College of Thelema: Thelemic Education

@augur @jfc418 I can see how A'ayin can relate to this subject. I assumed that A'ayin may not be the ordeal or path ideal for something like finding a new home since that may introduce an extra level of complexity by trying to sort through illusion. That being said, I suppose a lot of listings for apartments these days have been created by AI and that could definitely be seen as an illusion. And of course, like you pointed out, Saturn could be the most obvious symbol of Assiah. Haha, straight forward as a description certainly hides people's usual responses to Saturn. Both work depending on how creative someone wants to get, I suppose. I second the last statement. The Targeting Steps will do more work for you than may seem apparent upon first reading.

Also, side note: I highly recommend AI users to tell their AI to respond in E-Prime. E-Prime greatly improves the quality of its responses and cuts through the fluff that AI loves to present.

This is on eBay

@Hannah For sure! Research in developmental psychology indicates that children typically develop the ability to understand outside perspectives around the age of 10. Prior to this age, children tend to concentrate primarily on themselves as they are in the process of becoming familiar with their own bodies and developing self-awareness. Around age 10, children generally begin to grasp concepts of independence, moral reasoning, and social integration. I think about how there are so many opportunities to disrupt development before the age of 10. It is no wonder so few people seem prepared to enter the world, given that so much psycho-spiritual "dirt" can accumulate before we are even aware that we are in the thick of it all!

@Hannah & @Because0 It's not unlike LLMs. I'm no expert on AI, but it strings together combinations of words that seem statistically likely to produce the intended meaning. Meanwhile, AI does not have a sensory apparatus to interact with material existence. So when AI says water... what is it talking about? I mean, sure, we can infer that it is talking about that substance that chemists designate as H2O, but it cannot actually experience what we mean by that word, "water." I'm sure y'all have experienced the word salad of AI slop, so this might seem somewhat obvious haha but it's perhaps a more extreme tangent to what RAW is getting at. It's crazy to think about how much of the world operates (without even considering AI) on people who talk about things they have never experienced. I mean, I encounter so many people who talk with certainty about knowing things they admit to have never met face to face, yet they make all kinds of decisions as if they were trained in such encounters. It's a bit of a miracle anything gets done at all

Welcome Because0! I'm sure different practioners would classify their path in different ways within the umbrella of Thelema. ToT as an Order does tend towards an emphasis toward that which is "higher" and "inner" and in that sense shares some of the characteristics of what some may define as RHP. Thelemic practioners generally vary widely in how they would characterize themselves, but that is part of the essence of Thelema being highly individual in many senses.

Welcome Danielle!

@d.b.stone Haha I appreciate your flattery! I'd hardly measure my intellectual wanderings as sophisticated, nonetheless, I will not tell you that you're wrong As far as defining Magick goes, I generally point to Crowley's definition: "the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will". Volumes upon volumes have been written by others much smarter than me about what that might mean. For simplicity, I will specify that I am referring to a process of applying symbolic knowledge to subconscious patterning in order to align multiple levels of being. With these levels acting in alignment, there are more powers available to the individual to realize their goal. Given that Consciousness/Divinity/Source/Orgone/Astral Light (etc.) requires some type of symbol to interface and interact with the practitioner, Crowley's definition could be interpreted as the Art of manipulating Symbols to induce a change in Consciousness. Ideally, these changes in Consciousness have a greater purpose (perhaps attaining the Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel) that they are working towards. I must say it is quite impressive that you met Motta, as well as have written 10,000 pages on such a subject. Assuming that we are referring to the same idea when I say Magick and you say M, I must say that I am jealous of such an accomplishment. I have not been so lucky to find the time to write 10,000 pages. That being said, I must apologize. I'm not sure if I am the intended audience, simply because I am not of the level of Motta, and I do not have enough free time to give your work the attention it needs. Nonetheless, these sound like valuable ideas, and I am intrigued. You seem well read, and I appreciate that you've put so much thought into your ideas. As I'm sure you know, there's an abundance of half-baked on the internet and finding someone who is genuinely interested in discussing these subjects can be quite difficult. I think Crowley would agree that the goal of spiritually enlightened beings should be to liberate the rest of the species. Crowley pretty explicitly claims that the Law is for All. He's also written an essay called "Duty" that expresses Crowley's vision on how to realize a Thelemic society. One of my personal favorites is De Lege Libellum, in which Crowley describes the four core Thelemic values. In my opinion, if someone truly takes this paper to heart, then they are actively working for the greater good of the human race. For clarification, I'm not sure that I use Bennett-Crowley Qabalah either. I suppose that a more accurate description would be Crowley-Eshelman Qabalah. I primarily reference Jim Eshelman's writings (specifically 776 1/2) for Qabalistic information. I will admit that because Eshelman built off what Crowley wrote, perhaps Bennett (I assume Alan Bennett) is linked to this. However, Jim has done excellent work to clarify and strengthen 776 1/2's dialect of Qabalah. It is certainly not what Crowley was using in his day Even in the Qabalah, the primary doctrine is that of marrying the Daughter to the Son so that they can become the Queen and the King. The Daughter is often used as a term to describe the material world. Earlier Kabbalistic doctrine said that the Daughter was in exile, must be redeemed, and that the messiah will not come until that very Daughter is redeemed. This doctrine seems to imply that "saving the world" is the goal of it all, though we certainly can't do it on our own. Instead, I view the "messiah" as the world consciousness that will arise from a society in right relation with Nature and the Divine. Furthermore, Nuit states that it is our duty to conquer the Hierophantic task as that will heal the world (verses 50-53 of Chapter 1). Sounds like we're in pretty strong agreement with each other!

@jjones same!!

Thank you for your kind reception. All four books have free samples with over 100 pages of text, so you can get an idea of what they’re like without committing your money. If you go to lulu.com and click "Bookstore" at the top center, then searching for "D. B. Stone" will bring up all my books. They won't appear at first--you have to select "Show explicit content" on the lower left-hand side of the page showing the book listings after your search returns some books. Once the books show up, sorting by "Newest" at the top right-hand part of the page should bring up the free samples on top. I'd welcome your feedback, even if it's negative. Thank you! Best, D. B. Stone

In a previous forum post, I mentioned Alfred Korzybski and Semantic Reactions. Expanding on my earlier post seems to be the most fitting response to this chapter on my part. Alfred Korzybski founded the field of General Semantics. He is notable for a book, Science and Sanity published in 1933. Korzybski sought to expand our understanding of semantics beyond our internal mechanisms of meaning making and interpretation. He focused primarily on how we react to language and symbol in our environment, including our moment-to-moment interactions with other humans in conversation. One of Korzybski's key concepts was Semantic Reaction. Semantic Reactions are whole-organism responses to a symbol. Rather than the denotative definition, this is the feeling one develops in response to a symbol. Whereas connotative meanings tend to be cultural and sociological, Semantic Reactions are the individual's physiological responses to a symbol based on the individual's psychology. A great example of this is the word, "Socialism." Oxford Languages defines Socialism as, "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." That definition sounds pretty cool (assuming we're living in an ideal society), right? As many already know, when you use the word, "Socialism," around different people, there is a wide diversity of responses. Some people may say that Socialism is positive and that they aspire to live in a society where Socialism makes up the structure of that civilization. Others may say that Socialism is a dirty word and react as if they smelled something foul. A third group may not have any internal experience of the word, finding it to be nothing more than a string of letters. The range of feelings associated with the word are Semantic Reactions. Korzybski believed this occurs because information processing is not a neutral mechanism. Instead, our nervous system responds to symbols based on prior conditioning, memory, fear, desire, prejudice, anxieties, etc. This may not seem like a new idea now but considering how many people ignore the importance of word choice in our daily lives, it's not hard to believe how revolutionary this idea seemed in 1933. Korzybski argued that Semantic Reactions form when we confuse the symbol for the reality it is describing. In fact, Korzybski is the one who coined the phrase, "The map is not the territory," which RAW uses as a primary thesis of Quantum Psychology. When we use language, we create an abstraction out of some "referent," the actual object we are trying to refer to. Sometimes, people speak as if the reality of the referent is smaller than the abstraction or word used to refer to the referent. To go back to my earlier example, when some people use the word, "Socialism," they do not seem to be responding to the definition of the word. Instead, they respond to what they've been told about the word. Most people in the United States have not experienced a socialist government. Yet, those who respond to the word with disgust tend to be certain that Socialism is a bad word not even worthy of contemplation (much less education on its meaning), and those who respond with pleasure tend to be certain about that a socialist government's merits and values overshadow the fact that we do not live in an ideal society where people are 100% good. I would argue that the term, "Buzzword," refers to this idea of Semantic Reactions when the reactions are positive, pleasurable, and/or addictive. People use Buzzwords, or specialized terms, to assert authority and/or impress those around them. These words often become trendy and experience an increase in usage not because of what they mean, but rather because of the Semantic Reactions they elicit in others. People mimic others, spreading Buzzwords like Social Contagion, until their nervous system is attenuated to that Semantic Reaction. When attenuation occurs, the Semantic Reaction loses its novelty or thrill, much the same way a drug addict develops a tolerance. Then the Buzzword fades away as people no longer use that term. Semantic Reactions can be even more subtle. For example, when I catch someone in a "lie," my natural reaction is to label that person a liar. Liar is a negative category in my mind, and makes me feel very distrustful, sometimes even angry at the person labelled "liar." But suppose this person spoke in Good Faith, unaware that I labelled them a liar? Perhaps their information is simply skewed or ill-informed and they are unaware. Depending on how they presented their information to me, I might be in the wrong for projecting the label, "liar," onto them. The person may have spoken in a way that made me feel as if they were a liar. Since "Liar" is a bad word, my anger and distrust are a reaction to the meaning I've projected onto the word "Liar." If this is the case, then my reaction is maladaptive and unfounded. Being able to perform maintenance on our Semantic Reactions was one of Korzybski's calls to action. In future chapters of Quantum Psychology, RAW presents a formulation of the English language that, when internalized, provides a means of recognizing our Semantic Reactions. However, certain Buddhist exercises also seek to accomplish this as well. When one becomes aware of Semantic Reactions, communication becomes more miraculous. At a certain stage of my own path, I became acutely aware that people were not actually listening to the words I was saying. Instead, people were listening to the Semantic Reactions they formed from their own associations with words. I discovered that often, others and I were not actually communicating with each other. Instead, we were essentially responding to whatever words we liked and didn't like completely independent of the actual messages we were trying to communicate. This led me down a rabbit hole that made me wonder how much of my speech and others was truly understood, and how much of it was simply forced into the conditioned responses to the words myself and others were using. This will, of course, drive someone insane because we can never know the depth of such a phenomenon. I suspect that people with more knowledge and care about their words are perhaps more likely to understand me than those who believe words are unimportant. Considering there are people in positions of power that are unaware of these ideas, it's a bit of miracle that communication and social cohesion exist at the scale that they do. In response to the specific chapter we read, RAW seems to be emphasizing institutions like the FCC are policing what is considered acceptable language by forcing other people to agree with their Semantic Reactions. Given the nature of American culture, it is likely that these Semantic Reactions are particularly puritanical. The 7 Forbidden Words are a particularly useful example in showing how groups can enforce Semantic Reactions. With a large group to enforce Semantic Reactions, it is not hard to see why RAW believes many in our modern society operate and cogitate similarly to those from Medieval England. Semantic Reactions are perhaps one of the best explanations for what the occultist can mean when referring to “spirits,” as they are one of many unseen forces that affect individuals as well as groups.

@Hannah Fascinating! I had not heard of that term before. In response to your last question, there are languages that are built without Aristotelian logic. Without giving away too many spoilers, RAW presents a form of the English language that prevents Aristotelian logic in future chapters of the book. However, I am currently also listening to a seminar on Non Violent Communication where Marshall Rosenberg (the creator of the Non Violent Communication modality) mentions encountering a tribal people who do not use language to classify people, instead focusing on needs. He says that rather than calling people selfish, their custom would be to ask what needs aren't being met that are causing this person to act in a way we call selfish. This is similar to Non Aristotelian thinking in that it doesn't identify people as static categories. More abstractly, I think the Qabalah is a language that doesn't rely on Aristotelian thinking. People who try to make it rely on Aristotelian thinking (those folks who say each symbol only has one correct meaning at the expense of everything else that symbol means) don't seem to be 'doing' Qabalah correctly. For example, the Hebrew letters and words have multiple meanings and cannot be classified in a binary. In my opinion, at its essence, Non-Aristotelian thinking is a Non Rational process that seeks to perceive the gradation between opposites. This inherently requires one to unify a few opposites before they can see what is meant (i.e. that A and B also have C in between the two terms, etc.) and this means being allowed to sit with Uncertainty until the Cognitive Dissonance collapses and reveals their connection. However, once one grasps the process of unifying opposites, I would hope that it would get easier and easier to sit with the opposites. The ideas RAW presents in this book are not necessarily original. RAW has stated that he got most of the ideas from Alfred Korzybski, a linguist that eventually was deemed a pseudo-scientist. Korzybski believed that most people, when they believe they are communicating with each other, are actually reacting to Semantic Reactions. I don't intend to be crass, but you know how certain people get really, really upset when you use the word socialism or talk about social welfare? Well, the knee jerk response to the word, "Socialism," is precisely what Korzybski was referring to. The people who react that way are not actually offended by the word, "Socialism," and don't actually seem to know what that word really means. Instead, they are reacting to a meaning that has been associated with that word, triggering a maladaptive response. Korzybski said that the best thing we can do to overcome this is to only speak, "facts," which he has a technical definition for. The way we do that is very similar to what RAW presents in future chapters. RAW is the most accessible manual of Korzybski's linguistics that I have found. So I hope this gets you excited for the chapter of the book when we learn about "E-Prime"!

Welcome, Chris!

Easy. “Wrathful Yidam”

@zeph Hahaha I was hoping to dodge that question. I have been trying to type out specifically what I mean all morning and have been unable to adequately communicate it. I don't know that this is an entirely new idea, but I like the way this chapter combats some of the blockages in understanding the True Will. If the True Will is a distant object that we are aspiring to align with and grow closer to, Aristotelian, or binary logic appears as one of the earliest obstacles obscuring the nature of the True Will. I notice, between myself and others I have spoken to online or in person, the discussion of the True Will can easily become a question of individual certainty. The True Will inherently contains a large amount of uncertainty at the outset of the path, and the emphasis placed on the True Will (as well as the projected advantages of operating from True Will) might inspire an individual to make discovery a high stakes event. It is natural for an individual to want answers. Many, myself included, have attributed messianic and apocalyptic proportion to the discovery of the True Will. The perfectly innocent question, "What is my True Will?" suddenly becomes a demon of uncertainty that must be killed so that one can magically right their life and escape suffering forever in a lightning flash. However, this demon of uncertainty (and egoic grasping towards the True Will) is predicated upon this yes/no logic. In my own experience, every possible answer I came up with to answer that question, "What is my True Will?" has not been good enough. There has always been some shred of uncertainty preventing my ego from attaining that 100% certain answer to whatever my mind posits to be my specific True Will. My ego gets very displeased with uncertainty and would rather not take action if it doesn't have everything already worked out. Rather than discover True Will in the things I already do, my ego mistakenly believes that I must be doing something else, something outside of me, otherwise I wouldn't be experiencing this uncertainty or the discomfort that comes with it. Nonetheless, I have been told, and I have experienced that my True Will keeps on regardless of my awareness of it. But if only I could say, "Yes, this IS my True Will!" then my ego could rest and my life would just magically work itself out, right? My ego would love to believe that it is that simple, a change from one state of not knowing into the state of knowing like the flip of a switch. It foolishly believes that if I just flip that switch, I will never have to suffer again. Never mind that this is a subtle tactic the ego uses to give away autonomy. I know I am not the first or the last to experience this fantasy. Any time spent on the path should demonstrate that this fantasy doesn't hold up against reality. The True Will, in my experience, appears non-local. It expresses itself in infinitely varied circumstances. Sometimes these circumstances appear completely out of left field and do not initially align with what my ego believes to be "me." Of course, the demon of uncertainty feeds on those expressions of True Will because they fly in the face of what my ego considers orderly, predictable, and easily simplified into binaries. So how does one integrate all of that without going insane? Well, if we dispense with the idea that we can be 100% certain about our True Will in any given moment (since there is always a factor we cannot account for), we must also get rid of the idea that we are entirely 0% certain of our True Will at any given moment. Already, this rearrangement of our limitations has major implications. One can easily fall into the nihilism that RAW describes if we fixate on the loss of certainty. However, if someone decides to go in the opposite direction, then there is always some level of certainty we have in every situation. Since our goal is to act with more certainty (assuming that everyone else's ego also likes certainty), we might have a lot more data to work with in any given situation than what might be apparent. If it is our responsibility to act with certainty, then we have the opportunity to be responsible in every circumstance in our lives. What does this imply further about the True Will? If the True Will "is" not the thing we do with utmost certainty, we cannot use certainty as a marker of True Will. Instead, since the True Will expresses itself in varying circumstances and varying degrees of awareness, the True Will must also follow probabilistic logic. The True Will, then, becomes a specific set of probabilities (limited by our biological vehicle and material reality) that are likely to occur based on the expression of the Life Force in any given moment. Regardless of the situation I find myself in, every set of choices I come up with can be measured as more or less likely in alignment with True Will. Rather than place high stakes on one specific choice that is 100% certainly my True Will, I now have a range of motion I can choose from with relative confidence that it will align. This blows the lid off the initial yes/no logic analysis I proposed at the beginning of this post. Suddenly, "What is my True Will?" no longer holds weight because the True Will no longer appears as an object that falls in the "True" or "Certain" category. True Will becomes infinitely more adaptable, fluid, attainable yet illusive, and even more non-rational. It is no longer one simple title, or action, or thought, etc., but rather a set of optimized potentials with varying degrees of likelihood to manifest LVX. The specific identity of the True Will no longer matters because it's infinite potential inspires more freedom. True Will holds a space between yes or no, and every situation an individual finds themselves in becomes a series of probabilities, "How likely is this choice I've settled on in alignment with my True Will?" It also dispenses of the messianic urge and apocalyptic stakes that come with the fear of acting outside of 100% alignment with the True Will. What I believe this chapter of Quantum Psychology to imply about the individual "is" that awareness progresses from binary logic (I am doing my True Will, or I'm not doing my True Will) into probabilistic logic (I am making choices that are likely in alignment with my True Will). Furthermore, some of the highest levels of probability appear to function as if I acted with 100% certainty, showing themselves to be just as effective as 100% certainty (though less destabilizing when it turns out to inaccurate). This in turn lowers the stakes and dispels superstitious thinking. Viewing the True Will as a force of potentials that are not real until brought into Assiah implies a Bell Curve of choices in every situation increasing potential freedom of movement and action not present in a "This IS True Will" dichotomy. When we dispel the need for 100% certainty, True Will no longer needs to be a specific form, and instead becomes a game of increasing confidence levels in choices to strengthen likelihoods and other probabilities. Someone can identify a different level or register of cohesion in their actions, a non-rational cohesion, that doesn't easily fit into a box. Disparate occurrences become chains of events that appear unified to the individual acting from True Will and largely chaotic to the other who has no knowledge of that individual's path. In my opinion, once a certain amount of knowledge accumulates, probabilistic logic seems to be the only practical way of navigating an otherwise overwhelming existence. If we remain in binary logic, we risk insanity as we get lost in the infinite nuance that complicates our existence. The better we can assess those probabilities, the better we can make choices that align with our overall goal and path through the world.

@zeph Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. Sorry, English isn’t my native language. Maybe the translation caused some distortion, and came across as impolite in the post. When I was browsing Liber 33, I was shocked: does it really claim that someone knows all the truth about nature?! That would mean that for any question—whether scientific, spiritual, or mathematical—there is already a set answer. Humanity wouldn’t need to explore anything, and there would be no room for development (since the Secret Chiefs already know everything)… This seems to conflict with the “scientific illuminism” advocated by the A∴A∴. I just wonder if this makes the Thelemic system too closed? After all, that’s a huge claim! What exactly does “truth” include? The truth value of every mathematical proposition? Tomorrow’s lottery numbers? Love is law, love under will.