"Poverty is a state of consciousness"
-
@Takamba said
"
@Labyrinthus said
"
@Takamba said
"Castration? Is that your understanding of the Union? "No.
Once again, that is NOT what I said.
So much Deception... So much Time...."
Now you are playing the same game you (and your friends) have always in the end turned to playing on this forum, and in the parlance of Twitter - you have become unfollowed.
Good night, and good luck."
and you and your 'friends'[to sink to your level] have decidedly driven this thread off topic from poverty is a state of consciousness into an us vs you debate/ hadit vs nuit debate once again.
-
Daath is Daath and Malkuth is Malkuth.
un-Follow that if it suits you.
For those who have not sufficiently explored either it could be quite the quandary
Denial leads to problems. Deep denial leads to big problems.
-
@_aLL_seEing_eYe_ said
"and you and your 'friends'[to sink to your level] have decidedly driven this thread off topic from poverty is a state of consciousness into an us vs you debate/ hadit vs nuit debate once again"
** an us vs you debate/ hadit vs nuit debate once again**
an astute observation.
What was that?!
It sounded like Crowley turning in his grave...
but it is late and I am tired too...maybe we'll pick it up in the morning....
-
@Takamba said
"So, in waiting to see if there's any reply, back to the original thread...
Poverty is a state of consciousness. So is sickness, mastery, depression, and anything else you want to label. The question is, how do you raise consciousness to correct any imbalances - or, do you feel you should not?"
I think this seems to be the point before the thread was derailed; and a very good question at that , another being where does poverty or contrarily material wealth fall on the tree of life??
-
[*.
-
It is you and your mental complexes that turned it into something. I was having a discussion, one which I merely expressed how I feel and go to things - you two, like sock puppets in a coordinated charade - turned it into a debate and and an "us" versus "we" thing.
As long as you refuse to hear, you will not find information useful for your growth.
How you hear "us" vs "we" in any thing you say is fascinating (and I use that word in its most occult sense). You have in your imaginations labeled some of "us" in this forum "locals". If you were observant, you'd note that I and you have an equal amount of experience in this forum. So you can't go around accusing me of being a "local" any more than yourself. And Jim is not some one I know any better than you know him. I'm not personally associated with any one that I am aware of in this forum. I've never sipped coffee with, drank a beer with, or even passed in a hallway any person who's language appears on your screens here. So there is no all powerful collective "WE" to gang up on you with. We is a word in the English language that basically means there's some semblance of a collective agreement among a community (of any size and any level of solidarity). But to you the word sounds like an assault on your single individuality and as such you pick up arms and begin the fight the second the word is used in conjunction with something you either do no or wish not to understand - community.
You can take arms against the community if you wish. I assure you, the world around you has more guns, hammers, forks and knives than you can dodge. You will have to face facts that you are part of something other than just little ol' individual hadith-smokin' you, or you will die. You will have to join something in order to allow the individual to continue to survive.
I think what has been pointed out to you by several people who have age and experience (not to get all ageism on you, but age and experience can equate to offering you a smoother lesson plan in your life) is that you just aren't balancing out the full equation. It is not a Hadith versus Nvith world (unless you're 24 years old and think you're in a movie), it's a Had meets Nu, Nu falls in love, Had gets a job, and along comes baby world.
Observe this from chapter two of the Book of the Law:
18. These are dead, these fellows; they feel not. We are not for the poor and sad: the lords of the earth are our kinsfolk.
19. Is a God to live in a dog? No! but the highest are of us. They shall rejoice, our chosen: who sorroweth is not of us.
20. Beauty and strength, leaping laughter and delicious languor, force and fire, are of usNow it would seem to me that this section has gotten a few of you into a very good frame of mind about notions like sympathy and charity.This is the very Hadit language that others are observing from you, and you do it quite well. But notice a few things - lots of use of the word "us" there. And what if you ... oh ... just for a minute or two.. pretended it meant something other that what you've come to think it means.... what if it isn't saying "down with the wretched, do not feed the animals" as you have come to enjoy its meaning, what if it says "who sorroweth is not of us. Beauty and strength, leaping laughter and delicious languor, force and fire, are of us" because we will eliminate those things. What if not only could you hear the Hadit equation when you read your books with your tongues and minds, but what if you could hear the other half of the equation as well?
You can't accuse me of being involved in creating an argumentative space when as page one turned into page two, I came in and basically asked a question of perspective and generosity and every person participating in this thread (including you!) except for one oil painting agreed that my sentiment "rocked" so to speak. But then, just a simple use of the word "we" and the lunatics came out of you.
It's not an us versus them world unless you really really really want that to be. Some day you'll look back on life and remember how much harder than it had to be you made it. Trust me, I have a feeling every one of us over thirty types will tell you that we can do that.
-
FraterLA>"You speak constantly of freedom for the True Will, yet you constantly react to these others as if their True Will can't possibly include advocating the cause of the truly oppressed."
So, getting back to an earlier point, this is fairly accurate.
I do not believe anyone with a genuine awareness of True Will would waste any time or effort "advocating" anything. He would simply do that which he wants done.
One very fast way to halt learning and growth is to waste time trying to alter or influence the behavior of others against their will. To pass judgment on others based on the perceived lack of compassion for the "oppressed" is a common error among the sub-neophyte class.
To reserve any space in one's consciousness with concerns about the way others 'should' think, feel or act is folly.
I sense a giant vacuum in the space where respect for Hadit would normally go. There is an imbalance.
-
@Labyrinthus said
"FraterLA>"You speak constantly of freedom for the True Will, yet you constantly react to these others as if their True Will can't possibly include advocating the cause of the truly oppressed."
So, getting back to an earlier point, this is fairly accurate.
I do not believe anyone with a genuine awareness of True Will would waste any time or effort "advocating" anything. He would simply do that which he wants done."
So all of Crowley's advocating of Thelema is not within his True Will? Nor his advocating in newspapers that America should involve themselves in Europe's war against Germany? In fact, a vast majority of what is written in Liber Aleph is advocating something or another - so Crowley should never never never (bad Crowley!) had written those things?
Regardie's advocating of Reich's orgone therapy (whatever your opinion of it's value may be) was not in line with his True Will?
Your advocating that "the True Initiate" does not advocate may be, for all we know, a very crucial part of you accomplishing your true will - but I'm not saying.
@Labyrinthus said
"One very fast way to halt learning and growth is to waste time trying to alter or influence the behavior of others against their will. To pass judgment on others based on the perceived lack of compassion for the "oppressed" is a common error among the sub-neophyte class.
To reserve any space in one's consciousness with concerns about the way others 'should' think, feel or act is folly.
"You don't see the irony in your statements? I suggest you keep on with your intellectual work there (or here if you like), but something that Frater LA hinted at and I am agreeing with (and you haven't seemed to catch the hint) is that all your work is purely intellectual. Good ideas, some, but where's the real spirit of your work?
-
@Takamba said
"Your advocating that "the True Initiate" does not advocate may be, for all we know, a very crucial part of you accomplishing your true will - but I'm not saying."
I would not characterize his Thelema work as 'advocating'. That was definitely in the 'doing' category. There is also work that one does to pay the bills which would be separate from what I was getting at.
I think I have made it fairly clear that my point is more about engaging in effort to alter the behavior of others in a coercive fashion or against their will. Opinionating is a completely different matter.
If there is something I am not getting perhaps you could state it again, plainly, and then rephrase it in a way I can understand. I may be slow but I can be taught.
-
@Labyrinthus said
"
@Takamba said
"Your advocating that "the True Initiate" does not advocate may be, for all we know, a very crucial part of you accomplishing your true will - but I'm not saying."I would not characterize his Thelema work as 'advocating'. That was definitely in the 'doing' category. There is also work that one does to pay the bills which would be separate from what I was getting at.
I think I have made it fairly clear that my point is more about engaging in effort to alter the behavior of others in a coercive fashion or against their will. Opinionating is a completely different matter.
If there is something I am not getting perhaps you could state it again, plainly, and then rephrase it in a way I can understand. I may be slow but I can be taught."
Okay. Good. I appreciate the tone of that as well.
Let me try to phrase what I believe others are trying to share with you (which, if you like, we (you and I being the we in this case, so let's hope someone doesn't get offended) can call 'teaching' you).
You are an individual. I am an individual. We can fight for our lives, as we should, all day long and as we see fit. But that's the consciousness of survival there - and only the consciousness of survival. As experience may have taught you in your life, there are many other types of consciousness (call them levels, spheres, ranges, higher or lower or whatever label you see fit - and if you do, i won't correct you - I'm just calling them types). And as far as "initiates" go, or as I like to call it, "the adept," the adept's Will is to expand consciousness in all directions and as far and as wide as possible - until, it is hoped, the consciousness of the adept reaches the infinite.
Think about that. If the consciousness of the adept reaches out to become one with everything else within the infinite, at what point does helping your neighbor not also mean helping yourself? That's what is meant, to a somewhat routine degree at least, by having the other half of the equation in this "debate" (as Frater LA called it).
I hope that has made sense.
-
@Takamba said
"at what point does helping your neighbor not also mean helping yourself?"
I think helping one's neighbor is a good thing. Helping others in general is a good thing. I do a bit this myself on a fairly regular basis.
?
-
@Labyrinthus said
"
@Takamba said
"at what point does helping your neighbor not also mean helping yourself?"I think helping one's neighbor is a good thing. Helping others in general is a good thing. I do a bit this myself on a fairly regular basis.
?"
So, if I understand you correctly, you do have sympathy / empathy / and compassion - but you have them in controlled doses and administered to the right people. That's very good, and a heck of a trick to pull off correctly.
So, you do recognize yourself as part of a large something, but of course, like the rest of us, you prefer which ones of the many "others" you are part of - except you can't choose actually to not be part of the entire collective called "the human race." Even death doesn't seem to remove us from that.
So, at what point do the things some of us are trying to express not seem to meet agreement with the core of the heart of every star that is within you? Sometimes I am convinced you are in total disagreement with people, and sometimes I am convinced you are in total agreement. What's the real balance? What am I missing?
-
Of course I do. And mine is genuine. I actually live by my beliefs. I don't pretend to be helping others through some government agency or get vicarious satisfaction out of forcing others to behave philanthropically.
-
@Labyrinthus said
"FraterLA>"You speak constantly of freedom for the True Will, yet you constantly react to these others as if their True Will can't possibly include advocating the cause of the truly oppressed."
So, getting back to an earlier point, this is fairly accurate.
I do not believe anyone with a genuine awareness of True Will would waste any time or effort "advocating" anything. He would simply do that which he wants done."
Completely sidesteps the issue of championing the oppressed. Here you once again sidestep an opportunity to answer the question directly. Instead, you simply attempt to teach me again.
"One very fast way to halt learning and growth is to waste time trying to alter or influence the behavior of others against their will. To pass judgment on others based on the perceived lack of compassion for the "oppressed" is a common error among the sub-neophyte class."
What was that you were saying about stepping in and telling people how to think or behave? I think I may have missed your point. But this is exactly mine. You can't play both cards. You are both telling us how we should behave in regard to compassion as well as telling us true initiates don't tell people how to behave...
Stop teaching and look in the mirror. Stop sidestepping issues with your pedantic sensibilities and answer directly based on the question of whether it can be someone's True Will to liberate the oppressed:
What is your opinion of the story of the initiate MSH? Come on, qabalist. Were his actions Severity or Compassion?
"To reserve any space in one's consciousness with concerns about the way others 'should' think, feel or act is folly."
Yes. Yes. Yes!!! My entire point with you. Look in the mirror!
"I sense a giant vacuum in the space where respect for Hadit would normally go. There is an imbalance."
And I sense a giant vacuum in the space where respect for Nuit would normally go. Need I further point out the circle?
-
Neo, turn-about is fair play.
Get over it.
And if you only read those words on the level of my relationship with you, you completely missed the point.
-
@Labyrinthus said
"Of course I do. And mine is genuine. I actually live by my beliefs. I don't pretend to be helping others through some government agency or get vicarious satisfaction out of forcing others to behave philanthropically."
Perhaps the above quote is a great example of where the imbalance in one's self between "Hadit consciousness" and "Nuit consciousness" can lead. Look at all those "I" statements and the need to defend "I" or impress your "other" (me) about this "I" and your relation (perhaps) in comparison (competition with) the "other" (still, talking of me here in this example). I'm not spending my life comparing myself to you - I'm comparing myself to myself as I was yesterday. And in the example of a charitable act I gave on page one of this thread (remember, stepping out of my car and all?), that was of the nature of recognizing the "other" in the same light I would recognize myself. I offer to help you, I want you to feel better about yourself so I'm not going to just give it to you, I'm going to give you a chance to learn to take it. In fact, in the example I gave, I made it appear that it would be a favor done for me (help me help you to help you) But instead, frequently I watch you choose to take up arms and don the armor.
Now don't get me wrong - I'm in no way stating that weaponry is bad. It has its time and place, but in this discussion - I don't see its need at all. So I hope that even though some of the words of various aspects of your "other" (which, by the way, are parts of your Self) may seem barbed or tinged with assault to your senses, you won't necessarily feel the need to throw slings in return but might just say, "hmm, it's at least worth considering. I'll give it some thought and maybe later tell you about it." I mean, if that's what you learn... if that's the least you learn about things from discussions like this, you will have done a great service to yourself and the worse that can happen is that you waste a few minutes reading opinions you'll never agree with.
I just want you to know that I truly suspect you're only finding help around you in this thread - no one intends to be able to say, "aha! I just won an internet argument!"
-
@Labyrinthus said
"Of course I do. And mine is genuine. I actually live by my beliefs. I don't pretend to be helping others through some government agency or get vicarious satisfaction out of forcing others to behave philanthropically."
"Watch the Lady! Watch the Lady! Everybody is a winner!
Compassion, Sympathy, Empathy!
What I do is right and what you do is always wrong...!
I show compassion (the right kind). Mine is genuine (of course, not like your obviously unexamined "sympathy"). Of course, when you argue for compassion, it is necessarily merely a shallow understanding of it. It can't be fully-formed, and if it involves some government agency, the it is of course the wrong kind."
Please, Labyrinthus! Teach me some more about how your actions are always correct and my answer is always wrong...!
You sense imbalance...
If you would just stop all the ridiculous condescending statements regarding your judgment of our lack of Hadit-awareness, you might be able to hear that we already agree with you entirely in essence - something that we have only been able to wring from you after the debate has taken extreme turns.
I think you've decided you want to test us and decided that we will fail your test.
If you want to put on the lens of Hadit, then all compassion fails. Including your own. There is no room for it in the world of Hadit at all. There IS no mercy, no quarter, nothing held back, no reserve, no survivors. There is only ME..!
If that's the standard by which you will judge the compassion of others, WE will always fail.
You can't judge compassion through the lense of Hadit. It's an entirely different direction in Reality. Compassion will always seem imbalanced in Hadit's scales. Stop handing them to him and look through other eyes.
-
@Poe said
"The last thread ultimately led to a very Zen Satori.
http://www.lonestarstangs.com/forum/images/smilies/MichealJacksonPopcorn.gif"
@Poe said
"*Places sandals on head and walks away."
-
@_aLL_seEing_eYe_ said
"
@Poe said
"*Places sandals on head and walks away."
"How many times do you intend to say you are dead to this conversation before you actually act like it?
-
@Frater LA said
"Of course, when you argue for compassion, it is necessarily merely a shallow understanding of it"
Again, I have no idea what you are talking about. Please explain what you are trying to get at.
@Frater LA said
"and if it involves some government agency, the it is of course the wrong kind.""
This is straightforward. Not just that it is the wrong kind (govt enforced philanthropy is completely phony) - it is just plain wrong and un-Thelemic.
@Frater LA said
"Please, Labyrinthus! Teach me some more about how your actions are always correct and my answer is always wrong...!"
what the heck are you talking about? Please, can you cut-n-paste the exact quote of something I actually said and reply to that?