Notifications
Clear all

Implicit proof of Crowley's belief in reincarnation!

Page 3 / 4

Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 
"ignant666" wrote:
Offered without comment (other than added emphasis, and one interjection i could not resist), as to how well our "skeptics" practice what they preach- they aren't very good on their self-claimed "home court" of rationality and logic:

"Los": Neuroscience seems to suggest very strongly that the entirety of our subjective experience is a brain state ["Holy Platonic caves, Batman!"], so the claim that meditative states and mystical trances are ultimately kinds of brain states appears quite sound.

"Los": Aside from how it feels, what reason is there to think that these past life memories are anything more than neural activity, the rough equivalent of vivid daydreams?

This was said as "Los" was agreeing with david that

Memories of past lives?  These experiences are the result of mere brain activity.

It has been observed that "discussions" with those whose entire modus operandi consists of a) cherry-picking; and b) "No True Scotsman" responses when it is pointed out that said cherry-picking makes no sense, is akin to arguing with a brick wall- or, perhaps, a Turing-bot?
It occurs to me that perhaps "Los" is really "L-OS": not the claimed Blake reference after all, but simply the name of the "Operating System" that spews this abusive, illogical shilling for the inane amalgam of Oprah Winfrey, "The Amazing Randi", and Ayn Rand that is "Los-ianity".

That's pretty "unfriendly" of you I'd say.


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Elderly American druggie
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3835
 
"Los" wrote:
Stop acting like a dishonest dimwit.
[Note: I'm not *calling* Tao a dishonest dimwit. I'm describing her behavior. Stop acting like one]
"Los" wrote:
The problem with your position -- and one of the reasons that it is a chore to engage you in conversation -- is that you have severe problems with reading comprehension.
Based on the evidence I've observed, I'm not holding out much hope that you'll be at all worth talking to this time around, but we'll see. I'm always open to revising my views as new evidence becomes available.

Note to david: I'm not *calling* "Los" a Turing-bot spewing inane views in a rude and abusive manner. I'm describing his behavior.


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

I appreciate everyone's inputs on this forum. 

Shall I tell you the secret of the true scholar?
It is this : Every man I meet is my master
in some point, and in that I learn of him
.

R.W.Emerson


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

Also, note that it is a simple matter of fact (verifiable by anyone who cares the search the "Los" material posted here and elsewhere) 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).
That each of these forms of twaddle was dismissed to the extent possible by a man who died before any of these World Teachers promulgated their Messages goes without saying (yes, Rand and AC overlapped by a few years).
That claiming the resultant illogical farrago of platitudes, sloppy thinking, and worse scholarship is "Thelema" is ludicrous is equally evident to any educated person familiar with Crowley's work.


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1169
 
"ignant666" wrote:
Also, note that it is a simple matter of fact (verifiable by anyone who cares the search the "Los" material posted here and elsewhere) 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).
That each of these forms of twaddle was dismissed to the extent possible by a man who died before any of these World Teachers promulgated their Messages goes without saying (yes, Rand and AC overlapped by a few years).
That claiming the resultant illogical farrago of platitudes, sloppy thinking, and worse scholarship is "Thelema" is ludicrous is equally evident to any educated person familiar with Crowley's work.

Well, Thelema is on to a flying start if all of the above named should happen to be aligned with it. 


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 
"ignant666" wrote:
Also, note that it is a simple matter of fact (verifiable by anyone who cares the search the "Los" material posted here and elsewhere) 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).
That each of these forms of twaddle was dismissed to the extent possible by a man who died before any of these World Teachers promulgated their Messages goes without saying (yes, Rand and AC overlapped by a few years).
That claiming the resultant illogical farrago of platitudes, sloppy thinking, and worse scholarship is "Thelema" is ludicrous is equally evident to any educated person familiar with Crowley's work.

Consider this interesting quote;

I was quite fixed in scepticism, as I have always been, but also in so-called rationalism, and I prosecuted these studies in a strictly scholarly spirit. I worked very hard at them and made great progress accordingly

Chapter 48 The Confessions


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

david: You do get that AC did not mean the same thing "Los" does when he used the word ""skepticism" (as has been discussed at great length in this, and other, recent threads here), and that i have been recently pointing out that the "Los" posts are as devoid of the logic, or the ability to engage in rational thought that in each case they ostensibly advocate, as they are of any understanding of AC's work?
While i continue to think you show promise despite your poor proofreading and lazy prose, and that others are sometimes too hard on you, you really must try harder.
Rationality and the rigorous application of logic are as essential to beginning the Great Work as are a good general and scientific education, physical fitness, psychological and sexual integration, or a stable income and family life, etc., etc.
However, what is necessary to begin may not be what is sufficient to persevere, just as knowing the admission criteria for paratrooper training may not be all we might want to have under our belts when we are jumping out of an airplane into a battlefield (in military slang, this is known as "confusing the planes").


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

It is interesting to note that there have been no transmissions from the entity known as "Los" since around 10 am 10/27, providing possible evidence that "Los" may be a human American (as the posts claim is so) who may thus celebrate Thanksgiving, rather than, say:
a) a Turing-bot (though possibly it is the boys at the CS lab who are on a holiday break with family),
b) Erwin's alter-ego/sockpuppet, as many believe.
I too am "always open to revising my views as new evidence becomes available", while viewing that evidence in as fraternal a manner as is possible without losing all rigor.
I can't truthfully say i envy any family members who may have had to put up with "Los" over the turkey and cranberry sauce, if he is human.


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

What do you think Crowley meant, david, by "so-called rationalism"?


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1169
 
"ignant666" wrote:
Also, note that it is a simple matter of fact (verifiable by anyone who cares the search the "Los" material posted here and elsewhere) 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).
That each of these forms of twaddle was dismissed to the extent possible by a man who died before any of these World Teachers promulgated their Messages goes without saying (yes, Rand and AC overlapped by a few years).
That claiming the resultant illogical farrago of platitudes, sloppy thinking, and worse scholarship is "Thelema" is ludicrous is equally evident to any educated person familiar with Crowley's work.
"ignant666" wrote:
It is interesting to note that there have been no transmissions from the entity known as "Los" since around 10 am 10/27, providing possible evidence that "Los" may be a human American (as the posts claim is so) who may thus celebrate Thanksgiving, rather than, say:
a) a Turing-bot (though possibly it is the boys at the CS lab who are on a holiday break with family),
b) Erwin's alter-ego/sockpuppet, as many believe.
I too am "always open to revising my views as new evidence becomes available", while viewing that evidence in as fraternal a manner as is possible without losing all rigor.
I can't truthfully say i envy any family members who may have had to put up with "Los" over the turkey and cranberry sauce, if he is human.

You know what ignant666? The irony would be of monumental proportions if Los is actually David Miscavige - the current leader of The Church of Scientology and the successor of the founder of this church, L. Ron Hubbard - using this site to pontificate on Hubbard's interpretation of Thelema, under the pseudonym Los (= L. Ron Hubbard's official successor).

The many bad rumors about L. Ron Hubbard and David Miscavige - baseless or not - seem to fit the bill in respect of moral nihilism. I am not sure if scientologists celebrate Thanksgiving, but the many rumors - baseless or not - about Scientology being more about money than religion, could indicate David Miscavige spending The Thanksgiving holiday busy with money matters.

The image below is a photo-montage: 

L. Ron Hubbard's official successor


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 2195
 
"Michael Staley" wrote:
What do you think Crowley meant, david, by "so-called rationalism"?

Crowley doesn’t specify exactly what he means by the phrase here, but there’s a very similar turn of phrase in Liber Samekh that sheds more light on the subject:

"Crowley" wrote:
If the Adept is to be any wise conscious of his Angel it must be that some part of his mind is prepared to realise the rapture, and to express it to itself in one way or another. This involves the perfection of that part, its freedom from prejudice and the limitations of rationality so-called. For instance: one could not receive the illumination as to the nature of life which the doctrine of evolution should shed, if one is passionately persuaded that humanity is essentially not animal, or convinced that causality is repugnant to reason. The Adept must be ready for the utter destruction of his point of view on any subject, and even that of his innate conception of the forms and laws of thought.

From the context here, we can see that Crowley’s objections are not to reason itself but to what is commonly – and incorrectly – called reason by most people. Hence, "rationality so-called." I will elaborate below.

As Crowley explains here, one of the primary obstacles to attainment is comprised of the conscious preferences of the mind, which lead people to reject the reality in front of their eyes. Crowley illustrates this by analogy here. Creationists – who often pride themselves on being “rational” and presenting “logical arguments” in favor of their nonsense – are incapable of receiving the “illumination” of the truth of evolution because they are not in fact applying reason in an unbiased manner but instead paying attention to their prejudices -- their *pre*judgments -- and calling what they do "reason."

By analogy, those people consumed by their own mental prejudices will be incapable of realizing the illumination of the True Will because their prejudiced view of themselves (their self-image) obstructs the illumination. This idea corresponds with AL II:27-33, which is not a condemnation of reason as a tool for learning things about the universe, but a condemnation of reason as a substitute for the True Will. What prevents Thelemic attainment is paying attention to the reason and its "rational" (so-called) ideas about the self instead of paying attention to the True Will.

If people could rid themselves of these conscious prejudices – from the limits of what they mistakenly call reason – they would be able to pay attention to the evidence of their actual natures, which they could observe more clearly without the obscuring lens of their self-image.

An adept needs to be ready to have his “point of view on any subject” crumble when presented with new evidence. This observation applies especially to points of view about the self, but it also applies to other areas of knowledge as well.

This is the precise reason that an adept seeks out opinions that differ from his or her own, eager to engage in conversations with people who disagree with him or her. If presented with sufficient evidence, an adept’s point of view will crumble. Indeed, one's self image must crumble if one is to discover the True Will. But to close oneself up instead – to refuse to consider other points of view and insist on doing “one’s own thing” – is the mark of the black brother.

Michael, I’d be glad to hear your thoughts on this subject – specifically, I’d be glad to hear whether you agree or disagree and – more important – why you agree or disagree and what evidence leads you to agree or disagree.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1688
 
"ignant666" wrote:
It occurs to me that perhaps "Los" is really "L-OS": not the claimed Blake reference after all, but simply the name of the "Operating System" that spews this abusive, illogical shilling for the inane amalgam of Oprah Winfrey, "The Amazing Randi", and Ayn Rand that is "Los-ianity".
"ignant666" wrote:
Note to david: I'm not *calling* "Los" a Turing-bot spewing inane views in a rude and abusive manner. I'm describing his behavior.

Yes, and the “L” in “L-Operating System” could stand for “Loser”!

[Note:  I’m not *calling* “Los” a loser here, of course.  I’m describing his behaviour.  In that he should stop acting like one & answer all questions put to him, rather than ’cherry picking’ at them.]

I was wondering, in a purely rhetorical fashion of course, whether Los wanted to discuss my application of the phenomenon of blue magick further yet [ http://www.lashtal.com/pub_pdf/Metaphor.PDF ], and maybe if so how he is empirically finding the five results of “evidence” outlined and how in particular the first two might apply personally to him:

Such behaviour as described will, once set in motion, necessitate the perpetrator having to increase the strength of his attacks in order just to maintain his position.  The effect of this will mean there is no alternative but to continue to increase the projected force of these disordered perceptions which constitute the awry mental construct of the(ir) universe.  This will sooner or later result in one or more of the following:

(a) some degree of catharsis on their part.  For example, anything from a realisation that they have been acting blindly and stupidly, to (if they are particularly obstinate) a complete and total systems failure, or worse – the upshot of this being, as was remarked earlier in the excerpt from The Heart of the Master, schizophrenia and the ruin of the unity of his or her divine nature;

(b) it being made apparent, in stages, to all within his environment that he had not been speaking (or writing) accurately and with mayat (the ancient Egyptian principle of truth, symbolised by a feather) because of the increasing absurdity, fatuity and disconnectedness of his behaviour;

(c) …
(d) …
(e) …

Or maybe david might care to answer in loco parentis, as it were, again!?  (With the emphasis there on “loco”?! 😀 )
N Joy


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 
"Michael Staley" wrote:
What do you think Crowley meant, david, by "so-called rationalism"?

Well the "so called" bit gives us a good clue as it is shining a light on what appear to be limitations of what our rationalism is.  If I was to say, "I visited the so called library today" you would detect the sarcasm as to the shortcomings of my local library.  We think we're being rational when we are really producing illusions.  I cannot deny that Los hts the nail on the head with the Samekh quote and AC's reference to rationalism therein.  I think we all know that Thelema and Crowley's writings are full of pleas to challenge our own limitations and comfortable perceptions.  Here's one little example ; Chapter One Magick

For example, God is above sex; and therefore neither man nor woman as such can be said fully to understand, much less to represent, God. It is therefore incumbent on the male magician to cultivate those female virtues in which he is deficient, and this task he must of course accomplish without in any way impairing his virility. It will then be lawful for a magician to invoke Isis, and identify himself with her; if he fail to do this, his apprehension of the Universe when he attains Samadhi will lack the conception of maternity. The result will be a metaphysical and — by corollary — ethical limitation in the Religion which he founds. Judaism and Islam are striking example of this failure.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1688
 
"ignant666" wrote:
david, [...] While i continue to think you show promise despite your poor proofreading and lazy prose,

Yes, I  too have also tried to give david a similar boost, hopefully, in case anyone’s forgotten & might think I’m a hard taskmaster and beastly to him!

"ignant666" wrote:
and that others are sometimes too hard on you,

I get it, ignant666! 😉 You’re playing “nice cop” here!

That used to be (still is?) known as “tough love”.  He ought to be thankful he’s not one of my A.’. A. ‘. students is all I can say (joke)

"ignant666" wrote:
you really must try harder.

As is the case with all of us, I suppose (No one really likes to be told that, though.  Expect no gratitude there!)

"ignant666" wrote:
[...] I can't truthfully say i envy any family members who may have had to put up with "Los" over the turkey and cranberry sauce, if he is human.

He may be a very good carver, for all we know!?  Everyone has their (de)merits!

But yes, david at least (sometimes) seems to acknowledge his faults & can be appreciative, so all is not quite los[t]!

"jamie barter" wrote:
Or maybe david might care to answer in loco parentis, as it were, again!?

Recently, we have seen david answer for Los, and Los has also returned the favour by answering for david, as in the symbiotic arangement here where he answered Michael's question to david.  This seems to be a case of dealing straight with the organ grinder direct, rather than the monkey, and this change of position must be a novelty for Los, as didn’t he used to “assume the position” (that of the monkey) to the departed-from-these-shores organ grinder Erwin Hessle, in olden days of yore?

Bouncy bouncy :D,
N Joy


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

It would be nice if you could  answer my last reply or Los's last reply, both of which go to the core of what Thelema is. 


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

Are you speaking ”to me” here, david?

Shirley (Really, I must stop doing that! Where’s the razor?!) you must have realised by now - from your own experience and participation - it’s a relative free-for-all when it comes to people jumping in and answering posts will-he nil-he from all & sundry?  Or perhaps even ignoring them from the same!?

I will personally answer them if I particularly feel like doing so, as & when.  Or not.  Or maybe, even, if you say “pretty pur-lease with a spoonful of sugar on top” 😀

N Joy


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

Thinking about it david, I don’t quite see why you should be so keen for me to answer all of a sudden, but I will keep you happy & do so, if only because you also have (sometimes) provided a similar courtesy in answering (some of) my questions.  Perhaps afterwards you might consider answering any and all of the rest of them then outstanding, “in loco organ grinder” or not!

Zer zer zer, hmm, zer zer zer zer zer… (Imagine this is the sound of my reading though your post here.)

Yes I can’t actually disagree with the substance of it (your post) there - more than half of which is actually a direct quote from Aleister Crowley anyway, as it happens, in which he is basically making a quasi-Jungian statement that the magician should not neglect his/ her other half in the animus/ anima department.  But while representing one aspect, I’m not sure I would agree with you that this also represents the “core” matter of Thelema, though.

"david" wrote:
I cannot deny that Los hts the nail on the head with the Samekh quote and AC's reference to rationalism therein.

You likewise enthuse a little too highly about Los there: and at some length he gilds the lily of his point (as usual) where he answers on your behalf Michael’s query to you about what you understood A.C. meant by “so called” rationalism.  Apart from that though, there’s not anything with which I would actually disagree that much.  As is also in fact the case with approximately 93% of Los’s postings, so far as they go.  But they never seem to quite go far enough, which is their main trouble. 

However the one thing I would critique in this spot is that Los should maybe add “subconscious” as well to where he mentions conscious preferences and prejudices below, thus:

"Los" wrote:
As Crowley explains here, one of the primary obstacles to attainment is comprised of the conscious [and subconscious] preferences of the mind, which lead people to reject the reality in front of their eyes. Crowley illustrates this by analogy here. Creationists – who often pride themselves on being “rational” and presenting “logical arguments” in favor of their nonsense – are incapable of receiving the “illumination” of the truth of evolution because they are not in fact applying reason in an unbiased manner but instead paying attention to their prejudices -- their *pre*judgments -- and calling what they do "reason."

By analogy, those people consumed by their own mental prejudices will be incapable of realizing the illumination of the True Will because their prejudiced view of themselves (their self-image) obstructs the illumination. This idea corresponds with AL II:27-33, which is not a condemnation of reason as a tool for learning things about the universe, but a condemnation of reason as a substitute for the True Will. What prevents Thelemic attainment is paying attention to the reason and its "rational" (so-called) ideas about the self instead of paying attention to the True Will.

If people could rid themselves of these conscious [and subconscious] prejudices – from the limits of what they mistakenly call reason – they would be able to pay attention to the evidence of their actual natures, which they could observe more clearly without the obscuring lens of their self-image.

Also, with regard to his last couple of paragraphs,

"Los" wrote:
An adept needs to be ready to have his “point of view on any subject” crumble when presented with new evidence. This observation applies especially to points of view about the self, but it also applies to other areas of knowledge as well.

This is the precise reason that an adept seeks out opinions that differ from his or her own, eager to engage in conversations with people who disagree with him or her. If presented with sufficient evidence, an adept’s point of view will crumble. Indeed, one's self image must crumble if one is to discover the True Will. But to close oneself up instead – to refuse to consider other points of view and insist on doing “one’s own thing” – is the mark of the black brother.

He might do well to apply these criteria to himself and to heed the old adage: “Physician heal thyself!”

Is that enough of an answer for you here, david?

Now that we have discussed this minor turn-off detour away from the main route, perhaps you could return to the original belief in reincarnation.  Or some other (but not too irrelevant) interesting speculative diversion.  I have heard it suggested, for example, by more than one Lashtalian, that Los may actually be Erwin Hessle in the capacity of  “skeptic supreme” or Grand Organgrinder General under an assumed identity, on account of the latter’s disappearance from these shores roughly coinciding with the former’s ascendancy and the fact they never seemed to be together in the same “room” at the same time.  My own thoughts on the matter are that Los himself seems to be a bit more polite and charming than Mr Hessle was on the whole - if that can be imagined  possible!  I assume that you may have come across posts made under this Erwin identity - if not, they can be easily adequately ‘searched’ for.  But what might your thoughts be on the matter?

“... ecstasy be thine and joy of earth ...",
N Joy


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

It is interesting to note the similar prose styles, and taste in invective (they both like "dimwit", e.g.), of Hessle and "Los", in addition to the identically vapid content.
I however attribute this to the Computer Science boys who programmed the "Los-bot" (who clearly know nothing of occult or spiritual matters, but why should they, to do a CS experiment?) raiding the Hessle corpus for the material "Los" posts. A Turing-bot needs a body of text for the look-up tables to select possible answers from, after parsing incoming human input.
The way this typically works is the "bot" will, on a probabilistic basis based an algorithm, match input and possible answers on: a) parsing "topic" by searching for identical recurring text strings [input contains text string "True Will" four times, e.g. -> find possible response strings containing the "True Will" string multiple times], and then b) if "a" fails, or to select among candidate answers that meet criterion "a", running word-match counts (input and possible answer string have x number of uncommon words in common (e.g., both mention "Aiwass", "RHK", "The Cairo Working" "Rose")).
I also think wellreadwellbred gives us much food for thought with his David Miscavige hypothesis, as "Los-ianity" does seem quite compatible with what i know of Scientology, which is after all a debased form of "Thelema as money generating scam", an idea that has occurred to more than one in that sunny state.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 
"jamie barter" wrote:
,Yes I can’t actually disagree with the substance of it (your post) there - more than half of which is actually a direct quote from Aleister Crowley anyway, as it happens, in which he is basically making a quasi-Jungian statement that the magician should not neglect his/ her other half in the animus/ anima department.  But while representing one aspect, I’m not sure I would agree with you that this also represents the “core” matter of Thelema, though.

That anima work  is a subset of a greater work as mentioned.

"jamie barter" wrote:
,

"david" wrote:
I cannot deny that Los hts the nail on the head with the Samekh quote and AC's reference to rationalism therein.

You likewise enthuse a little too highly about Los there: and at some length he gilds the lily of his point (as usual) where he answers on your behalf Michael’s query to you about what you understood A.C. meant by “so called” rationalism.  Apart from that though, there’s not anything with which I would actually disagree that much.  As is also in fact the case with approximately 93% of Los’s postings, so far as they go.  But they never seem to quite go far enough, which is their main trouble. 

You think Los and Hessle 8=3 are big on Hod but small on Netzach?

"jamie barter" wrote:
whole - if that can be imagined  possible!  I assume that you may have come across posts made under this Erwin identity - if not, they can be easily adequately ‘searched’ for.  But what might your thoughts be on the matter?

“... ecstasy be thine and joy of earth ...",
N Joy

People think Hessle 8=3 is Los?  Well I don't think so. 


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 
"ignant666" wrote:
I also think wellreadwellbred gives us much food for thought with his David Miscavige hypothesis, as "Los-ianity" does seem quite compatible with what i know of Scientology, which is after all a debased form of "Thelema as money generating scam", an idea that has occurred to more than one in that sunny state.

Scientology as a form of Thelema? What??!!!  Surely you are joking?

Have you seen the South Park Scientology episode?


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

I have also had the thought, that this might instead be more accurately described as “so called” adept” here as well:

"Los" wrote:
A ["so called" ] adept needs to be ready to have his “point of view on any subject” crumble when presented with new evidence. This observation applies especially to points of view about the self, but it also applies to other areas of knowledge as well. [...]

"david" wrote:
"jamie barter" wrote:
Yes I can’t actually disagree with the substance of it (your post) there - more than half of which is actually a direct quote from Aleister Crowley anyway, as it happens, in which he is basically making a quasi-Jungian statement that the magician should not neglect his/ her other half in the animus/ anima department.  But while representing one aspect, I’m not sure I would agree with you that this also represents the “core” matter of Thelema, though.

That anima work  is a subset of a greater work as mentioned.

OK, but that wasn’t what you said earlier.  And you mean this being the “subset” of a “greater” work, but not “the Great Work” itself which is the core of Thelema ?

"david" wrote:
"jamie barter" wrote:
"david" wrote:
I cannot deny that Los hts the nail on the head with the Samekh quote and AC's reference to rationalism therein.

You likewise enthuse a little too highly about Los there: and at some length he gilds the lily of his point (as usual) where he answers on your behalf Michael’s query to you about what you understood A.C. meant by “so called” rationalism.  Apart from that though, there’s not anything with which I would actually disagree that much.  As is also in fact the case with approximately 93% of Los’s postings, so far as they go.  But they never seem to quite go far enough, which is their main trouble. 

You think Los and Hessle 8=3 are big on Hod but small on Netzach?

I don’t know what you are talking about here with this reference to Hod and Netzach and then this “8=3”.  Are you stating that Los, or Erwin Hessle, or both of them, are Magister Templi?  In which case - no, I “don’t think” that.

"david" wrote:
"jamie barter" wrote:
whole - if that can be imagined  possible!  I assume that you may have come across posts made under this Erwin identity - if not, they can be easily adequately ‘searched’ for.  But what might your thoughts be on the matter?

“... ecstasy be thine and joy of earth ...",
N Joy

People think Hessle 8=3 is Los?  Well I don't think so.

Obviously this is your opinion here also – that they are not one and the same person - with which others disagree.  At the moment there is not enough evidence to say who may be right and who may be wrong.  I doubt whether Los will spill the beans at this stage either, if he is Hessle, as that would end the illusion (I was going to say ‘gag’, but then I thought it isn’t really that funny).

“Reveal unto me thine organ grinder”, as the actress might have said to the bishop.

I hope this answers your queries, david.

“… joy of earth: ever To me To me”,
N Joy


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 
"david" wrote:
Scientology as a form of Thelema? What??!!!  Surely you are joking?

You do know that scientology is a sort of bastard child of Thelema, don't you, David 0=0?


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 
"Azidonis" wrote:
[You do know that scientology is a sort of bastard child of Thelema, don't you, David 0=0?

Lie-detector machines and basic psychology tests?  Wow I must try some o' that..

"Azidonis" wrote:
don't you, David 0=0?

I'm an Ipissimus bigshot now?  Why thankyou. 

Are you referring to Hubbard and his role as trance medium to JWP?


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 
"david" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
don't you, David 0=0?

I'm an Ipissimus bigshot now?  Why thankyou.

Ipsissimus is 10=1, just so you know.

"david" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
[You do know that scientology is a sort of bastard child of Thelema

Are you referring to Hubbard and his role as trance medium to JWP?

No. The subject has been covered at length elsewhere on the boards.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 
"jamie barter" wrote:
OK, but that wasn’t what you said earlier.

No.

"jamie barter" wrote:
And you mean this being the “subset” of a “greater” work, but not “the Great Work” itself which is the core of Thelema ?

Don't be confused by the pun.  What is Crowley asking us to do with that anima work?  Did he do similar in other tasks he allocated?  Does Liber Al do the same in the directives therein?

"jamie barter" wrote:
I don’t know what you are talking about here with this reference to Hod and Netzach and then this “8=3”.  Are you stating that Los, or Erwin Hessle, or both of them, are Magister Templi?  In which case - no, I “don’t think” that.

I think occultists take offence as if he's (Los) trying to (as one guy on another forum put it) "steal the magic from magic and take the mysticism out of mysticism."  In other words they seem to be cagey about their  Netzach gnosis function and, in a roundabout way  accuse Los of having no soul or no gnosis or no spirituality.  You get that?  All Hod and no Netzach.

This is interesting about 8=3 and is probably worth a separate thread.  How would anyone recognize a Magister Templi?


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 
"Azidonis" wrote:
"david" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
don't you, David 0=0?

I'm an Ipissimus bigshot now?  Why thankyou.

Ipsissimus is 10=1, just so you know.

Yes I did know but I didn't know whether or not you had a good sense of humour.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 
"david" wrote:
Yes I did know but I didn't know whether or not you had a good sense of humour.

I find Erwin's claim to 8=3 way more humorous, to be quite honest.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1688
 
"david" wrote:
This is interesting about 8=3 and is probably worth a separate thread.  How would anyone recognize a Magister Templi?

I think this was gone into a little in the “Joe Schmo” thread on the “Magick” board started by – well, fancy now – you, david!!  Which could perhaps be necromantically re-activated then as per usual, if you’re desperate to discuss?!…

"Azidonis" wrote:
"david" wrote:
Yes I did know but I didn't know whether or not you had a good sense of humour.

I find Erwin's claim to 8=3 way more humorous, to be quite honest.

Erwin's 8=3 has been suggested by two people now.  Where would this claim be made, out of (mild) interest?

“What is, is balanced by weak joys” (I:31) “… the joy of dissolution, all” (I:30) “thrill with the joy of life & death … & rejoice!” (II:66)
N Joy


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 4221
 
"Jamie Barter" wrote:
Erwin's 8=3 has been suggested by two people now.  Where would this claim be made, out of (mild) interest?

I recall reading it in the course of a visit to his website or blog, many years ago now. Given his views so insistently articulated over the years, I imagine it's humorous. Y'know - "thank god I wore my corset, because my sides have split", "the only reason I didn't laugh out loud was because if I did, my head would fall off", that sort of thing.


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

Yes, just look up the name "erwin hessle" and you'll come across posts by "erwin hessle 8=3"

There even appears to have been an "erwin hessle 8=3" yahoo/google group -
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.magick/ys4GH3XEEdY%5B1-25-false%5D


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

If Erwin is 8=3, this implies that there is a Magus 9=2 who has recognized his achievement- I wonder who that might be, and what his "Word" might be?
To recycle perhaps my best lashtal joke, this "Lifestyles of the Rich and Ipsissimous" stuff gives me a pain where i sit down.
According to a "baby-name meanings" site, this Frater's magical motto "Erwin Hessle" translates to "Bold Boar Friend", an interesting choice.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 6458
 
"belmurru" wrote:
There even appears to have been an "erwin hessle 8=3" yahoo/google group -

Yea verily! And if you read that linked thread you will enter "Thelema portrayed as an antagonistic version of Fantasy and Science Friction." 😉


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1688
 
"Michael Staley" wrote:
"Jamie Barter" wrote:
Erwin's 8=3 has been suggested by two people now.  Where would this claim be made, out of (mild) interest?

I recall reading it in the course of a visit to his website or blog, many years ago now. Given his views so insistently articulated over the years, I imagine it's humorous. Y'know - "thank god I wore my corset, because my sides have split", "the only reason I didn't laugh out loud was because if I did, my head would fall off", that sort of thing.

Ah, ha - I see: a bit like Peter Carroll when he also called himself an “Ipsissimus”, you mean?  Or Grady McMutry with his 9=2?  Or ...

- So, nobody takes it remotely seriously, then?  (“Speak up”, if anyone does!)

This begs the question of where on earth would we all be without the universal balm of humorous irony…

"ignant666" wrote:
[...] According to a "baby-name meanings" site, this Frater's magical motto "Erwin Hessle" translates to "Bold Boar Friend", an interesting choice.

Absent Friends, eh?  “Should auld acquaintance be forgot, and never more to pass…”

“Existence is pure joy ...” (II:9)
N Joy


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 2195
 
"belmurru" wrote:
There even appears to have been an "erwin hessle 8=3" yahoo/google group -
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.magick/ys4GH3XEEdY%5B1-25-false%5D

If I'm not mistaken, that's one -- of many -- threads on the old alt.magick usenet bulletin boards. You can even see that the OP of that thread is inquiring what the 8=3 title designates.

If you read through the alt.magick archives to the posts from nearly twenty years ago, Erwin makes an interesting observation in a few places: that even though he never makes a big deal out of his grade, lots of posters fixate on it. They project all kinds of their own issues  -- and their own (in many cases) bizarre assumptions about grades/attainments/orders/magick -- onto someone who merely puts a few numbers after his name.

It's an interesting exercise to reflect on how a title -- a few numbers, in this case -- can alter people's responses and perspectives so drastically, and stir up all kinds of issues for them. Their responses are their own responsibility -- and if they pay attention to their reactions, it will teach them something valuable.

To bring this all around to this very thread -- which has long since gone off the rails -- you can observe a similar but distinct phenomenon going on in these parts. Posters who are unable to address the substance of what I say abandon rational conversation and instead speculate about me, in some cases posting bizarre fantasies that reveal a lot more about themselves, their insecurities, and their desperation for attention.

It's in *this* sense that the "universe is a magical mirror," as some space cadets like to say: that your own responses and projections onto things say much, much more about you than about the things in question. Becoming aware of this and learning from this are what actually constitutes the lion's share of actual initiation.

And it's in *this* sense that observing the self in actual situations of interactions with others -- even on a message board -- is somewhere in the vicinity of a zillion times more useful for actual initiation than years of observing the self while pretending to have conversations with spacemen.

On the question of 8=3 specifically, there's an interesting piece on Erwin's blog here: http://www.erwinhessle.com/blog/?p=84


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 6458
 
"jamie barter" wrote:
- So, nobody takes it remotely seriously, then?

Bingo!


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1688
 
"Shiva" wrote:
"jamie barter" wrote:
- So, nobody takes it remotely seriously, then?

Bingo!

I imagine that even if anyone - david, say - had (“remotely taken it seriously”), he would have been frightened off admitting it by now!

N Joy


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

I agree with all above that I don't imagine anyone takes any claims by Hessle to have achieved 8=3 any more seriously than any intelligent person who has read any Crowley would take the "Los" postings as reflecting any very great understanding of AC's work, or of much of anything, beyond disclosing the "bizarre fantasies [...] and [...], desperation for attention" of whom, or what, ever is responsible for these very silly ex cathedra pronouncements.


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

In reference to the OP: Nobody, even said 8=3's et al ;), can say implicitly what AC's belief in reincarnation was. First of all, he wrote in some places that he "believed," but in other places that such assumptions were merely convenent. Nextly, nobody can say what some other person (such as AC) really believed, regardless of what they said or wrote.

im·plic·it adjective
1.implied though not plainly expressed.
2.with no qualification or question; absolute.

Well, which is it? Implied or absolute?  Ether way, we will never know what he really believed. We can only know what he wrote, and he wrote in contradiction. Welcome to the world of duality.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 
"Shiva" wrote:
In reference to the OP: Nobody, even said 8=3's et al ;), can say implicitly what AC's belief in reincarnation was. First of all, he wrote in some places that he "believed," but in other places that such assumptions were merely convenent. Nextly, nobody can say what some other person (such as AC) really believed, regardless of what they said or wrote.

Yes we know he made apparent contradictory statements.  I am just curious as to how a guy who taught others to balance every idea with it's opposite (a master of pratyahara) could identify with and take as philosophically valid  a mere thought-image that drifted through his consciousness.  For those who need clarification I mean apparent images of him doing things in a previous life.   


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 4221
 
"david" wrote:
"Shiva" wrote:
In reference to the OP: Nobody, even said 8=3's et al ;), can say implicitly what AC's belief in reincarnation was. First of all, he wrote in some places that he "believed," but in other places that such assumptions were merely convenent. Nextly, nobody can say what some other person (such as AC) really believed, regardless of what they said or wrote.

Yes we know he made apparent contradictory statements.  I am just curious as to how a guy who taught others to balance every idea with it's opposite (a master of pratyahara) could identify with and take as philosophically valid  a mere thought-image that drifted through his consciousness.  For those who need clarification I mean apparent images of him doing things in a previous life.   

Why do you regard it as "curious", given that you ackowledge Shiva's point that Crowley made many statements that appear contradictory? In that context, it doesn't strike me as curious at all. For instance, it doesn't strike me as curious that Crowley could on the one hand advocate scepticism and on the other immerse himself in communication with praeter-human intelligence, since it's clear from what he said that he believed that both had their place.

If you think that Crowley is sound when he's sceptical, and talking crap when banging on about occult forces, praeter-human intelligence etc., well that's a point of view. But my guess is that if you really are "curious", then that curiousity will remained unabated over several lifetimes to come.


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Elderly American druggie
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3835
 
"david" wrote:
I am just curious as to how a guy who taught others to balance every idea with it's opposite (a master of pratyahara) could identify with and take as philosophically valid  a mere thought-image that drifted through his consciousness.  For those who need clarification I mean apparent images of him doing things in a previous life.

Yes, david, it is indeed hard to imagine how a Master could "take as philosophically valid a mere thought-image [or sense impression?] that drifted through his consciousness", either of doing things in the current incarnation, or a previous one.
The thing you seem impervious to understanding, no matter how many times it is pointed out in this thread (and elsewhere), is that the phenomena to which "students are most earnestly warned against attributing objective reality or philosophic validity" include "Reality", since, as a great "Adept" pointed out, "[n]euroscience seems to suggest very strongly that the entirety of our subjective experience is a brain state".
As Tao has pointed out, the "skeptics" seem ironically well-supplied with soldiers, but fresh out of hunchbacks, as soon as talk shifts from "goblins" and "spacemen" to more quotidian matters.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 2195
 
"Michael Staley" wrote:
that curiousity will remained unabated over several lifetimes to come.

I love how Michael ignores the prospect of an actual conversation to say this ridiculous nonsense instead.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 
"ignant666" wrote:
"david" wrote:
I am just curious as to how a guy who taught others to balance every idea with it's opposite (a master of pratyahara) could identify with and take as philosophically valid  a mere thought-image that drifted through his consciousness.  For those who need clarification I mean apparent images of him doing things in a previous life.

Yes, david, it is indeed hard to imagine how a Master could "take as philosophically valid a mere thought-image [or sense impression?] that drifted through his consciousness", either of doing things in the current incarnation, or a previous one.
The thing you seem impervious to understanding, no matter how many times it is pointed out in this thread (and elsewhere), is that the phenomena to which "students are most earnestly warned against attributing objective reality or philosophic validity" include "Reality", since, as a great "Adept" pointed out, "[n]euroscience seems to suggest very strongly that the entirety of our subjective experience is a brain state".
As Tao has pointed out, the "skeptics" seem ironically well-supplied with soldiers, but fresh out of hunchbacks, as soon as talk shifts from "goblins" and "spacemen" to more quotidian matters.

“In this book it is spoken of the Sephiroth (proposed metaphysical "thing") and the Paths (proposed metaphysical "things")  ; of Spirits (proposed metaphysical "things") and Conjurations (proposed metaphysical "thing") ; of Gods(proposed metaphysical "things")  , Spheres (proposed metaphysical "things") , Planes (proposed metaphysical "things") , and many other things which may or may not exist....”

..so no the "philosophic validity" is not a multi-plane factor it's specifically about strange things which probably only exist in the human imagination..until we can receive evidence that states otherwise however it is immaterial whether they exist or not. By doing certain things certain results follow but students are most earnestly warned against attributing objective reality or philosophic validity to any of them.   "Them" y'know proposed otherworldy things not your PC screen which you can put your finger on and take photos of for us.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 
"Los" wrote:
"Michael Staley" wrote:
that curiousity will remained unabated over several lifetimes to come.

I love how Michael ignores the prospect of an actual conversation to say this ridiculous nonsense instead.

No doubt he will now claim it was just a joke.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 2195
 
"ignant666" wrote:
as a great "Adept" [i.e. Los] pointed out, "[n]euroscience seems to suggest very strongly that the entirety of our subjective experience is a brain state".

You continue to act as if you think there’s some contradiction in my agreeing that experience is a brain state. It is unclear what your objection is, and if you tried to have an honest conversation with me, we might perhaps get to the bottom of it.

To restate my position yet again, I have no problem conceding that all of our experience is subjective and that all of our experience arises in the brain. Everything I experience is indeed subjective. But within that subjective experience, I can make accurate determinations between classes of things that we conventionally call “real” and “imaginary.” I can determine, for example, that dropping a postcard into the mailbox has “real effects” on other aspects of my subjective experience in ways that trying to send a demon-gram does not. In fact, I can accurately determine that there is no good reason to think that anybody can send a demon-gram in a way that has “real effects.”

Now it's true that I might not be able to tell absolutely which method of communication is real – but this is because it seems that absolute knowledge does not exist.

That being the case, when I’m doing practical things – like trying to decide how to communicate a message my friend – I use the methods that I’ve determined to be real (within the discursive context of talking about the world I subjectively experience).

I’m really curious to hear exactly where you think the contradiction is in any of this. Explain it, in as much detail as possible – with concrete examples, if you can -- and I’ll respond.


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Elderly American druggie
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3835
 
"david" wrote:
..so no the "philosophic validity" is not a multi-plane factor it's specifically about strange things which probably only exist in the human imagination..until we can receive evidence that states otherwise however it is immaterial whether they exist or not. By doing certain things certain results follow but students are most earnestly warned against attributing objective reality or philosophic validity to any of them.   "Them" y'know proposed otherworldy things not your PC screen which you can put your finger on and take photos of for us.

Can you show me where the book you quote says this?
So "skepticism" is only for some subjective experiences experienced as "real", but not others? Why? Whence "probably"? How is the posited internal consistency of a possible delusion (e.g., "reality") important, or even relevant, here?
How will this "skepticism" (confined to certain unusual experiences) help "the Banker, the Pugilist, the Biologist, the Poet, the Navvy, the Grocer, the Factory Girl, the Mathematician, the Stenographer, the Golfer, the Wife, the Consul"? Remember in answering that "Every intentional act is a Magickal act" (not just acts, or experiences, involving "spacemen" or "goblins"), and that "Magick [is] the name given to Science by the vulgar." Cf. also Clarke's "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."


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

Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat [of "Spirits" et al.], and swallow a camel [of all the other sense impressions you receive]. Matthew 23:24


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 2195
 
"ignant666" wrote:
So "skepticism" is only for some subjective experiences experienced as "real", but not others?

I suspect david means that Crowley, in that place, in that particular work, is specifically discussing the phenomena generated through "magical practice."

More generally, skepticism is a useful tool to treat *all* claims. Importantly, skepticism is directed at claims, not at "experiences." Experience is just experience. It's the claims that one's mind makes on the back of experience that should come in for skeptical analysis.

As an example, let's say a person has an experience that he interprets as indicating that someone at work doesn't like him. No one is denying that he actually feels that way or that he has actually had experiences that have led him to feel that way. But what the person himself ought to be skeptical of -- if he's smart -- is the rational interpretation that his mind has made based on the experience.

In terms of Thelemic practice, skepticism is especially relevant when demolishing the self-image. All of one's ideas about "the kind of person I am" need to crumble, and they'll only crumble when one begins becoming aware of -- and begins questioning -- the narrative that one's mind is creating about the self.

Skepticism about supernatural claims is just one specific case of the general application of skepticism -- a specific case that is very relevant to a lot of people interested in Thelema because Thelema tends to attract the kinds of spiritually disaffected people who have recently abandoned other forms of supernaturalism and who are -- often -- looking for a new form of supernaturalism.

Too often, these "new converts" seem to have figured out that their old religions are B.S., but they haven't yet twigged to *why* those religions are B.S. They aren't really thinking skeptically. A lot of them seem to just operate on how stuff "feels." Christianity just didn't "feel" right, man. Or it's just, like, "so mean and oppressive," which I guess to them means it can't be true, or something? I don't know -- their thinking seems very muddled.

So it can be very useful for people with attachments to unjustified supernaturalist beliefs about the universe to figure out that those beliefs aren't justified. At the very least, it will give them some experience in having cherished beliefs crumble (which will be useful in terms of attainment, since the most cherished beliefs of all -- beliefs about the self -- need to crumble in order to attain). In a lot of cases, I suspect it will also greatly help some of these people navigate reality.

But what you've been yammering on about, ignant666, appears to be something entirely different than what I'm talking about above. Since you refuse to be clear, it's kind of hard to tell, but I think -- if I'm reading you correctly -- that you advocate the idea that a person ought to be "skeptical" of interpreting the events of everyday life as "real."

But if that's what you mean, then you're confusing yourself by mixing up two entirely different scopes of discussion. On the one hand, there's the level of the consistent-seeming world that our subjective experience reveals to us -- a world in which we can determine, for example, that postcards work as a way of communicating information and that demon-grams do not work; or a world in which we can determine, for example, that X idea about one's self is misleading. And then on the other hand, there's the meta-level of whether our subjective experience is revealing a "real reality" to us or whether we're in fact trapped in a Matrix of some kind.

Those are two entirely different levels of discourse, and our inability to determine in any absolute sense whether our subjective experience is revealing a "real reality" at the meta-level has no bearing on the fact that we can determine that, on the first level, there does not appear to be any reason to think that demon-grams work to communicate information. If we are trapped in a Matrix, then 1) it appears that there's no way to tell, and 2) it appears that we're trapped in a Matrix where things like demon-grams don't work.

In other words, you're conflating two entirely distinct concepts, and it's confusing the ever living hell out of you. I explained all of this in my reply #144 above. I direct you to that reply again, and I again ask you to respond to it, in detail, with examples if you can.


ReplyQuote
Tao
 Tao
(@tao)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 316
 
"Los" wrote:
In terms of Thelemic practice, skepticism is especially relevant when demolishing the self-image. All of one's ideas about "the kind of person I am" need to crumble, and they'll only crumble when one begins becoming aware of -- and begins questioning -- the narrative that one's mind is creating about the self.

Huh... I was under the impression that Thelemic practice was about demolishing ideas about "the person I am" rather than just "the kind of person".

"Los" wrote:
Skepticism about supernatural claims is just one specific case of the general application of skepticism -- a specific case that is very relevant to a lot of people interested in Thelema because Thelema tends to attract the kinds of spiritually disaffected people who have recently abandoned other forms of supernaturalism and who are -- often -- looking for a new form of supernaturalism.

Is it relevant for that reason? Does Thelema tend to attract spiritually disaffected people? Are they looking for a new firm of supernaturalism?

From whence are you collecting the data for these generalizations?


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Elderly American druggie
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3835
 
"Los" wrote:
[...]it appears that we're trapped in a Matrix where things like demon-grams don't work.
In other words, you're conflating two entirely distinct concepts, and it's confusing the ever living hell out of you. I explained all of this in my reply #144 above. I direct you to that reply again, and I again ask you to respond to it, in detail, with examples if you can.

Any confused bot-programmer suffering from deficits in reading comprehension and/or thought may with advantage please review the post immediately following the referenced post #144:

"ignant666" wrote:
How is the posited internal consistency of a possible delusion (e.g., "reality") important, or even relevant, here?

ReplyQuote
Page 3 / 4
Share: