Finding my True Will
-
@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.
-
Food for thought:
Given: Experiences have no explanatory power.
Premise: Experiences have no explanatory power.
Premise: Meditation yields experiences.
Conclusion: Meditation yields experiences, which have no explanatory power.Premise: Experiences have no explanatory power.
Premise: Ritual yields experiences.
Conclusion: Ritual yields experiences, which have no explanatory power.Premise: Meditation yields experiences, which have no explanatory power.
Premise: Ritual yields experiences, which have no explanatory power.
Conclusion: Meditation and ritual both yield experiences, which have no explanatory power.
Given: Gaining knowledge of one's True Will requires experiences.
Premise: Gaining knowledge of one's True Will requires experiences.
Premise: Experiences have no explanatory power.
Conclusion: Gaining knowledge of one's True Will requires experiences, which have no explanatory power.
Given: Knowledge is appropriately pursued through the means required to gain it.
Premise: Knowledge is appropriately pursued through the means required to gain it.
Premise: Gaining knowledge of one's True Will requires experiences, which have no explanatory power.
Conclusion: Gaining knowledge of one's True Will is appropriately pursued through the means of experiences, which have no explanatory power.
Premise: Gaining knowledge of one's True Will is appropriately pursued through the means of experiences, which have no explanatory power.
Premise: Meditation and ritual both yield experiences, which have no explanatory power.
Conclusion: Gaining knowledge of one's True Will is appropriately pursued through the experiences yielded by both meditation and ritual even though these experiences have no explanatory power. -
@Faus said
"@Berashith
That is something that actually sounds like logic.(Just to remember something Simon already said somewhere, there is no such thing as “explanatory power”, only predictive power)"
Well... first of all... a "given" is just a "given" and is only relevant to those who agree with it.
But also, ...even if there is no such thing as "explanatory power," then it's still true that experiences don't have it.
-
@Bereshith said
"Well... first of all... a "given" is just a "given" and is only relevant to those who agree with it."
So if I fall down a six metres high wall without braking the landing will only affect me adversely if I agree with that?
You are aware that you are indirectly claiming that there are no objective things, just subjective perspectives, yes?
-
@Simon Iff said
"
So if I fall down a six metres high wall without braking the landing will only affect me adversely if I agree with that?"Well, if you are on morphine there is a good chance you will not understand it as adverse. But there is the great chance that you will change your mind after the effect goes away.
-
@Bereshith said
"Also... I haven't worked through it yet, but.... it seems at some point, one would have to say that knowledge of one's True Will necessarily makes use of projected meaning.
"Good point. Meaning is distinctly a relationship between you and an experience, as is knowledge in general.
The strange effect in this case can be the fact that the TW is (as far as I know) the primal source of meanings that we attribute to stuff around us. -
@Simon Iff said
"
@Bereshith said
"Well... first of all... a "given" is just a "given" and is only relevant to those who agree with it."So if I fall down a six metres high wall without braking the landing will only affect me adversely if I agree with that?
You are aware that you are indirectly claiming that there are no objective things, just subjective perspectives, yes?"
I'm speaking within the context of following the logic of a syllogism. The givens are only meaningful for those who agree with them. I'm not attempting to speak to the objectivity of all givens ever given.
-
The meaning is its use.. Language doesnt function to a preset pattern, thinking has to to take place within the activity rather than on some intellectual platform suspended outside of life and beyond lived activity.
This where the verificationist types have to be cautious when they condemn religious language as meaningless, have they assumed too quickly what religious language is and does, and how it actually functions in the lives within those activities? -
@Bereshith said
"Food for thought"
Junk food, maybe.
"Meditation yields experiences, which have no explanatory power."
Right. The experience, all by itself, can't tell you what it was.
It's reasoning about the experience, after the fact, that stands a chance of telling you what it was.
If you look at the OP of the "Experience Has No Explanatory Power" thread, you'll see I give an example of Crowley appealing to this same principle, pointing out that the "experiences" of Mohammed and Christ, all by themselves, couldn't have told them that they "really" experienced Gabriel of Jehovah.
