How to start someone on Enochian?
-
@Los said
"
@Takamba said
"It isn't that Los doesn't believe in the experiences that can be had while skrying the Enochian, or doing any Enochian work, but the "ooky booky" descriptions of the causes of things the "ooky booky" history of its "discovery" need not be believed. Clearly Los believes the systems have various results, its the "meanings" of these results he argues against."Yes, this is precisely right. I have experience working with Enochian entities, skrying the aethyrs, working with the tables, etc.
It's the experience that counts, not supernatural interpretations of that experience, exactly as Crowley says."
That's pretty interesting that you say that. Yet you routinely try to talk folks out of pursuing similar experiences. Have you found the results of your Enochian (or similar avenues) workings dissatisfactory or distracting?
-
@Deus Ex Machina said
"Yet you routinely try to talk folks out of pursuing similar experiences."
When have I tried talking people out of pursuing similar experiences?
If you read my other threads carefully, you'll see that my objection is not to practices or to experiences generated by those practices, but to factual claims made on the basis of those experiences.
In other words, feel free to pretend to talk to as many spirits as you'd like...but when you start claiming that there really are honest-to-goodness spirits out there that you've really talked to, that's when I object.
If you're asking me whether I think such practices are useful from the perspective of Thelema, my answer is "not particularly," but that's not a reason not to do them. If you enjoy it, go for it.
-
@Los said
"[...] when you start claiming that there really are honest-to-goodness spirits out there that you've really talked to, that's when I object."
This brings me to the same concern I had with your "experience has no explanatory powers" thread: Between you and me, you are the only one seeing people make those claims. Yes, there are the few wanderers into the forum who do believe they are speaking to their HGA in the guise of a flesh and blood female, and some may speak of having encountered a demon in one of their workings, but it is only the former (and not the latter) whom I think is making the error you are generally claiming is being made. Who here, I asked, actually believes that experience has explanatory powers? It doesn't. Experience is evidence, yes, but not an explanation. Regardless of me telling you we agree about this, you will most likely find something to say for argument's sake. You're good at arguing, you enjoy it, so I guess you would say, "why shouldn't I argue?"
Because it isn't a necessity. Argue with John about his mental health (though that method won't yield much, I suspect), but don't generalize an entire franchise of people just because you have projection issues when you hear or read certain words.
NU AGE! BOOGIE BOOGIE! NUUUUUUUU AAAAAAAAAAGEEEEEE BOOOOOOGGGGIIIEEE BOOOOGGIEEE
-
Yeah, it often seems to me that Los engages on the level of semantics, but isn't actually interested in discussing semantics, but rather beating people up with his own definitions of things.
Reading your latest comment, Los, I think our views on things are considerably similar all told. However, you do read into other's explanations of things, like Takamba says, with apparent intent to promote your views. Somebody discussing his or her experiences gets interpreted by you as someone making factual statements about the nature of spirits because you have a hammer at hand and see a nail.
That said, I'm sure views and opinions on these things will vary a great deal. Many (most?) people are probably happy to remain unconvinced either way and to try for themselves, which is entirely within the spirit of Thelema. Your rhetoric comes off - to me at least - the way that you don't want people to even try and to want to do so makes them intellectually inferior to someone who just accepts your "goblins are not real" at face value.
Further on that, and dipping onto the semantic level where I think your discussions seem rooted at, I think we have to look carefully at the meaning of the term "real" in these pursuits.
-
@Takamba said
"Who here, I asked, actually believes that experience has explanatory powers?"
I gave you a number of examples in the other thread, including Jim Eshelman saying in past threat that he believes in reincarnation because "My experience confirms to me, with certainty matching or exceeding that of any other certainty in the whole range of my experience, that reincarnation is a simple fact."
As far as people seriously believing in spirits, lots of people on these forums do, including a guy in the magick forums who thinks some sort of "presence" was occupying his house and, of course, Jim claiming that he received a "communication" from goblins that sound an awful lot like the "Secret Chiefs," though he did not make any certain claims about what they were. And, of course, Jim is busying saying on another thread that imagination actually "builds" things on some other world.
The forums are filled with people who repeat this kind of nonsense. If you're telling me that you two honestly don't think that spirits exist and are nothing more than imaginary friends, then I strongly suspect that position is in the extreme minority here.
-
@Los said
"
@Takamba said
"Who here, I asked, actually believes that experience has explanatory powers?"I gave you a number of examples in the other thread, including Jim Eshelman saying in past threat that he believes in reincarnation because "My experience confirms to me, with certainty matching or exceeding that of any other certainty in the whole range of my experience, that reincarnation is a simple fact."
As far as people seriously believing in spirits, lots of people on these forums do, including a guy in the magick forums who thinks some sort of "presence" was occupying his house and, of course, Jim claiming that he received a "communication" from goblins that sound an awful lot like the "Secret Chiefs," though he did not make any certain claims about what they were. And, of course, Jim is busying saying on another thread that imagination actually "builds" things on some other world.
The forums are filled with people who repeat this kind of nonsense. If you're telling me that you two honestly don't think that spirits exist and are nothing more than imaginary friends, then I strongly suspect that position is in the extreme minority here."
Wow... Los !
"The secret chiefs" 
Do you actually evoque beings? Do astral travel? How could you not trust Jim if you communicate with beings yourself? You consider your own enochian workings as a way to talk to your own "imaginary friends"?!
Also, with your knowledge of psychology and yoga, why would you deny the "building in some other world" part? Do you think it's building up in the HEAD?! In neuronal system?§ You might have JUMBO head then And reincarnation, again from knoledge of psychology and yoga and kabbalah, isnt the most logical(i didnt say scientific fact) hypothesis? Why not?! -
@Los said
"I gave you a number of examples in the other thread, including Jim Eshelman saying in past threat that he believes in reincarnation because "My experience confirms to me, with certainty matching or exceeding that of any other certainty in the whole range of my experience, that reincarnation is a simple fact."
As far as people seriously believing in spirits, lots of people on these forums do, including a guy in the magick forums who thinks some sort of "presence" was occupying his house and, of course, Jim claiming that he received a "communication" from goblins that sound an awful lot like the "Secret Chiefs," though he did not make any certain claims about what they were. And, of course, Jim is busying saying on another thread that imagination actually "builds" things on some other world.
The forums are filled with people who repeat this kind of nonsense. If you're telling me that you two honestly don't think that spirits exist and are nothing more than imaginary friends, then I strongly suspect that position is in the extreme minority here."
This is where I say your quibble is over words. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and allowing myself to believe that it is a misunderstanding, and not an intentional search to create an argument when you see something you knowingly are misinterpreting. Or I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that it is my own personal lexicon surrounding Jim's use of words that lets me understand him both differently than you do, and possibly differently than he intended - but having had one to one discussions with many practitioners who use the same language, I'm confident that I'm at least 75% accurate in my interpretation of Jim's words. He can correct me if I am wrong.
I'm going to describe how I use the words, but first tell you that I don't describe how I use these words every time that I choose to use these words because it has already been done - and I feel no need to make you go through "Magick 101" every time I speak.
Crowley defined magick as the science and art of causing change to occur in conformity with Will. I tend to prefer Dion Fortune's definition: Magick is the science and art of causing change in consciousness to occur in conformity with Will - and this includes all the subset notions of thaumaturgy as well as theurgy. The appearance of a real box of clothes delivered to my door four days after I requested a wardrobe renewal is a change in my consciousness, and it occurred in conformity with my Will. (I never explained the whole procedure I used when I described that event in another thread, which does incorporate from the highest to the lowest, and all four worlds, I just agreed that the notion of "praying" is not a bad notion). When I use the word Magick, I'm not just talking voodoo, I mean anything that changes my state(s) and matches the intent.
Worlds. These are not "places," like planets or even extra dimensions - these are attitudinal and perceptual conditions. The so-called "Third world countries," for instance, are actual places - but they are also states of consciousness. Those who have been born and continue their entire lives there have little to no awareness of many of the things in the lives of myself and my neighbors. This has given us a different type (I won't say higher or lower) consciousness of the physical world we live in. (That wasn't the best example, I know, but I'm just starting to describe my use of the word "world.")
By world I also am referring to a state of existence that some things have. The philosophical world, for instance, is where a lot of your ideas are coming from. It's a world complete in itself that borders the other worlds, is partly influenced by and partly influences other worlds (the physical world, the electro-magnetic world, even - dare I say? - the (boogie boogie) spiritual world). Speaking of the spiritual world, even though it is only possible to measure within your head space (mindset), it is a world filled with its own 'things.' Yes, it is dangerously capable of breeding superstition, but at least it is less likely to create overly dogmatic doctrines than the philosophical world.
Let me give you another idea of how I use the word world. There's the musical world. Or perhaps what I mean is there is the rock and roll world. There is a subset of western culture so unique to itself that it has know direct understanding of ....hmmm... the business world?? maybe?
I think you know what I mean when I say "it crosses the divide into the other world" (whichever world I'm talking about at the time), You have to be silly to believe I believe in a "goblin world" with actual goblins.
Imagination does actually build things. This is why there is a current debate in the American political world as to the dangers of playing violent video games in relation to increased violence among school aged children (never mind what we already know about over population leading to increased violence). It is a clinically accepted truth that fantasy is as real to the body as real events are. Perceived success and perceived trauma are as real to the hormonal system, cognitive awareness, and generally - the entire body overall, as well as the psychological and emotional bodies (oh, do I mean there actually are "bodies" running around that are made up of only emotion?????).
You aren't as smart as you perceive yourself to be, whether it is because you are misunderstanding us, or you are misrepresenting us.
-
@Takamba said
"You aren't as smart as you perceive yourself to be, whether it is because you are misunderstanding us, or you are misrepresenting us."
Maybe you could clear this up right now.
Do you, Takamba, believe in non-corporeal spirits that exist beyond the mind, which can affect material reality and various outcomes? Do you believe in reincarnation of an eternal spirit into another body after death, or in an afterlife of some kind? Do you believe that people possess magic powers? Do you believe that the book of the law is a dictation from a spiritual source?
If yes to any of these things, please give an explanation as to why Los' perspective is flawed.
Forgive me as well if I disagree and think you give people too much credit. Just read through some of the stuff on here.
-
There is so much evidence for the reality of other universes, or higher demensions in quatum mechanics, that these days they say it is more likely we do not occupy a "universe", but instead a "mulitverse". In realizing this, and the vast amount about the workings of "reality", how is it so impossible to admit something more that's possible? Maybe "magic" is "real" yet simply not as we may THINK it is. In other words, the truth may be somewhere in between, and in some places we are wrong, and in others they are wrong, yet there is something more to know.
To assume you know all there is about reality and therefore deny magic outright is just as arrogant as those in the past believing it was impossible to fly, or travel to the moon etc.
I think the real problem here is in the subtle, intangible nature of magic. It is something tenuous and undefinable based on hard objective science, which is simply unacceptable to those hard nosed skeptics. That's just the nature of it - its the same as if we argue about the "reality" of chance or probability, which some argue doesn't truly exist. No one can truly explain for example WHY chance happens as it does, the laws behind chance. Why is it that a coin falls always approximately 50% on either side, what force regulates this? It gets technical of course, and I'm no expert, but I do read lol.
-
@Horus Amin said
"Do you actually evoque beings? Do astral travel?"
Not anymore, but at one point in my "magical career," I most certainly did invoke certain imaginary beings and experiment with astral travel.
"How could you not trust Jim if you communicate with beings yourself?"
I "trust Jim" to the extent that I accept that he honestly has had certain experiences. I don't accept factual claims that he makes on the basis of these experiences, including the factual claim that he received an honest-to-goodness "communication" from real, honest-to-goodness spirits. And it's not just Jim's claims: I don't accept any supernatural claims made on the basis of such experiences, for the reason that there is not sufficient evidence to support such claims.
"You consider your own enochian workings as a way to talk to your own "imaginary friends"?!"
Correct.
"Also, with your knowledge of psychology and yoga, why would you deny the "building in some other world" part? Do you think it's building up in the HEAD?!"
Any other "worlds" that a practitioner "builds" are entirely make believe, yes.
" And reincarnation, again from knoledge of psychology and yoga and kabbalah, isnt the most logical(i didnt say scientific fact) hypothesis? Why not?!"
Because all of the evidence we have suggests that everything that can be said to be "you" emerges from your brain and that "you" die when your brain stops working. As one minor illustration of this, people who suffer traumatic brain injuries often experience drastic shifts in personality.
I'm not sure how you think "psychology and yoga and kabbalah" furnish evidence of life after death, let alone reincarnation, but they don't. There are thousands of possibilities for what could happen to a person after death, aside from reincarnation, and none of them (including reincarnation) have a shred of evidence to support them. That, all by itself, would be enough reason to discount belief in any of these thousands of possibilities, but we additionally have evidence that suggests that everything that can be said to be "you" is rooted in your physical brain, suggesting very strongly that you will vanish forever when your brain dies.
-
@David S said
"I'll take the bait.
I believe in reincarnation, non-corporeal spirits and that the Book of the Law is a dictation from a spiritual source.
Why is that such a problem for you?"
Well, the relevance of your admission, for this specific sub-thread, is that Takamba just got finished saying, "Between you and me, you are the only one seeing people make those claims." He was, of course, implying that people on these boards don't make these kinds of supernatural claims and that I therefore am the "only one seeing" it (as in I'm falsely interpreting what people on these boards are saying).
But, as you've just demonstrated, Takamba's wrong on this point. You are an example of one of the people here who does make these kinds of claims, so in at least one case I'm not just "seeing" it (as in falsely interpreting what you're saying).
I contend that lots of other people here, like you, David, also seriously believe in these things without sufficient justification.
-
@Jason R said
"how is it so impossible to admit something more that's possible?"
I don't have any problem admitting that magic might be possible, but that's no reason for anyone to accept that magic actually does work.
For example, there are real people on these forums who claim not only that magic "might be possible" but who claim that magic really does work and really does enable them, for example, to "remote view" information or really visit an actually-existing "Temple of Time" in an imagination world.
Yet when we test those claims, we find that they are indistinguishable from daydreams and fantasies.
"To assume you know all there is about reality and therefore deny magic outright is just as arrogant as those in the past believing it was impossible to fly, or travel to the moon etc."
I don't think that anyone here has claimed that we know "all there is about reality" or that magic is "impossible." Certainly, I've never "den* magic outright" -- I spent a lot of time investigating these kinds of claims before reaching a conclusion based on evidence.
-
-
A linguistic model explaining an experience cannot be "true". Whether you call something a goblin or a gravity field, it's just a metaphor.
-
If the goal isn't to simply jump through the hoops our intellect puts out, but to create the best system for helping students progress, then a model should be evaluated based on its success at that goal.
-
You haven't produced a shred of evidence that your concepts help students progress any better than the concepts you criticize.
-
We don't need a one size fits all approach to Thelema. Barf!
-
If you spent half the effort you spend here trying to tear down other peoples work, on demonstrating the supposed superiority of your system in the real world, then people will no doubt be flocking to learn from you.
Its a big deal, right? Enough to dedicate your life to, right?
You really can't afford to waste your time on a forum, where you have no way of knowing of your being effective. You need to have students, and keep accurate records on their progress, so you have some evidence proving your opinion.
After all, we need evidence to make a justifiable claim, right??
-
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"A linguistic model explaining an experience cannot be "true". Whether you call something a goblin or a gravity field, it's just a metaphor."
You're wrong. It's true to say that my car is parked outside. It's not true to say that there's a space ship parked outside.
That's the discursive context in which I'm speaking. In the same context in which I can validly say "It's not true to say that there's a space ship parked outside," I can say, "It's not true to claim that real, honest-to-goodness goblins exist."
"If the goal isn't to simply jump through the hoops our intellect puts out, but to create the best system for helping students progress, then a model should be evaluated based on its success at that goal."
Well, the "goal" in many of my conversations on here has simply been to evaluate claims being made about reality, which is a worthy goal in and of itself.
With regards to applying this topic to Thelema, I've argued that this "talking to goblins" stuff ultimately hinders people's ability to discover the True Will. By definition, accepting any claims that are not true hinders one's ability to discover the True Will.
"You haven't produced a shred of evidence that your concepts help students progress any better than the concepts you criticize."
You're wrong again. Since the True Will emerges from an individual's nature in conjunction with the environment, then any individual with a skewed or flawed perception of the environment will, by definition, be hindred in discovering and/or carrying out their True Will.
"We don't need a one size fits all approach to Thelema. Barf!"
Good thing no one's proposing that, then. I've just been talking about evaluating factual claims about the world, which is very relevant to the practice of Thelema, as I demonstrated above, but not specifically tied to Thelema.
Non-thelemites can also care about whether claims are true or not, you know.
"If you spent half the effort you spend here trying to tear down other peoples work, on demonstrating the supposed superiority of your system in the real world, then people will no doubt be flocking to learn from you."
This is a highly dubious claim that also involves you leaping to the assumption that I want "students." Boy, are you wrong about that.
"After all, we need evidence to make a justifiable claim, right??"
Yes. Feel free to post again when you have some.
-
Los,
Question. IF you equate spirits and "Gods" or the HGA to simply internal imaginations, if they are a part if us, AND you say the TW is part of us, or our "authentic self", how can these not have worth in discovering it? Barring of course the objective realities of them you deny, how can you deny their personal subjective power in discovering the TW? It should stand to reason with your theory, that all aspects if paid attention to should help us if utilized. It seems fir example, you practice in some way Enochian, so what is THAT doing for you?
-
@Los said
"
"You haven't produced a shred of evidence that your concepts help students progress any better than the concepts you criticize."You're wrong again. Since the True Will emerges from an individual's nature in conjunction with the environment, then any individual with a skewed or flawed perception of the environment will, by definition, be hindred in discovering and/or carrying out their True Will."
See. No evidence. You're just restating your hypothesis (that a student with a perception you view as flawed will be hindered) and calling it evidence.
p.s. As far as evidence for the opposite (that a student can attain in spite of 'flawed perception') the many examples of adepts and magi through the ages who attained in spite of having mistaken ideas about the physical universe.
-
@Jason R said
"Los,
Question. IF you equate spirits and "Gods" or the HGA to simply internal imaginations, if they are a part if us, AND you say the TW is part of us, or our "authentic self", how can these not have worth in discovering it?"
Because pretending to talk to spirits happens on the level of the mind/imagination, which is precisely what obscures the Will in the first place.
Now, indeed, a magician could "invoke" beings with the object of distracting the mind as a prelude to concentrating on his deeper Self (this is exactly how Crowley describes Samekh, for instance), but in that case 1) pretending to talk to spirits would be nothing more than a run up to the real Work...the actual Work would still involve paying attention to the Will and course-correcting in the moment, and 2) pretending to talk to spirits actually isn't that useful for this kind of task because it can be too distracting, making it difficult to actually concentrate on the Will while doing it.
And all of that is beside the fact that most people seem to have a backwards understanding of how the process works and think that merely pretending to chat up spirits can, in and of itself, reveal their True Will, which it cannot.
"It seems fir example, you practice in some way Enochian, so what is THAT doing for you?"
Well, I don't practice Enochian any more these days (expect for the little bits in the Opening by Watchtower, which I still do occasionally when the mood strikes me).
Back in the day, I worked Enochian magick for various kinds of "results," which I now recognize was nothing more than coincidence, and to visit the aethrys, which I recognize has zip to do with "attaining" anything and everything to do with entertaining myself. And, for the sake of clarity, other ceremonial rituals I do -- like the Opening -- are largely for entertainment and enjoying the feelings they produce. They also have the effect of impressing certain ideas upon the mind, but all of those things are preambles to the real Work. The Work happens in day-to-day course-correction.
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"
See. No evidence. You're just restating your hypothesis"No, I'm not "restating [my] hypothesis." I'm explaining how my conclusion necessarily follows from the definition of True Will.
I'm not sure what kind of "evidence" you're interested in because we can't gather empirical evidence -- since each of us can only ever observe one single True Will -- but we can draw necessary conclusions from definitions, which is what I did above.
"As far as evidence for the opposite (that a student can attain in spite of 'flawed perception') the many examples of adepts and magi through the ages who attained in spite of having mistaken ideas about the physical universe."
That's not evidence -- what makes you think, for example, that these people actually attained or that they wouldn't have been better able to manifest what we're calling "True Will" if they had a more accurate view of the world?
-
If it's impossible to measure a persons progress, then you're just making a blind appeal to faith based fanaticism. If it can't be measured, it ain't real, right?
Proof that people have attained before exists in the many schools and systems that gave been passed down. Unless you imagine that these existed as some useless function, waiting for people to be able to actually make progress.
Heck, even if you say Crowley was the first adept ever, it's still an example of sometime attaining I'm spite of having ideas you disagree with.
As far as whether it's possible that a student could progress better or faster with a different set of ideas, why yes, I'm open to that possibility. But it's not a proven fact; it's a testable hypothesis.
Frankly, if you don't have a good method for observing and measuring another persons progress, you have no business teaching. And if you can't figure out a way to test your hypothesis, you have no business expecting the rest of us to accept it as fact.
