Concerning what sucks today, its nature and possible outcome
-
The ideas being dribbled out onto this thread are, of course, puerile in the extreme and hardly worth the time to critique. But here's a fragment of a post that can actually serve as a springboard to a much more interesting idea:
@Gnosomai Emauton said
"The world has always been awful. Life is a terrible horrible thing. From the genocides in Africa to the horrors of the dinosaurs, asteroid impacts, inquisitions, plagues, book-burnings, colony extinctions, world wars, typhoons and terrorist attacks, from viral infections to the 24/7 air time of the Kardashians, "All is Sorrow".
If you choose to look at it that way.
I choose to take the view of the Hindu-Buddhist-Gnostic-Mystical tradition that everything that we experience as "reality" is just a big game of Unity experiencing itself. Unity got bored with itself and fractured itself into multiplicity in order to experience duality. Duality isn't "nice". Duality is conflict. Every bit of experience, every bit of Maya, every bit of universe is part of that game. How we as individual points of consciousness (facets of that original Unity) choose to experience and interact with the rest of Universe defines our particular role in the game. It's a matter of perception."
When it's framed like this, we can read all of this "mysticism" stuff as a narrative designed to help the individual avoid having to confront unpleasant realities. If children starving in Africa makes you uncomfortable, never fear -- turns out the whole thing is just some kind of cosmic game. Oh, that crazy ol' "Unity," up to its old tricks as usual....Starving children! What a show! I wonder what wacky idea it'll roll out with next....
And best of all, this sort of narrative makes the individual the star -- as in "star of the show." All of this illusion...why, it's all for me of course. "Reality" is just a moving picture show in which my higher self is choosing to reveal its nature through the "illusion" of duality. All we have to do, apparently, is "choose" to think of it that way. How convenient, eh?
From this perspective, it's not hard to see why this sort of egotistical -- we should really say "egomaniacal" -- narrative appealed to the ever self-aggrandizing Aleister Crowley. It's also no surprise that Crowley lived during the tail end of the British empire because this kind of narrative is a sort of hyper-imperialism: it sets out to conquer the entire universe and make it mine.
It's the sort of philosophy that appeals to privileged first-worlders who have way too much time on their hands and a vested interest in pretending that suffering around the globe is some sort of illusory side show, a b-story in the cosmic me-me-me program.
It's downright creepy, actually. The only thing that might be creepier is the narrative that there's something wrong with suffering and that the "right thing" to do is to work to end it. This is, of course, just as much an illusion as pretending that the world is a picture-show for your entertainment or pretending that people you don't like are "demons" or "shells."
-
@Los said
"The ideas being dribbled out onto this thread are, of course, puerile in the extreme and hardly worth the time to critique."
But, then again, what would a Friday night be without Los coming in and pissing all over the free exchange of ideas? So let's see what he's got...
@Los said
"When it's framed like this, we can read all of this "mysticism" stuff as a narrative designed to help the individual avoid having to confront unpleasant realities. If children starving in Africa makes you uncomfortable, never fear -- turns out the whole thing is just some kind of cosmic game. Oh, that crazy ol' "Unity," up to its old tricks as usual....Starving children! What a show! I wonder what wacky idea it'll roll out with next...."
You can if you choose to. I don't
@Los said
"And best of all, this sort of narrative makes the individual the star -- as in "star of the show." All of this illusion...why, it's all for me of course. "Reality" is just a moving picture show in which my higher self is choosing to reveal its nature through the "illusion" of duality. All we have to do, apparently, is "choose" to think of it that way. How convenient, eh?"
I do think of myself as the star of my own story. Seems to me that anybody who doesn't isn't actually engaging with life. That doesn't mean I think of myself as the star of "The Story". That would imply that I think there is "a writer" and "a director" controlling all of the performances. I don't. Game theory, not mimesis.
@Los said
"From this perspective, it's not hard to see why this sort of egotistical -- we should really say "egomaniacal" -- narrative appealed to the ever self-aggrandizing Aleister Crowley. It's also no surprise that Crowley lived during the tail end of the British empire because this kind of narrative is a sort of hyper-imperialism: it sets out to conquer the entire universe and make it mine."
If you say so. I never met the guy. From what I've read of his writing, he wasn't too centrally focused on the Empire or his role as a Britisher. A decent amount of his poetry, in fact, downright excoriates the British character. To my eyes, his affinities tended eastwards. His near deification of Vivekenanda and his adoration of the Tao Te Ching and life-long obsession with the I Ching are enough for me but, if you want to define the guy by the generalized national character of the country of his birth, that's your prerogative.
@Los said
"It's the sort of philosophy that appeals to privileged first-worlders who have way too much time on their hands and a vested interest in pretending that suffering around the globe is some sort of illusory side show, a b-story in the cosmic me-me-me program."
Perhaps... but that's a critique that could be lobbed at the entirety of philosophy. From Prince Siddhartha to the Athenians to the medieval monks to the rationalists to the anarchists to the thinkers of today to the woman who became Mother Theresa, all have been first-worlders of their epoch. If you're going to start tossing around ad hominems based on the genetic lottery, you're going to be busy for awhile.
@Los said
"It's downright creepy, actually. The only thing that might be creepier is the narrative that there's something wrong with suffering and that the "right thing" to do is to work to end it. This is, of course, just as much an illusion as pretending that the world is a picture-show for your entertainment or pretending that people you don't like are "demons" or "shells.""
Where did this idea of picture show entertainment come from? I certainly didn't bring it up.
-
@Los said
"The ideas being dribbled out onto this thread are, of course, puerile in the extreme and hardly worth the time to critique."
So say britney spears fans when jazzmen mention they dont like britney spears and that it hurts their ears whenever they have to listen to it going to the supermarket.
I know its hard to believe jazz is music for the deaf. So it is to believe britney is for the non deaf.
Where you're right is it's a los of time mentioning it. One may better use this time playing jazz instead.
-
@Los said
"
From this perspective, it's not hard to see why this sort of egotistical -- we should really say "egomaniacal" -- narrative appealed to the ever self-aggrandizing Aleister Crowley. It's also no surprise that Crowley lived during the tail end of the British empire because this kind of narrative is a sort of hyper-imperialism: it sets out to conquer the entire universe and make it mine.
"Here LOS again demonstrates his ignorance of the man known as Aleister Crowley and his opinions. I quote Aleister Crowley directly:
"Why are we told that the Khabs is in the Khu, not the Khu in the Khabs? Did we then suppose the converse? I think that we are warned against the idea of the pleroma, a flame of which we are Sparks, and to which we return when we 'attain.' That would indeed be to make the whole curse of separate existence ridiculous, a senseless and inexcusable folly. It would throw us back on the dilemma of Manichaeism. The idea of incarnations 'perfecting' a thing originally perfect by definition is imbecile."
So... this idea of an infinite number of incarnations coming out of one (as opposed to an infinite number of incarnations coming out of themselves) was considered imbecile to Crowley... that is, it did not "appeal" to Crowley as Los claims. Nor does it appeal to me.
-
@Gnosomai Emauton said
"From what I've read of [Crowley's] writing, he wasn't too centrally focused on the Empire or his role as a Britisher. A decent amount of his poetry, in fact, downright excoriates the British character. To my eyes, his affinities tended eastwards. His near deification of Vivekenanda and his adoration of the Tao Te Ching and life-long obsession with the I Ching are enough for me but, if you want to define the guy by the generalized national character of the country of his birth, that's your prerogative."
I wasn't "defin* the guy by the generalized national character of the country of his birth." I was pointing out that he lived at a time when the British controlled a great deal of the world. It would have been taken for granted by someone who lived in that time and place that the British "owned" a lot of the world and are entitled to own it, so it's not all that surprising that he embraced a narrative that can be considered a kind of abstract imperialism (i.e. the idea that the whole universe is really just a dualistic representation of my self).
It's also unsurprising that Crowley would feel justified in freely appropriating the beliefs of other cultures, as you point out. He picked and chose from among world beliefs, much as the British would bring back artifacts and curiosities from the colonies.
His distaste for the puritanical attitudes of the British is well-known, but so is his support of his country politically along with his casual racism directed at people with darker skin. I'm not trying to say that any of that is "bad," but I'm pointing out that Crowley was influenced by the society in which he lived, and it's not exactly shocking that he espoused some of these ideas because they fit so neatly with the dominant narrative of his age.
"If you're going to start tossing around ad hominems"
Nothing I've said is an ad hominem. An ad hominem is a kind of argument where you attack the person instead of the argument and then pretend like you've attacked the argument. I haven't done that. In the first place, I'm not attacking people. I'm just explaining why people might be compelled to hold these beliefs.
And in the second place, I'm not attacking the arguments. Other than pointing out how these silly beliefs have no justification, it's too obvious a point to want to waste much time on it.
-
@Frater Horus said
"So say britney spears fans when jazzmen mention they dont like britney spears and that it hurts their ears whenever they have to listen to it going to the supermarket."
Oh man, awful analogies! I've missed these forums -- it's like a museum of bad arguments and fallacies.
-
@Takamba said
"So... this idea of an infinite number of incarnations coming out of one (as opposed to an infinite number of incarnations coming out of themselves) was considered imbecile to Crowley... that is, it did not "appeal" to Crowley as Los claims."
I didn't mention incarnations. I'm talking about the narrative that the universe is a dualistic presentation of my true nature to myself, for the purpose of learning about my true nature. Or the narrative that Unity has split itself up into a lot of individual things to enjoy experience. Ideas that can be found everywhere in Crowley's writings.
-
@Los said
"
@Frater Horus said
"So say britney spears fans when jazzmen mention they dont like britney spears and that it hurts their ears whenever they have to listen to it going to the supermarket."Oh man, awful analogies! I've missed these forums -- it's like a museum of bad arguments and fallacies."
And what does make it awful? Just because you say so...?
Also, if it's such a "museum" , why do you "miss" it that much? You could go where you can learn something instead...? Or maybe you're so advanced you havent found a place where you can learn something, so you just "teach"everywhere you go, and as you're such a great humanist, the more there is a "need" the more you enjoy?! Thanks if thats the case !
And could you advise places wich are less "such museums" or even maybe a place where you actually learn things too(it might be super secret and elite)? A place with advanced people like you, you know? I'd like to see what such places look like(if i'm allowed) ! I promise i'd be humble and aknowledge my newbiness in such a place
-
@Takamba said
"
So... this idea of an infinite number of incarnations coming out of one (as opposed to an infinite number of incarnations coming out of themselves) was considered imbecile to Crowley... that is, it did not "appeal" to Crowley as Los claims. Nor does it appeal to me."Could you elaborate on this a bit? It seems to me that all of these "themselves" must have originated, not from some perfect "one" but from an original 0=2 expansion. Is this closer to what appeals to you or are you aiming elsewhere?
-
@Frater Horus said
"And what does make it awful? Just because you say so...?"
No. It's awful because it's poorly constructed, it mischaracterizes the point I'm making, and it begs the question.
Here, I'll now proceed to show you how this is. I know that supporting claims is something not often seen on these forums, so get your pencils out, everyone.
Here's your terrible analogy:
"So say britney spears fans when jazzmen mention they dont like britney spears and that it hurts their ears whenever they have to listen to it going to the supermarket.
I know its hard to believe jazz is music for the deaf. "
Like all analogies, it's attempting to compare two different things: an image and an idea it tries to convey through that image ("Metaphor" comes from roots that literally mean "to carry across" -- you're trying to carry the idea to someone else by comparing the idea to an image)
The image of the analogy is simple. Jazz fans say they don't like Britney Spears music because it hurts their ears, and Britney Spears fans hear the jazz fans say that and react badly. Also, deaf people can't hear jazz, so they find it hard to believe that jazz is music.
The thing to which you're attempting to compare this image is the present conversation, in which I am analogous to the Britney fans, in which I suppose you and your buddies are analogous to "Jazzmen", and in which my reasonable objections to your nonsense are the objections of the Britney fans.
So first, it's poorly constructed because the image isn't internally consistent. You switch between the image of someone with bad taste in music (Britney fans) to the image of someone literally incapable of hearing music at all (deaf people). As a result, you're also inconsistent about the reason for the Britney fans' complaints: You first suggest that they complain because the jazz fans are saying that Britney's music is bad, and you then suggest that they complain because they can't even hear the jazz music (but they apparently can hear Britney's music?). It's all mixed up.
That point alone makes it an awful analogy.
But second, you've entirely mischaracterized my post. I'm posting neither because I'm upset that you don't like some position of mine (which would correspond to Britney fans complaining because the jazz fans don't like her music) nor because I'm incapable of comprehending your opinion (the deaf not being able to hear jazz). I understand the point of view you're trying to communicate: I just think it's puerile for the reason I already stated -- that there's no good reason to think your ideas are correct. Feel free to demonstrate that I'm wrong by showing us all what leads you to think you're right.
And third, it begs the question. "Begging the question" is when you start an argument by assuming the very thing you intend to prove. By comparing your own position to jazz music that the deaf cannot hear, you're implicitly stating that your position is correct and that anybody who thinks it's wrong is just incapable of seeing how right you are. You're saying, in essence, "I'm right because I'm right."
As long as you start with the assumption that you're right and never question that assumption, you can always find some way to twist the facts to convince yourself that you're right. Wisdom can only begin by questioning your own assumptions.
It's Los, b!tch.
-
@Los said
"I understand the point of view you're trying to communicate: I just think it's puerile for the reason I already stated -- that there's no good reason to think your ideas are correct. "
@Los said
" As long as you start with the assumption that you're right and never question that assumption, you can always find some way to twist the facts to convince yourself that you're right. Wisdom can only begin by questioning your own assumptions."
Every now and then he manages some actual insight in spite of himself.
-
@Gnosomai Emauton said
"
Could you elaborate on this a bit? It seems to me that all of these "themselves" must have originated, not from some perfect "one" but from an original 0=2 expansion. Is this closer to what appeals to you or are you aiming elsewhere?"That depends on what you mean by a 0=2 expansion. I'm going to assume that I get the same idea you get and so say "yes, that's closer to what appeals to me." To elaborate on that, I had an entertaining and enlightened moment when reading Stephen Hawkings's "A Brief History of Time" where he states (and I must paraphrase as I don't have the quote handy) that "the big bang didn't actually happen from a central point outward, but simultaneously everywhere." That formed my mental image of a "0=2 expansion." Simultaneously everywhere. The zero equals two expansion is not a central point outward, but a positive something meeting with a negative something, simultaneously, everywhere.
-
Yep... That pretty much gets us on the same path. It's been way too long since I've read that book. I should take it down off the shelf one of these days.
Thx.
-
I took a class on Buddhism this past semester and one distinction we went over was whether everyone has a Buddha nature, whether some people are so "rooted" that they don't have a Buddha nature, or whether it's irrelevant whether or not those people have a Buddha nature if they can't manifest it.
My mind tends to think along the first and third lines, though obviously I can't know for sure and the answer is ultimately irrelevant because of that. But it's something to think about. You do what you can for people that you can help and leave that which can't be helped.
It sounds like you might just be frustrated though, and I feel you on that. Hopefully everything will work out for you.
-
I go around telling people how I really feel, what I truely think. I am also upfront that tbis is merely my perspective and a difference between mine and yours does not mean we can not be friends.
Yes, I have been yelled at as a result. Missunderstood and even hated. I have hurt people and been hurt.
Yet, over time there have come to be those who accept me and the ideosyncrices that make me an individual being. I might even be so bold as to say there are those whom love me.
I may be wrong, but something that I feel is true in my heart is that if I remain silent and do not express my self people will never have the chance. My self included.