what would be needed in order to analyze Carroll’s locution, I will make a brief comment about your analysis. I’m not sure that either you or Jamie are correct. I’m not sure that this is a double negative as understood grammatically for the same reason that I’m not sure that double negation is the appropriate syntactical translation, in the main because I think that “non-disinterest” is ambiguous (and vague). Even taking non-disinterest to mean not disinterest, it's not clear to me what is meant. While it’s true that interest is a kind of non-disinterest, it seems to me that ambivalence would be too, or, say, elation. Really any other state of mind, as Carroll characterizes non-disinterest, could be a candidate, so long as it isn’t disinterest itself. If this is the case, then double negation won't be an appropriate translation. In order to make the translation, and this is incredibly important, we have to understand what's being said. Understanding first, translation second.

Now, about the forward slash. You are right to say that it is often used grammatically to suggest an “or”, but I’m not sure that’s what’s going on here. Even if it were, it’s not always necessary to understand every grammatical instance of “or” to be a disjunction- it might just mean “otherwise speaking”. I had initially thought the forward slash might just be being used as a marker of identity or equivalence between the two terms, so that non-attachment and non-disinterest are just the same thing. This makes sense, I think, if you consider that disinterest might be a kind of active mental state where you are making an assessment about some mental item ("I'm not interested in x"), whereas non-attachment (and so non-disinterest, if they are being identified) might be a state in which one’s interest or otherwise is simply not assessed at all. This still seems the best reading to me (not reading Carroll is probably the best reading, but I digress), as I believe is evidenced by the following claim made by Carroll just down the page (17 in the 1987 first edition), “Non-attachment/non-disinterest best describes the magical condition of acting without lust of result”. This sounds like to me he is simply saying that these terms (either jointly or singularly) describe some one thing, namely the appropriate mental state that accompanies, or precipitates, acting without lust of result.

Best,
æ


ReplyQuote
dom
 dom
(@dom)
Member
Joined: 5 years ago
Posts: 2012
21/02/2019 11:08 pm  

@arthuremerson

David,
In the context of the non-disinterest discussion, Jamie made reference to the grammatical ‘double negative‘, not the logical ‘double negation‘.

Yes I realized that too late, he (Jamie) was referring to the two 'non' statements which Carroll separated with the forward slash..

The former takes as its referent a grammatical construction, which is not identical to the notion we find logic (sentential or otherwise).

Yes.

Now, you are right to think that we can symbolize these grammatical constructions in logic. However, sentential logic is not appropriate here for a couple of reasons. Firstly, sentential logic, as its name suggests, takes sentences as its atoms, not singular terms (the very first sentence of chapter 2 in our book says just this).

Yes I was reviewing that today as I completed chapter 2. For example entire sentences such as e.g. " The president has his breakfast in his bedroom" we could represent with 'B'

So when we translate into the formal syntax of sentential logic, we translate all and only sentences. Take the following sentence, for instance, which I derive from the section of Liber Null in which this odd locution appears: non-disinterest is a state of mind. We could just symbolize this as, M (or whatever, the letter is arbitrary), but you (should) already know this

Yes.

Secondly, sentential logic is just too weak to do any robust work for us in conceptual analysis general, let alone here. That it won’t work here follows from the observation that sentences are the atoms of sentential logic- it simply can’t be brought to bear on an analysis of Carroll’s bizarre “non-disinterest”, since it is not a sentence. We need the more robust machinery of predicate logic, which will afford us the distinction between predicates and singular terms that will allow us to deal with this particular problem.

Ok.

Since you seem to have intuited what would be needed in order to analyze Carroll’s locution, I will make a brief comment about your analysis. I’m not sure that either you or Jamie are correct. I’m not sure that this is a double negative as understood grammatically for the same reason that I’m not sure that double negation is the appropriate syntactical translation, in the main because I think that “non-disinterest” is ambiguous

Yes the term 'non' does denote that it is necessarily the direct opposite of that specific term 'interest'. I missed that totally.

(and vague). Even taking non-disinterest to mean not disinterest, it’s not clear to me what is meant. While it’s true that interest is a kind of non-disinterest, it seems to me that ambivalence would be too, or, say, elation. Really any other state of mind, as Carroll characterizes non-disinterest, could be a candidate, so long as it isn’t disinterest itself. If this is the case, then double negation won’t be an appropriate translation. In order to make the translation, and this is incredibly important, we have to understand what’s being said. Understanding first, translation second

Yes.

Now, about the forward slash. You are right to say that it is often used grammatically to suggest an “or”, but I’m not sure that’s what’s going on here. Even if it were, it’s not always necessary to understand every grammatical instance of “or” to be a disjunction- it might just mean “otherwise speaking”

Ok.

. I had initially thought the forward slash might just be being used as a marker of identity or equivalence between the two terms, so that non-attachment and non-disinterest are just the same thing. This makes sense, I think, if you consider that disinterest might be a kind of active mental state where you are making an assessment about some mental item (“I’m not interested in x”), whereas non-attachment (and so non-disinterest, if they are being identified) might be a state in which one’s interest or otherwise is simply not assessed at all. This still seems the best reading to me (not reading Carroll is probably the best reading, but I digress), as I believe is evidenced by the following claim made by Carroll just down the page (17 in the 1987 first edition), “Non-attachment/non-disinterest best describes the magical condition of acting without lust of result”. This sounds like to me he is simply saying that these terms (either jointly or singularly) describe some one thing, namely the appropriate mental state that accompanies, or precipitates, acting without lust of result.
Best,
æ

That makes sense Arthur, thanks.

Best.
d


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4505
23/02/2019 4:36 am  

Negatives and Negations. Two for t5he price of one ... with care.


ReplyQuote
Share: