Finding my True Will
-
Patrick- I think you may have me there. I don't remember whether it was the word 'Vow' or 'Oath' that AC said.- just what difference is there?
I use the word 'Vow' as I considered it a 'vow' at the time. I was 21 years old at the time. I had just found my first magickal order and I took it very seriously.
I made a 'Vow' to never stop until I united with god head. It was not until, after much tiring effort, I was 31-32 years old when I achieved it. More and more, both at the time and now I look back and see that 'Vow' as a fundamental cornerstone to achieving it.Although there, as I have mentioned, other reasons.
Vows are very binding- it virtually cannot be broken.
Kat reminds me of my first occult work at 19, I too went on the dole.
I recommend it to serious seekers
Q
-
@Los said
"
One is "altered" by every experience. Joseph Campbell said that reading Finnegans Wake is a consciousness-transforming experience (of course, reading any text is a consciousness-transforming experience). I would say that all experiences of every kind produces alterations...the question is whether certain ritual practices alter one in ways that enable one to discover the True Will. "Well, given that you admit that one is "altered" by every experience, how much more so by specific acts performed with the intention of discovering the True Will?
It's interesting that you quote Joseph Campbell in the same breath as questioning the validity of self-conscious participation in one's own mythos.
"
This is typical occultist flowery claptrap. You're not actually saying anything here, other than baldly asserting that ritual practices enable you to experience parts of youself that you don't usually experience. I say (1) I don't think we have much reason to say that that's true, and (2) even assuming that what you've said is true, there's no reason to think that it's got anything to do with bringing you even one jot closer to discovering your True Will. What makes you think that it does? "Well, you have two forms of evidence (if not proofs) available to you:
-
The testimony of those who have performed such rituals (like, you know, Crowley,* occultist and founder *of the Thelemic philosophy you espouse, who created an entire systematic path of development based on magic ritual, and whose book you quote that also came to him as the result of magical practice).
-
Your own personal participation.
If you require proof of a more concrete nature than that, then please attempt to persuade the scientific community to round up an acceptable number of average people and attempt to gain approval by an ethics committee to have these random people each perform the same magic ritual to test its effects. Note: You may have some problems getting your experiment approved by an ethics committee, as they already understand that such actions could have profound effects on peoples' consciousness.
"
You definitely could be. The important question is, what makes you think you're right? All you've done so far is claim that these rituals let you experience parts of yourself that you don't otherwise. And again, even if that's true -- a big "if" -- how do you know you're experiencing the True Will and not, say, random junk in your conscious or unconscious mind that has nothing to do with the True Will? "No, it's not a "big if." It is my testimony of my personal experience to you. I'm telling you with these words you are reading that this has been my experience. You are free to experiment with such things for yourself to see how effective they are for you personally, or not.
Regarding your question of "how do you know...?" You make up your own mind based on how personally clarifying the experience is - how well it helps explain the meaning of your life to yourself - how well it helps you refocus your dispersed energies into one completely satisfying life-meaning and goal...
How do you claim the ability to know your True Will using only reason? Some other method?
I mean, as I see it, you want to perform the same process of finding your True Will without the use of ritual. That's fine. Get after it, or congratulations, as the case may be. I choose the use experience of ritual as an aid in focusing communications with my unconscious mind and gaining what benefit may be had from the experiences generated by that. I'm just wired that way. You're probably different. Fine. Who cares?
But, you know... attempting to discredit someone's personal experience and testimony based on what you believe should instead be the case... trying to say something can't be true of someone else because* you don't prefer that method*... It's just... a pointless errand... unless you're simply seeking to defend your own stance by attempting to make others look foolish.
-
-
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law,
Thank you for that brilliant post, Los!
Yes, we seem to have a mostly similar "Vision of the Holy Guardian Angel" ..
Some comments:
"If you can locate one -- just one -- instance of your mind doing this, and feel the distance between your True Self and your mind's idea of yourself"
Yes, this is the task for me now .. catching myself in real-time-distortion as you say and getting to know how that feels and works ..
Then using these observations to bridging this Abyss, this distance between the "True Self" and the day-to-day-self .. (This distance is quite apparent to me) ..
I also somehow think that this is not quite enough, though .. It feels like a language to communicate with the "True Self" ..
Ref. the story of Exodus, and the role of the ten commandments as a means of bridging the abyss between the hebrews and their god ..
Another method is through artistic expression, and this works very well for the individual, but can give highly idiosyncratic expressions that are meaningless to other than the artist himself (and his Angel) .. Other than the ten commandments, the kaballah and the tarot seems like the traditional symbol-systems for this purpose .."Eh, I've never found that "thinking backwards" -- what a ridiculous idea -- does anything practially to help"
Hehe .. no, I see what you mean .. Perhaps it was just meant as a way of getting used to the idea of looking at the "timeline" of ones existence from outside of causality .. Today we can probably get much the same effect just by watching a video-clip playing backwards .. I think pretty much everybody today in the modern world has no problem with this "thinking backwards" ability ..
"Liber ThIShARB" seems pretty thorough and detailed to me btw .. The "past-life-stuff" is there I guess for people who like that sort of thing .. even they should be able to get a feel for the fact that their everyday selves are not running their lives .."Experience the world and yourself without thought/emotions."
I know how to do this - no problem
.. And even without the sense of "identity" .. It happened spontaneously the first time, and I have since learned with the help of a guide, to do it on purpose .. It was quite scary the first few times, but not anymore "You don't seek it, per se. You clear away the crap from your perceptive faculties, and you wait for it to come."
Exactly what I said. And in addition to clearing away the crap, it could also be useful to learn a language that is more in accord with actual reality .. such as the kabbalah or the tarot, in order to facilitate communication w/ the Angel ..
I am still looking for a good method of "clearing away the crap" .. "Sample Ritual #9" still looming on the horizon ..
I see you are sceptical of ritual, Lon .. I don't really see the distinction between "marking the start of something" and "causing it to happen" though ..
If I was to get married for instance, how would I do that without "marking the start" of the marriage in some way? ..
Even though I could argue that marriage is really about doing the day-to-day work, and this is what actually "causes" the marriage to happen, I have a feeling the way one chooses to start the marriage (if it's a grand marriage with vows said in earnest for instance, or a sham-marriage with meaningless vows on the other hand) will influence to a large degree, if not outright determine, the course of the marriage itself ..Are you sure this distinction between "starting" and "causing" is really a necessary one? .. Or is it perhaps an example of "the crap" that needs to be cleared away from ones perceptions?
..Love is the law, love under will,
Frater Katanoese -
@Bereshith said
" But, you know... attempting to discredit someone's personal experience and testimony based on what you believe should instead be the case... trying to say something can't be true of someone else because* you don't prefer that method*... It's just... a pointless errand... unless you're simply seeking to defend your own stance by attempting to make others look foolish."
Good point.
-
@Bereshith said
"Well, given that you admit that one is "altered" by every experience, how much more so by specific acts performed with the intention of discovering the True Will?"
That's the question. You seem to think that rituals do more to enable someone to discover the True Will than does, say, watching an episode of Breaking Bad. I don't agree, and I don't think you have any reason to think that ritual does.
"Well, you have two forms of evidence (if not proofs) available to you: The testimony of those who have performed such rituals"
Well, as I said in the other thread, we can look at what Crowley actually said that rituals do – you see he, unlike you, could actually explain how he thought rituals work with more than just “it’s my experience!” Let’s take Liber Samekh as an example, since the ritual is designed to bring the individual Knowledge and Conversation of the HGA (which is a metaphor for discovering the Will, the very thing we’re talking about in this thread).
When we do look at it, we see that Crowley says it works like so:
" the Adept will be free to concentrate on his deepest self, that part of him which unconsciously orders his true Will, upon the realization of his Holy Guardian Angel. The absence of his bodily, mental and astral consciousness is indeed cardinal to success, for it is their usurpation of his attention which has made him deaf to his Soul, and his preoccupation with their affairs that has prevented him from perceiving that Soul."
And there we have it. The problem that the ritual is designed to solve is that the adept is “deaf to his Soul” because of the “usurpation of his attention” by “bodily, mental and astral consciousness.” The ritual works by distracting bodily, mental, and astral consciousness and allowing the magician to “concentrate on his deepest self.”
Based on this passage and many dozens more passages in Crowley’s writing, spanning his entire life, we can develop a model of discovering the True Will that also accords with reality:
You can scroll up and read my first post in this thread, where I explain how to do it. Discovering the True Will isn’t a “rational” process, in the sense that one doesn’t “think” one’s way to the True Will – it’s a process of observing and getting better at observing and then course correcting in real time.
I dispute that Crowley’s ritual methods are the best way to accomplish this task – in fact, I dispute that they’re very useful at all, to almost anyone. Sure he said the intention was to distract the mind and let the magician focus on the True Self, but in practice, (1) people usually get so distracted that they can’t properly concentrate on the True Self, and (2) even if people can concentrate on the True Self during a ritual, watching the True Self in that kind of setting gives very little useful information about it. It’s far better to watch the True Self in real life, day-to-day situations. That’s when one has to course-correct anyway, so the rituals are, at best, superfluous.
Look, I’m not trying to discourage you from performing rituals if you enjoy them. Hey, I enjoy them, too, and I routinely do banishing rituals still to this day. But I don’t run around pretending that they do anything more than relax my mind and summon up pleasant feelings. Certainly they – like all other rituals -- do close to nothing in regards to enabling someone to discover the True Will.
" It is my testimony of my personal experience to you."
And if you consult my other thread, you’ll discover that “experience has no explanatory power.”
Remember, we’re dealing with a subject here (Thelema) in which the central issue is that individuals form mistaken impressions about themselves. They “experience” themselves to be such-and-such a person, but they’re wrong.
This being the case – since the problem is trusting in the imagination, the thoughts, and “how it feels” – the solution can’t be to look deeper into the imagination. The solution has to be to learn to shut down the mental and imaginative faculties and perceive the Self without their distorting influence.
That’s really the only way to do it.
" attempting to discredit someone's personal experience and testimony"
I’m not at all attempting to “discredit [your] personal experience.” Obviously you had these personal experiences. But – as per my other thread – these experiences have no explanatory power. If we want to understand what’s actually going on, we have to reason about them, and we can rationally discuss the best way to discover the True Will.
Unless you have a strict and reliable way to identify the True Will – and a careful explanation as to what it is and how your practices work to enable you to discover it – you’re just flying blind, trusting whatever it kinda “feels” like and shielding yourself from learning to improve your practice by insisting it’s your “experience” and “personal testimony,” as if these things were somehow sacrosanct and infallible.
-
@Katanoese said
"Thank you for that brilliant post, Los!
"
You're very welcome. I'm glad someone here appreciates my work.Oh, and Alrah, too. Thanks.
"Yes, we seem to have a mostly similar "Vision of the Holy Guardian Angel" .."
I think it's more than this. I think the True Self -- and its dynamic aspect, the True Will -- is precisely what you and I have been discussing. This conclusion can be discerned from Crowley's writings and (especially) confirmed by basic exercises in observing the Self.The alternative, thinking of the HGA as some kind of goblin that the individual contacts by doing the equivalent of a rain dance, is too ridiculous to even contemplate. [Just note: I'm critiquing an idea, not commenting on any individual or attacking any individuals]
"I see you are sceptical of ritual, Lon"
Los. It's a character from William Blake's late poems.
"I don't really see the distinction between "marking the start of something" and "causing it to happen" though ..
If I was to get married for instance, how would I do that without "marking the start" of the marriage in some way? .."In a marriage, the ritual marks the start of the marriage, but it doesn't cause it to happen. The day-to-day work of the couple does. If one undergoes a marriage ritual and then goes on living as a single person, then nothing has happened at all.
"Even though I could argue that marriage is really about doing the day-to-day work, and this is what actually "causes" the marriage to happen, I have a feeling the way one chooses to start the marriage (if it's a grand marriage with vows said in earnest for instance, or a sham-marriage with meaningless vows on the other hand) will influence to a large degree, if not outright determine, the course of the marriage itself .."
Sure, but in that case, the degree to which someone is invested in the ceremony reflects the attitude that they have going into the marriage.The ritual itself isn't doing anything here. Sure, it might be nice and pleasant, and all that. And sure, it's a lot of fun to do, but anyone who thinks that the ritual "causes" anything to happen is in danger of getting way too attached to the ritual itself. You know all those people on a wedding day who run around and make themselves sick thinking, "Oh, it's got to be perfect!!" and nearly passing out over the tiniest details? Those are the people who are waaaay too attached to something that's just symbolic.
"Are you sure this distinction between "starting" and "causing" is really a necessary one? .. Or is it perhaps an example of "the crap" that needs to be cleared away from ones perceptions?
.."Since there is a difference between marking the beginning of something and causing something, I contend it's useful to know. It's one more way the mind acknowledges actual reality, instead of its illusions.
-
Yes, there are tons of things that have to do with magic that do not have to do with the True Will.
This does not negate the fact that there are tons of things that have to do with magic that do have to do with discovering the True Will.
Are you* trying *to miss the point?
You guys ever read someone named Aleister Crowley? This is all based on his work.
If you dispute his claims and the methodology he presented, then maybe this isn't for you.
Maybe... uh... Nietzsche mixed with some psychology... not Jung, of course... but, you know... some Behaviorism and stuff.
-
@Bereshith said
"Yes, there are tons of things that have to do with magic that do not have to do with the True Will.
This does not negate the fact that there are tons of things that have to do with magic that do have to do with discovering the True Will."
And the question of this thread is how an individual knows that certain "magical" techniques actually do work to discover the True Will.
"You guys ever read someone named Aleister Crowley? This is all based on his work."
If you read above, I go through part of Crowley's writings on ritual and demonstrate what he's talking about when he says "True Will." I then evaluate whether or not the practices he designed to discover the True Will actually do what they "say on the tin" and whether there are any better methods to arrive at the goals he laid out.
My conclusion -- supported by sound and valid arguments -- is that Crowley's methods really aren't very good at all at achieving the goal he outlined. I propose a better one, supported again by sound and valid arguments. Feel free to read my first post in the thread, where I give a far superior method.
If you disagree, you are free to make a competing arugment.
-
@Los said
"
And the question of this thread is how an individual knows that certain "magical" techniques actually do work to discover the True Will."And I respond with the idea that it's very similar process, except with the use of ritual to increase the volume of the conversation with the Self.
"
If you read above, I go through part of Crowley's writings on ritual and demonstrate what he's talking about when he says "True Will." I then evaluate whether or not the practices he designed to discover the True Will actually do what they "say on the tin" and whether there are any better methods to arrive at the goals he laid out.My conclusion -- supported by sound and valid arguments -- is that Crowley's methods really aren't very good at all at achieving the goal he outlined. I propose a better one, supported again by sound and valid arguments. Feel free to read my first post in the thread, where I give a far superior method.
If you disagree, you are free to make a competing arugment."
You can't know with the way you describe any more than you can know through the use and experience of ritual.
Such "knowledge," attained through either method, is *entirely subjective and cannot * legitimately be questioned by another person.
Also, it's rather confusing of you to use Crowley to dispute Crowley, as I don't have your list of criteria for which of his words to accept and which to reject.
I am left with the methodology he presented.
As I said, if you reject his methodology, which specifically included the use of magic, then perhaps this isn't the place for you.
If you claim to present a far superior method, then maybe start *your own *school and forum open to people interested in discussing your method. Then, when someone shows up with the sole intention of disputing your methodology, you can learn to demonstrate the tolerance exhibited by our host here.
-
@Bereshith said
"If you claim to present a far superior method, then maybe start *your own *school and forum open to people interested in discussing your method."
Well said, Bereshit.
I do not mean that in an ironic way towards anyone, yes? This is an excellent, constructive idea.
-
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law,
"thinking of the HGA as some kind of goblin that the individual contacts by doing the equivalent of a rain dance, is too ridiculous to even contemplate."
I think some people need the goblin, some need the "Super-self" or whatever .. The Angel can appear in many forms, for instance in dreams or visions. I think there is even an instance of Crowley referring to the HGA as a "dwarf" or something like that ..
@Los said
"In a marriage, the ritual marks the start of the marriage, but it doesn't cause it to happen."
To me, this is just splitting hairs .. How would you have a mark of the beginning of a marriage, without the marriage itself? How would you cause the marriage to happen without marking the beginning of it? .. There might be a distinction in theory, but in practice this is one and the same to me ..
"The day-to-day work of the couple does. If one undergoes a marriage ritual and then goes on living as a single person, then nothing has happened at all."
Not really true - If one undergoes a marriage ritual and then goes on living as a single person, you are still married, only living by yourself.
To get out of the marriage again after the ceremony, you would need an annulment or a divorce I guess ..
You could also decide that you "did not really mean it" and forget the whole thing .. The fact remains that between the time that you left the ceremony, and the time that you decided that you "did not really mean it", you were in a marriage - albeit a very short one ..
The other alternative is to take the ceremony, but "not really mean it" from the start .. that is - realize that it's just a ceremony, and it doesn't really make anything happen .. Well, I think one of the requirements for a successful ceremony is that the bride and groom enter with sincere intentions .. intention is key .."You know all those people on a wedding day who run around and make themselves sick thinking, "Oh, it's got to be perfect!!" and nearly passing out over the tiniest details? Those are the people who are waaaay too attached to something that's just symbolic. "
Yeah, hehe .. and it is your duty to get these people to calm down and take it easy?
In my experience, there is a period in ritual practice, when it is like that - everything has to be just perfect .. It's the same with anything I think - learning to play the piano for instance - one is likely to get an obsession with perfecting ones skills at some point .. but then after that, .. once you get it into your blood .. art can start happening ..
Of course, I agree that it is not necessarily the degree of perfect execution of the ceremony / ritual that is crucial .. and I support your efforts in dispelling superstitious notions from these practices .. But that comes with regular practice and reflections on the results I think.In ritual, I think the intent is key .. intent is what you bring to the ritual .. it's like the (mind)"set" of the "set and setting" of the psychedelic voyager .. what you bring is amplified and shown to you .. it's in a way what you get out of it ..
When it comes to ritual execution not being perfect, I often find these "imperfections" very interesting .. Why was it that I forgot that particular line? .. Why could I not manage to visualize this or that or whatever? .. Why did I react this or that way when this happened? .. What does it tell me about myself and my relationship to my art, to the symbols I am handling in the ritual? .. etc. .. I think rituals are part of a very powerful spiritual technology ..Do you think I would have better chance of finding my Will if I every day did something (that to me was a powerful action) to mark or renew my dedication to each day look closely at my own reactions to everyday events, and to experience how they are different from the actual reality?
When I do rituals, I use symbolic language to talk to the subconscious .. to tell it - now listen! - this is what is happening! - from now on, every day forward, we will look at everyday events closely, and our own reactions to them .. and we will strive to determine and learn from them how our perception of reality differs from the actual reality .. (Or something to that effect) ..
Only - this talk is not the language that the subconscious understands best .. It reacts much better to symbols .. these symbols have been mapped out by the Adepts of old, and we can now use them for our purposes .. For instance, it would probably be better to declare with a loud voice: "The ways of the Khabs run through .." or something similar .. In this way, you are also saying that you are not talking to the everyday-self, but the "Real self" who understands these "spells" ..I perceive a large, open vast space that I can "talk" to, or that can "talk" to me .. ("the subconscious" in a way, but not only psychological) I associate this with Yesod, the opening of the perception of this vast "field" I associate with the opening of the path of Tav .. In ritual, I open this special time and space - which is actually beyond time and space - to access this vast domain directly .. When I impregnate this space with certain symbols, certain intents, thoughts, make certain gestures, etc. I get an echo back - the field responds, sometimes at once, in the ritual itself, or later .. but there always is a reaction .. I don't experience this as mysterious or supernatural or anything like that .. it's quite natural .. and very effective imho.
Love is the law, love under will,
Frater Katanoese -
@Bereshith said
"
@Los said
"
And the question of this thread is how an individual knows that certain "magical" techniques actually do work to discover the True Will."And I respond with the idea that it's very similar process, except with the use of ritual to increase the volume of the conversation with the Self."
I again dispute this, on the grounds that what you're going to do is increase the amount of mental/imaginative clutter and distract yourself from perceiving the True Will.
"You can't know with the way you describe any more than you can know through the use and experience of ritual."
Certainly I can. My method contains a clear definition and clear standards by which to judge success in the operation.
All you've said is that you just do a ritual and just trust that it's "increasing the volume of conversation with the Self.
"Such "knowledge," attained through either method, is *entirely subjective and cannot * legitimately be questioned by another person."
If it's not possible for people to reasonably talk about how to do it, then we don't have a real subject of study."Also, it's rather confusing of you to use Crowley to dispute Crowley"
But all the time people evaluate the words of great writers in the past. Freud, for example, had some great ideas, and while he laid out a lot of the principles used by psychology today, modern psychology differs from some of his theories very greatly.Or, look at the example of Darwin. Darwin laid out the main ideas of evolution, but modern understanding of evolutionary theory (based on evidence) is significantly different from his.
This is the case in all real fields of study. Someone founds the field, and those who come after -- based on evidence -- modify the conclusions of the founder. This happens in all real fields of study, unless we're talking about religions, where people just ape the same ideas of the founder.
"I am left with the methodology he presented."
And, as I've been suggesting, refusing to critically examine that methodology is to your detriment."If you claim to present a far superior method, then maybe start *your own *school and forum open to people interested in discussing your method."
You've been to my blog. But I'm interested in having a critical discussions with people who disagree with me: that's how knowledge advances, through critical discussion."Then, when someone shows up with the sole intention of disputing your methodology, you can learn to demonstrate the tolerance exhibited by our host here."
Well, you showed up on my blog. I permitted you to say whatever you want, I explained why I thought you were wrong, and I invited you to respond further (although you didn't).The thread's still up there for anyone who wants to judge how tolerant I am.
-
@Los said
"
@Bereshith said
"
@Los said
"
And the question of this thread is how an individual knows that certain "magical" techniques actually do work to discover the True Will."And I respond with the idea that it's very similar process, except with the use of ritual to increase the volume of the conversation with the Self."
I again dispute this, on the grounds that what you're going to do is increase the amount of mental/imaginative clutter and distract yourself from perceiving the True Will. "
Well, you'll have to excuse me if I think you're trying to more than simply encourage critical thought. You're disputing my personal testimony about the power of ritual (initiation, adoration, invocation, etc.) to aid me in knowing my True Will.
I'm saying, "It has worked!"
You're saying, "It can't have!"
It's a nonsense argument.
So, what I recommend is that you present your method to those who are amenable to it, based in their personal constitution and needs.
But as long as you're here trying to tell me that what* I know *to have worked can't work, ...I don't know...
What does that mean about you?
-
@Bereshith said
"I'm saying, "It has worked!""
And I'm asking what makes you think it worked. Remember, we're dealing with a subject (Thelema) whose central premise is that people can be wrong about themselves, can dream up a "fancy picture" of themselves as one kind of person and be wrong about it.
So how do you, specifically, judge that your practices really got you in touch with your Self and not some illusory phantom of the mind? This isn't some kind of idle, unimportant question. It's vitally important for you to be able to answer that question for yourself, and simply claiming "it worked!" without having any criteria for determining what's actually going on doesn't help you at all.
Now, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you have very clear criteria for success and very good critical answers to the questions I've been asking. But I don't see any reason to think so, certainly not from anything you've been saying on this thread....
"And as long as you're referring people to your blog to examine your level of "tolerance"...."
I think a lot of people have funny definitions of "intolerance."After all, exactly what have I done? I'm not throwing people into dungeons or beating them for disagreeing with me. I'm writing what I feel like writing on my blog, and here -- when I'm a guest on this forum -- I'm abiding by the rules and politely bringing up questions that are vital for practitioners to be asking themselves.
I even gave you space to say what you like in multiple comments on my blog. I explained why I think you're in error, and I invited you to contribute further, explaining where you still disagreed with me (of course, you declined).
If you want to call all of that "intolerant," knock yourself out, but you'll excuse me if I conclude that this is an example of someone reading events through the lens of emotional reactions.
-
@Los said
"So how do you, specifically, judge that your practices really got you in touch with your Self and not some illusory phantom of the mind? This isn't some kind of idle, unimportant question. It's vitally important for you to be able to answer that question for yourself"
Precisely...Me - for myself, and others - for themselves.
Not to satisfy the mind of someone who would presume to dictate my reality to me.
I've already said this:
@Bereshith said
"Regarding your question of "how do you know...?" You make up your own mind based on how personally clarifying the experience is - how well it helps explain the meaning of your life to yourself - how well it helps you refocus your dispersed energies into one completely satisfying life-meaning and goal...
"By the way, your oh-so-precise method never describes how to tell the difference between the "inclinations of theTrue Self" and the "preferences of the mind." Are not both "one's natural inclinations"? How, precisely, do you instruct us to choose one set of inclinations over the other - if not how I suggest above?
-
@Bereshith said
" You make up your own mind based on how personally clarifying the experience is - how well it helps explain the meaning of your life to yourself"
Well, here's an example of a potential danger.The True Will is positively not in the same category as the mental phenomena in which one locates a "meaning for your life." The True Will is most definitely not a meaning, a story, or a "life-purpose" in the sense that that phrase is usually understood.
"how well it helps you refocus your dispersed energies into one completely satisfying life-meaning and goal... "
This could be a case of us using different terminology, but what you've said here isn't precise enough. I know lots of people who are focused and who find meaning in things, but we can't identify that with "having discovered the True Will" unless we want to set the bar for True-Will-discovery so low that we have to say that virtually all mature and productive people have done it (Crowley certainly never presents it that way).
"By the way, your oh-so-precise method never describes how to tell the difference between the "inclinations of theTrue Self" and the "preferences of the mind." Are not both "one's natural inclinations"? How, precisely, do you instruct us to choose one set of inclinations over the other - if not how I suggest above?"
The first step is to get some familiarity in observing the mind. Usually, this is accompanied by practices that train the observational faculties, including especially meditation (which, as I was saying earlier in the thread, involves learning how to perceive without the overlay of the thoughts and emotions and other mental crap, including ideas about what the "meaning" of one's life is or what one's "purpose" is). Ritual practices, by the way, might be useful in training the mind to pay attention more or to perceive on broader levels (have a look at the articles on the LBRP and the Star Ruby on my blog for some explanation on that).
By the way, you can demonstrate to yourself right now that there's something to what I'm calling the "True Self": sit down and meditate for a few minutes a day, and "shut off" your mind. You will find that even though your thoughts are "off," there is still something that is aware and has preferences. That's what I'm calling the "True Self" (or "Khabs," if you will), and the goal is to manifest its preferences more and more, to get your mind out of its way.
Once the individual has improved the faculty of observation, one has to watch the mind and catch it making mistakes in real time. There's no one way to do this, but we're all familiar with having acted in a certain way on the basis of a mistaken impression of ourselves. It's that distance between the Self and one's idea of the Self. If you catch yourself doing this even once, you know what you're looking for. Whenever you catch yourself doing it, you pay attention to your will instead of the mistakes of your mind and you "course correct."
That's what "discovering the True Will" is, and you basically keep this up, getting better and better at it, until you die. And then that's it.
Anyway, you -- and anyone else reading this -- can see that the method I've presented above is very detailed, with clear criteria that doesn't involve the kinds of mental clutter that is stimulated through rituals.
-
@Bereshith said
"You're simply creating a false dichotomy between your description and my own. "
How do you figure that? I gave a detailed explanation, and you merely asserted that your method "works." After being pressed on what you mean by "works," you gave a vague response that is functionally the opposite of mine, relying on generating an experience that "explains the meaning of your life," which is something I would class as mental clutter.
It's not a "false dichotomy" to suggest that our descriptions are entirely different because they are entirely different.
"Also, I thought experience wasn't explanatory"
It's not. In my explanation, I (rationally) label certain parts of experience that all normal, healthy minds experience, and I then (rationally) explain how to ameliorate the influence of one of those labeled things (what I call "the mind" or "the Khu," encompassing conscious and unconscious barriers to expressing one's True Nature) and to allow the other of those labeled things (what I call the "True Self" or "Khabs") to manifest with greater ease.