The Holy Guardian Angel and Disillusion
-
@landis said
"Look at James' conclusion in his Pragmatism's Conception of Truth:
"It is quite evident that our obligation to acknowledge truth, so far from being unconditional, is tremendously conditioned. Truth with a big T, and in the singular, claims abstractly to be recognized, of course; but concrete truths in the plural need be recognized only when their recognition is expedient. A truth must always be preferred to a falsehood when both relate to the situation; but when neither does, truth is as little of a duty as falsehood.... With this admission that there are conditions that limit the application of the abstract imperative, the pragmatist treatment of truth sweeps back upon us in its fulness. Our duty to agree with reality is seen to be grounded in a perfect jungle of concrete expediencies. (my bold)"
Now, compare this to what has been said about "truth" in this thread.
@Frater 639 said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"I agree - try not to make mistakes. But then accept whatever you stumble into. It's what the Angel put there. It's just life."I agree with this. Knowledge and Conversation is the Truth that "stumbling into" a circumstance/phenomenon is no longer arbitrary, it is the Path. And the Truth of the Path is the Truth of Self.
It necessarily includes Reason, but more as a controlled analytic/perspective, and definitely not as a sole impetus/determinant.
@Little Essays Towards Truth said
"Truth is our Path, and Truth is our Goal; ay! there shall came to all a moment of great Light when the Path is seen to be itself the Goal; and in that hour every one of us shall exclaim:
"I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life!""
"Here we have a relating of James’ capital T "truths" to such lofty notions as Reason, The Path, The Self, and by implication, The Will. But this is justifiable neither by James’ pragmatism nor by Crowley's philosophies. If we put Frater 639's quote in greater context, we will see why.
"What is Truth? It is absurd to attempt to define it, for when we say that S is P, rather than S is Q or S is R, we assume that we already know the meaning of Truth. This is really why all the discussions as to whether Truth depends on external correspondence, internal coherence, or what not, neither produce conviction, nor withstand analysis. Briefly, Truth is an idea of a supra-rational order, pertaining to Neschamah, not to Ruach. That all rational conceptions imply that we know Truth, and that Truth is in their propositions, only shows that these so-called rational ideas are not really rational at all. Truth is by no means the only idea that resists rational analysis. There are very many ideas that remain indefinable: all simple ideas do so. At the back of all our efforts is the dead wall that we must already know what we are pretending to find our....
Do we not all assume a perfectly illogical conception of Truth as an entity of "the supra-mundane order, whence a whirling flame and flying Light subsist?" Do we not instinctively assimilate these ideas of Truth and Light, though there is no rational nexus? Is it not clear, then, that we do understand each other perfectly, so far as we can understand each other at all, in a sphere such as Zoroaster calls "Intelligible," which "subsisteth beyond Mind' but which we should "seek to grasp with the Flower of Mind"...? (Little Essays Towards Truth; my bolds)
"
"Hmm. Well, first off - William James uses the capital "T" in a different way than Crowley does - I doubt James knew what Neschamah was or of its principles. I have to disagree that the way I use it is not reconcilable to Crowley's philosophies, but that would take an essay...and that isn't the topic of the thread...
Also, I wasn't even referring to Truth in my quote directly, I was referring to the K&C of the HGA necessarily involving Reason (Tiphareth is the center/balance of the Ruach) - which I think was the point you had issue with - I think you may have misunderstood me. I'll try to be more clear:
If we discuss Truth, as "supra-rational" as any mystic-monger claims It is, they are still involving reason by analyzing it the first place. However, to get close, I will say that my definition of Truth encompasses the All-in-All. This includes Reason AND reason. It includes all sorts of stuff - actually it includes more than everything I can conceive of at this present time - it the Harmonizing of the All-in-All as it Truly Is. All this "means" nothing in the realm of reason. "Meaning" is a tool to be wielded and not an uncontrollable dictator in one's mind (unless they are a slave to emotional thoughtforms). Sure, that's a tautology in the realm of reason, which is why it defies it.
Maybe another way of looking at it? FOr me, the capital "T" refers to the fact that it has reconciled what were once perceived of as "separated" opposites. I don't think that would mean anything to James. But, it would mean something to Crowley or perhaps others...
We use "reason" to get to Reason as skeptics. Truth rules over all of these since it is merely the Self Knowing Itself. I wouldn't even waste the time trying to explain what this should mean to you - everyone is different and their experiences are different. Every Star needs to learn what Truth is to them.
I will say that my perspective is not exactly the same as James' or Crowley's - nor would I ever take their definitions of Truth to be the Absolute Perspective. I am my own God and you are yours and the fun is figuring out why We are Truth - while learning how to use perspectives for benefit, according to our good pleasure!
You've already posted that everything has no real meaning anyway, so reason falls flat. That is a great point. Regardless of how many people we quote, we are no closer to an explanation of Truth (for ourselves or others) by using words. It is more experience based, wouldn't you agree?
@landis said
"Frater 639 continues, quoting the comment on Liber V then extends his analysis of "truth" to involve "True Will" but stops short, leaving us with an inadequate impression:
@Frater 639 said
"The Reason becomes perfectly balanced with the Cone.
(my bold below)
@Liber V commen said
"...for the True Will has no goal; its nature being To Go. Similarly, a parabola is bound by one law which fixes its relations with two straight lines at every point; yet it has no end short of infinity, and it continually changes its direction. The Initiate who is aware Who he is, can always check his conduct by reference to the determinants of his curve, and calculate his past, his future, his bearings, and his proper course at any assigned moment; he can even comprehend himself as a simple idea. He may attain to measure fellow-parabolas, ellipses that cross his path, hyperbolas that span all space with their twin wings. Perhaps he may come at long last, leaping beyond the limits of his own law, to conceive that sublimely stupendous outrage to Reason, the Cone! Utterly inscrutable to him, he is yet well aware that he exists in the nature thereof, that he is necessary thereto, that he is ordered thereby, and that therefrom he is sprung, from the loins of so fearful a Father! His own infinity becomes zero in relation to that of the least fragment of the solid. He hardly exists at all. Trillions multiplies by trillions of trillions of such as he could not cross the frontier even of breadth, the idea which he came to guess at only because he felt himself bound by some mysterious power. Yet breadth is equally a nothing in the presence of the Cone. His first conception must evidently be a frantic spasm, formless, insane, not to be classed as an articulate thought. Yet, if he develops the faculties of his mind, the more he knows of it the more he sees that its nature is identical with his own whenever comparison is possible."
"
"The following portion that you posted augmented my original point. I tried to be as clear as possible...I apologize if it left you with an inadequate impression. You didn't really mention why you felt it was inadequate to open it up for possible discussion, but maybe we can save that for a different thread.
You have a lot to say in your post. MANY different topics. Why record-keeping isn't that useful to the Aspirant, why you feel the term HGA is insufficient, why you feel Systems of Attainment are not important, etc. You should post them separately - I think it would be fun to examine these points. I suggest this so the thread doesn't get locked for being OT...
Hope you are doing well, my friend! Drop me an email again sometime!
-
@Gnosomai Emauton said
"Really great post 639."
Wow.
So, I’ve pointed out before that I don’t bother any more with reading anything written by the “639” guy – ever since he demonstrated himself to be incapable of holding a conversation – but after two votes of confidence, I decided to skim his post and see what the fuss was about. Yikes.
As expected, the post conflates statements of fact (“It’s beneficial to avoid making mistakes and to correct mistakes”) with statements of morals (“Everyone ought to worship Christ and hate teh gayz”). Stunningly, the implied (loopy) conclusion is that each statement is just as much some kind of arbitrary belief.
Why does the post draw that ridiculous conclusion? Because it’s possible to phrase the two statements in a similar way (“It’s better to do X!”), and that somehow makes the ideas similar. I’m not sure if it’s worse than Eshelman’s argument that matter and consciousness are identical because we can phrase (very different) claims about them in similar ways.
For the record, that avoiding mistakes is beneficial is a simple statement of fact when speaking in the (very obviously implied) context of doing stuff (and more specifically, given the ostensible subject matter of this forum, performing one’s True Will).
If one were to build a desk, it’s beneficial (in the context of building the desk) to not make mistakes in following the steps to build it and to detect and correct any mistakes along the way. If I said to a would-be desk-builder, “Hey, it’s a smart idea to avoid making mistakes when building that desk,” it would be fairly obvious that I’m not affirming some kind of “ultimate goodness” behind the idea of not making mistakes…I’m just affirming the usefulness of avoiding mistakes in the context of doing something. In the same way, it’s always beneficial in the context of doing one’s True Will to not make mistakes along the way, such mistakes including thinking that “god” exists and wants you to “hate teh gay.”
It’s an entirely different claim to say that the world would be a “better place” if people did such-and-such.
The fact that these very different claims can be phrased in similar ways in no way suggests that the ideas are similar.
What we see here – as is quite usual on these forums – is incredibly sloppy thinking that gets applauded as some kind of fantastic insight. I have a strong suspicion that such instances are so common on these forums because many of the regulars have little experience of this subject outside of the contents of their fevered imaginations. Hence, they only have words to go on, and similarities between words therefore become treated as confirmation of the similarity of ideas.
My observation is not intended as a personal attack, nor is it directed at anyone in particular. I am making an observation about this forum, the (low) quality of discourse here, and the resistance of its denizens to refine their thinking.
-
@Los said
"For the record, that avoiding mistakes is beneficial is a simple statement of fact when speaking in the (very obviously implied) context of doing stuff (and more specifically, given the ostensible subject matter of this forum, performing one’s True Will).
If one were to build a desk, it’s beneficial (in the context of building the desk) to not make mistakes in following the steps to build it and to detect and correct any mistakes along the way. If I said to a would-be desk-builder, “Hey, it’s a smart idea to avoid making mistakes when building that desk,” it would be fairly obvious that I’m not affirming some kind of “ultimate goodness” behind the idea of not making mistakes…I’m just affirming the usefulness of avoiding mistakes in the context of doing something."
Perhaps at a very mundane day-to-day level. But once again you seem to be taking the narrowest, most utilitarian, least creative view of how to project oneself into the future. Give a guy an Ikea desk kit and suggest that he "try not to make any mistakes" and all you can hope to expect out of life is another cookie-cutter Ikea desk, just like the thousands that went before.
But if you were to hand that same kit to a Picasso, would you honestly suggest to him that he should ignore the genius of his Angel (or whatever de-romanticized descriptor you'd prefer to call it) and "try not to make any mistakes, Pablo"? Is that really want you want, Los? A world of drones who are able to follow instructions without screwing up?
I anticipate an answer along the lines that a Picasso constructed Ikea desk, with two legs pointed upwards and a canted drawer sticking out the side, would indeed not be an ideal surface on which to work and so it would be a failure as a desk. However, for a particular type of mind, the inspiration caused by the broken planes and mixed metaphors would be precisely what it would need to get work done. I am envisioning my good friend, a hand balancer, who would have much greater success working on a Picasso desk than a cookie cutter utilitarian box. Depending on how one defines "useful", both of these analyses are equally true.
This is the fundamental misunderstanding, illusion if you will, about how creative genius (the HGA) manifests in the world.
Even if we take it down an octave and give the desk kit back to some ordinary Joe Schmoe, it is exactly the experience of accidentally breaking one of those little wooden pin thingies that hold every piece of cookie-cutter Ikea together (a mistake, no doubt about it) that would lead to actual development on the part of the Magician. He'd have to start thinking creatively about how to fix his mistake. Do we have something in the house that could reliably stand in for the wooden pin? Could I figure out how to whittle one? Would a couple of nails jammed in there do the trick? Perhaps that extra shelf really isn't necessary after all? If I remove it, I'll have more leg room and I can use the extra pieces to construct a plant holder for the top of the desk. I really like plants. They help to calm my mind and allow me to work better. Turns out, this might've been a really good mistake to make. My desk will be a reflection of me rather than just of some guy from Sweden.
Humans don't advance by doing things right. Humans advance by f&#king up royally. It's only after the Tower has come crashing down and the dust has cleared that we realize it wasn't a mistake after all but a necessary change to the stagnating status quo. Those great women and men that we lionize throughout the annals of history? In their own day and age they were all considered royal f*&kups by the rest of their society, oftentimes dangerously so.
This process reflects through us all, whether we are one of the "greats" or just one of the "goods". Doing things "right", trying not to make mistakes? All that gets us is a life that aligns with the story that's already been written. If we want to become truly actualized individuals (True-ly, even), it is necessary for us to risk the pitfalls of illusion, chance to make mistakes along the way, force ourselves into positions where we don't know which choice is the "right one" and which is the "mistake" and write our own story in the process.
@Los said
"My observation is not intended as a personal attack, nor is it directed at anyone in particular. I am making an observation about this forum, the (low) quality of discourse here, and the resistance of its denizens to refine their thinking."
This forum does not write posts of its own digital free will. Individual people with individual thought processes write these posts and, on the whole, interact with each other as individuals. This diminution of HeruRaHa.net that you are practicing once again is, in fact, exactly a personal attack on each and every one of us. If you have a critique of an argument, make it. Your reliance on dehumanizing tactics and forum-wide generalization grows tiresome. At its core, its just plain lazy.
-
Might there be a point when recognizing patterns of one's mistakes becomes embedded in the intuition and one does not even recognize them as patterns of mistakes anymore? Just the free will going?
-
@Los said
"So, I’ve pointed out before that I don’t bother any more with reading anything written by the “639” guy – ever since he demonstrated himself to be incapable of holding a conversation – but after two votes of confidence, I decided to skim his post and see what the fuss was about. Yikes.As expected, the post conflates statements of fact (“It’s beneficial to avoid making mistakes and to correct mistakes”) with statements of morals (“Everyone ought to worship Christ and hate teh gayz”). Stunningly, the implied (loopy) conclusion is that each statement is just as much some kind of arbitrary belief. "
I can hold a conversation, as I've demonstrated numerous times. I can avoid all of the ad hominem attacks and ad absurdum ones, too - the same kind you always choose over actually sticking to a discussion. All fireworks and no substance.
This behavior is sort of like a toddler that can't do something with the big boys, so he stamps his feet and points fingers. But the rich toddler's mom can't bail them out of every time they can't match up to others - so, when they get older, these types of people may eventually kick up their feet, masturbate again, and think about how women will never like them because they are just too smart for women. All this while pretending to understand Blake. They may adopt homosexual attitudes due to the coddling of their mother and then defend their moral stances to the point where they begin name calling all over again.
The above was not a personal attack. It was merely discussing how certain behaviors may lead to certain lifestyles - all with a little literary flare.
Yes, you and Phelps both have arbitrary moral beliefs. Read the definition before responding. You think certain things are wrong and others are right. You have yet to demonstrate how your behavior and beliefs are more correct than Phelps. I will repeat my questions, and I will also answer the ones that are posed to me, as is customary in a discussion.
Anymore ad hominem attacks, and I will respond with the same energy - so stop acting silly.
Both opinions from people what believe "things would be better" if only people believed like them. This is a value argument aka a moral argument.
I'll repeat the questions if you are actually interested in a conversation or discussion. Which is the point of the forum:
What exactly is a mistake? An act that doesn't benefit society? Or perhaps, one that doesn't agree with your worldview?
Are we, as individuals, responsible for other people's well-being? Wouldn't this be considered a moral principle?
-
@Los said
"
If one were to build a desk, it’s beneficial (in the context of building the desk) to not make mistakes in following the steps to build it and to detect and correct any mistakes along the way. If I said to a would-be desk-builder, “Hey, it’s a smart idea to avoid making mistakes when building that desk,” it would be fairly obvious that I’m not affirming some kind of “ultimate goodness” behind the idea of not making mistakes…I’m just affirming the usefulness of avoiding mistakes in the context of doing something. In the same way, it’s always beneficial in the context of doing one’s True Will to not make mistakes along the way, such mistakes including thinking that “god” exists and wants you to “hate teh gay.” "Circular reasoning.
If my goal is to build a desk correctly without making mistakes, then building the desk correctly without making mistakes is the best way to reach that goal.
If you define success in doing one's True Will as minimizing mistakes, then doing one's True Will with minimal mistakes is the most successful way to do one's True Will.
Those are both logically consistent, completely correct statements. But they're not really valid criticisms of approaches that don't posit "Doing X 'correctly'" or "avoiding mistakes" as a goal. It's not really relevant to anyone who defines success in doing their True Will as inclusive of making plenty of mistakes.
-
@ThelemicMage said
"Might there be a point when recognizing patterns of one's mistakes becomes embedded in the intuition and one does not even recognize them as patterns of mistakes anymore? Just the free will going?"
These are excellent questions. I think you have a valid assumption about the intuition - one that I think has merit, especially when it comes to how the psychology works...
I can say that responding to phenomena with energized enthusiasm will reinforce behaviors. There is no doubt. Same goes with thoughts. This is very demonstratable using the method of science - and the evidence regarding this is readily accepted by the majority of the medical community.
It stands to reason that if one enjoys the flow of life - without good/bad quality judgments - "mistakes" no longer are considered as such. Events and perspectives are merely considered to be many of the myriad ways we can view phenomenon - we, as observers, assign the arbitrary quality of the phenomenon being more correct than any other phenomenon.
Therefore, one can train their brain to view life as beautiful and correct in all things - as if there was a "divine hand" leading them - or, maybe they even believe that the "divine hand" exists. Either way, it doesn't matter to anyone but that particular individual. The Adept can view an action as something that made their lives "better-off," even actions that someone without training may view as a "mistake."
Good/bad in relation to what is the question. Eventually (hopefully), one realizes that he/she is the creator of its "own relations" to the True Will and how he/she acts, feels, etc. to these relations. The training of the A.'.A.'. prepares one for that realization and the way to go about finding this Perfect Happiness and balance between inside/outside phenomena and their True Wills.
Yes, IMO it is the Will Going. And it is the Harmonization of the POV to that True Will.
Digression:
Ego qualities seem to deter us from wanting us to die. At the root, this is why so many egos need other people to see things* their* way. It is a substantiation of the ego's temporal existence, which mistakenly wants its idea of "self" to last forever, and it uses this substatiation to combat its fear of death. The ego, by itself, has no Understanding of the Grail. The Adept confronts this fear of death head-on and dies, and then is "resurrected into an eternal body of glory."
Is any action, person, perspective a "mistake?" Some egos are born to be ignorant and lazy. Some are born to grow into something more - its not really determinism: it is one part luck, one part nurture, one part nature, one part unknown, one part chaos, etc. The universe doesn't make mistakes, it simply evolves - whether through mutation, adaptation, etc. - and humans are a part of this system, along with their petty ideas of ethics, morals, etc., regardless of their delusions/realizations of grandeur.
Just an opinion...
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"But they're not really valid criticisms of approaches that don't posit "Doing X 'correctly'" or "avoiding mistakes" as a goal. It's not really relevant to anyone who defines success in doing their True Will as inclusive of making plenty of mistakes."
Awesome. Very well put.
-
Thanks! I enjoyed your post. Especially the line about the universe not making mistakes. It helped me realize that mistakes don't exist objectively--only subjectively. Pretty profound, and thanks for pointing it out.
-
I think I could manage mistakes better if I had boobs.
They would at least make me feel better.
But then I remember I couldn't attract many females if I had boobs, then I forget about it like a kid in school snapping out of a daydream into the "uggghh" of reality.
Frank
-
I must say run-ins with my Angel are much darker. With less montage-music.
Plus Frankie Avalon didn't have boobs in that clip.
Love is the Law,
Frankie -
@ThelemicMage said
"I must say run-ins with my Angel are much darker. With less montage-music.
Plus Frankie Avalon didn't have boobs in that clip.
Love is the Law,
Frankie"LOL
