Finding my True Will
-
@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.
-
O! methodology! That is something that we can talk about!
If I may suggest, ritual acts can be actually inserted and tested in your methodology for you own satisfaction in quite easy way.
Once you catch the mind making a mistake you make a course correction. Usually it demands great vigilance and sometimes the mind behaves like a Hydra, you correct something and other mistakes emerge.
Analytical suggestion. Once you find some sort o Hydra-like behavior, try to identify the source. Maybe some previous traumatic experience, maybe some particular thought pattern our unsatisfied need. Careful analysis usually will decrease the reactivity of the mind, making it more obedient.
Ritual suggestion. Mistakes of emotional nature are deeply rooted in that primitive part of the mind that generate dreams, so they can be affected by imaginary and ritual manipulation. Personify the feeling and deal with it as if it was something external and independent.
After this, just keep the practice of watching and making corrections, and evaluate if the mind is more or less obedient.
Theory: Crowley thought that Magick is an effective tool to give the right state of mind for deep meditation. In this context the idea is to educate the mind so it becomes more obedient to your will and less prone to making mistakes. I this sense it can be said that it “unveils” the TW by making the veil (mind) less reactive.
Different parts of the mind have different languages and can be educated if corrected approached.
Personal suggestion, a good book with techniques to educate the mind is called Act of Will by Roberto Assagioli. Easy to understand, to apply and no supernatural stuff in it.
-
@ Los
You claim that one's* experience *of the "preferences of the True Self," an experience literally generated in an altered state of consciousness, is equal to one's True Will.
That's experience being explanatory.
You seem to like to say that you're not saying what you're saying.
-
@Bereshith said
"@ Los
You claim that one's* experience *of the "preferences of the True Self," an experience literally generated in an altered state of consciousness, is equal to one's True Will.
That's experience being explanatory.
You seem to like to say that you're not saying what you're saying. I'm kind of allergic to it."
There are numerous other roundabouts in his dialogues. Let me point out just one more for you. Remember, Crowley is the expert we are supposed to defer to in what is and what should never be, because he did in fact "invent Thelema." But also, "he may not have always been right."
Why are you wasting time and bandwidth on this LOS cause?
-
@Bereshith said
"You claim that one's* experience *of the "preferences of the True Self," an experience literally generated in an altered state of consciousness, is equal to one's True Will."
Yes...I'm labelling an experience with the words "True Will." I'm not in any way claiming that the experience demonstrates any claim about what's causing it. I'm pointing out that there is an experience -- which anyone who practices meditation has experienced -- and I'm giving it a name.I further claim that that's the same thing that Crowley called "The True Self" (or the "HGA"), but that claim is supported by appeals to Crowley's wrtings, not the experience.
"That's experience being explanatory."
No, it's not. The experience, by itself, doesn't explain a thing. -
@Takamba said
" Remember, Crowley is the expert we are supposed to defer to in what is and what should never be, because he did in fact "invent Thelema." But also, "he may not have always been right.""
I don't think you grasp my arguments as well as you think you do. Your confusion on this point is addressed here: thelema-and-skepticism.blogspot.com/2013/01/gems-from-forums-crowley-and-his-system.html
-
@Faus said
" Mistakes of emotional nature are deeply rooted in that primitive part of the mind that generate dreams, so they can be affected by imaginary and ritual manipulation. Personify the feeling and deal with it as if it was something external and independent.
After this, just keep the practice of watching and making corrections, and evaluate if the mind is more or less obedient."
I don't necessarily disagree with this, but in this case, the "discovery" of the True Will is still being accomplished by watching the Self in real time and "course correcting" in daily life. Ritual, in this case, is one of the tools that could, potentially, be a tool that the person finds useful as a preparation for the real work of observation.
-
@Los said
"
@Takamba said
" Remember, Crowley is the expert we are supposed to defer to in what is and what should never be, because he did in fact "invent Thelema." But also, "he may not have always been right.""I don't think you grasp my arguments as well as you think you do. Your confusion on this point is addressed here: thelema-and-skepticism.blogspot.com/2013/01/gems-from-forums-crowley-and-his-system.html"
Hmm, reading over my own post, I realize that it probably doesn't address the specific point you brought up: which is my claim that Crowley was not necessarily correct about the methods by which to discover the True Will. So, okay, I'll address that here.
Crowley invented Thelema, and we can derive a consistent definition of what the True Will is from his writings, one that accords with reality. Crowley proposed a number of potential methods by which individuals could discover this Will.
We today, however, would be totally foolish if we just blindly followed these methods without bothering to investigate how well they actually do work to discover the will. I think that Crowley's ceremonial methods are, as I've been arguing, largely ineffective at accomplishing their own stated goals. I base this on evidence, including evidence of personal experience, but also including evidence such as rationally evaluating the goals (ridding the mind of mental clutter) and the proposed techniques (cluttering the mind further, in many or most cases).
So it's not a contradiction or a "roundabout" or whatnot for me to appeal to Crowley as an authority on what Thelema actually is but to suggest that his proposed methods for reading a goal that he himself proposed weren't the most effective methods.
-
@Los said
"
@Bereshith said
"You claim that one's* experience *of the "preferences of the True Self," an experience literally generated in an altered state of consciousness, is equal to one's True Will."
Yes...I'm labelling an experience with the words "True Will.""But how do you know it's really your True Will? I mean, it comes from an altered state of consciousness. How can you know you're not just deluding yourself or exciting experiences that just serve to cloud your reasoning?
I'm just giving you an experience of the unfairness of your own argument.
"I'm not in any way claiming that the experience demonstrates any claim about what's causing it."
Except the that what's causing it is the "True Self," not some false sense of self generated during an altered state of consciousness.
"I'm pointing out that there is an experience -- which anyone who practices meditation has experienced -- and I'm giving it a name."
That suggests incredibly important relevance to one's life.
"I further claim that that's the same thing that Crowley called "The True Self" (or the "HGA"), but that claim is supported by appeals to Crowley's wrtings, not the experience."
By selecting some descriptions over others.
@Los said
"
@Bereshith said
"That's experience being explanatory."
No, it's not. The experience, by itself, doesn't explain a thing."Except everything that Crowley was talking about, even to the point of your suggestion that magic is no longer relevant.