Secret Chiefs and attainment
-
You've been convinced for awful reasons, exactly as I thought.
@milkBoxx said
" I have seen things that cannot be explained
by our consensus reality and what modern science can evaluate therefrom."So what? Everyone has experienced things they don't have explanations for.
What you're doing here is called an "argument from ignorance." You're saying that since you don't know what X was, therefore you're justified in claiming that Y is true. But you can't use "I don't know" as evidence for anyting.
I heard a noise last night, and I didn't know what it was. Does that mean I'm justified in thinking it was pixies?
" I have not seen "Secret Chiefs", but generally only high ranking initiate's have
encounters with these beings from what I have been told."And, obviously, you have no good reason to think that this is true, just 'cause some (probably wacked out) people claim it.
"So, while they may not exist, I cannot say that I know this to a certainty."
Well, duh. You can't know anything for "certain." No one knows anything for "certain." When we talk about knowledge, we're talking about likelihood.
I don't know for certain that leprechauns don't live under my house, but that's no reason for me to believe that it's true or even believe that it's anywhere near likely to be true.
"I've never been to France,
but I wouldn't say it does not exist."But you do have tons of evidence that it exists, including the fact that you can go to google earth right this second and look at it through a satellite.
You don't have any evidence -- not even a shred of it -- that these "Secret Chiefs" or any other gods or goblins or monsters actually exist. Except, I guess, "something happened, and I don't know what it was!"
Don't you see how weak that is?
"All I can really say as far as my experiences go is that I have seen things that should be impossible, occur right before my eyes (With a witness who can corroborate)."
And I saw an elephant disappear into thin air one time. That David Copperfield must be a high-ranking initiate, eh?
I don't doubt that you had this experience, but I question your interpretation of this experience (and your witness' interpretation of this experience).
" All I can really say is that you can take my word for these experiences or not, really makes no difference to me because I saw these things regardless."
You saw something, maybe. What was it, though? I don't know, and neither do you, but whatever it was, your ignorance about what you saw is no basis for making any claims at all.
-
@Takamba said
"Los wants everyone to do his will. Nuff said."
No, I don't. I'm pointing out errors in drawing conclusions about the world. Conclusions aren't directed by the Will.
If you were in a math class, and the teacher showed that you were making mistakes in doing a problem, you wouldn't say, "Oh! This teacher wants this whole class to do his will!" You would understand that he's just showing you factual mistakes that you were making.
In the same way, I'm just pointing out glaring errors in thought, including arguments from ignorance.
To confuse that with Will is to demonstrate that you don't have a solid grasp on what "Will" means to begin with.
-
@kasper81 said
"Milkbox
Noone is trying to denigrate you for talking openly about your experience of altered states, just develop your faculty of scientific cynicism, otherwise you will be heading for something, in the long-term, that will not be enlightenment at all. You get this? This is what Thelema is"
I really could care less, most people wouldn't believe me if I told them. There is no way to interpret the experience. I came from a background of hardcore Atheism
and a B.S in Radiation Science. I'm well versed in scientific cynicism, yet I cannot explain what I have seen. But like I said, I could care less if someone wants to insult me, I understand. Most people would think it's crazy, and I don't blame them and that's exactly why I don't talk specifics about my magical record. Cynicism works when you're not sure what you had seen. But I was close enough to know what I had seen, and frankly it should have been impossible. It wasn't an altered state either, this was completely sober and with a secondary witness. But I digress, this is exactly why I can't discuss it. -
@Los said
"No, I don't. I'm pointing out errors in drawing conclusions about the world. Conclusions aren't directed by the Will.
If you were in a math class, and the teacher showed that you were making mistakes in doing a problem, you wouldn't say, "Oh! This teacher wants this whole class to do his will!" You would understand that he's just showing you factual mistakes that you were making.
In the same way, I'm just pointing out glaring errors in thought, including arguments from ignorance.
To confuse that with Will is to demonstrate that you don't have a solid grasp on what "Will" means to begin with."
If this were a math class and you were the elected teacher, I wouldn't make that argument because if this were a math class then it must indeed be my will to learn math. Based on that solid fact, the fact that this isn't a math class, and you are not an elected teacher, your "teaching" is to teach people what your will has come to. You dismiss "Secret Chiefs" altogether whereas I have investigated and find some telling information that Crowley actually claimed to know about these "Secret Chiefs" and I have concluded he is correct.
I'll give you a hint: "Let my servants be few & secret: they shall rule the many & the known." This was shown you in Chapter IX of Magick Without Tears (which you poo poo and suggest that everyone else ought to poo poo - er, do your poo poo with you). The question is, are you aware of elsewhere how Crowley writes about this verse? Therein you will discover the location and (nearly anyway) the identity of your Secret Chiefs (and LAM). But then again, LAM was probably just fantasy too.
Then again, when a thing is a metaphor and it suits your will to declare it a metaphor, you seem to understand that just fine. So maybe you will or maybe you won't understand Secret Chiefs. And the fact that your understanding grew over time (a long period of time, if I shall assume you to be an adult) has no consideration on how you treat other people and their "not as evolved understandings" because you want them to have your understanding "now, dammit. NOW!" And that's you trying to do their will for them (push them to your finish line).
A few weeks ago I complimented you on how you have made your style of communication more relatable and less insulting. Perhaps I spoke too soon (actually, relapse after identification and recognition of cognitive therapy results is incredibly normal, it's like a pendulum when someone tries to improve themselves, the team says "good job" and the subject falls right back into the old habits).
-
@Los said
"So I'll ask you the same question that Simon ran away from: what convinced you that these "Secret Chiefs" actually exist?"
You have missed me!
I didn't run away, I noticed a tad too late that I was getting into the same loop as usual with you and decided to spare both of us and the rest of the forum another go on that loop.
@Los said
"As was the case with Simon, I suspect that you've been convinced for crappy reasons, but I'm willing to be shown otherwise."
That's nice of you, dear
Amused Simon
-
@Uni_Verse said
"If I have a conversation in private with you, how can I prove it actually happened?"
If you told me that you had a conversation with a flesh-and-blood human being, and it seems plausible, I probably would be fine just taking your word for it.
But if you told me that you had a conversation with Elvis returned from the dead, then no, I would not just take your word for it. I would want some pretty compelling evidence before I accepted that claim, and you too -- if you were wise -- should also want some pretty compelling evidence before you accept that you really spoke to Elvis.
All claims are not created equal.
-
@Los said
"
@Simon Iff said
"And Los: These people are out there. But you won't find them if you are not looking."And what makes you think that Secret Chiefs are "out there"?"
I posted a version of the following account on Lashtal some time ago, and received nothing in response but the typical "spooks and goblins" criticism from Los he is known for. I have rewritten the story in order to shorten it for easier reading. I suspect Los will be at a loss to provide an explanation of the events other than to simply call me a kook, but I'm willing to give him or anyone else a shot at forming a theory on what actually happened.
-
@Heru-pa-kraath said
"I posted a version of the following account on Lashtal some time ago, and received nothing in response but the typical "spooks and goblins" criticism from Los he is known for."
I wasn't the only one unimpressed by your claims, oh Child of the Prophet:
www.lashtal.com/forum/index.php?topic=5720.msg70685#msg70685"I suspect Los will be at a loss to provide an explanation of the events"
Obviously I can't explain an event I wasn't there for, but the fact that we don't have an explanation doesn't lend any weight to your outlandish implicit interpretation.
-
I don't believe in Secret Chiefs. However, having had some unusual experiences myself, I don't rule out their existence.
Describing these unusual experiences to a skeptic is like trying to convince a lifelong desert dweller of torrential downpours, vast oceans, lush vegetation and lands of snow and ice. It puts them in the awkward position of having to take my word for it.
The fact is, I can not prove my experiences any more than I can prove that I dreamt of rainbow coloured badgers last night.
The fact that some unprovable claims may seem more plausible to a desert dweller than others is irrelevant. Their perspective, based upon their own limited, meager experiences, in no way defines what is possible. -
@JNV33 said
"I don't believe in Secret Chiefs. However, having had some unusual experiences myself, I don't rule out their existence.
Describing these unusual experiences to a skeptic is like trying to convince a lifelong desert dweller of torrential downpours, vast oceans, lush vegetation and lands of snow and ice. It puts them in the awkward position of having to take my word for it.
The fact is, I can not prove my experiences any more than I can prove that I dreamt of rainbow coloured badgers last night.
The fact that some unprovable claims may seem more plausible to a desert dweller than others is irrelevant. Their perspective, based upon their own limited, meager experiences, in no way defines what is possible."Nicely put.
In this context, the crux of this "experience as reality" issue always seems to do with the "I" problem. It's not about the belief not being flexible -- in many cases it is about the "I" being flexible enough to adopt a* useful *belief without bias at will! Doesn't invocation help train for this?
Nothing is a thing-in-itself -- all beliefs are always relational and a matter of perspective. A belief is a belief, whether it is limiting has to do with the interfacing of infinite variables and relative usefulness to "self and other" -- some can be measured quantitatively, some cannot...
In any event, this confirmation bias argument never gets old on the forum, does it?
Until the intellect and emotion come under control of the Will, speaking of magick and mysticism is worse than useless outside of training -- and the most effective training is unique to a specific individual's needs. IMHO this instruction is best done within a student/mentor model. That way we don't prescribe albuterol for a leg cramp.
Secret Chiefs? Crowley didn't even know if he himself was one! Or did he? Or did he believe in them? Sure -- when it was beneficial, he sure did...
But so many people always want to dictate what is beneficial for EVERYONE in ALL situations -- especially when it comes to beliefs. I guess if you want to act like a Christian, go right ahead!
-
@JNV33 said
"The fact is, I can not prove my experiences any more than I can prove that I dreamt of rainbow coloured badgers last night."
It's not your experience that skeptics doubt: it's your interpretation of those experiences.
I don't doubt that someone may have had an experience that felt like talking to a Secret Chief -- or even like receiving a "message" from one in the form of a daydream. What I doubt is their interpretation that there really was a Secret Chief.
And like it or not, they had best doubt that interpretation as well, if they don't want to be fooled by their own (rational) minds and (rational) interpretations.
-
@Frater 639 said
"But so many people always want to dictate what is beneficial for EVERYONE in ALL situations -- especially when it comes to beliefs. I guess if you want to act like a Christian, go right ahead! "
It's always possible to contrive a situation in which believing something false (or at least unsubstantiated) might be useful, but in the long run, it is always of immense value to an individual to accept as many true claims and as few false claims as possible.
As a trivial example, name three concrete, specific benefits that believing in "Secret Chiefs" could possibly give an individual -- preferably benefits that an individual couldn't get from just believing any old delusion(like, "warm and fuzzies" or "lower blood pressure from giving oneself so many warm and fuzzies").
Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's not "act* like a Christian" to acknowledge that there is a real world and that one's ideas about it can be correct or incorrect.
-
@Los said
"It's always possible to contrive a situation in which believing something false (or at least unsubstantiated) might be useful, but in the long run, it is always of immense value to an individual to accept as many true claims and as few false claims as possible."
Absolutely correct. And it is up to the individual to investigate and decide for themselves.
@Los said
"As a trivial example, name three concrete, specific benefits that believing in "Secret Chiefs" could possibly give an individual -- preferably benefits that an individual couldn't get from just believing any old delusion(like, "warm and fuzzies" or "lower blood pressure from giving oneself so many warm and fuzzies")."
You wish for me to provide concrete examples for realms of possible benefits pertaining to another individual's beliefs?
If so, please give me three concrete, specific benefits that non-belief in "Secret Chiefs" could possibly give an individual.
By "warm and fuzzies," do you mean the physiological benefits of oxytocin?
@Los said
"Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's not "act* like a Christian" to acknowledge that there is a real world and that one's ideas about it can be correct or incorrect."
That's not my bubble...you may reread what I said carefully. Pay attention.
-
@Frater 639 said
"
@Los said
"It's always possible to contrive a situation in which believing something false (or at least unsubstantiated) might be useful, but in the long run, it is always of immense value to an individual to accept as many true claims and as few false claims as possible."Absolutely correct. And it is up to the individual to investigate and decide for themselves."
Everyone who makes a decision necessarily decides for themselves. But not everyone does a good job of it: witness, for example, nutbars of various religious stripes accepting claims that are unsubstantiated, from the existence of the Christian god to the Hindu gods, to goblins, to (yes) Secret Chiefs.
Pat Robertson, Ray Comfort, various wacko Muslim clerics, etc., etc., all of them "decided for themselves" to adopt beliefs that are insufficiently supported by evidence.
Obviously, a person can do whatever the hell he pleases, but the presumption is that when we come together on a discussion board to discuss (how about that!) what's actually true -- in the sense that it's true that the bus comes every day at 8:30 and that it's false that purple people eaters live in my broom closet -- we're not going to just throw our hands up and say, "Hey, everyone's beliefs are just as good as everyone else's!" (since, if we did that, it would render discussion completely and totally pointless)
Since you agree above ("Absolutely correct") that it's of immense value to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible, then it follows that you also agree that it's of immense value to determine the criteria by which people can accurately determine whether a claim is likely to be true or likely to be false.
And when we make these kinds of determinations, we can conclude that there are no valid grounds for accepting that "Secret Chiefs" exist.
"You wish for me to provide concrete examples for realms of possible benefits pertaining to another individual's beliefs?"
No. I wish for you to support the claim you implicitly made: that beliefs are justified when they're "beneficial."
If that were the case, then surely you should be able to name some potential benefits of the belief. What concrete benefits -- aside from the vague warm and tinglies that are easy to induce -- could an individual get from accepting the claim that oogity-boogities control the universe and send magic happy smile daydreams to their chosen few?
"If so, please give me three concrete, specific benefits that non-belief in "Secret Chiefs" could possibly give an individual."
You were the one implicitly claiming that beliefs are justified if they are "beneficial." Hence my question. Ididn't claim that non-beliefs are justified when they are "beneficial." On the contrary, I think the supposed "benefits" of a belief have nothing to do with whether or not one is justified in accepting it as true. I asked you to provide some specific benefits in order to show that even if we accepted your implicit claim, there still is no reason to accept that there are Secret Chiefs because there really aren't any practical benefits to be had in telling oneself stories about oogity-boogities.
You can't just reverse every statement I make and pretend like you're engaging in sound discourse.
-
Some Thomas Jefferson quotes I like:
"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent."
"In fine, I repeat, you must lay aside all prejudice on both sides, and neither believe nor reject anything, because any other persons, or description of persons, have rejected or believed it. Your own reason is the only oracle given you by heaven, and you are answerable, not for the rightness, but uprightness of the decision."
(There's another that is even more directly responsive, but I can't recall or find it at the moment.)
-
Instead of looking into your argument point by point, your premise is faulty. Many scientists look further into phenomena when they lack evidence. That is the cornerstone of the scientific method.
Moving on, do you have any sort of background when it comes to the physiological effects of beliefs? If not, there is no point in engaging you in discourse. I say this to encourage you into actually performing your own research while looking past an early 20th century materialist POV.
It is of tremendous value to determine what is true and what is false. I agree completely. Which is why I brought up the aforementioned encouragement.
Speaking of discourse, your tone is rather emotional and not very beneficial to me. That is the truth. If I believed it was beneficial to me, it could possibly create a positive feedback loop which is supported by modern neuroscience and psychiatry. If you don't believe me (note the reference to "belief"), I invite you to research the effects of the adrenal system -- which is directly influenced by the amygdala. Emotions, which are related to the amygdala, directly affect the physiology, and can be largely based on belief. See the placebo effect, biofeedback, etc.
I didn't answer your question directly because it was faulty -- you wanted me to dispute the potential of the brain. That's absolutely ridiculous.
Also, please take care with your tone and have some respect; otherwise, I will not continue the discourse.
-
@Frater 639 said
"Many scientists look further into phenomena when they lack evidence."
But they don't accept claims as true until they have gathered sufficient evidence. We were talking about accepting claims about Secret Chiefs, not about "looking further into phenomena." You're all over the place.
"Moving on, do you have any sort of background when it comes to the physiological effects of beliefs?"
Depends on what you mean. If you're asking whether I've observed my own physiological reactions to beliefs that I've held in the past -- and, more broadly, to states of mind that I generate even to this day through imagination exercises, including "invoking" various beings and pretending to talk to spirits -- then yes.
\If you're asking whether I'm a scientist who has personally performed experiments on test subjects, then no.
If you're asking whether I'm extensively familiar with scientific literature on the subject, then the answer is not really, and I fail to see what relevance that question has to the question of believing that Secret Goblins are weaving their spells all over daydream land.
"If not, there is no point in engaging you in discourse."
Do whatever you like. You don't need my permission or some phony baloney reason to stop talking to me and to do something else with your time.
"I didn't answer your question directly because it was faulty -- you wanted me to dispute the potential of the brain. That's absolutely ridiculous."
Once more, you implied that some people believe in the Secret Chiefs because they think such a belief is "beneficial." I was asking you to substantiate what you were saying by naming a few such benefits. My question had nothing to do with "disput* the potential of the brain," whatever you might mean by that weird phrase.
"Also, please take care with your tone and have some respect; otherwise, I will not continue the discourse."
I think I've been far more respectful than the topic of "Secret Chiefs" deserves, but at any rate, my tone is my business. Your reaction to my tone is yours. If you don't want to talk to me, then don't. There is no need for you to justify your actions to me or to anyone else.