Finding my True Will
-
-
@Los said
"
@Takamba said
"Let's take the human computer. Reason alone is not all of it."Well, duh. There are all sorts of non-rational parts of the human, including...wait for it...the True Will (which isn't rational).
But the part that does the labeling and deciding what's what is the rational part. So when we're discussing a matter of procedural knowledge -- such as, for example, how to discover the True Will, which just happens to be the topic of this thread -- then the subject demands that we employ our reason to come to conclusions about how to do it.
That means we need to reach (rational) conclusions about how to label stuff and what to do to the labeled stuff to get the stuff we label as the result. The other alternative would be to randomly guess and hope we're right. I can tell you which option I prefer."
Now here's the part of you that attracted my attention to this conversation in the first place, your intent to tell us (restrict me?) what we "need." I don't disagree that randomly guessing is a waste of time, but not all conclusions are rational. As has been stated before, it is fine for you if you want to remain uber-rational about all things, and if this helps you, then it helps you. But it is not acceptable to tell me what to do. Ever. Tell me how you feel, then I may change my behavior, but attempt to control me and I will not harken to your plea. My point with you (the mistake regarding higher self & True Self aside) is that you appear to only express the purely mathematical nature of your Self, not your "irrational" (or rather, I'd say, intuitive, imaginative) self.
-
@Simon Iff said
"
@Bereshith said
"
@Simon Iff said
"I can't understand how no one in this thread has yet asked this:Los, would you kindly submit your definitions of True Will and True Self?
Thank you!"
Asked and answered thusly.
@Los said
"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."
"That is not an answer to my question(s).
The above description [...]"
For our purposes here -- discussing a matter of procedural knowledge, how to discover the True Will -- all I have to do is describe and identify the thing in question and explain what to do with it. One doesn't need to exhaustively "define" the object in question or explain its ontological nature or anything like that.
For example, if I'm explaining how to change a lightbulb, I don't need to exhaustively define a lightbulb or explain the ontological nature of what a lightbulb "really is." I just need to describe it so that you can recognize what one looks like. And I have to tell you what to do with it. That's all that's needed to explain a matter of procedural knowledge.
There's no reason to think, a priori, that a task like discovering the True Will isn't like any other task, like changing a lightbulb. As long as someone knows what the pieces look like and what to do them, one can do it.
"is simply an experience that starts to happen shortly before one comes out of what I would term "attempted meditation" and nears a state of Dharana (what I would term "beginner meditation"). A lot more is to come after that. If that is the "True Self", many layers of even "Truer Selves" are going to pop up beneath that."
There's no doubt that seriously meditating is going to produce some really strong mental fireworks, but I consider these fireworks almost beside the point entirely when it comes to the task of discovering the True Will.
As Crowley puts it -- and to be clear, I'm not quoting Crowley because "OMG it's Crowley, and we all have to listen because what he says goes!" but rather because Crowley in this place nicely phrases a point that I agree with --
"It cannot be said too strongly that any amount of mystical success whatever is no compensation for slackness with regard to the technique. There may come a time when Samadhi itself is no part of the business of the mystic. But the character developed by the original training remains an asset."
In other words, it's not the "mystical experience" that enables someone to attain: it's the character -- I would say the ability to pay attention to the Self -- developed during meditation that is actually of practical use in discovering the True Will (because remember, the actual discovering happens when course correcting in daily life).
Someone could sit in asana for several hours a day, achieve the highest Samadhis, and then get up and slip right back into delusion if he's not carefully paying attention to his mind and Self during daily life.
-
@kasper81 said
"Btw True Will is the action of our Real Selves isn't it?"
Correct. The True Will is the dynamic aspect of the True Self -- or, to put it slightly differently, the True Will is what the True Self does in a particular situation. They're two sides of a coin: you can only define True Self in terms of how it functions or acts. And you can only define how it functions or acts in terms of the objects toward which it is driven (think Wands and Cups in the Tarot).
Another way to put it is that the True Will consists of the preferences of the True Self, but that's just another way to say that the True Will consists of the kinds of things that the Self is driven to like in a given situation.
The union of the Will with its objects is called "Love" in Thelema. All experience is an act of "Love," and hence we are told that "Love is the law, love under will." The meaning of this phrase is that our acts of love -- our experience -- needs to be put strictly under the control of our Will, so that we are conducted in the path of "love" most suited to our natures.
To try to restrict our love by imagining that we "should" do such-and-such a thing "because" we're such-and-such a person or "because" it's the right thing to do...that is the primary way we thwart our acts of love, frustrate the True Self, and produce inner conflict. The practices of Thelema are aimed at reducing such conflicts in the long term.
[And note: you see I used "because" multiple times in illustrating those errors. This is the reason that Liber AL condemns reason. The Book of the Law does not condemn reason as a tool for gaining knowledge about the universe -- in fact, Crowley, in his commentary, says that the Book makes reason the "autocrat of the mind." No, Liber AL condemns reason only insofar as it tries to tell the Self what the Self "should" be doing, "because" of such-and-such. The practices of Thelema aim to ameliorate the influence of the mind and its because statements to allow the actual preferences of the True Self to be revealed and manifest]
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"My own most concise definition is, "the vector of an infinite being.""
I consider this to be so vague as to be pretty much entirely unhelpful in any practical sense. As you yourself go on to point out, it would require one to define all of these terms, and it involves some premises -- reincarnation? -- that no good evidence at all exists for.
So I'm going to label this definition as useless. Remember, I'm critiquing ideas, not attacking people.
"A core idea in both cases is that being itself is not measurable in its stillness, but only in its motion (doing is the first "delta," or measurement of change, in the variable being); and Will is inherently dynamic and in motion. (a "going," not a "beiomng")."
Well, this is better, but still not very clear. Motion and doing -- unqualified -- tells us nothing about what kind of motion comprises the True Will. One might get the mistaken idea that all one has to do is act in any way and the universe will magically, through some unspecified method, just automatically "right" the individual into his "proper course," which, of course, will not happen without effort (at least, according to Thelema).
While I do tend to think that acting is often better than non-acting, it is most often better to act with a clear idea of what one is trying to do.
"As a way of communicating with people the feel of what I'm talking about, borrowing a phrase from Parker J. Palmer I sometimes say exactly the same thing in describing True Will as "the place where your deep gladness mneets the world's deep need." (The terms need some clarification, such as the word "deep," but the meaning conveys well to most people.)"
I'm going to strongly disagree with this. What this sounds like is the kind of mental fluff that Thelema is encouraging people to clear away from their perceptions. "Deep gladness" just isn't the right idea at all, since it implies following the emotional content of the mind. And being concerned about the world's "deep need" is utterly antithetical to Thelema. The Book of the Law is insistent that the individual need not care one bit about anyone else -- or anyone else's "need" -- aside from his own True Will.
I understand that you personally agree with the sentiment of this phrase, but I think it is very, very misleading as a summary of Thelema's idea of the True Self, and it could throw a student off track for a long time.
Now sure, maybe it's possible to redefine some of the terms in it so that it coincides with Thelema (for example "deep gladness" could mean "one's actual inclinations, perceived beneath the 'veil' of the body/mind complex" and "the world's deep need" could mean "those objects toward which one's inclinations impel the individual"), but by that time, we've completely changed the meaning of the phrase you quoted.
No, I very much disagree with this phrase and think it comes dangerously close to expressing exactly the wrong idea.
-
@Takamba said
"
@Los said
"Are you seriously telling me that you’re unfamiliar with this kind of stuff?"My brain did a strange thing to me. For some reason I thought it was "higher self" when yes, True Self is what you were talking about. My mistake."
Fair enough. It's funny: a lot of the times, the people I debate with -- not you, obviously; I'm talking about other people -- are convinced that Thelema is all about the "higher self," when in fact Crowley explicitly says that that's not what he's talking about.
We'll chalk this one up to an honest mistake.
"Now here's the part of you that attracted my attention to this conversation in the first place, your intent to tell us (restrict me?) what we "need.""
Again, it's not "restriction" -- in the Thelemic sense -- to state facts. A person who wants to intelligently practice discovering the True Will needs to know exactly what he's trying to do, how to do it, and how to tell that he's done it. That's just a fact. It's not restriction to inform you of that, any more than it's "restriction" for your math teacher to mark one of your answers wrong on a test.
"I don't disagree that randomly guessing is a waste of time, but not all conclusions are rational."
All conclusions, by definition, are rational. They are rational constructs about the way something in the universe works, produced by the faculty that draws conclusions from evidence (which we call "reason").
I guess a "conclusion" that you just randomly guessed wouldn't be rational, but I would dispute that it's a conclusion at all if you're just guessing and not basing it on evidence.
"But it is not acceptable to tell me what to do. Ever. Tell me how you feel, then I may change my behavior, but attempt to control me and I will not harken to your plea."
Who exactly is "attempt* to control [you]"? I'm a dude expressing a point of view on a message board. It's not an "attempt to control [you]" to inform you of the facts. You can do whatever you like with what I say, including completely ignoring me, which I'm sure you're going to do anyway.
"My point with you (the mistake regarding higher self & True Self aside) is that you appear to only express the purely mathematical nature of your Self, not your "irrational" (or rather, I'd say, intuitive, imaginative) self."
I have no clue what you mean here. I'm trying to explain what one actually has to do to discover the True Will. In order to explain that, I have to be crystal clear in my descriptions and explanations.
Now what someone's Will turns out to be may involve creating art, performing interpretive dance, doing ceremonial rituals as a kind of performance art, being a stock broker, being a teacher, being a professional hippy.
I'm not trying to suggest that one can never do anything that the world will judge as irrational. That would be stupid to say. I'm suggesting that the process of discovering the True Will is a relatively straight, direct, and clear one and that having a firm grasp on how to do it will make it vastly easier to do.
-
@Los said
"I consider this to be so vague as to be pretty much entirely unhelpful in any practical sense. As you yourself go on to point out, it would require one to define all of these terms, and it involves some premises -- reincarnation? -- that no good evidence at all exists for."
I knew it would be a stumbling point for some people.
And (just so you know): Yes, these were pulled out of context' of a larger writing. The above (not to mention what follows) had many pages of lead-in. (Most of your comments boil down to the correct fact that I didn't set it up adequately. In the present context, I didn't want to write an essay.)
"While I do tend to think that acting is often better than non-acting, it is most often better to act with a clear idea of what one is trying to do."
On this we differ somewhat. In many things, I agree this is the best path. But after a sufficient period of purification (getting various psychological factors out of the way - essentially what you've been saying in the matter), the more complete development is to act without a consciously clear idea of what one is trying to do. At least in the big picture. (Small tasks and small steps certainly require "project management" of the whole.)
"
"As a way of communicating with people the feel of what I'm talking about, borrowing a phrase from Parker J. Palmer I sometimes say exactly the same thing in describing True Will as "the place where your deep gladness mneets the world's deep need." (The terms need some clarification, such as the word "deep," but the meaning conveys well to most people.)"I'm going to strongly disagree with this. What this sounds like is the kind of mental fluff that Thelema is encouraging people to clear away from their perceptions."
Yes, this is a place we disagree. I like these words for a couple of reasons. First, they strongly connect to many people and get them going in the right direction with undergoing a whole course of training. Second, the words are vividly and accurately descriptive of the end result, the nature of living life in conformity with True Will.
""Deep gladness" just isn't the right idea at all, since it implies following the emotional content of the mind."
There is inherent joy in the particular kind of free movement that is living one's life in conformity with True Will.
"And being concerned about the world's "deep need" is utterly antithetical to Thelema."
I wouldn't say "concerned." The "meeting" in this sentence is more like when two notes harmonize, when the harnmonics line up. One isn't "concerned" with hitting the right note (well, except when learning to do it), and there is an instant physical confirmation when one does so.
I quite disagree that concern about the world's deep need is antithetical at all to Thelema. One of the things I like about your original presentation is that you recognize that we exist in the context of each other - that both inherent self and context are part of the formula. yes?
"The Book of the Law is insistent that the individual need not care one bit about anyone else -- or anyone else's "need" -- aside from his own True Will."
Hadit is pretty clear about that, and I agree that it's the path for the development of the Hadit-distinction half of the equation. But there is also the Nuit aspect, the inseparability (even inseverability) of each from all.
"I understand that you personally agree with the sentiment of this phrase, but I think it is very, very misleading as a summary of Thelema's idea of the True Self, and it could throw a student off track for a long time."
Feedback understood and appreciated. (It goes into the soup pot. Who knows what soup will one day come out of it.
)[quotre]Now sure, maybe it's possible to redefine some of the terms in it so that it coincides with Thelema (for example "deep gladness" could mean "one's actual inclinations, perceived beneath the 'veil' of the body/mind complex""
With this particular statement, I'm intended to describe in terms of consequences. I am saying that acting in conformity with what you just described inherently results in "deep gladness."
"and "the world's deep need" could mean "those objects toward which one's inclinations impel the individual")"
I don't see the need (or even the existence!) of any being as existing outside the context of the whole. It's all connected. "The world" is the Lamed to our Aleph. So, while I wouldn't approach it as you did, I do think that your words accurate describe exactly what I was saying. One is naturally impelled toward fulfilling what the world most needs of one. The needs are reciprocal, mated.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"I knew it would be a stumbling point for some people."
Just for clarity's sake: I'm not saying it's a "stumbling point" in the sense that I merely don't prefer the language in it, as if this is just a matter of taste.
I think that definition is useless, misleading, and based on premises that are not true (or at least not demonstrated to be true).
I understand you think differently, but I want my point to be clear to readers.
"In many things, I agree this is the best path [knowing what one is doing before acting]. But after a sufficient period of purification (getting various psychological factors out of the way - essentially what you've been saying in the matter), the more complete development is to act without a consciously clear idea of what one is trying to do. At least in the big picture. (Small tasks and small steps certainly require "project management" of the whole.)"
This might just be a quibble of language, but I prefer to put it in terms of waiting for the Self to make its natural patterns known.
"
"I'm going to strongly disagree with this. What this sounds like is the kind of mental fluff that Thelema is encouraging people to clear away from their perceptions."Yes, this is a place we disagree. I like these words for a couple of reasons. First, they strongly connect to many people and get them going in the right direction with undergoing a whole course of training."
i don't doubt that the words "strongly connect to many people." No offense, but they're the kind of touchy-feely, everybody-feel-happy New Age pablum that people eat up.
People love being told that all they have to do is be glad (which, I understand is not what the quote says, but someone could easily take it that way). What people don't love being told are unpleasant facts, like the fact that studying Thelema involves a lot of work and will necessarily involve dispelling various illusions they have about the kind of person they are.
But anyway, while I agree that people will like the phrase, I don't agree that it will "get them going in the right direction." That's the whole nature of our disagreement on this point. So this particular part of your post isn't a substantive response to what I've said so much as it is a restatement of our disagreement.
"Second, the words are vividly and accurately descriptive of the end result, the nature of living life in conformity with True Will."
Well, I think it's far less useful to describe what the result feels like than to describe accurately how to do it.
When you concentrate on how the results feel, you encourage people to imagine that they've already experienced them after a week of work. It's just human nature to try to imagine what these descriptions feel like, but the imagination is exactly what aspirants need to wean themselves off of when learning how to observe their actual Self.
"I quite disagree that concern about the world's deep need is antithetical at all to Thelema. One of the things I like about your original presentation is that you recognize that we exist in the context of each other - that both inherent self and context are part of the formula. yes?"
Absolutely the Self is part of a context. And in that context, most True Wills are going to find it immensely helpful to cooperate with others.
But cooperating with others isn't a good in and of itself. It's a by-product of following the True Will, which is ultimately selfish. Tricking oneself into thinking that cooperation is inherently "good" is one of the ways to get distracted by mental clutter.
"
"The Book of the Law is insistent that the individual need not care one bit about anyone else -- or anyone else's "need" -- aside from his own True Will."Hadit is pretty clear about that, and I agree that it's the path for the development of the Hadit-distinction half of the equation. But there is also the Nuit aspect, the inseparability (even inseverability) of each from all."
That'd be the same Nuit who informs us "For these fools of men and their woes care not thou at all!" right?
The same one who tells us, "Let there be no difference made among you between any one thing & any other thing," suggesting the no one course of action is "better" than any other (meaning that cooperation isn't inherently better than conflict).
The one who tells us that "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law," importantly informing us that the whole -- the entirety -- of the law is to do one's will and nothing else.
The one who tells us "Do [thy will], and no other shall say nay," instructing us not to care what others think about our actions.
And the same one who invites us to participate in all of existence -- including, by implication, the (very natural) aggressive parts of existence involving conflict.
The Book of the Law presents a coherent message, which is that the Thelemite's only obligation is to his or her own True Will and nothing else. Adherence to the True Will may likely produce certain cooperative behaviors as a by-product, but cooperation isn't inherently good.
-
You seem to think that all that Thelema should be about is the True Will and that all the magicy hoohah should be done away with.
This assumes some things, but... that's fine. That's your perspective.
However, you don't seem to understand the perspective from which many come to the practice of magic.
Some people naturally have religious experiences. I'm currently thinking of my sister-in-law, who isn't incredibly mystical or religious, but who swears to this day that she saw an angel in church when she was younger. Yes, it could have been entirely in her head, but she did experience it.
Others have still other forms of naturally occurring religious/mystical experiences, and whether one considers them actual experiences of real beings or whether one considers them merely a function within the brain, they are irrevocably a part of the human experience, whatever the source of the experience is.
The entire magical/mystical path of Thelema is devoted to exploring these naturally occurring experiences of humanity, learning how to initiate such experiences in those who don't naturally have them, instructing them in what it has been found may be accomplished by implementing such experiences, and teaching them how to investigate the reality of such things according to the best ability of that person to know.
This last part,* knowing*, gets tricky, as it gets into *personal preferences *in ontology and epistemology.
But it's not any one person's right to attempt to dictate such things to another person. In my opinion, attempting to do so violates the sanctity of another person's mind and right to judge for themselves.
While I understand that you would prefer to rid Thelema of such magical hoohah, considering it obsolete and unnecessary, many, many others would not agree. The spiritual life, spiritual experiences, and attempting to understand such things to the best of their ability are incredibly powerful and important to their lives, their sense of meaning and purpose, and their actions in the world. They simply will not be persuaded to drop their own investigation because rationalists tell them it is all just in their heads.
So long as humanity still experiences such phenomena naturally, and as long as they have the desire to understand and potentially implement such experiences to their own benefit, all the experimentation and paths of magical/mystical instruction will not be able to be banished from Thelema. Indeed, the very root source of Thelema, *Liber Legis, *and Thelema's magical/mystical practices was such sincere - even desperate and all-life-encompassing - investigation and openness to possibility.
-
@Los said
"People love being told that all they have to do is be glad (which, I understand is not what the quote says, but someone could easily take it that way)."
Yes, it's not what the quote says, and yes, it could be mistaken. (Superficial gladness, of course, isn't the same as deep gladness. But people often don't read closely.)
BTW, notice that I wasn't talking method of discovery. Some might be able to discern a method from this, but all I was doing was providing definitions of the 'thing' itself.
"What people don't love being told are unpleasant facts, like the fact that studying Thelema involves a lot of work and will necessarily involve dispelling various illusions they have about the kind of person they are."
It does. We agree on this. (It takes a lot of hard work to reach actual gladness
. )"But anyway, while I agree that people will like the phrase, I don't agree that it will "get them going in the right direction.""
As mentioned, it's not intended to convey method, though it often does instill an extra shot of motivation.
"That's the whole nature of our disagreement on this point. So this particular part of your post isn't a substantive response to what I've said so much as it is a restatement of our disagreement."
The original to which you responded was my response not to you, but to Kasper.
"
"Second, the words are vividly and accurately descriptive of the end result, the nature of living life in conformity with True Will."Well, I think it's far less useful to describe what the result feels like than to describe accurately how to do it."
That wasn't the subject of what I wrote. There was a discussion about definitions.
"When you concentrate on how the results feel, you encourage people to imagine that they've already experienced them after a week of work."
That may be true of people who are not being mentored on the matter in some ongoing fashion.
'"
"I quite disagree that concern about the world's deep need is antithetical at all to Thelema. One of the things I like about your original presentation is that you recognize that we exist in the context of each other - that both inherent self and context are part of the formula. yes?"Absolutely the Self is part of a context. And in that context, most True Wills are going to find it immensely helpful to cooperate with others.
But cooperating with others isn't a good in and of itself. It's a by-product of following the True Will, which is ultimately selfish."
I think that's one-sided. (BTW, I didn't even say "cooperate." That may not be what the world "needs.")
"That'd be the same Nuit who informs us "For these fools of men and their woes care not thou at all!" right?"
My exact attitude toward fools.
"The same one who tells us, "Let there be no difference made among you between any one thing & any other thing," suggesting the no one course of action is "better" than any other (meaning that cooperation isn't inherently better than conflict)."
You seem to have in mind that I'm suggesting "set out in cooperation." That's not at all what I was saying. I'm saying that the orbit of a planet is not merely a matter of its relationship to the star it orbits, but also a function of the gravitational pull of its companion planets and, in the same way, no expression of True Will exists unaffected by, or outside the context of, or outside of relationship with the True Will of all other beings. It's a single, interrelated system.
"The one who tells us that "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law," importantly informing us that the whole -- the entirety -- of the law is to do one's will and nothing else."
And (to repeat) that will is necessarily part of a matrix of all other expressions of True Will without separation - each a function of the others.
"The one who tells us "Do [thy will], and no other shall say nay," instructing us not to care what others think about our actions."
Yes, I wasn't saying "care what others thing about it."
"And the same one who invites us to participate in all of existence -- including, by implication, the (very natural) aggressive parts of existence involving conflict."
Your interpretation (though I'm inclined to agree with you mostly).
"The Book of the Law presents a coherent message, which is that the Thelemite's only obligation is to his or her own True Will and nothing else."
I'm not denying that. Quite the opposite. I'm asserting that there is no potential knowledge of one's own True will outside of the context of all other Wills. We owe our duty to the whole, as much to defend and assert (and even insist on!) everybody else doing their Will as well.
-
I lately have the idea that True Will, as something at the heart of us, as something we must un cover etc., is itself misleading.
I think that we are ALWAYS doing our TW. Apparent "mistakes" are nothing more than interacting by the inherent aspects of our selves, polished consciously or ignorantly, we act accordingly. The illusion of discovering some real deep true self is only helpful in getting control over our lives. in other words, we are who we are, it all serves a purpose. Whatever we do is truly "us", yet if we, again, by our inherent nature choose to change, it only serves to tidy up our experience. However this in and of itself is arbitrary, and not required, as our nature is by itself always interacting in accordance to the overall Law.
We cannot escape the highly personal nature of the world around us, that regardless of our chosen actions push us down the ideal road. When I say "ideal", I to not mean "happy perfect life", I mean the perfect situations to dispel illusions and instruct. This is more apparent if one doesn't fall into the "pit of Because", which I attribute to mean outward examples. We tend to use others lives and experiences as examples, but we cant truly do this if we alone are the point of interest to our universe.
I also believe this is what is meant with "the slaves shall serve". Those who do not actively wish to participate in consciously understanding themselves and the universe will be pulled along life seemingly against their will.
93
-
@Bereshith said
"You seem to think that all that Thelema should be about is the True Will and that all the magicy hoohah should be done away with."
For clarity's sake, I don't think Thelema should be about all about the True Will. I assert that Thelema is entirely concerned with discovering and carrying out the True Will (hence, the name "Thelema," which means "will").
Magick and occultism aren't parts of Thelema -- in the sense of being necessary aspects of it -- but rather magick and occultism contain practices that some people can use in the service of Thelema. Importantly, it's the practices that can serve as tools to assist with the discovery of the True Will -- see my descriptions of the LBRP and Star Ruby on my blog for examples of the way they can be used to train up the mind -- and not any supernatural beliefs or explanations attached to those practices (hence, Crowley's constant emphasis, throughout his career, on the point that for the purposes of the practice it doesn't matter if any of the supernatural stuff is true or not...it's irrelevant to the practice).
That's what Thelema is, and that's how magick and occultism are related to Thelema. I consider those to be facts, founded upon my very sound interpretation of Crowley's works and my own considerable experience with this stuff (that is to say, my rational conclusions drawn from these things...experience, by itself, has no explanatory power).
Now, when we get down to talking about it, I actually am very skeptical that ceremonial methods are all that useful for attainment at all. Sure, we can see how Crowley intended them to work -- and as I've been explaining, he said very clearly that the rituals distract the mind so that the practitioner can concentrate on his "deepest self" -- but I think that any living, growing tradition really needs to take a good, long, hard, skeptical look at practices recommended by others and evaluate how useful they actually are.
If all a person is going to do is blindly repeat someone else's practices without having a clear idea of how they're supposed to work or what they're supposed to be doing -- or even without having a clear idea of what the goal of the whole system is, period -- then what we have there isn't a real subject of study. We've got a religion, with people doing things because they just blindly accept "this will cause me to discover my True Will," without bothering to understand what a True Will is, how to discover it, or why they anyone would think the practices do allow someone to discover it. Worse are the people who convince themselves that everyone has their "own" answers to these questions or that it's "impossible to talk" about doing this. Then if that's the case, Thelema is utterly silly: if everyone has their "own" answers, then you don't need the Book of the Law or a real subject to study: you can just randomly declare that you're doing your True Will and go around feeling just groovy.
To be clear, I'm not accusing you of this, Bereshith, but I'm addressing some really common arguments that I hear and that I commonly see online.
"This assumes some things, but... that's fine. That's your perspective."
And I assert that it is a correct perspective, based on a lot of really good evidence. I've tried to explain my conclusions as clearly as I can above. I welcome anyone to make a cogent case against mine, but I want to be quite clear that I don't think this is just a "perspective," as if it's just some random preference like preferring vanilla over chocolate. I think my position is strongly supported by the evidence.
"However, you don't seem to understand the perspective from which many come to the practice of magic."
I might understand this better than you think, having practiced magick for many years myself (and I still do practice magick, depending on your definition).
"Some people naturally have religious experiences. I'm currently thinking of my sister-in-law, who isn't incredibly mystical or religious, but who swears to this day that she saw an angel in church when she was younger. Yes, it could have been entirely in her head, but she did experience it.
Others have still other forms of naturally occurring religious/mystical experiences, and whether one considers them actual experiences of real beings or whether one considers them merely a function within the brain, they are irrevocably a part of the human experience, whatever the source of the experience is."
Absolutely. I not only don't deny this, I agree wholeheartedly that these are real experiences. I wouldn't limit this experience strictly to religion, however. These kinds of, let's call them "peak experiences," occur in a lot of different contexts, including listening to music and having sex especially. Certain types of creative work or "inspiration" also qualify.
Don't think I'm not familiar with these kinds of experiences or states. One way to define a significant achievement in working with magick is the ability to induce these states more or less at will, which I happen to still be quite good at.
But the point I've been making since I decided to drop in and make an appearance on these forums still stands: experience, all by itself, has no explanatory power. Certainly, the experience of these kinds of states has little to do with the work that we're talking about when we discuss discovering the True Will in a Thelemic context.
"This last part,* knowing*, gets tricky, as it gets into *personal preferences *in ontology and epistemology."
No, it doesn't. Experience has no explanatory power. Look, if all you want to do is "explore" alternate states of consciousness, knock yourself out. Give yourself all kinds of trippy visions. I know it's possible to do that because I've done it.
The only time I'm going to bother objecting is when you start going around making factual claims on the basis of these experiences, including the claim that there really are goblins of the kind that you encounter in your visions or that imagination exercises are giving you some kind of significant insight into your True Will, which I contend they cannot do for anyone.
"But it's not any one person's right to attempt to dictate such things to another person. In my opinion, attempting to do so violates the sanctity of another person's mind and right to judge for themselves."
No one's attempting to "dictate" anything to someone else. No one can make you believe something you're not honestly convinced of. Geez Louise, people are so sensitive around here.
We're having a civil conversation about beliefs and standards of evidence. It's not "tyranny" to suggest that there are objective standards for making factual claims, nor is it "dictatorial" to suggest that some people aren't being critical enough about the factual claims that they accept.
This is Thelema, not Wicca: we should be able to have serious and critical conversations about this stuff without people getting hyper sensitive and feeling like they're being "oppressed" by a couple of words on a screen.
-
@e said
"We're having a civil conversation about beliefs and standards of evidence. It's not "tyranny" to suggest that there are objective standards for making factual claims, nor is it "dictatorial" to suggest that some people aren't being critical enough about the factual claims that they accept."
But look at what you've said below.
@Los said
"
@Bereshith said
"This last part, knowing, gets tricky, as it gets into personal preferences in ontology and epistemology."No, it doesn't. Experience has no explanatory power. Look, if all you want to do is "explore" alternate states of consciousness, knock yourself out. Give yourself all kinds of trippy visions. I know it's possible to do that because I've done it.
The only time I'm going to bother objecting is when you start going around making factual claims on the basis of these experiences, including the claim that there really are goblins of the kind that you encounter in your visions or that imagination exercises are giving you some kind of significant insight into your True Will, which I contend they cannot do for anyone. "
When I say, "knowing gets tricky, as it gets into personal preferences in ontology and epistemology," I'm not making any crazy claims. This is the Grand Debate. It continues to this day, and to presume that it is concluded simply because you have taken a particular stance is an illusion. Please feel free to consult any Philosophy professor for the most current evidence of this.
Speaking as if one's personal stance in this Grand Debate is the only stance from which one may intelligently speak and draw intelligent conclusions is "oppressive to or arrogantly overbearing toward others" (the definition of* dictatorial*) as it attempts "to impose, pronounce, or specify authoritatively" (the definition of dictate) the only reasonable ontological or epistemological stance one may dare to claim.
As you have done this in the context of a discussion of finding and knowing one's True Will, which is itself an experiential, existential construct, and not in the context of whether or not I argue the real existence of goblins, I find the rhetorical certainty expressed in your argument as particularly out of place and potentially damaging to the progress of others.
@Los said
"The fact is that no amount of "ritual work" is going to get an individual even a jot closer to discovering his true will.
"Here, you present your opinion as fact. If you had said, "in my opinion," or had used any other such qualifier, we would not be having this conversation.
-
@Bereshith said
"Speaking as if one's personal stance in this Grand Debate is the only stance from which one may intelligently speak and draw intelligent conclusions is "oppressive to or arrogantly overbearing toward others" (the definition of* dictatorial*) as it attempts "to impose, pronounce, or specify authoritatively" (the definition of dictate) the only reasonable ontological or epistemological stance one may dare to claim."
By these definitions, your math teacher is "dictatorial," too. The word has an exceedingly negative connotation, and I think you cheapen its meaning to apply it to people who confidently present a position based on facts and sound and valid arguments.
"I find the rhetorical certainty expressed in your argument as particularly out of place and potentially damaging to the progress of others."
It's not going to "damage" anybody's "progress" to read the words of someone who confidently makes correct arguments.
How fragile do you think people around here are?
"Here, you present your opinion as fact. If you had said, "in my opinion," or had used any other such qualifier, we would not be having this conversation."
Everything I say is my opinion, by definition. But there are opinions and there are opinions. There are opinions that are complete preference -- like my opinion that vanilla ice cream is the best flavor -- and there are opinions that are positions grounded in evidence and reason, like all of the "opinions" I've been expressing since I got here.
I'm not going to go around carefully labeling everything I say "just my opinion" because (1) it gives the wrong impression and (2) because anyone who's so sensitive that they can't bear to read an argument that isn't peppered with half-hearted caveats isn't ready to study a subject like Thelema.
-
@kasper81 said
"Los what you are saying is that true will i.e. the "going" of our true self on the earth we, here equate with the word, "Thelema" which is greek for "love" and "will" and "spell".? This is our problem?: word-association i.e. conditioning?. In other words we are narrowly conditioning ourselves?"
Don't take this the wrong way, but I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say.
-
"Everything I say is my opinion, by definition. But there are opinions and there are opinions. There are opinions that are complete preference -- like my opinion that vanilla ice cream is the best flavor -- and there are opinions that are positions grounded in evidence and reason, like all of the "opinions" I've been expressing since I got here."
So when you give your opinion that the Temple of Thelema forum is a fruitcake factory that produces fruitcakes (it was superficially funny
).. Is that opinion based on sound evidence or do just prefer/like saying it? -
@chris S said
"So when you give your opinion that the Temple of Thelema forum is a fruitcake factory that produces fruitcakes (it was superficially funny
).. Is that opinion based on sound evidence or do just prefer/like saying it?"I'm glad you found it funny. My goal is ever to instruct and to delight.
I'd like to answer this question, but I'm not quite sure how directly I can state my honest answer without being booted off the forums and having my entire posting history wiped. To be sure, I don't intend to "attack" anybody personally, but I'm pretty sure that the honest answer will at least be perceived as hostile.
If you're really curious about the answer, ask me on my blog. It might be more fun to just imagine what I'd say, though.
-
@Los said
"
@chris S said
"So when you give your opinion that the Temple of Thelema forum is a fruitcake factory that produces fruitcakes (it was superficially funny ).. Is that opinion based on sound evidence or do just prefer/like saying it?"I'm glad you found it funny. My goal is ever to instruct and to delight.
I'd like to answer this question, but I'm not quite sure how directly I can state my honest answer without being booted off the forums and having my entire posting history wiped. To be sure, I don't intend to "attack" anybody personally, but I'm pretty sure that the honest answer will at least be perceived as hostile.
If you're really curious about the answer, ask me on my blog. It might be more fun to just imagine what I'd say, though."
Well i dont want to goad you into saying something that would bring about you getting booted off the forum..
I read your blog yes, it concerned providing humour for your readers.
It's just my contention that you havn't entered the forum with your attitude Tabula rasa.. for instance your insistance on using the term Goblins as a generic stand in for sarcasm.. nobody mentioned Goblins, in fact Simon asked you stop using that term as it sounded idiotic.
So sure, i dont feel you want to attack anyone individually, you're just being generally sarcastic.But i'm getting off topic from this thread.
)