Heru-Ra-Ha, Ra-Hoor-Khuit, Hoor-Paar-Kraat, and Horus
-
@Los said
"
The thing that constitutes materialism is lacking belief in other worlds, on the basis of there being insufficient evidence for the existence of any other worlds. It's not a belief, not a dogma, not a doctrine, and certainly not a "religion." It's not on equal footing with supernatural beliefs.
"Then that's your particular definition, special to you. You can go about conveniently changing the meanings of words to suit your desires (this is not the first time I've watched you do it), but it doesn't change the reality that the philosophical definition of "Materialism" was exactly quoted to you and it is what everyone else calls.
http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f51/Baccus93/Materialism.jpg
-
@kasper81 said
"not a doctrine?"
Not a doctrine.
People here seem not to realize that dictionaries don’t create meaning – they record usage. Entries in dictionaries may not reflect the way words are used by the actual people who hold specific positions. For example, many dictionaries still incorrectly give the definition of atheism as “the belief there is no God,” and some even still give the definition “immorality” as its second meaning.
When I’m explaining my position – and the position of substantially every materialist I’ve ever met – you can’t sensibly respond by telling me I’m wrong because my usage doesn’t line up to what some book says.
And if you want to insist I’m not a “real materialist,” then fine. Label me whatever you want: it doesn’t change the substance of my positions. The substantial issue, if you’ll recall, is that someone accused me of holding “assumptions about the material world,” and I wanted to know what that poster had in mind. But when pressed, he was unable to offer any. Another poster then claimed that I assume that “all things can be explained by physics and chemistry,” but not only do I not assume that, I don’t even accept it as true. It’s certainly not an assumption required by people who lack belief in worlds other than the physical (regardless of the label you would put on us).
" Actually Los, in terms of (1) your views and (2) your interest in Thelema and Crowley how do you connect those two, seemingly opposing elements to the following quotes which are from Liber Al, which is central to Thelema?
-
There is great danger in me; for who doth not understand these runes shall make a great miss. He shall fall down into the pit called Because, and there he shall perish with the dogs of Reason.
-
Now a curse upon Because and his kin!
-
May Because be accursed for ever!
-
Also reason is a lie; for there is a factor infinite & unknown; & all their words are skew-wise.
-
Enough of Because! Be he damned for a dog!
maybe these quoted sentences actually justify your views"
Good question. And the answer is that most people misinterpret these verses as saying that reason shouldn’t be used to evaluate certain factual claims. However, these verses are not talking about evaluating factual claims: they’re talking about action.
You see, the primary thing that prevents most people from doing their Will is their own mind, and the rational faculty of the mind – while immensely useful for evaluating the world around us – tends to mislead a person into following its phantoms instead of paying attention to his Will.
For example, someone may not want to do X, but he’ll tell himself, “I ought to do X because it’s the right thing to do.” You see that because? It’s that (rational) act of talking oneself into taking an action – against one’s natural inclinations – that is anathema to Thelema.
If your actions are motivated by “reasons” generated in the mind, then you’re not acting out of the True Will, by definition. As Crowley says, it’s pointless to ask a dog why it barks. It just does because it’s the nature of a dog to bark. That’s the way it is with a True Will. There’s not a “reason” that one’s True Will is the way that it is: one just is a certain way.
The task of discovering the True Will, then, cannot be accomplished by means of the reason. A person cannot think his way to the Will. However, reason is a vitally necessary tool for helping to manifest the True Will, by evaluating the territory through which the Will is navigating.
To think of it another way, in all normal healthy uninitiated people, it is the mind – and not the Will – that runs the show. These people live in an imaginary world, where duties, obligations, morality, ideas about what “good people” should do, their conceptions of “what’s right,” etc., are real, substantial things for them. It’s these ideas that drive them, rather than their inclinations.
They are “slaves of Because.” They act because their minds tell them that such-and-such actions are the “right thing to do.”
The process of initiation – and I mean actual initiation, which is always self-initiation, not the joining of a club – entails ceasing to identify with these thoughts and shifting one’s attention more and more fully to the True Self and its inclinations.
Rather than the mind directing the show, the Will then runs the show, and the mind serves it by offering to the Will as accurate a picture of the territory as possible so that the Will can manifest in ways most pleasing to the True Self.
That’s about it in a nutshell. For more, see here: helema-and-skepticism.blogspot.com/2011/09/profiles-in-ignorance-2-misinterpreting_10.html
-
-
Los - what you're describing as a philosophy is more akin to Skepticism than Materialism proper, academically speaking. You're just misinformed as to the actual body that constitutes 'Materialism' and by trying to cover up your errors, 'falling into the pit of because' would be an apt metaphor of what is going on here.
Best of Luck of with your blog! Promoting one is tireless work but no doubt your presence here is providing wonderful promotional material and quality visits from curious fans none the less!
-
-
-
-
-
This is what you are 'expounding' lol
http://i.imgur.com/Fdp5aav.png
You also may try and upgrading your skepticism to it's proper place
-
I have fun with this guy, I really do
Los
"When I’m explaining my position – and the position of substantially every materialist I’ve ever met – you can’t sensibly respond by telling me I’m wrong because my usage doesn’t line up to what some book says."
Lol - your usage does not even align with what Materialism says. It's not a matter (pardon the pun!) of some hot debate about what constitutes Materialism. It's a pretty clear understanding in philosophy and amongst materialists.
The problem with your usage in this thread is that
a.)it's contradicting to the actual tenets of materialism.
b.)Your definition of materialism is solely dependent upon defining what it does not believe, a rather odd way to define something. It's as if Thelema could be defined as a body of philosophy and religion that does not accept Jesus Christ as lord and savior. While true, it really doesn't tell us much of anything about Thelema that is not also true about Buddhists, or Hindus, or Raelians.
-
@ldfriend56 said
"It's not a matter (pardon the pun!) of some hot debate about what constitutes Materialism. It's a pretty clear understanding in philosophy and amongst materialists."
Now that we have the definition nailed down:
Can we talk about this idea in light of the gods, as referenced by Crowley in Magick without Tears? Specifically, the ones mentioned in the OT...
@Crowley said
"We see and hear them, usually (in my own experience) as the result of specific invocation. Less frequently we know them through the sense of touch as well; sometimes their presence is associated with a particular perfume. (This, by the way, is very striking, since it has to overcome that of the incense.) I must very strongly insist, at this point, on the difference between "gods" and "angels." Gods are macrocosmic, as we microcosmic: an incarnated (materialised) God is just as much a person, an individual animal, as we are; as such, he appeals to all our senses exactly as if he were "material."
But everything sensible is matter in some state or other; how then are we to regard an Angel, complete with robes, weapons, and other impedimenta? (I have never known a god thus encumbered, when he has been "materialised" at all. Of course, the mere apparition of a God is subject to laws similar to those govering the visions of angels.)"
Specifically, what is Crowley saying when he says that Gods are "material?" That we can measure "gods" (like Horus) through physics and chemistry? Does that even sound plausible?
-
@Frater 639 said
"
@Crowley said
"I must very strongly insist, at this point, on the difference between "gods" and "angels." Gods are macrocosmic, as we microcosmic: an incarnated (materialised) God is just as much a person, an individual animal, as we are; as such, he appeals to all our senses exactly as if he were "material."""But everything sensible is matter in some state or other; how then are we to regard an Angel, complete with robes, weapons, and other impedimenta? (I have never known a god thus encumbered, when he has been "materialised" at all. Of course, the mere apparition of a God is subject to laws similar to those govering the visions of angels.)"
Specifically, what is Crowley saying when he says that Gods are "material?" That we can measure "gods" (like Horus) through physics and chemistry? Does that even sound plausible?"
I don't read it that way. He speaks of gods having incarnated - which seems to mean, born as humans - and as otherwise materialized - sounds like a very "dense" invocation that, bringing the God down the planes, gives it attributes of the lower planes - and he distinguishes it from a "mere apparition."
I'm responding on the fly, before heading out the door. I just wanted to distinguish those three elements in the quotes.
-
@Jim - Frater69
Interesting, I never looked at this very deeply before this.
My take away is that Crowley referenced Gods as becoming material because human beings are gods (or at the very least the potential of gods) as our role of inheritance in the body of nuit to her service, i.e. human or human like sentience, intelligence, creativity, and most importantly intention (true will) is (edit: a maybe to me) the creative component and organizing principle of the material (time and space) universe.
Actually a nice conclusion, at least for me personally, to this discussion
Thank you once again, truly - this forum has proven to be remarkably helpful in my inner processing
-
@ldfriend56 said
"@Jim - Frater69
Interesting, I never looked at this very deeply before this.
My take away is that Crowley referenced Gods as becoming material because human beings are gods (or at the very least the potential of gods) as our role of inheritance in the body of nuit to her service, i.e. human or human like sentience, intelligence, creativity, and most importantly intention (true will) is (edit: a maybe to me) the creative component and organizing principle of the material (time and space) universe.
Actually a nice conclusion, at least for me personally, to this discussion
Thank you once again, truly - this forum has proven to be remarkably helpful in my inner processing"
I appreciate the Frater 69. A nice Chariot reference -- I'm honored.
This is pretty close to what I take away from it. The gods are Us -- at least, the only vehicle we have to manifest these qualities on the material plane, while being able to write about it (a Work in progress). I truly believe this is what Crowley was trying to say when he wrote that passage.
Thank you for your contributions, oldfriend56. Always an absolute pleasure from the bottom of this heart.
-
ha! funny it came out that way
So I guess coming full circle then, back to the actual topic of this thread.
I guess a few of us at least can conclude with the idea - the 'Gods' are, in material form, humans.
Ra - Hoor - Khuit & Hoor-Par-Kraat, being twins and conjoined, are universal down to every individual yet it also the 'Soul and Spirit' of the collective of humanity (their God State which we can call forth). This actually clarifies some of my previous work in this area.
Hmmm - nice to be able to summarize this so simply
-
los = someone interested only in winning a debate.= learns new ways to gain the upper hand =will say anything to win said debate= is worthless to engage.
los also = someone with very very low level understanding of anything.low does not mean not of value just not to be regarded highly.
los-t?
in that pit
because because because! ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhahahahahahahaactive=lingam
passive/still=yoni
unoin=sexual congress of self
hpk=cup to be filled
rhk=sword/will to be expressed
heruraha=unspeakable being/ipsissimus
0=2 -
FWIW I think these thread about Thelemic 'Gods' be it the aspects of Horus, Had, Hadit, Nu, Nuit etc are important ones and though old ground is often covered, new ideas, however small or subtle, usually emerge. I know personally that my understanding and conceptualisation of these ideas has evolved hugely over the years and continues to do so. It would have been nice to keep this thread (and quite a few others for that matter) on topic instead of the whole materialism thing (again) and the infantile bickering (again). This stuff is important and it matters and this is one of the very few places I have ever come across where there is a huge potential for some very bright and dedicated people (and I include the people who's contributed to this thread) to help each other and help Thelema. If there is a 'meaning of life' it is service and I fail to see how putting someone down or trying to puff yourself up is being of service to anything. We are Brothers and Sisters and while the word of the Law is Thelema the importance of Love and particularly Agape cannot be understated. This post sounds a bit lovey dovey, new age hand holdy, which makes me a little uncomfortable as I am a Thelemite and it is Force and Fire of the new Aeon that pumps the blood through my body, but, as I said, FWIW
-
Here is my drawing of Heru-Ra-Ha
It is based on ancient Egyptian art of composite, 2-headed gods.www.facebook.com/templeofthelema/photos/a.460279055138/10156176792060139/?type=3&theater