Treating Spirits with respect.
-
93,
"It is my opinion that the lead is not gold by default, nor is the genitalia a means of expression by default. "
I'd respond to this, but I don't understand your meaning.
"
Where a person ceases to be neither male nor female, the genitalia becoming "junk" a representation of what was, but no longer is. As they have come into union. "I think I see your point. Still, I'd have thought genitalia in union would be anything BUT junk, since they're forming a gate to ecstasy. Words carry meanings and levels of meaning, which is why choosing words carefully is a key element in ritual.
93 93/93,
EM
-
If there is any deep meaning to why I used the term junk, it is because the context of the sentence was the cutting off and casting away of the genitalia, as if it were junk.
But like I said "cut your junk off" is a common slang way of saying this.
The problem I see, is that you think in terms of Cartesian dualism, in fact something of a Cartesian multi-layered system. That is you fail to realize that the physical world is the only world there is. Yes the brain organizes things into a hierarchy of abstraction, but in actuality there is only the physical.
Ones personal identity, is created physically via the impressions made from the external environment, including the social environment. That one has come to develop a self image that is at odds with ones Physiology or even ones social class, means that their is a problem with the self-image that can be changed, rather than social and biological reality which is the innate background into which one came to be, it is the substance of who and what one is.
You can not change these things to become more yourself. because it is these very elements that make up who one is.
Of course, one can have a minor effect or social changes and can take on any gender identity one chooses. "A king can choose his garment as he WILL". but the verse also says "deem ye not of change, all is ever as it was".
If you wish to go in disguise as another class or gender that is well and good, but you can not change the facts of physiology.
I have friends who are furries, and they may want with all their hearts to be foxes, skunks, or Wolverines, they play act them with each other, they even wear costumes and entangle their sexual identities in these characters they created for themselves, basically invoking them before sex parties etc. However, they even it they have their teeth sharpened and tails grafted to the base of their spines, they do not become those animals, any more than that guy with tattoos and a forked tongue is actually a lizard-man, no matter how many meal worms he eats on stage.
Likewise, I play a female avatar on second life, partly because people give me money for no reason, and partly because if I must look at my characters ass all the time, it might as well be female. There are other reasons. But, I also take the form of a pill bug, an alien, and a male star trek guy, depending on the situation. However, changing ones external appearance does not change one fundamentally, as I learned from in the attainment of knowledge and conversation.
I an not saying one should or should not change gender, I am just saying that changing clothes does not change who one is, that was set in childhood, and it takes great inner work to change those imprints.
The lizard man, is not a lizard, and he only enjoys the esteem he does because people clap for him and such, but they are mocking him, the see him as a freak, not as an example of a man who achieved his ideals.
Not that a transsexual is a freak like the lizard man, I used the term loosely to mean that which deviates from its natural physical form. As one with 11 toes is considered a "freak of nature" that is a divination from the norm, rather than its own species.
The Transsexual remains the sex (s)he was at birth, but is a deviation from of that form.
Where Thelema applies to changing the world or society, of things of this nature, include those who are castrated at an early age, to be used an Eunuchs. Also where women are forced to hide under burkahs, in such a case that they are not allowed to be what they are.
They changes to be made even in this case are not to be huge revolutions, but to change the mentality of the oppressive class. To impose rule over they oppressors only leads to violence, rather they change of ideal, means they will lift the oppression on their own.
I do not seek to impose a law that makes people not allowed to transgender, any more than I want to see it illegal to get ridiculous full body tattoos and eat worms on a stage. Thelema is about changing the ideals on which the social system is based, thus creating a situation where The WILL of the individual is not restricted such that they form self images that are out of agreement with their physical biology and/or social class.
-
and if by monotheist, you mean I believe is objective reality and not in postmodern pluralist bullshit, Then I will accept your title of mono-theist. Of course I consider myself an A-theist but if belief that their is a reality of some kind is a GOD, then fine I believe in that "GOD".
-
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
"froclown," i see you've either not read or not understood my post. i'll assume the first, and from this point foward treat you Likewise.
Love is the law, love under will
-
93,
Froclown wrote:
"The problem I see, is that you think in terms of Cartesian dualism, in fact something of a Cartesian multi-layered system. That is you fail to realize that the physical world is the only world there is. Yes the brain organizes things into a hierarchy of abstraction, but in actuality there is only the physical. "
I fully accept a multilayered perspective, because my life's experiences have shown me one.
We differ on this, and there isn't much point endlessly rehashing it.
"Ones personal identity, is created physically via the impressions made from the external environment, including the social environment. That one has come to develop a self image that is at odds with ones Physiology or even ones social class, means that their is a problem with the self-image that can be changed, rather than social and biological reality which is the innate background into which one came to be, it is the substance of who and what one is. "
This is only part of the picture, according to what I have experienced and learned. Again, endlessly going over it will not resolve the difference we have.
"However, changing ones external appearance does not change one fundamentally, as I learned from in the attainment of knowledge and conversation. "
I accept you believe you have had the K&C.
But going by these rambling, mean-spirited, weasel-worded posts with all the self-justifications and insecurities they exhibit, I sincerely doubt it has truly come about.
93 93/93,
EM
-
do you just accept experiences because they carry an air of the undeniable?
I have seen and experienced many things. Astral planes, spirits, "demons" taking control of my mind, other worlds, other-worldly things, voices, visions, the ineffable, and the indescribable. I have had my "soul" pulled from my body hurled through space and time, other dimensions, saw things behind me while my "body" faced the other way. Melted into a puddle, blew away as ashes in the wind, blasted to bits, etc.
And this was direct experience as clear as day, (I once saw the Sun rise in the middle of the night, and illuminate the whole area.) but When it was done I was whole, no one saw the things I saw, and physics does not allows those things. Thus What I saw were visions of the mind, dreams while awake. Thus I can not doubt I saw what I saw, but I doubt fully that in reality anything came to pass. There are no other worlds, spirits, etc, just a physical brain working strangely due to the stresses, inputs, and drugs that effected it.
Before one cam truly understand, one must realize only physical scientifically verifiable reality exists.
LSD may reverse gender role identity imprints, but it can not physically change gender.
Magick works just like LSD only with more control. See RAW.
-
further more I am not being weasel worded or mean spirited.
If you want to see that sort of thing, try reading Crowley's opinions on things.
If I took Crowley's perspective I would say.
Self castration is not only foolish but an act of treason against the divine source. The Phallus being the source of semen, the divine seed. It is to defile the Eucharist, the blackest act of magick he could imagine. But I do not take Crowley's perspective.
-
Froclown,
That "outward form" is seen by YOU to be a male form because you seem to be of the perspective that those physical characteristics, predefined by our typical western povs, are of the inherent natures they present themselves as to you. I would use a physical constant to make it easier for you to see how the True Will can be applied in this transgender case: the True Will is the natural tendency for everything in the omniverse to reach the state of least potential energy charge.
I.e. if there was always a voice inside luxinhominefactum that told her the present state of her body was wrong, then the fruition of that inner calling was to have an operation. All in conformity with Will. And if the voice inside was content with that, then why do you (in being another person) use that example to point out the fault of that person's choice?
To my mind, this is the same fault as literally interpreting the Bible and defending that notion with "this is the word of God" and forgetting that "but this is my personal interpretation of that word". Sorry if I come off as harsh, though. Just stating my observations as usual. -
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
@Malaclypse said
"if there was always a voice inside luxinhominefactum that told her the present state of her body was wrong, then the fruition of that inner calling was to have an operation. "
with respect, yes and no. the body and social role was not where it needed to be, but the actual "operation" - the vaginoplasty - as i said in my rather (and perhaps overly) lengthy post, wasn't actually necessary and hasn't been done. of course, it is for some people, just not in my particular case.
what was necessary was to become, in the unfortunate gender-binary myopia of early 21st century american societal eyes, apparently female but actually a kind of hermaphrodite.
the actual fruition thereof was "going full time" as a woman and taking the hormone replacement therapy in my case.
so, woman? Yes. female? No.
Love is the law, love under will
-
I see. Thanks for the clarification!
-
@Edward Mason said
"
Quote:
It is my opinion that the lead is not gold by default, nor is the genitalia a means of expression by default.I'd respond to this, but I don't understand your meaning.
"What I was trying to say, is that you should not mistake what lead/genitalia symbolize and what they are.
Though lead has the potential to become gold, you are not going to go out and start making ornaments of lead, are you ? Gold still being more worthwhile than lead because of the effort (energy) put into it during purification.
The same logic (if I am managing to be clearer) can be applied to the genitalia. While the genitalia can be utilized to create a bridge of union during a ritual , it is the ritual itself that turns it into a bridge of union.
In other words, you can have sex because it feels good or you can have sex in order to unite the divided. Sex, you could say, is always sex. A penis is always a penis. However, your intent, your Will can change its function and what it represents.
The genitalia transcends being a mark of our differing sexuality and becomes the instrument by which we are united.
-
Do you mean "sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken" (Tyler Durden)
Because that sums up my whole point.
A thing is what it is, derived from its physical properties, and can not become other than it is.
Lead is lead and will always be lead, you can not refine lead into gold.
That which is shall ever be as it was.
I know that on a quantum level under very extreme circumstances we can fuse protons into a lead nucleus, to make gold atoms. That is besides the point.
It is best to use lead for its properties, and gold for its properties.
Do not summon the gnomes of the earth to teach the art of the sword, nor the Salamanders to stir the waters of insight.
You can not summon change the nature of the water of water cherubs to obey the seniors of the fire tablet.
Well, you can mix the planes, and attempt to force and constrain spirits to act in ways they are not fit, just as you can yoke your chariot to a school of fish, but dont expect positive results.
-
Uni_Verse 93,
"
In other words, you can have sex because it feels good or you can have sex in order to unite the divided. Sex, you could say, is always sex. A penis is always a penis. However, your intent, your Will can change its function and what it represents. "Yes, agreed.
Thanks,
93 93/93,
EM
-
EDIT : Was a response to Froclowns post
Yes, we both say "lead is lead" ; but we are talking about completely different things.
Everything in the universe is in constant flux and change.
You are not you , as what defines you is constantly changing. Waking up this morning, you were a totally different person. As, today you are "you + whatever happened yesterday." In an infinite loop. Tomorrow you will be "you + whatever happens today."
That is why YOU are going to die.
Me ? I was never alive to begin with. I am nothing more than the ghost left behind by a transition. An apparition. Sure, you could pass me by on the street and say hello. But the second you do, you are talking to a completely different person.You are talking to "me + knowledge of you"
:runs around in a spiraling pattern:
-
@Froclown said
"
A thing is what it is, derived from its physical properties, and can not become other than it is.
"A small number examples of things that completely flout your premise. Nasty things..
Energy.
Atoms (and everything that is made of atoms which I gather is most things- ah well on we furrow)
Acorns.
Oak.
Sperm/Ovum.
A house after a fire.
A river.
Everest.
The earth.
The universe.
My opinion of you after reading your opinions on the trans gendered.I had a long long post but In retrospect I've given one of the oddest phrases I've encountered on a board the simple 'er I think you missed something' answer. Since, y'know, magicians base their entire ethos on 'change'.
Seriously. Did you read everything R.A.W wrote and then think 'Hey I'll diametrically disagree with him? That should bring some good discordian arguments!' Oh and I must use 'IS' at every opportunity.Time and place man. Time and place.
Oh and some of your moralizing really stinks. -
Fine, if you insist on denying the continuity of your existence, and define yourself as a progression of disconnected particulars, that is your option, but I was unaware that we where attempting to live our lives in the abyss.
but you can not deny that at a particular instant of time you are a particular way, with particular properties. and the progression to the next instant of time can only occur according to the properties you posses of the present instant of time.
That is everything is always changing, progressing according to its particular nature, but each thing is not infinitely free to change in any way whatsoever, but only according to its nature and the nature of the forces that act upon it.
You can not squeeze blood from a turnip.
A pumpkin does not just transform into a carriage.Things have specific qualities, and can only change in certain ways.
-
Yes, I agree that it is possible to change physical sex. theoretically, if the DNA of every Cell were changed, and the whole body re-fabricated on the cellular level, including the physiology of the brain, the sex would be changed, but so would the psychology and identity of the person.
You would basically have taken apart one person and used the materials to make another person, with similar genetics, only lacking the Y chromosome, and adding an extra X, maybe a clone of the original X.
Painting a lead bar yellow doesn't make it gold. You have to change its whose atomic structure, in which case everything lead about it is lost, not just its color.
-
@Froclown said
"Fine, if you insist on denying the continuity of your existence, and define yourself as a progression of disconnected particulars, that is your option, but I was unaware that we where attempting to live our lives in the abyss.
but you can not deny that at a particular instant of time you are a particular way, with particular properties. and the progression to the next instant of time can only occur according to the properties you posses of the present instant of time.
That is everything is always changing, progressing according to its particular nature, but each thing is not infinitely free to change in any waywhatsoever, but only according to its nature and the nature of the forces that act upon it.You can not squeeze blood from a turnip.
A pumpkin does not just transform into a carriage.Things have specific qualities, and can only change in certain ways."
I have no problem with the way you have put that just now. It is when you get all absolutist or reductionist and move the goalposts I have problems.
In any case it is a good model to be setting out from but I am prepared for that model to change. -
"Postmodern" Attacks on Science and Reality
Victor J. Stenger, Ph.D.Recent trends in some academic circles have called into question conventional notions of truth and reality. The claim is made in these circles that all statements, whether in science or literature, are simply narratives -- stories and myths that do nothing more than articulate the cultural prejudices of the narrator. In this view, one narrative is as good as another, since each is expressed in the language of its particular culture and thus contains all the assumptions about truth and reality embedded in that culture. Texts have no intrinsic meaning. Rather, their meanings are created by the reader. The conclusions are then drawn that no narrative can have universal validity and that "Western" science is no exception..
Today's college students, in the United States and elsewhere, hear this line of reasoning from many of their social science and humanities professors. "Alternative medicine" proponents often use similar arguments to reject science as a method of determining health-related truths.
The assertion that "Western" science is unexceptional begins with a plausible, though ultimately misleading, notion that we humans lack access to any mechanism by which we can learn the truth about an objective reality that exists independent of human thought processes. Certainly, science relies on thought processes and does not always follow a clear, logical path to the conclusions it makes about reality. True, it never proves the correctness of these conclusions. Science knows nothing for certain about the world and must always couch its results in terms of probabilities or likelihoods. Often the choice between competitive scientific theories is based on taste, fashion, or subjective notions of simplicity or aesthetic appeal.
Agreed. Scientists can never be certain of the "truth" of their theories. Nevertheless, the predictions of scientific theories are very often sufficiently close to certainty that we all bet our life on them, such as when we are in an airliner or on an operating table. When predictions are that reliable, we can rationally conclude, if not prove, that the concepts on which they are based must have some universal validity. That is, they must somehow be connected to the way things really are.
For example, we cannot predict with complete certainty what will happen if we jump off a tall building. It is always possible that we might land in a crate of feathers that, by luck, just happens to protrude from a window on the floor below. However, based on the law of gravity, we can predict with high likelihood that we will pass that floor and hit the ground with an unhealthy splat. The law of gravity has been tested with enough experiments to safely conclude that the concept of gravity is "real."
Reality acts to constrain our observations about the world, preventing at least some of those observations from being completely random, arbitrary, or what we might simply like them to be. Although much of what we do in fact observe is random -- far more than most people realize -- not everything is. And while we humans can exert a certain amount of control over reality, that reality is not merely the creation of our thought processes. In a dream about jumping off a building, we might float to the ground unharmed. In thinking about jumping off the building, we can imagine whatever we want about the outcome. Superman can fly by and rescue us, in our fantasies. An airplane with a mattress on its wings can appear just in time. But, in reality, we fall to the ground no matter how we might wish otherwise.
Without getting too pedantic about defining reality, let me just say that our own observations in everyday life make it quite clear that we and the objects around us are subject to externally imposed constraints that neither we nor those objects can completely control. If I could control reality with my thoughts, I would look like I did when I was twenty and still be as smart as I am now. I don't. In science, we use our observations about what happens when we are not dreaming or fantasizing to make reasonable inferences about the nature of what supplies the impetus for the constraints we record with our measuring apparatus.
Modern physics strongly suggests a surprisingly uncomplicated, non-mysterious "ultimate reality" that may not be what we wish it to be, but is supported by all known data. Furthermore, this reality is very much like what was inferred by some remarkable thinkers in the ancient world: a universe composed of elementary objects that move around in an otherwise empty void. I call this atomic reality.
This proposal flies in the face of current fashion. That fashion repudiates all attempts, within science and without, to describe a universal, objective reality. I repudiate that fashion. Where the validity of certain ancient and modern concepts of truth and reality are denied, I affirm them. Where arguments are made that Western science tells us nothing of deep significance, I assert that it remains our foremost tool for the discovery of fundamental truth.
Many natural science professors, with their heads buried mainly in research, have ignored the attacks on science and rational thought. When they happen to hear assertions that science is just another tall tale, they typically dismiss the notion as nonsense. Instead, they should be speaking out.
I am Pope Froclown Von Hogwasher, and I approve of this message.
-
@froclown said
"
but you can not deny that at a particular instant of time you are a particular way, with particular properties. and the progression to the next instant of time can only occur according to the properties you posses of the present instant of time
"I will not deny that.
@froclown said
"
Fine, if you insist on denying the continuity of your existence, and define yourself as a progression of disconnected particulars, that is your option, but I was unaware that we where attempting to live our lives in the abyss.
"I never denied the continuity of my existence. I am still me, it is just the definition of what I am that is constantly changing.
@froclown said
"
That is everything is always changing, progressing according to its particular nature, but each thing is not infinitely free to change in any way whatsoever, but only according to its nature and the nature of the forces that act upon it.
"In a singular moment, I agree. Within a broader perspective, there is no limitation.
...
If I am in the Abyss, have to say it is not that bad a place.
Pardon my silence on the objective.