Finding my True Will

[Bereshith]

@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.

[Los]

@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.

[Los]

@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.

[chris S]

"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?

[Anonymous]

I like fruitcake very much. Guess I'm just in the right place. (Sorry for the offing, but I just had to say it. )

[Los]

@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.

[chris S]

@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.

[Takamba]

"the rituals shall be half known and half concealed:"

[Bereshith]

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.

[Archaeus]

@Berashith

That tickled me, thanks

[Faust]

@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)

[Bereshith]

@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]

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.

[Simon Iff]

@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?

[Faust]

@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.

[Faust]

@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.

[Bereshith]

@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.

[chris S]

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?

[Los]

@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.

[Simon Iff]

No what I meant by predictive value was, that anything, be it a model or idea about something else, irrelevant if the something else is objective, subjective, astral, religious, scientific in the hard sense, etc. - if it wants to be of value - must be able to make a prediction about its topic on the plane it is on or it is worthless drivel.

Examples:

A loves me. -> Testable prediction: A will behave really nice towards me, at least given time.

B's aura looks weak in the chest department. -> Testable prediction: B might have an illness or psychosomatic problem centered on their chest area, or might soon develop one.

If I let object C (say, a vase) go on a high cliff on earth it will most likely shatter and, for sure, arrive on the foot of the cliff soon afterwards. -> Testable prediction: C will perhaps shatter and surely fall if I let go under mentioned circumstances.

My self D is of a kind that I react really angry when someone does something particularly stupid. -> Testable prediction: I will get angry if someone does something I consider stupid.

These sentences above therefore have predictive value on their level, and can be veri- or falsified.

Other example:

Aliens from Sirius, that have secretly taken over earth, are watching me on this internet forum. -> Testable prediction: None. Untestable as such - useless drivel.

All clear Bereshit & co.? This is what I meant - the predictive value of any idea - or not - is relevant even if you do not agree. And that is very useful when differentiating chaff from wheat in many endeavours - including those which Los thinks don't exist.

Clearer what I meant?