Truth
-
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
Of late, I've made statements that may have puzzled more than a few people: I've defined truth as (for example) "that which has compelling conviction for an individual," and emphasized that only personal experience can disclose truth.
If this is obscure, it is only because the word has wandered into casual language with a diminished meaning. Truth, for example, is often confused with fact - they are not the same. (For example, a fact may be true, i.e. may be correct, but may not compellingly convince.) Or the true may be confused with the actual, that which is of Assiah and capable of acting or being involved in an act. Again, they are not the same.
To Qabalists, truth has a highly technical meaning. In Hebrew, the word is emeth (A M Th). I don't need to give all the technical elements, which are a bit tedious - and, in any case, are known to every Ba'al ha-Emeth - but the most important bottom line is that this word for truth is a veil for humanity itself.
I thought it worth giving something on the subject, and I really know of nothing better than the climactic essay in Aleister Crowley's Little Essays Towards Truth. This is Crowley in his sane, lucid maturity, a master of thought and language - some of his most splendid and thoughtful work. I'll give this excerpt in the post following.
-
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
Of late, I've made statements that may have puzzled more than a few people: I've defined truth as (for example) "that which has compelling conviction for an individual," and emphasized that only personal experience can disclose truth.
If this is obscure, it is only because the word has wandered into casual language with a diminished meaning. Truth, for example, is often confused with fact - they are not the same. (For example, a fact may be true, i.e. may be correct, but may not compellingly convince.) Or the true may be confused with the actual, that which is of Assiah and capable of acting or being involved in an act. Again, they are not the same.
To Qabalists, truth has a highly technical meaning. In Hebrew, the word is emeth (A M Th). I don't need to give all the technical elements, which are a bit tedious - and, in any case, are known to every Ba'al ha-Emeth - but the most important bottom line is that this word for truth is a veil for humanity itself.
I thought it worth giving something on the subject, and I really know of nothing better than the climactic essay in Aleister Crowley's Little Essays Towards Truth. This is Crowley in his sane, lucid maturity, a master of thought and language - some of his most splendid and thoughtful work. I'll give this excerpt in the post following.
More and more, I've found myself wanting a Like button on this forum
Glad you liked it.
-
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
Of late, I've made statements that may have puzzled more than a few people: I've defined truth as (for example) "that which has compelling conviction for an individual," and emphasized that only personal experience can disclose truth.
If this is obscure, it is only because the word has wandered into casual language with a diminished meaning. Truth, for example, is often confused with fact - they are not the same. (For example, a fact may be true, i.e. may be correct, but may not compellingly convince.) Or the true may be confused with the actual, that which is of Assiah and capable of acting or being involved in an act. Again, they are not the same.
To Qabalists, truth has a highly technical meaning. In Hebrew, the word is emeth (A M Th). I don't need to give all the technical elements, which are a bit tedious - and, in any case, are known to every Ba'al ha-Emeth - but the most important bottom line is that this word for truth is a veil for humanity itself.
I thought it worth giving something on the subject, and I really know of nothing better than the climactic essay in Aleister Crowley's Little Essays Towards Truth. This is Crowley in his sane, lucid maturity, a master of thought and language - some of his most splendid and thoughtful work. I'll give this excerpt in the post following.
@Takamba said
"Where's the Like button???
This is my Like button."
LIKE
Genius insights!!! Danica shared it on fb, re-posted on the Tarot community page from there. Thank you, Jim! Much appreciated!
-
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
Of late, I've made statements that may have puzzled more than a few people: I've defined truth as (for example) "that which has compelling conviction for an individual," and emphasized that only personal experience can disclose truth.
If this is obscure, it is only because the word has wandered into casual language with a diminished meaning. Truth, for example, is often confused with fact - they are not the same. (For example, a fact may be true, i.e. may be correct, but may not compellingly convince.) Or the true may be confused with the actual, that which is of Assiah and capable of acting or being involved in an act. Again, they are not the same.
To Qabalists, truth has a highly technical meaning. In Hebrew, the word is emeth (A M Th). I don't need to give all the technical elements, which are a bit tedious - and, in any case, are known to every Ba'al ha-Emeth - but the most important bottom line is that this word for truth is a veil for humanity itself.
I thought it worth giving something on the subject, and I really know of nothing better than the climactic essay in Aleister Crowley's Little Essays Towards Truth. This is Crowley in his sane, lucid maturity, a master of thought and language - some of his most splendid and thoughtful work. I'll give this excerpt in the post following.
-
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
Of late, I've made statements that may have puzzled more than a few people: I've defined truth as (for example) "that which has compelling conviction for an individual," and emphasized that only personal experience can disclose truth.
If this is obscure, it is only because the word has wandered into casual language with a diminished meaning. Truth, for example, is often confused with fact - they are not the same. (For example, a fact may be true, i.e. may be correct, but may not compellingly convince.) Or the true may be confused with the actual, that which is of Assiah and capable of acting or being involved in an act. Again, they are not the same.
To Qabalists, truth has a highly technical meaning. In Hebrew, the word is emeth (A M Th). I don't need to give all the technical elements, which are a bit tedious - and, in any case, are known to every Ba'al ha-Emeth - but the most important bottom line is that this word for truth is a veil for humanity itself.
I thought it worth giving something on the subject, and I really know of nothing better than the climactic essay in Aleister Crowley's Little Essays Towards Truth. This is Crowley in his sane, lucid maturity, a master of thought and language - some of his most splendid and thoughtful work. I'll give this excerpt in the post following.
I too agree with the "like" button - a way to positively acknowledge something while implying "I don't actually have anything substantial to add beyond letting you know that I smiled."
[I've commented on statuses in such a way before
]So Crowley is saying, in essence, that perception of Truth is perception of the Light of the HGA/the perception of the Unity/Zero-ness of all things?
93, 93/93.
-
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
Of late, I've made statements that may have puzzled more than a few people: I've defined truth as (for example) "that which has compelling conviction for an individual," and emphasized that only personal experience can disclose truth.
If this is obscure, it is only because the word has wandered into casual language with a diminished meaning. Truth, for example, is often confused with fact - they are not the same. (For example, a fact may be true, i.e. may be correct, but may not compellingly convince.) Or the true may be confused with the actual, that which is of Assiah and capable of acting or being involved in an act. Again, they are not the same.
To Qabalists, truth has a highly technical meaning. In Hebrew, the word is emeth (A M Th). I don't need to give all the technical elements, which are a bit tedious - and, in any case, are known to every Ba'al ha-Emeth - but the most important bottom line is that this word for truth is a veil for humanity itself.
I thought it worth giving something on the subject, and I really know of nothing better than the climactic essay in Aleister Crowley's Little Essays Towards Truth. This is Crowley in his sane, lucid maturity, a master of thought and language - some of his most splendid and thoughtful work. I'll give this excerpt in the post following.
-
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
Of late, I've made statements that may have puzzled more than a few people: I've defined truth as (for example) "that which has compelling conviction for an individual," and emphasized that only personal experience can disclose truth.
If this is obscure, it is only because the word has wandered into casual language with a diminished meaning. Truth, for example, is often confused with fact - they are not the same. (For example, a fact may be true, i.e. may be correct, but may not compellingly convince.) Or the true may be confused with the actual, that which is of Assiah and capable of acting or being involved in an act. Again, they are not the same.
To Qabalists, truth has a highly technical meaning. In Hebrew, the word is emeth (A M Th). I don't need to give all the technical elements, which are a bit tedious - and, in any case, are known to every Ba'al ha-Emeth - but the most important bottom line is that this word for truth is a veil for humanity itself.
I thought it worth giving something on the subject, and I really know of nothing better than the climactic essay in Aleister Crowley's Little Essays Towards Truth. This is Crowley in his sane, lucid maturity, a master of thought and language - some of his most splendid and thoughtful work. I'll give this excerpt in the post following.
@Jim Eshelman said
"Of late, I've made statements that may have puzzled more than a few people: I've defined truth as (for example) "that which has compelling conviction for an individual," and emphasized that only personal experience can disclose truth."
The devil is in the details. 'Personal Experience' comes in many flavors. Our discourse suffers from the fact that it, like the word truth, usually means something so idiosyncratic and personal that formal arguments that invoke it as 'proof' are anything but.
Still, communication is possible, but it requires a generous spirit. Of course, this opinion is just my experience talking. Based on watching myself in various situations I know I can choose to be generous, or not—Chesed/Geburah.
It's the impulse behind the choice that changes, grows, is located at various times in the nephesh, the ruach, or the neshama. Because, if I am at all anxious about needing to be right, needing to be the one who knows the truth, and especially about needing others to accept my ideas on truth, it doesn't matter much what I believe or promote.
imho
Thank you Jim for being the moderator. I don't envy your position of authority and the responsibilities this entails as regard this forum.
Love and Will
-
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
Of late, I've made statements that may have puzzled more than a few people: I've defined truth as (for example) "that which has compelling conviction for an individual," and emphasized that only personal experience can disclose truth.
If this is obscure, it is only because the word has wandered into casual language with a diminished meaning. Truth, for example, is often confused with fact - they are not the same. (For example, a fact may be true, i.e. may be correct, but may not compellingly convince.) Or the true may be confused with the actual, that which is of Assiah and capable of acting or being involved in an act. Again, they are not the same.
To Qabalists, truth has a highly technical meaning. In Hebrew, the word is emeth (A M Th). I don't need to give all the technical elements, which are a bit tedious - and, in any case, are known to every Ba'al ha-Emeth - but the most important bottom line is that this word for truth is a veil for humanity itself.
I thought it worth giving something on the subject, and I really know of nothing better than the climactic essay in Aleister Crowley's Little Essays Towards Truth. This is Crowley in his sane, lucid maturity, a master of thought and language - some of his most splendid and thoughtful work. I'll give this excerpt in the post following.
-
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
Of late, I've made statements that may have puzzled more than a few people: I've defined truth as (for example) "that which has compelling conviction for an individual," and emphasized that only personal experience can disclose truth.
If this is obscure, it is only because the word has wandered into casual language with a diminished meaning. Truth, for example, is often confused with fact - they are not the same. (For example, a fact may be true, i.e. may be correct, but may not compellingly convince.) Or the true may be confused with the actual, that which is of Assiah and capable of acting or being involved in an act. Again, they are not the same.
To Qabalists, truth has a highly technical meaning. In Hebrew, the word is emeth (A M Th). I don't need to give all the technical elements, which are a bit tedious - and, in any case, are known to every Ba'al ha-Emeth - but the most important bottom line is that this word for truth is a veil for humanity itself.
I thought it worth giving something on the subject, and I really know of nothing better than the climactic essay in Aleister Crowley's Little Essays Towards Truth. This is Crowley in his sane, lucid maturity, a master of thought and language - some of his most splendid and thoughtful work. I'll give this excerpt in the post following.
@RobertAllen said
"It's the impulse behind the choice that changes, grows, is located at various times in the nephesh, the ruach, or the neshama. Because, if I am at all anxious about needing to be right, needing to be the one who knows the truth, and especially about needing others to accept my ideas on truth, it doesn't matter much what I believe or promote. "
This is a real gem I think. The place from which we make our decisions is very important.
Said another way: the "thou" in "Do what thou wilt" matters a great deal.
-
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
Of late, I've made statements that may have puzzled more than a few people: I've defined truth as (for example) "that which has compelling conviction for an individual," and emphasized that only personal experience can disclose truth.
If this is obscure, it is only because the word has wandered into casual language with a diminished meaning. Truth, for example, is often confused with fact - they are not the same. (For example, a fact may be true, i.e. may be correct, but may not compellingly convince.) Or the true may be confused with the actual, that which is of Assiah and capable of acting or being involved in an act. Again, they are not the same.
To Qabalists, truth has a highly technical meaning. In Hebrew, the word is emeth (A M Th). I don't need to give all the technical elements, which are a bit tedious - and, in any case, are known to every Ba'al ha-Emeth - but the most important bottom line is that this word for truth is a veil for humanity itself.
I thought it worth giving something on the subject, and I really know of nothing better than the climactic essay in Aleister Crowley's Little Essays Towards Truth. This is Crowley in his sane, lucid maturity, a master of thought and language - some of his most splendid and thoughtful work. I'll give this excerpt in the post following.
Loved the essay, Jim.
Reminded me of this part of Notes for an Astral Atlas (my bold) --
*The Student may consult H. H. Joachim's "The Nature of Truth", in rebuttal. But most of these subtleties miss the point. Truth must be defined. It is a name, being a noun (nomen); and all names are human symbols of things. Now Truth is the power to arouse a certain reaction ("assent") in a man, under certain conditions: ("greenness", weight, all other qualities, are also powers). It exists in the object, whether latent or manifest; so experiencing both does and does not alter the facts. This is Solipsism, because we can only be conscious of our own consciousness; yet it is not Solipsism, because our consciousness tells us that its changes are due to the impact of an external force. Newton's First Law makes this a matter of definition.
"What is truth?", beyond this, inquires into the nature of this power. It is inherent in all things, since all possible propositions, or their contradictories, can be affirmed as true. Its condition is identity of form (or structure) of the Monads involved.
It requires a quality of mind beyond the "normal" to appreciate 0○ = X, etc., directly, just as H. H. Joachim's reasoning demands a point-of-view beyond that of the Bushman.*
I also really appreciate what Robert wrote...about the "impulse behind the choice that changes, grows, etc." It echoes what Jim and Crowley both say, likening Truth to a force. One that needs our "assent" to invoke change. The creative/receptive ideas of this "exchange" are overwhelming...and kind of intimate.
And the correlation to this idea of Truth, is being able to be flexible with perspectives -- and to eliminate the blind spots of our behavior patterns. When we start to observe ourselves (from "outside" ), we see the inherent contradiction and bias in various views, and, we begin to practically ask:
Why does this view make me uncomfortable? (dis-ease)
How do I adjust?
Why am I afraid of adjusting?
Does it inhibit my identity?
What is my identity?
Why doesn't it want to be flexible?
Is it threatened?
Will assimilation of the opposite viewpoint change me?
Do I still maintain who "I am" when all perspectives are embraced?These questions help me so much in finding Truth in my own personal walk. It also stops my repression of Growth in all circumstances.
I just wanted to share these experiences with what I consider a very helpful community of real seekers of Truth. Thanks everyone for all of your comments. It's awesome to have this community at one's fingertips.
And thanks again Jim for all of your Work here.
-
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
Of late, I've made statements that may have puzzled more than a few people: I've defined truth as (for example) "that which has compelling conviction for an individual," and emphasized that only personal experience can disclose truth.
If this is obscure, it is only because the word has wandered into casual language with a diminished meaning. Truth, for example, is often confused with fact - they are not the same. (For example, a fact may be true, i.e. may be correct, but may not compellingly convince.) Or the true may be confused with the actual, that which is of Assiah and capable of acting or being involved in an act. Again, they are not the same.
To Qabalists, truth has a highly technical meaning. In Hebrew, the word is emeth (A M Th). I don't need to give all the technical elements, which are a bit tedious - and, in any case, are known to every Ba'al ha-Emeth - but the most important bottom line is that this word for truth is a veil for humanity itself.
I thought it worth giving something on the subject, and I really know of nothing better than the climactic essay in Aleister Crowley's Little Essays Towards Truth. This is Crowley in his sane, lucid maturity, a master of thought and language - some of his most splendid and thoughtful work. I'll give this excerpt in the post following.
@Frater 639 said
"
Why does this view make me uncomfortable? (dis-ease)
How do I adjust?
Why am I afraid of adjusting?
Does it inhibit my identity?
What is my identity?
Why doesn't it want to be flexible?
Is it threatened?
Will assimilation of the opposite viewpoint change me?
Do I still maintain who "I am" when all perspectives are embraced?
"nice
Love and Will
