"A Thelemic Utopia"
-
I have called myself a liberal from time to time... and I judge your last post as pure rubbish and FALSE.
You say All Liberals don't do X.
I say, I will call myself a Liberal and do X.Care to be wrong some more?
-
@Tinman said
"You say All Liberals don't do X."
Timan, I did not see where Froclown said that. Can you please quote him exactly to demonstrate your point?
@Froclown said
"They will not allow even a distinction of TRUE and False, instead everyones "opinion" must be accepted as equally true,"
In my experience this is an accurate observation, along with most of your other comments. Of course these are to be understood as general in nature and there is the odd exception now and then.
-
"Froclown wrote:
They will not allow even a distinction of TRUE and False, instead everyones "opinion" must be accepted as equally true,In my experience this is an accurate observation, along with most of your other comments. Of course these are to be understood as general in nature and there is the odd exception now and then."
I am reminded of the story of the blind men, feeling different parts of an elephant and asserting what they percieve an elephant to be...
the one grabbing his tale says an elephant is like a snake
the one with his ear, says it is like a fan....ect.
all based on limited perceptionsOpinions are based on perceptions, and unfortunately not many on this plane have clear, unbaised perceptions.
-
"the difference between old and new aeon slavery is that the new aeon masters work to provide labor and opportunity to as close an approximation of the right and proper function of the slave, as anyone can ascertain for anyone else."
And I completely challenge your personal ability to make that appoximation. Will you make slaves of others? Based on what?
Do not pass up this challenge. Accept it, or your entire argument is simply masturbating into the wind and blindness to the other perspective. It is not worthy of debate. This is when argument and debate is forbidden. Success is your proof. Shut up and put your money where your mouth is. That, sir, is my gauntlet across your face. If you be a true human being and not a mere parasite, prove it to me.
Believing that something like you suggest is possible is completely different from the individuality-destroying ordeal of having it done TO you - having another's ideas FORCED UPON YOUR CONSCIOUSNESS BEFORE YOUR SANITY HAS THE ABILITY TO DEAL WITH IT. It suggests to me that you while you believe in the possibility of a theory, you have never personally experienced it for yourself. You have not tested nor proven your theory. You present no results. No statistics. No peer-reviewed scholarship. No understanding of the pointless madness that can errupt when untrained minds are forced to deal with the illusions of their own individuality.
Even Masters students in academia defend before a panel of three - that's how deep the ancient wisdom goes. Earn your stripes, commander. Show me you know the rules before you try to pick and force the lock of MY mind. Give me statistics. Give me results. I demand them before God and before my own heart.
Give us science. Keep your faith.
From my apparently oh-so-flawed watery and salty perspective? You don't know the heavenly language. You can't speak it because you don't know the stories of the Father in Autumn. You know the stories of the Child, and that is all. But who will teach your child to survive? Other children? Children eat with the same fingers they clean themselves with. This, sir, is why the Father in Autumn has ordained strict and difficult ordeals - to make sure he is understood clearly - and not disrespected as a mumbling old man. There are reasons for the boundaries, and you do not show me your familiarity with them.
Instead, you prefer to believe yourself to be separate from everything else, and to act as if that side of the illusion is the only side. You do not fully realise your interdependence, nor the threat to your own longterm happiness, success, and survival, as well as that of LIFE, if you reject without analysis the opinions and understanding of those who are more experientially convinced of that perfected interdependence.
I challenge you on the criteria you personally base your selection. For there hinges your entire argument. For you are all Shin, and have not shown any respect for Mem. You are all Sulpher, and have not shown any respect for Salt. You are all Son, and have not shown any respect for Mother. But the stories of the old father warn us of such as you.
Give us science. Keep your faith.
The boundaries of consciousness prevent us from going insane, they keep the chariot together, they are the hedge of protection that keeps us from being awash in an unknown sea of fear and nightmare. To me, I just see you pushing in one direction. You're like a child who has found the pleasure of his penis and believes that everyone should have only penises so that you don't have to be ashamed of the pleasure of your own. But you don't realize the consequences for yourself and others.
May I please refer you to the *****, *******, and ******** argument found in Team America. Or the "breathe in union, so as one survive another day and season" argument found in the song Jambi on Tool's 10,000 Days project. For there is the wisdom of the old father in the language of the child.
"If everyone where limitless and equal, there would not be anyone at all, there would only be ayn soph or Nuit, just one amorphous plastic nothingness. "
This is precisely what I argue that we are, from the perspective of Mem, Salt, Nuit, and Mother.
You try to confine, to limit us, to RESTRICT us to being Shin, Fire, Hadit, and Father alone, and you draw a boundary line against us if we don't restrict ourselves to your own labels and language for us. Careful. I resist such brain-washing from the core of my very existence, both for myself and for others. For the right to resist such thinking, I am willing to be forever barred from the A.'.A.'. I am willing to fight, I am willing to die, and I am willing to deserve eternal damnation if I am only allowed your perspective of myself.Now. Speak reasonably. Your insults and disrespect of other stars reveals your character.
I've warned before that this is a trick of language only. It is shadow-boxing, fencing for sport, defining all others in respect to your own perspective, and attempting to force them to accept your own opinion of them. You are not open to the possibility that you require guidance from the past, nor from more "sensitive" stars.
Tell me, do you prefer sensitive antennae, or dull ones?
Speaking metaphysically and metaphorically, you are in danger of losing your *memory *- that which preserves the very stability of consciousness itself. Well, I know the old stories. I learn from the old stories, and I respect the Wheel of Time. You don't seem to have any respect for the Father in Autumn or his Wisdom. Is your ear not tuned to his voice? Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
"They want to remove these distinctions because of a strong sense that they are themselves inferior and if judged on their own merit they would be unworthy of life. Thus they express this as extreme sensitivity and empathy, even for inanimate objects and perspectives and prepositions."
Yes, precisely, we've already had the shadow conversation. Were you not reading along? Have you no memory of it? Can you not see when you do it yourself? Perhaps you need more sensitive antennae:
"Unfortunately it seems like all of the Thelemic orders are heavily influenced by this liberal slave mentality, but it seems the tides are changing. We need to get behind people like Keith418, John Crow, and Tau Omphallos, Erwin Hessle, Ash and IAO131, I am sure there are others. But these are a few I have met whom have the right star in sight, and have the dedication to seek it out. These might be the Exorcists we need, the St. Patricks whom might chase the snakes out of Emerald city."
The above is my citation of an example of you doing the precise thing of which you accuse your shadow self. Don't say you didn't say that. This has been your technique for the years I have known you and the various names under which you have debated.
I continually and faithfully point you to the perpetual flaw in your unbalanced reasoning, which you continuously spew out to us because of your blindness to your own insecurities and motives.
" Yea! deem not of change: ye shall be as ye are, & not other.
THEREFORE!
the kings of the earth shall be Kings for ever: the slaves shall serve. There is none that shall be cast down or lifted up: all is ever as it was. Yet there are masked ones my servants: it may be that yonder beggar is a King. A King may choose his garment as he will: there is no certain test: but a beggar cannot hide his poverty. [emphasis mine]"Give me science. Keep your faith. And don't you cite those other names unless you are willing to be bound by their standards. Because before God I bind you to them. I happen to know that they are infinitely higher than your own, since you provide not one scrap of empirical support for the theoretical process of selection into "slaves" and "kings."
I will remind you that your own perspective is based entirely on your personal preferences alone, and upon much science fiction.
"Nietzsche put it "A will to nothingness""
That, sir, is the very will to Nuit. And your blindness to that reveals the very heart and nature of your fundamentalism.
A free man owns no slaves.
-
Two statements;
a. Vanilla is the best flavor of ice cream
b. water at sea level boils at 100C
One is an opinion and the other is a fact. I think Froclown was commenting on how modern liberalism has confused the two somewhat, but beyond this he ought to step in and speak for himself.
Personally, from what I have seen, the degree to which some liberals lack the capacity to separate opinion from fact borders on insanity. The "maybe my Truth isn't your Truth" reply is often the last line of defense for modern liberals desperately seeking some way to prop up their house of deep denial cards.
-
"the degree to which some liberals lack the capacity to separate opinion from fact borders on insanity."
The degree to which some **people **lack the capacity to seperate opionion from fact borders on insanity......
I see no need to say liberal, all people are in this boat.Clean statements,
I have learned in communicating through writting that statements should be as clean as possible. When you make a generalization, even with the preface "Some", a specific target is focused upon and assumptions are made, things are taken personally, people are not performing best, and one is not being immpecible....
all four agreements are broken...
The Four Agreements as taught by the Master Ruiz can be summed up as follows:
from www.nderf.org/4AgreementsReview.htm(1) Be Impeccable With Your Word. The broad scope of this concept is to avoid sin against yourself by what you think. Sinning against the self takes many forms: such as, putting yourself down, gossiping, or putting anybody else down because you don't agree with what they think. Actions and words need to be consistent as part of being impeccable with yourself. The other side of the coin is the smoky mirror concept. Ruiz makes the point that our perceptions of others are merely reflections of ourselves. Therefore, to put another down or project negative words or energy towards another person, is to lash out at the other person because of our own insecurities.
(2) Don't Take Anything Personally. There is an awful lot of negative energy out there and some of it is directed at us by other people. If you take it personally and take on the poison of another's words, it becomes a very negative agreement you have with yourself. What anybody thinks about you, or says about you, is really about them. Not taking it personally allows you to be in relationship with anyone and not get trapped in their stuff. This agreement can also pertain to things that we take personally that cause us to go into upset.
(3) Don't Make Assumptions. What we think we understand about what someone says, how someone looks at us, what someone means by what they do, etc, may often not reflect reality at all, and more often than not lead us to think badly of ourselves or of others, and reinforce not being impeccable with our word.
(4) Always Do Your Best. Your "best" is a variable thing from moment to moment. "When you do your best, you don't give the Judge the opportunity to find you guilty or to blame you.â You can always say, âI did my best." There are no regrets. (p.80) The other key to doing your best revolves about being in action. "Action is about living fully. Inaction is the way that we deny life. Inaction is sitting in front of the television every day for years because you are afraid to be alive and to take the risk of expressing what you are. Expressing what you are is taking action. You can have many great ideas in your head, but what makes the difference is the action. Without action upon an idea, there will be no manifestation, no results, and no reward." (p.82)
Life is much happier when we are in accordance with agreements:)
-
@Veronica said
"I see no need to say liberal, all people are in this boat.
"Speak for yourself, please.
Yes, I like clean statements which is why I try to be direct and concise. I said 'liberals' and that is what I meant. Yes, I have met fundamentalists on the other extreme with similar behaviors, but the problem is so common among liberals it is almost epidemic.
It is a matter of degrees and this is a meaningful distinction. One person can make a certain error now and then and another makes the same error consistently and persistently and the observable condition of their lives reflect it. To say, "welllll, they both make that mistake" is not a constructive observation. Yet it is a common excuse offered by liberals.
-
@Labyrinthus said
"
@Veronica said
"I see no need to say liberal, all people are in this boat.
"Speak for yourself, please.
Yes, I like clean statements which is why I try to be direct and concise. I said 'liberals' and that is what I meant. Yes, I have met fundamentalists on the other extreme with similar behaviors, but the problem is so common among liberals it is almost epidemic.
It is a matter of degrees and this is a meaningful distinction. One person can make a certain error now and then and another makes the same error consistently and persistently and the observable condition of their lives reflect it. To say, "welllll, they both make that mistake" is not a constructive observation. Yet it is a common excuse offered by liberals."
Statistics and operational definitions, please. That's the level I'm ready to have this discussion on. That and no other. We must compare our opinions to those of others for them to have any meaning whatsoever.
E Pluribus Unum.
-
@Labyrinthus said
"Two statements;
a. Vanilla is the best flavor of ice cream
b. water at sea level boils at 100C
One is an opinion and the other is a fact."
The 'fact', though, is only true in certain very limited conditions. Water in a pressure cooker at sea level boils at much higher than 100C, and water in a sealed jar with some of the air pumped out boils at much lower temperature.
Regardless, cherry picking our 'truth' from the Rorschach of the universe is not a liberal problem. It transcends political affiliation. I do it, and I've seen you do it. As far as I can see, opinionated people who believe they don't do it, are the ones doing it the most.
EVERYTHING, including unassailable truths like gravity or at what state liquids turn into gas, are really matters of perspective.
A materialistic, scientific view of the world is a step up from a blind, superstitious point of view. But there is always a step up from the last. See if you can find it.
And... turning backwards to yell at those on the step below you is one way to avoid the step above.
-
Speaking of "clean statements," I get confused when this label "liberal" is thrown around (as I also get confused by the label "conservative"). When you use this label, do you mean that people who believe that what you do in the privacy of your own bedroom is a right to privacy, a privacy especially protected against government intrusion? When you us the label "liberal," do you mean that people who believe that doing what they want with their bodies, ingesting whatever substance they find growing on the planet, is a right, a right protected against government intrusion? Or do you mean that a person is "liberal" when he or she wants to spend the government's money to help those who may be deemed as needing help? Or do you mean a liberal is someone who believe that he or she should have the freedom to wear their clothes and hair as they see fit, to go nudist if they wish? Or is a liberal someone who believes that no matter how a person wishes to worship, or who a person wishes to worship, these are protected choices? Or do you believe a liberal is someone who believes that government should have as many laws and regulations as possible so as to protect people who haven't got the knowledge or sense to protect themselves?
Surely I doubt you mean all of those things - and quite possibly you practice some of those things yourself - so this throwing around of the label "liberal" as if it were supposed to be an insult beyond question confuses your meaning to me I suspect. I wonder.
Sincerely, a concerned fiscal conservative/social liberal (to a degree)
-
Veronica wrote:
I see no need to say liberal, all people are in this boat."Speak for yourself, please."
um, I said I....
didnt I....I see no need....
You do....I wanted to share something that I have found to be vaild and true in my life.
-
@Veronica said
"um, I said I....
didnt I....I see no need....
You do...."Excuse me, but you said "all people" which is lumping me in where I do not agree to belong. Thus my request, "speak for yourself". See?
-
"And... turning backwards to yell at those on the step below you is one way to avoid the step above."
I agree one hundred percent. I refer you to the entirity of my argument. I have performed my defense for those who are not able to tease out the complexities of this argument for themselves. I may be untrained and unrefined, but in my experience, invoking the mystery of the "True Initiate" (the ones who "know" are really of THIS opinion), without any evidence to support their claims is a form of control.
It's an argument that manipulates the emotional power of shame while repudiating sensitivity.
If I am a master, then I think that a student's understanding of the purity of this tradition is worth fighting for - especially in cases where the student is combative by self-definition. If I am a student, then how else am I to learn and survive in this environment if I do not have the right to challenge such thinking with all the power of my soul? Who is like God that I may be instructed by him? The one who can instruct me in the laws of Reality.
My conscience is clear.
-
Lab - Of course you don't see the irony of taking umbrage if someone includes you in their general statement, after you included a vague swath of humanity in yours.
Some vague subset of all people, specifically including you, Labyrinthus, can't take what they dish out.
-
"Excuse me, but you said "all people" which is lumping me in where I do not agree to belong."
Yes I do see what you are saying,
Or I guess I mean,
I hear that you are saying you do not belong on this boat,which was a term I used to imply planet Gaia.
All people share one thing,
and you cannot claim otherwise.In my vain attempt at living my life, I have flaws
as beautiful and perfect and loving as I amAnd while I hold myself to certain standards,
I will not ever dare to deny that I have a
dirty dark and nasty past
we all do
a side some call humanand while kings and queens
magi may have more clothes
in which to conceal themselvesI will dance naked for all to see,
and not hide behind wordsas best as I can.
peace and be well brother always
-
@Veronica said
"All people share one thing,"
I was not disagreeing with the fact that we are all here on planet earth. This is another example of what I spoke of on another thread; replying to something not said. ( the point was concerning the ability to separate opinion from fact)
-
@AvshalomBinyamin said
"The 'fact', though, is only true in certain very limited conditions."
Classic!
This whole post of yours is a great example of this problem. It is a clear demonstration of the classic "Nit-Pick" reply that liberals resort to when getting uncomfortably close to a "fact". Even a generic one introduced for the sake of clarity alone is too close for comfort.
You see, the qualifier "at sea level" is sufficient for reasonable folks to establish the "limited conditions".
@AvshalomBinyamin said
"EVERYTHING, including unassailable truths like gravity or at what state liquids turn into gas, are really matters of perspective."
No. The perspective is implied by stating gravity "at the surface of earth". But for those who want to nit-pick there are plenty of side door exits to be fabricated at will.
-
Please explain the difference between "nit-picking" and "applying ruthless and immense scholarly ability toward a single question."
That, sir, is the very job definition of a Ph.D.
I know how to defend against one.
Do you know how to convince three?
You create your work and present it for their scrutiny.
-
In response to Labyrinthus, because you addressed a question to me and I didn't want to ignore you, I found all of Froclown's post (the one immediately before mine) to be in the vein of "All Liberals X", but specifically the entirety of paragraph 4 which begins with "That is why liberalism shows as Nietzsche...". You'll notice the common usage of the pronoun "They" followed by some remark that lumps all "Liberals" (not well defined who fits this label - as pointed out by Takamba) into a category that Froclown desires.
The point of my post is to state that I've used the "Liberal" label when talking about myself and I'm doing what Froclown says "liberals" don't do - making a solid judgment about his post and how False it is.
Now to follow that up, in the case of your posts recently, you've been talking about "nit-picking" replies, such as the examples that AvshalomBinyamin gave. It seems to me that "nit-picking" is extremely scientific, and not paying attention to details is not. THAT is not a judgment on which is better, only that AvshalomBinyamin's additional information seems more scientific to me, and I like that approach...
It kind of feels like if you were in a classroom and the teacher said "America was discovered by Christopher Columbus"; you would A) expect the liberal child in the class to raise his hands and "nit-pick" over that "fact" B) tell that Child to shut-up.
-
@Tinman said
"You'll notice the common usage of the pronoun "They" followed by some remark that lumps all "Liberals"..."
Not necessarily. A generalization about "they" is usually debatable to some degree. To say "all" is usually indefensible... which is why many will rephrase a generality as an exclusive 'all' (or 'none' or 'never' or 'always', etc.) which then is much easier to refute. And then the deep denial leftist can continue along his merry way in dismissive bliss of the uncomfortable truth.
One can make a general observation that Florida is warmer than Alaska. Now those who are threatened by such an observation might obfuscate by rephrasing the speaker as saying, "You said Florida is** always** warmer than Alaska but once the southern panhandle of Alaska was warmer than it was one record cold spring day in Florida" or some such thing. Those in denial now presume that they have made a relevant refutation. But the reality is that no meaningful reply was made concerning the actual claim.