The Essence of Thelema
-
@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.
-
I think Thelema can be gnostic, agnostic, theistic, and atheistic, depending on the* chosen *belief of the Thelemite. Belief has to do with the mind -- which is (hopefully) sufficiently controlled by the Thelemite according to their capacity. Any POV or belief theoretically should be able to be chosen at will (and not determined by an "autocratic mind") in accordance with the True Will. Anyway...
@Jim Eshelman said
"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."
Ok. I'd like to move back to this too.
So, in my personal experience, the "essence of Thelema" can be effectively divided into three parts -- as a model for examination -- just for shits and giggles from a particular POV. I'd like to refer to the BOL (as a philosophical and religious text) and Crowley's Chapter XIV in Part III of Book 4...interesting how it corresponds with Atu XIV -- "Art."
I think it can fall into many triune models, but I liked this one specifically:
The Magical Link may be classified under three main heads; as it involves (1) one plane and one person, (2) one plane and two or more persons, (3) two planes.
Hopefully we can agree that Magick is: "the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will."
"For some, Thelema is no more than a practical philosophy aimed at a more personal approach -- that is, finding and discovering the True Will."
I think that everyone agrees with this? Except for the "no more" part. I think we can take Thelema much further.
Obviously, the personal aspects of Thelema can raise points of contention. I would label this POV the "Hadit" perspective. It is the core of the Star. The **unique **True Will, so to speak. I believe this is the "one plane and one person" -- this has to do with effecting the change that will cause someone to realize and act upon their True Will personally. When speaking in this more "subjective" sense, we run into confirmation bias, of course -- the tendency to spin our own story to suit the situation -- which is why IMHO controlling ego and the mind are part and parcel to the essence of Thelema. Unfortunately, since this "individual will" is so unique, details of these personal guidelines simply do not apply to others, making them extremely difficult to break down to "objective" examples. As soon as someone says "do it this way," they sound like an asshole. So, this POV (whether we call it self-realization, mindfulness, etc.) is useful personally, but this strict perspective doesn't move much beyond that, when it comes to considering other people's True Will...except maybe to get the fuck out of the way or go to war...
"For others, it is something that involves the collective community in an anthropological way. That the law of Thelema is "a New Law for Mankind" -- and the breadth reaches into more of a socio-political perspective of human motivations and actions -- as a culture: "I summon, therefore, by the power and authority entrusted to me, every great spirit and mind now on this planed incarnate to take effective hold of this transcendent force, and apply it to the advancement of the welfare of the human race." "
I believe this falls under point (2) of the 3 types of Magickal Links. Assuming that all Thelemites are working according to their True Will, we can start to discuss Thelema as a collective, on the "plane" we call earth (or, even the world of "ideas"). The square and the compass I believe is a useful symbol to examine -- namely, these "individual wills" can be moved in a direction that can "build" this collective will in a given direction. One of Thelema's main charges is to advance the human race with the knowledge of ourselves (first personally, and then collectively). I relate this to RHK.
Evidence of group belief is too strong to discount. Take the talisman that is "currency" or "money." Comfort is of such collective importance that we have a world economic structure based on the exchange of "money" for goods and services. This talisman controls collective human behavior on so many levels -- yet, it is not intrinsic to life as we know it. However, it is a medium agreed upon (whether directly or indirectly) and put into use by humans who wish to participate in society.
Crowley stated that most recent talismans are books by authors -- which we can roughly say that these are POVs that people are influenced by and "believe" as reality. Today, we see this kind of information exchange on the interwebs -- these help to shape our "worldview," perceptions, beliefs, etc. This seems to necessitate the **personal **control of these thought-forms and ideas to be able to control how we perceive and act collectively. I would equate this idea with RHK -- where we bridge the individuality and the collective...
"Yet, for others, the emphasis of Thelema is more of a religion which includes the supernatural -- something beyond human and far more intelligent -- that proves "there is a Person thinking and acting in a praeterhuman manner, either without a body of flesh, or with the power of communicating telepathically with men and inscrutably directing their actions.""
I think this corresponds well to point (3) in Chapter XIV. Different planes. You can say all you want about different planes, how they "are not real" -- but, of course, that would be applying the measurements of one plane to another. Of course, there is the warning about mixing the "planes," and this also applies to going off the deep end (becoming a fruitcake), not admitting new information, etc. Usually, these imbalances can be examined by which element the student likes to identify with the most...but, I digress.
Suffice to say, I think that imbalances are just as liable to manifest in any one of these areas - even past the individual and into the collective...I'm sure genocide always starts as some reasonable idea that becomes perverted and degraded...
Anyway, this point (3) seems to be where we get into an ideal idea -- the embracing of the Infinite. Two planes are involved. Crowley's example has to do with affecting the weather through magick! In any event, it is the idea of the impossible being *theoretically *possible. IMHO, It is this enthusiasm which I believe fosters potential and growth. I would equate this idea with Nuit. Since we have the tools of belief at our disposal, there is an aspect of Life that grows in the direction of the source that provides nourishment.
This is, of course, so abstract that everyone relates to different forms, but this is a part of religion that seems to be universal -- an aspiration to something greater or ideal. We can see physiological correlations at this point with neuroplasticity, etc.; however, so much is unknown that it would be irresponsible to deem something an impossibility simply because we cannot measure the dynamic or potential of growth. Again, there is a factor "infinite and unknown." Crowley, in much of his work, teaches about creating "energized enthusiasm" at will -- I believe this is an intrinsic part of the will, and part and parcel to interfacing with this aspiration. Bergson's elan vital comes to mind when it comes to this "life force"...it seems evolution is definitely related to it...
Now, these points are just a model, of course...which could be true or not true, depending on the POV adopted. But since this thread was about "essence," I feel these points are as good as any to rip apart and examine. It would be awesome to hear some feedback in regards to metaphysics, beliefs, personal experiences, etc. which we started to touch on earlier in the thread, in regard to the essence of Thelema...
Sure, we all have our own direct experiences -- but, the more I read from others, there seems to also be a collective consideration when it comes to Thelema, both addressed by Crowley quite extensively and by other Thelemites that I know. There seems to be a developing consensus reality...
Again, I'm not here to debate Crowley's personal politics and other aspects of Crowleyanity.
I wrote this out really quickly and probably didn't elucidate the points as far as they could've been taken. I left a lot of things out...but that's where it would be cool to get other contributions. Agreements and disagreements are welcome! It would be awesome to hear more of Thelema as experienced by people who call themselves Thelemites -- in theory AND in practice. Essence definitely includes theoretical models, too! Look forward to the conversation...
Thanks everyone! Please excuse the typos and crap, I wrote this in a hurry.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"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."
My apologies.
