Thelemic Materialism (Thelemic Philosophy)
-
@Uni_Verse said
"The 'materialists' are by proxy entangled.
Spiritualists soar to the sky!
Both have their place, are needed
It is the one who denies that liesWish I could find my Book of Lies
"hermetic.com/crowley/libers/lib333.html
-
@Legis said
" I [...] point to the unadmitted (or unknown) weaknesses of [Los' argument]."
No, you don't. You baldly assert that my arguments have weaknesses -- just like that guy above baldly asserts that I have "blind spots" -- but you (like he) are never able to demonstrate that this is the case, in the same way that I (easily) demonstrate above that your arguments are laughably invalid.
"I am attempting to prevent a strong, confident, rhetorical voice from convincing others that one perspective alone can and should be victorious."
"Attempt" all you like. Call me when you can actually demonstrate your claims with anything more than bald assertion.
By the way, it's been way more than a dozen posts on this thread since I pointed to a specific topic of conversation -- the axiomatic basis of philosophical positions -- that we could pursue if you were actually interested. You're clearly not interested in having a serious conversation, since you've run shrieking away from real conversation, only to indulge in a kind of embarrassing bluster.
-
@Los said
"Call me when you can actually demonstrate your claims with anything more than bald assertion."
Seriously now, Los. You never demonstrate your own claims. They turn out to be things you personally find good or bad underlaid with ontology from the 19th century.
While you conveniently ignore any facts or arguments to the contrary of your favourite ideas, such as that the existence of psychic micro-phenomena has been proven in all meta-studies here to date by a factor of a thousand billion billion bigger than the existence of the much-celebrated Higgs boson.
Talking to you, if done long enough, is like a merry-go-round. One always arrives at the same place afterwards, as do you.
It's not good kung-fu.
-
No, Los,
As I already stated, it is worthless to attempt to suggest your axioms to you. It's already been done time and time again.
I say, "You think [this (axiom)]."
You say, "I never said that," or, "not my version of Materialism," etc.
I say, "It's inherent in your thinking."
You say, "Now you're arguing with the Los in your head."It's happened like 4 times already, and I'm tired of the re-run of the rhetorical maneuver.
As I have also previously said, you are either unfamiliar with the logical foundation of your own position, or you are refusing to own it and say it yourself as the result of a defensive posture.
Even now, your spit and vehemence is hardly anything but repetitive rhetoric. It's just passionate, confidently repeated unreality. People who have the ability to follow the philosophical logic of this conversation have been doing so for a while, and all of them find you quite lacking in substance and consistency.
Do you get it yet? I have far more respect for real, actual Materialists than I have for your partially understood, almost entirely rhetorical jumble of an argument.
What I have really begun to think is that you have not studied the philosophical grounding of your epistemology at all. It doesn't make it that far. You're more of an 19th century Materialist than a 21st century Materialist in that you actually seem to believe in the absolute perfection of your argument. You don't seem to have ever deconstructed it yourself. You yourself do not seem conscious of its inherent weaknesses.
And this, I think, is why you cannot accept and own those weaknesses, nor look on other's philosophical systems with understanding and acceptance amid diversity.
Instead, I'm beginning to think you've merely read more popular Materialist apologetics and rhetoric. You're all debate tactics and no intellectual integrity. It's like you know the FOX News version of Materialism, not the real one. Oh, you may feel you're intellectually honest. You may passionately feel you're being intellectually honest. But you're not. There's far too much lust of result in your logic. You're almost pure rhetoric, pure Truthiness.
At least as you manifest here...
-
Los, here's why I won't play the "name my axioms" game with you.
Modernist Foundationalism - Our constructs of reality are logically based upon a foundation of unquestionable truth (axioms). Everything builds on top of this foundation like a building. Our task is to uncover the most primary unquestionable truth and to build a perfectly logical construction of reality on top of it.
Postmodernist Postfoundationalism - Our constructs of reality are derived from a multiplicity of sources: experience, logic, math, culture, etc. The constructs do not build upward from an unquestionable foundation but instead are suspended from a multiplicity of sources similar to the construction of a spider's web, with many anchor points. Our task is to question any supposed "unquestionable truth" in order to discover the roots of our own bias (though it may be impossible) and attempt continually to build a more functionally perfect web-like model of reality.
Los, you argue against others with the logical positivism and "correctness" of Modernist Foundationalism, seeing the reasoning of other positions as flawed and in need of redemption. However, when someone attempts to point out the known axioms of Modernist, Foundationalist Materialism, you retreat defensively behind a cloud of Postmodernist, Postfoundationalist Materialism, this creating this dynamic:
I say, "You think [this (axiom)]."
You say, "I never said that," or, "not my version of Materialism," etc.
I say, "It's inherent in your thinking."
You say, "Now you're arguing with the Los in your head."You attack from a position of axiomatic truths and defend from a position that rejects axiomatic truths.
Rhetorically, this works (for those who cannot see the inconsistency) because when in a defensive posture, you'll say something like, "I'm just saying Thelemites shouldn't waste their time on what cannot be proven," which is a perfectly legitimate (Postmodern, Postfoundationalist) opinion. It's perfectly consistent if you choose to function that way, based on your own knowledge and experience.
But when you attack others as if they are insane for taking any other position than yours on what may be said to be "proven" and why based on their own knowledge and experience, then that inherently assumes the (Modern, Foundationalist) sense of ultimate correctness derived from flawless logic based upon an unquestionable foundation.
Your attack and defense are philosophically inconsistent. That's how you are able to rhetorically maneuver around any suggestion that you have axioms, and that's why you keep getting accused of being nothing but an inconsistent rhetorical voice.
And that's why I'm not playing that game with you.
Knowingly or unknowingly, you cheat.
-
Found a slightly relevant quote from Crowley when reading 'Energized Enthusiasm: A Note on Theurgy', which made me giggle thinking of this old thread;
"Consciousness, says the materialist, axe in hand, is a function of the brain. He has only re-formulated the old saying, “Your bodies are the temples of the Holy Ghost.”! "
-
Nice one! That and the 333 quote earlier in the thread make me happy.
Los is happy to only grasp half of the equation, and it's not my business to disabuse him of his notions.
Plus, I really think that the quality of content that has resulted on this forum in response to his presence has really improved.
I think science is grand. And so are spirituality and art.
-
@Legis said
"Your attack and defense are philosophically inconsistent. That's how you are able to rhetorically maneuver around any suggestion that you have axioms, and that's why you keep getting accused of being nothing but an inconsistent rhetorical voice."
Well, I don't think they're completely inconsintent. I think they are consistently lacking in definitive terms and a static position. As all language can be accused of...
As we've been over before, Los has stated a position that "reality" is something that you can "knock up against," which is a valid POV on one plane. Never mind love, gravity, oxygen, or any action or state of being verb for that matter. From what I can tell, his "materalist" position (probably one of many) thinks that "nouns" are roughly the only reality. He later said that experience is real, and we experience our imagination. Making the imagination real; but then, that's when it gets tricky -- the "things" inside that imagination according to him don't "really" exist because you can't "knock up against them" (like oxygen or love?). He's later postulated that anything that one senses is reality -- which includes ANYTHING explanable. One cannot describe anything that doesn't involve the intermediary of the senses.
So, perceptions of "something in the imagination" don't "exist" but yet they do, because our perceptions *a priori *utilize sensible description, and perceptions are experiences, and experiences are real, according to one POV of reality (including another stance that Los has taken) -- a valid POV on another plane. The planes, as a necessity, need to be considered to delineate these two POVs of "reality," a point that seems to be conveniently glossed over so the tireless "materialist" rhetoric can continue...
But I don't think he really holds a "materialist" position exclusively. However, he'll strum those strings when someone wants a song...and we all seem to like music!
Let's ask directly: Los, do you hold your "materialist" position exclusively? Do you adopt other philosophical positions at will? Has there been any pattern apprehension in regard to this?
To be useful, the "materialist" philosophical position should be balanced by the work of George Berkeley, or even Bertrand Russell, etc. who admit terms such as "subjective reality" IMHO.
Debating philosophy will ALWAYS end in a circular argument when taken to the extremes -- and that's why these threads are so important. To show that the intellect is always consistently Air and can go wherever without getting caught up as static (hopefully) -- and nothing is true, save the POV that perceives a truth.
But, you raise a good point. I think, as you mentioned earlier, that the mind should be inclusive. As far as my own practice, I use a variety of POVs -- and these are selected (to the best of my ability) as the most useful at the time, given the experience. I think Los does a good job of this -- and provides a stellar example of how the intellect should be used. As a tool that exchanges mundane philosophies at will, not rooted in static precepts, as you show in your examples. Instead of explicitly saying it, Los* shows * this "maleable mind" technique with alacrity.
I think his posts are actually a form of art. Good or bad is a matter of perspective.
@Laura Marx said
"Found a slightly relevant quote from Crowley when reading 'Energized Enthusiasm: A Note on Theurgy', which made me giggle thinking of this old thread;
"Consciousness, says the materialist, axe in hand, is a function of the brain. He has only re-formulated the old saying, “Your bodies are the temples of the Holy Ghost.”! "
"Hehe. I like this one!
@Crowley said
" ** THE VIGIL OF ST. HUBERT**
In the forest God met the Stag-beetle. "Hold! Wor- ship me!" quoth God. "For I am All-Great, All- Good, All Wise....The stars are but sparks from the forges of My smiths...." "Yea, verily and Amen," said the Stag-beetle, "all this do I believe, and that devoutly." "Then why do you not worship Me?" "Because I am real and your are only imaginary." But the leaves of the forest rustled with the laughter of the wind. Said Wind and Wood: "They neither of them know anything! COMMENTARY ({Nu}) St. Hubert appears to have been a saint who saw a stag of a mystical or sacred nature. The Stag-beetle must not be identified with the one in Chapter 16. It is a merely literary touch. the chapter is a resolution of the universe into Tetragrammaton; God the macrocosm and the micro- cosm beetle. Both imagine themselves to exist; both say "you" and "I", and discuss their relative reality. The things which really exist, the things which have no Ego, and speak only in the third person, regard these as ignorant, on account of their assumption of Knowledge."@Avshalom Binyamin said
"Plus, I really think that the quality of content that has resulted on this forum in response to his presence has really improved."
100% COMPLETE AGREEMENT
-
@Simon Iff said
"you conveniently ignore any facts or arguments to the contrary of your favourite ideas"
I’ve already explained to you that I don’t, as far as I’m aware, ignore any facts or arguments contrary to my own – I address all of them, which is the opposite of ignoring them.
For example, lots of times you’ve pointed to the fact that there are tiny numbers of individuals who think they have demonstrated some sort of psychic phenomena. I haven’t ignored this point at all – I’ve addressed it head on. I’ve explained to you – a few times now – that the claims of a tiny fringe group are awfully questionable when that group claims to have evidence of X but whose supposed evidence has not passed through the process of becoming generally accepted by the body of experts who study the world around us.
If it’s such convincing evidence, where are the scientists flocking to parapsychology to get grants to further study this amazing, demonstrable phenomenon? That’s almost assuredly what would happen if there really were evidence that radically challenged the conventional way of looking at the world, so the fact that it’s not happening is a huge stumbling block for someone who holds your position.
You’ve never responded to this point. Not once. You just throw your hands up, stamp your feet, bluster that I’m impossible to talk to, mumble some ridiculous implications about there being some improbable weird global conspiracy of scientists, shriek about how I’m a moral nihilist, and then just vanish without bothering to address a single thing I’ve said.
-
@Legis said
"when someone attempts to point out the known axioms of Modernist, Foundationalist Materialism"
Like what? I’ve asked you at least three or four times to indicate some axiom that you think I begin from. I can’t tell you whether I agree with you or not until I know what in the blue hell you’re even talking about.
And again, I'm asking you what axiom(s) you think that I begin from -- that is, me specifically (based on what I actually say), not some school of philosophy. I’m not on here representing some philosophical school or something you read in a textbook somewhere: I’m representing me and my positions and arguments that I’ve developed by thinking about them.
You can’t reasonably argue with me by arguing against some position you read in a book somewhere and then shrieking hysterically when I refuse to follow the script you have in your mind about how these conversations are “supposed” to go.
I realize it must be super comforting to think that all positions are equally acts of faith because they all start from a bunch of random choices that nobody can prove and that, therefore, nobody can be “correct” or “incorrect” and that, therefore, nobody knows better than you and that, therefore, you’re just as wise as everybody else. I’m sure that must give you plenty of warm and fuzzies, even though it’s woefully self-contradictory and rather stupid. [I'm saying the position is stupid, not the poster...it is not my intention to attack a person. Legis' intelligence is outside the scope of this conversation]
But there are correct and incorrect positions, and it’s not some impossible or superhuman feat to have a consistent, correct position on a particular issue. Sorry to be the one to break it to you. Actually, no, I'm not sorry at all.
-
"Plus, I really think that the quality of content that has resulted on this forum in response to his presence has really improved."
A.J. Ayer, a fierce empiricist and logician who's brutal thrusts against the lofty slopes of philosophy would put even dear Los to great shame, in a later interview in the 90s, when he admitted that Logical Positivism (which sought to 'cut away' all metaphysics and epistemology and bring it all back to testable, reliable logic & science) failed miserably (with fond laughter), he said if anything it was important because it 'made all the continental philosophers self-conscious'.
-
@Los said
"You’ve never responded to this point. Not once. You just throw your hands up, stamp your feet, bluster that I’m impossible to talk to, mumble some ridiculous implications about there being some improbable weird global conspiracy of scientists, shriek about how I’m a moral nihilist, and then just vanish without bothering to address a single thing I’ve said."
Actually, you've done this same thing in the past -- with me, as a matter of fact. When we started to discuss ontology, and moved onto the subject of quantitative and qualitative data, the only accepted way that scientists collect the data about "reality" or ontology (those same scientists that you appeal to when questioning Simon), you stamped away, saying you refuse to have the reality discussion unless I agree to your terms, stating my scientific terms were "unnecessary jargon" and needed to stop, and that you didn't like my manner of speech because I used "puerile emoticons."
As if that response isn't puerile.
You then directly stated that probably I brought up all the scientific points to lord my scientific education over you -- this involved your fantasies of my personal motivations. I was merely trying to help you understand the terms that you weren't familiar with, as you admitted to not having a very strong scientific background.
Perhaps you understand why I couldn't consent to your terms of conversation -- because you wouldn't let me use certain words that were needed to have an intelligent conversation. And your injunction regarding the conversation was seemingly based on your admitted lack of understanding...
If you were willing to admit qualitative and quantitative data, and the epistemological ideas of intersubjectivity (which all scientists do), most of your arguments fall flat! But, I don't want them to fall flat!
THEY ARE TOO FUN AND ARTFUL
Now, will you please answer the following questions and not avoid them like you accuse others of doing?
@Frater 639 said
"Let's ask directly: Los, do you hold your "materialist" position exclusively? Do you adopt other philosophical positions at will? Has there been any pattern apprehension in regard to this?"
-
Los,
There is no point in me presenting axioms you'll just say that you don't actually have for the reason I stated above. That's a fool's game.
If you believe your position to be "correct," then lets hear the incontrovertible truth from which your logic about what may be known stems. What's the foundation? If your position is the result of pure logic founded on incontrovertible truth, then what's that truth at the beginning? If it's more than a choice, if it's more than "I believe," then what is it?
If you can't state it, then you don't know your own argument, and it's just logic based on what you feel.
If you know it but don't state it, then you don't present a clear and lucid logical argument that can be judged on the strength of its own freestanding merit, beginning to end; instead, you just attempt to use logic to persuade based on what you feel that we *should feel *to be true.
-
@Legis said
"If you believe your position to be "correct," then lets hear the incontrovertible truth from which your logic about what may be known stems. What's the foundation?"
I'm going to start from my specific position and move back more generally.
My position, on the particular issue that we're discussing, is that the physical world demonstrably exists and that -- at least at the moment -- there is insufficient evidence to think that any worlds beside the physical world exist (that is to say, there is insufficient evidence to think that there are some "spirit" worlds or "astral" worlds).
The "foundation" of this position is that the claim that the material world exists is very well supported (since the material world is clearly demonstrable), while claims that other worlds exist don't have anything approaching sufficient evidence to support them.
We could say also that "foundational" to my approach to this question -- and all questions, in fact -- is the notion (1) that it's easier to navigate the world if one has as accurate an understanding of the world as possible (given the evidence currently at one's disposal) and the notion (2) that the best way to acquire as accurate an understanding of the world as possible (given the evidence currently at one’s disposal at any particular moment) is to only accept claims for which there is (currently) sufficient evidence and to not accept claims for which there is (currently) insufficient evidence, always being ready to refine one’s understanding of claims as new evidence becomes available.
If you want to call the two “notions” I listed in the above paragraph “axioms,” I would dispute that because both notions are demonstrable.
Ok, now the ball’s in your court: where – exactly and precisely -- do you think I’m just “choosing” to believe stuff, just ‘cause? Be very specific in your answer -- and preferably succinct, if you can be -- and you’ll get a specific and thoughtful reply.
As I said before, depending on exactly what you say, I may even agree partially or fully with you. It depends on what you exactly have in mind, which is the whole point of having a discussion in the first place.
-
It's a tautology.
You've already defined "exists" as being material, so you're basically saying, "the material is material, and stuff that is not material is not material."
profound
-
Los,
"Sufficient evidence": "Sufficient" is a subjective-opinion word. Anyone can claim that evidence is "sufficient" for them. Personally, I'm fine with that. I think that's all that ever really happens anyway.
What you're suggesting, though, is that there is some standard for "sufficient" by which such a personal judgement may be ultimately and finally determined to be correct or incorrect.
What is that standard?
Your unstated axiom lies at the beginning of the logic for creating that standard.
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"You've already defined "exists" as being material, so you're basically saying, "the material is material, and stuff that is not material is not material.""
I've never defined "exists" as being "material." The definition I gave of "exists" is "manifesting in a detectable way."
So, to give an obvious example, the ideas I have for my next short story aren't "material" in the sense that I can't wrap my knuckles on them, but these ideas obviously do manifest in a detectable way (even if they're only detectable by me until I write them down).
See? Avshalom Binyamin has provided us a great example of someone making conclusions based on his fantasies about my positions instead of bothering to read and comprehend my actual position and draw conclusions based on what I say.
-
@Los said
"See? Avshalom Binyamin has provided us a great example of someone making conclusions based on his fantasies about my positions instead of bothering to read and comprehend my actual position and draw conclusions based on what I say."
That's why I asked instead, which you also complained about.
Now, to my question:
@Legis said
"What is that standard?
Your unstated axiom lies at the beginning of the logic for creating that standard."
-
@Legis said
"Los,
"Sufficient evidence": "Sufficient" is a subjective-opinion word. Anyone can claim that evidence is "sufficient" for them. Personally, I'm fine with that. I think that's all that ever really happens anyway."
Obviously anyone can say that they find X, Y, or Z "sufficient" to support a claim (they "can" do this in the sense that it's physically possible for them to make such a statement).
However, there are indeed objective standards by which we evaluate whether evidence is sufficient or insufficient to support claims: these standards depend on the particular situation (on the exact claim, the specific evidence, and how the person making the claim is attempting to connect the evidence to the claim). For that reason, we can't sum these standards up into little pithy sayings that you can stick on your fridge, but we can -- for each and every instance of claims, evidence, and argument -- draw objective conclusions about whether arguments and evidence are sufficient to support the claims.
These answers aren’t always easy, so people may disagree – in the same way that people may “disagree” over the answer to a calculus problem that each one of them got different answers for.
If we all did a calculus problem, and we each got a different answer, obviously each one of us would be able to “show our work,” and could say, “But I did the work right here, and my work convinced me!!” but only one of us would be able to show the work properly proceeding through the steps necessary to solve the problem.
It would be no use to object, “But “properly proceeding” is subjective! There’s no way to know who’s right!” because there is a way to know who’s right.
Take a simple case as illustrative. Let’s say you have a friend who can’t find his keys, and he tells you, “I think it’s most likely that aliens took my keys.” You ask why he thinks this. He says, “I had a daydream about aliens yesterday, and I think that was really a transmission from the mother ship to my mind, telling me that I’m being watched.”
Obviously, this guy is convinced by that argument. He’s “showed his work” and he finds it sufficient to support his claim. But is it actually sufficient? Of course not. A daydream can’t be evidence for what happened to one’s keys. Even if it were true that the daydream were a communication – and there’s no reason to think that it is – there still would be no valid way to conclude that whoever sent the communication also took the keys.
This guy is objectively wrong in thinking that he has sufficient evidence to support that claim, just like the kid in class who has the wrong answer is objectively wrong that his work sufficiently demonstrates the answer he volunteered. It doesn’t matter that the kid can “show his work” and it doesn’t matter that the guy can provide an argument that he thinks is sufficient…they’re both demonstrably wrong.
-
@Los said
"
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"You've already defined "exists" as being material, so you're basically saying, "the material is material, and stuff that is not material is not material.""I've never defined "exists" as being "material." The definition I gave of "exists" is "manifesting in a detectable way."
So, to give an obvious example, the ideas I have for my next short story aren't "material" in the sense that I can't wrap my knuckles on them, but these ideas obviously do manifest in a detectable way (even if they're only detectable by me until I write them down)."
So, something you imagine, exists, because you can detect it?