The Essence of Thelema
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@Los said
"Thelema, in and of itself, isn't inherently theistic or atheistic, for example. It's inherently skeptical, though"I don't agree with that at all."
There's a shocker.
"I don't think it's the opposite - inherently UN-skeptical. But the skepticism elements were Crowley interpolations at a time that he was actively distancing himself from The Book of the Law. They form a part of Crowleyanity."
No, the Book of the Law contains injunctions for individuals to demonstrate things to themselves about their inner experiences, which necessitates skepticism. In order to practice Thelema intelligently, people have to be able to demonstrate (to themselves, not to anyone else) that certain ideas they have about themselves and the universe are wrong. The standards by which they do this should be no less strict than the standards by which they demonstrate anything else, which allows us to be able to talk about, in general, how a person goes about "discovering" the True Will beneath the false ideas about "who I am" that the mind generates.
Thelema is skeptical to its core: at its basis is the notion that most people -- probably all or nearly all people -- are misled by their own minds, that their ideas about themselves are mostly wrong and need to be thoroughly doubted.
-
@Los said
"Thelema, in and of itself, isn't inherently theistic or atheistic, for example. It's inherently skeptical...."
This is an "is of identity" error (Korzybksi); it's also a misuse of "in and of itslef" (Kant). Thelema's not a thing. I see you still haven't done the homework I assigned you. Pity. Your energy could take you far, if only you'd apply it right.
-
@Los said
"Thelema is skeptical to its core: at its basis is the notion that most people -- probably all or nearly all people -- are misled by their own minds, that their ideas about themselves are mostly wrong and need to be thoroughly doubted."
I thought sceptical-atheistic-naturalistic-moral-nihilists believe the concept of "mind" is an illusion and that the self doesn't exists (like Daniel Dennett's "there's no you in you").
Are you sure you're a sceptical-atheistic-naturalistic-moral-nihilist?
Are you certain your'e not one of those people misled by their own "mind"?
Have you scrutinized "yourself" enough to know your're not in the "mostly wrong" camp?
How do you know your "thorough doubt" hasn't been thoroughly extended to your own "mind/self"?
-
@landis said
"
@Los said
"Thelema is skeptical to its core: at its basis is the notion that most people -- probably all or nearly all people -- are misled by their own minds, that their ideas about themselves are mostly wrong and need to be thoroughly doubted."I thought sceptical-atheistic-naturalistic-moral-nihilists believe the concept of "mind" is an illusion and that the self doesn't exists (like Daniel Dennett's "there's no you in you"). "
Side-note: I don't think Dennett would say that the self doesn't exist outright. He'd say the self is virtual; a virtual captain of the crew of a bunch of formerly-specifically-evolved brain gadgets, when they're gerrymandered to work as a functional whole. He likens the self to a "centre of narrative gravity", by analogy with the centre of gravity of a physical mass. Someone who went in search of the Earth's centre of gravity in a mole machine would be making a category mistake, it's not a thing like that. Yet the centre of gravity of the Earth is real enough and objective enough (you can make calculations with it and predict things with it).
Another description he's used is that the self is "fame in the brain", i.e. the brain has multiple processes working in parallel, reporting to each other constantly. When some combination of brain processes is dominant for a while in steering the organism, they are "famous" and other brain gadgets defer to them.
The concept is highly reminiscent of AC's "dust devils" in The Book of Lies.
Another Dennett trope is that we are not the experts on ourselves that we think we are; this, contra the notion of privileged access to private contents of the mind.
For anybody interested in modern, scientifically-informed phliosophical takes on the mind that are sort of friendly to the stuff we're interested in, Dennett is very good (both in himself and for exposure to a compendium of current ideas), as is a fellow called Thomas Metzinger (book called "The Ego Tunnel"). Another philosopher of interest in this area is Ricardo Manzotti, who's well worth checking out for his idea of the "Spread Mind". Another philosopher worth looking at is Francesco Varela (the "Embodied Mind").
-
Does anyone here remember Froclown? Los is giving him a run for his money.
-
@Mercurius said
"Does anyone here remember Froclown? Los is giving him a run for his money."
I respectfully disagree.
I can't explain the basis for my claim without making characterizations of Froclown that would be imprudent to post publically.
-
@Los said
"No, you're misreading me. Here is what you said originally: "Going further, a collection of Thelemites can have core beliefs that they agree on, all according to their True Will, which may create a religious system around these beliefs. Which, in fact, they have -- it is called Thelema.""
No, you're misreading me. Again.
You're confusing Thelema as the Greek word meaning "Will" and Thelema "as religion" again. I can follow your argument -- but all you're doing is playing word games. Pay attention.
Based on empirical evidence and consensus, Thelema is a religion. Whatever "initiated" viewpoint you have is fine. I'm not here to argue against your daydreams. From an "objective" and anthropological perspective -- it is a religion. We've been over this three times now...
Taking my words out of context doesn't make you correct.
@Los said
"You can choose to call them actions, sure, but the concept "True Will" just isn't about the kinds of things we call opinions and thoughts and beliefs. More often than not, opinions, thoughts, and beliefs are the "restrictions" that the mind throws up to obstruct the True Will."
Do I need to point out to you that your above statement is an opinion, a thought, AND a belief about the True Will? By your own definition, your above opinion is a "restriction" that obstructs your True Will? Wow.
Your skepticism still needs Work. These contradictions are causing cognitive dissonance, IMHO.
@Los said"[Los]...doesn't fit the romanticized self image of himself that he prefers."
@Los said
"I already explained the benefits of discovering the True Will. What, are you asking me for personal stories about the specific benefits I've received from discovering my True Will? I'm not inclined to share, especially since this isn't Los Story Hour."
As a skeptic, you should be willing to peer review your data -- unless your opinions about the True Will are not worthy of skeptical review. Otherwise, you just speak from platitudes and we're expected to take your word for it.
I choose to not accept your daydreams regarding the True Will until I can examine your evidence and evaluate your claims based on reason. And you specifically mentioned "practicing" Thelema. Show me evidence of this "practice" and how it helps you find your True Will. If you cannot provide evidence, then your ideas are as real as goblins.
Unless, of course, you just want to relate a personal story, the way most people talk to each other in everyday conversation. That might be more beneficial for us and, possibly, everyone here. I would actually enjoy that and we might be able to learn something that we can all relate to. Further, we may be able to come to a consensus reality, unless that doesn't interest you...
You may be more interested in your personal "spooks."
@Jim Eshelman said
"I can't explain the basis for my claim without making characterizations of Froclown that would be imprudent to post publically."
I agree -- one of them had a religious upbringing that was reacted against much more violently.
-
@gurugeorge said
"Another Dennett trope is that we are not the experts on ourselves that we think we are; this, contra the notion of privileged access to private contents of the mind."
Which would have to extend to, "Dennet's not the expert on himself he thinks he is" (Los' problem). Which raises doubts about the trope. I agree though, Dennet is fun to interact with, even if one disagrees with him.
@gurugeorge said
"For anybody interested in modern, scientifically-informed phliosophical takes...."
What do you mean by "scientific" and "philosophical"?
@gurugeorge said
"...on the mind that are sort of friendly to the stuff we're interested in, Dennett is very good (both in himself and for exposure to a compendium of current ideas), as is a fellow called Thomas Metzinger (book called "The Ego Tunnel"). Another philosopher of interest in this area is Ricardo Manzotti, who's well worth checking out for his idea of the "Spread Mind". Another philosopher worth looking at is Francesco Varela (the "Embodied Mind")."Thanks for the references. I'll try to check them out (I'm familiar with Metzinger). Other references I'd add, most of which will help keep us from veering off into scientism (although I can't vouch for their friendliness) are the Buddha's anatta doctrine; Max Stirner's The Ego and It's Own; the chapters in William James' Principles: "The Automaton-Theory," "The Mind-Stuff Theory," "The Relations of Minds To Other Things," "The Stream of Thought," and "The Consciousness of Self;" Korzybski's Science & Sanity; John C. Lilly's Programming and Metaprogramming in the Human Biocomputer; Robert Anton Wilson's Quantum Psychology and Prometheus Rising; John Searle's (Dennet's principal antogonist) Minds, Brains and Science, The Rediscovery of the Mind, and the The Mystery of Consciousness; Steven Pinker's How the Mind Works and The Blank Slate; J. Allan Hobson's The Chemistry of Conscious States and Consciousness (homage to Frater 639); Mario Beauregard & Denyse O'Leary's The Spiritual Brain; Mario Beauregard's Brain Wars; Joseph Ledoux's Synaptic Self; Antonio Damasio's Self Comes to Mind (homage again to Frater 639); and Daniel J. Siegel's Mindsight.
-
Landis, I deleted your last post, and removed some small content from the one before that. The trimmed content consisted of gratuitous personal remarks about another forum member, and the one I deleted was you baiting Los.
This thread isn't about Los, so (at best) the form of your engagement was off-topic. This thread has crept off-topic and I don't want to have to retrace to where it happened, so let's just bring it back ON topic now, k?
If anyone wants to know what the thread is about, please read the first post. That's your guide.
-
@Los said
"
So that means -- given the fact that there is insufficient evidence to support the notion that any gods exist and given that, therefore, the proper skeptical position is not to accept the claim that any gods exist -- I would argue that Thelema is best practiced in the context of atheism. However, if tomorrow humanity became aware of sufficient evidence for the existence of gods, then in that case, the proper skeptical position would be to accept the claim that gods exist. In that particular situation, Thelema would then be best practiced in the context of theism."I believe you are both hitting the nail on the head and missing it entirely. If there is insufficient evidence either way or sufficient evidence either way - agnosticism seems more intrinsically thelemic.
"Thou knowest not; nor shalt thou know ever" Liber AL
"Thank God I'm an Atheist" Crowley Zen
-
That's the crux of Los's approach that I mentioned in another post. He insists in dividing the possible positions (accept, reject, and neither accept nor reject), into a binary (accept, not accept).
Then, he can conflate "neither accept nor reject" with "not accept" and "reject", and wipe out the Unknown with a sweep of the hand.
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"That's the crux of Los's approach that I mentioned in another post. He insists in dividing the possible positions (accept, reject, and neither accept nor reject), into a binary (accept, not accept).
Then, he can conflate "neither accept nor reject" with "not accept" and "reject", and wipe out the Unknown with a sweep of the hand."
lol - choose ye well Los!
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"That's the crux of Los's approach that I mentioned in another post. He insists in dividing the possible positions (accept, reject, and neither accept nor reject), into a binary (accept, not accept).
Then, he can conflate "neither accept nor reject" with "not accept" and "reject", and wipe out the Unknown with a sweep of the hand."
No, I'm not conflating anything. For any given claim, there are only two possible positions: accept it or not accept it.
Now, the word "reject" is used differently by different people, and it can lead to confusion. Some people use "reject" to mean "not accepting the claim." Others use reject to mean accepting the negation of the claim. Because of the confusion of language easily created by "reject," I tend to leave the word out of these discussions. The issue, as ever, is what an individual accepts to be true.
When the subject is discussing a Thelemite's relationship to god claims, there are two distinct claims that can come under discussion:
Claim 1: Gods exist.
Claim 2: No gods exist.
Each claim has a burden of proof. The proper, default position for a person is not to accept claim 1 and not to accept claim 2 until there is evidence sufficient to convince that person to accept claim 1 or claim 2 (that is, evidence that compels the individual to move from the defaul position [not-accepting-the-claim] to the position of accepting one of those claims).
In my case, I don't think there's sufficient evidence to move me out of the default position with regards to the first claim.
For the second claim, it depends on the frame in which we're speaking. If we're speaking on the super-duper abstract philosophical level, in which we're discussing that it's theoretically possible that gods might "exist" on some other plane of existence somewhere or something, then I simply say that I don't have sufficient evidence to accept the second claim as true either.
If we're speaking in the practical register -- talking about the common, everyday reality that we all experience all the time, talking about what we can practically know -- then I might go so far as to say that I accept the second claim. It would depend on the situation and the definitions under use, and I would indeed have to justify that position.
"agnosticism seems more intrinsically thelemic."
Agnosticism and atheism aren't mutually exclusive. Agnosticism pertains to what a person knows, while atheism pertains to what a person believes.
Knoweldge is a subset of belief (that is, knowledge is belief supported by so much strong evidence that it would be absurd to doubt it). In the same way, agnosticism is a subset of atheism.
An agnostic atheist (which I am, if we're speaking in the super abstract philosophical context) is someone who doesn't believe that there are gods and who also says that he doesn't know whether or not there are gods...merely that the evidence is insufficient to convince him.
The agnostic atheist position is, I think, the position best supported by the evidence or rather the lack thereof (at least in the super-duper abstract context).
-
Since we're just playing semantic games, I can use your reasoning, and say that your position, "not accept", can mean, "I really don't know".
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"Since we're just playing semantic games, I can use your reasoning, and say that your position, "not accept", can mean, "I really don't know"."
Sure. And it's true that I don't really know, if by "really know" you're talking in the super-duper abstract philosophical context that's really only useful for these kinds of discussions.
However, if we wanted to define "know" to mean "the practical, everyday sense of 'know' in which we talk in a useful way about the world that we experience," I might be very willing to say that I know, as much as I can know anything, that no gods exist (depending on exactly what we mean by "gods").
This isn't just some "semantic game." Before we can actually exchange ideas, we have to be crystal clear about what we're talking about, and language can just as often hinder communication as it can help it. Hence, the need to clearly define words and not equivocate and not randomly switch meanings just for the hell of it.
-
@Los said
"
No, I'm not conflating anything. For any given claim, there are only two possible positions: accept it or not accept it."
option
perhaps accept some of it and reject some of it. (both accept and reject)option d: accept it fully - and then reject it fully
option e: suspend accepting or rejecting and instead investigate further!
"
Now, the word "reject" is used differently by different people, and it can lead to confusion. Some people use "reject" to mean "not accepting the claim." Others use reject to mean accepting the negation of the claim. Because of the confusion of language easily created by "reject," I tend to leave the word out of these discussions. The issue, as ever, is what an individual accepts to be true."
One can accept something is true, as in 'it exists!'
One can accept something as false, as in 'this only exists as an idea and in no way relational to the claim of the idea itself!'
One can accept that it is simply mystery, unknown, conceptually in a suspended state of both true and false - at once!
Thelema is a ternary system, therefore it would make sense that it employs a ternary logic (like taoism)
From here on out, the rest of your conjecture is simply incomplete due to the limitations of Aristotelian logic.
We have you surrounded Los! If you stick around, you will eventually upgrade to ternary
-
@Los said
"Before we can actually exchange ideas, we have to be crystal clear about what we're talking about, and language can just as often hinder communication as it can help it. Hence, the need to clearly define words and not equivocate and not randomly switch meanings just for the hell of it.
."You're viewing things through Aristotelian on/off logic and a few of us here are communicating in ternary on/off - both on and off logic.
We understand you, clearly - yet you do not understand us.
Your missing exactly 1/3rd of the picture! -
@ldfriend56 said
"
@Los said
"Before we can actually exchange ideas, we have to be crystal clear about what we're talking about, and language can just as often hinder communication as it can help it. Hence, the need to clearly define words and not equivocate and not randomly switch meanings just for the hell of it.
."You're viewing things through Aristotelian on/off logic and a few of us here are communicating in ternary on/off - both on and off logic.
We understand you, clearly - yet you do not understand us.
Your missing exactly 1/3rd of the picture!"Finally someone pointed it. But he still won't get it.
-
The differences between your idea of philosophical knowing and practical knowing is just about the sample size you're willing to consider.
It's like being presented with a hypothetical bizarre life form, and guessing whether it exists or not. The whole practical knowing but is like saying, "I've never seen it in my apartment, therefore I know it doesn't exist anywhere."
Part of that statement is sincere, and admirable even. But it's not good science.