Function of Gratitude in Magick
-
@Takamba said
"
@Frater 639 said
"
What does everyone think is meant by "failure cannot occur?""If one is constantly able to adjust to things, to not be rigid in one's standards of response to circumstance, one can learn and adapt and, although maybe not as quickly as imagined, get one's self to the right path for success. Even if this means that discovering one was wasting time toward a fool's errand, one can then correct one's self and still avoid failure.
On the other hand, if one is living by a rigid expectation of what one "must" be doing or accomplishing, one may spend eternal life times failing to see the light."
Yes, Agreed. I usually look at these two phenomenon as "becoming" and "being," which was echoed by Los here (what a cool discussion):
@Los said
""Success" and "failure" aren't things that exist in the world. They're ideas about the world -- static ideas about a world constantly in flux.
It's true that "failure cannot occur," just like success cannot occur because each of those words is a label that the mind places around a state of affairs. And then we instantly have a new state of affairs to deal with. Ideas like success and failure are only useful insofar as they provide information that may be useful for planning one's next move.
Acquiescing to the elasticity of the world means that one doesn't have to get caught up in phantoms of the mind like success or failure anymore. Instead, one can get to the heart of the matter, paying attention to what's real."
*Sin (See Skeat's Ety. Dict.) is connected with the root "es", to be. This throws a new light on the passage. Sin is restriction, that is, it is 'being' as opposed to 'becoming'. The fundamental idea of wrong is the static as opposed to the dynamic conception of the Universe. This explanation is not only in harmony with the general teaching of the Book of the Law, but shows how profoundly the author understands Himself.
*
-- The Law is for All -- Chap. I v. 41 (footnote)I tend to look at phenomena in the same way as well. Either "Going" (becoming) or some sort of observation about "Going" which can lead to projection or recollection, which can skew action in accordance with True Will, as we all seem to agree on...
Crowley attributes this "in the moment" view to the fifth Power of the Sphinx, which he called "Ire" - which means "To Go."
-
@Los said
"
@Takamba said
"If one is constantly able to adjust to things, to not be rigid in one's standards of response to circumstance, one can learn and adapt and, although maybe not as quickly as imagined, get one's self to the right path for success.""Success" and "failure" aren't things that exist in the world. They're ideas about the world -- static ideas about a world constantly in flux.
It's true that "failure cannot occur," just like success cannot occur because each of those words is a label that the mind places around a state of affairs. And then we instantly have a new state of affairs to deal with. Ideas like success and failure are only useful insofar as they provide information that may be useful for planning one's next move.
Acquiescing to the elasticity of the world means that one doesn't have to get caught up in phantoms of the mind like success or failure anymore. Instead, one can get to the heart of the matter, paying attention to what's real."
ALL HAIL THE GREAT LOS
ALL HAIL THE GREAT LOS
Nothing here was said, he just wanted to say he was right and an other was wrong.
ALL HAIL THE GREAT LOS
success is his proof
-
I think I've come to my final answer on the "standard" bit.
Bottom line:
If it's an externally-imposed standard, to hell with it if it contradicts my Will. But neither am I deviating from my Will to contradict an externally-imposed standard without reason. I'm just not thinking about the damned thing in the first place.
If it's an internally-imposed standard, it's nobody else's business why I've chosen to use it, what changes in accordance to Will I hope to create by it, or what I hope to experience in that process. If I choose it willingly, it's just nobody else's business. Not in Thelema.
Probably not gonna play the "no failure" game.
Peace.
p.s. Notice I have used the present tense to describe a situation in which I imagine myself currently being. Please don't let this confuse anyone.
-
@ Legis - I loved watching you trying to impose a standard on yourself as the thread went on - i.e. the 'my last post' stuff, but then you seemed to find yourself driven to post anyway and thereby damned your standard each time to remain an unrealized and impotent restriction of your will...
Was that a deliberate Q.E.D.?
I enjoyed it immensely. -
@Alrah said
"@ Legis - I loved watching you trying to impose a standard on yourself as the thread went on - i.e. the 'my last post' stuff, but then you seemed to find yourself driven to post anyway and thereby damned your standard each time to remain an unrealized and impotent restriction of your will...
Was that a deliberate Q.E.D.?
I enjoyed it immensely."lol... Not deliberate. More like learning from it in the "going." Therefore, "no failure."
-
@Legis said
"If it's an externally-imposed standard, to hell with it if it contradicts my Will. But neither am I deviating from my Will to contradict an externally-imposed standard without reason. I'm just not thinking about the damned thing in the first place.
If it's an internally-imposed standard, it's nobody else's business why I've chosen to use it, what changes in accordance to Will I hope to create by it, or what I hope to experience in that process. If I choose it willingly, it's just nobody else's business. Not in Thelema."
All standards/ethics -- whether "externally imposed" or "internally imposed" -- equally hinder an individual's work in perceiving and carrying out the True Will.
If you think about it, that must necessarily be the case: the True Will consists of the individual's natural inclinations, while standards/ethics tell an individual that he or she should act in particular ways regardless of his or her inclinations in the moment.
To pay attention to the mind's ideas about how the Self should be acting is to shift attention away from the Self and get misled.
As a concrete example, let's say that you want to stay home and watch the game, but your friend has asked you to help him with a project he's working on. If you say to yourself, "Well, I'd really like to watch this game, but I'm a loyal person who always helps out his friends, and I live my life by the standard of being there for people I care about, so I'm going to put aside what I want to do and live up to that standard of behavior," then you're not following your Will in that particular instance.
-
@Los said
"All standards/ethics -- whether "externally imposed" or "internally imposed" -- equally hinder an individual's work in perceiving and carrying out the True Will."
Let me just also point out that "internally imposed" standards of behavior -- such as "personal morality," invented by the individual for the individual -- can be a much more difficult prison to escape than externally imposed standards of behavior, precisely because one tends to attach a narrative onto those internal standards along the lines of, "These are my own, personal codes that are just for me, that come from me, and only I need to live up to them, and that's how I'm true to myself, and" blah blah blah.
-
@Los said
"
@Los said
"All standards/ethics -- whether "externally imposed" or "internally imposed" -- equally hinder an individual's work in perceiving and carrying out the True Will."Let me just also point out that "internally imposed" standards of behavior -- such as "personal morality," invented by the individual for the individual -- can be a much more difficult prison to escape than externally imposed standards of behavior, precisely because one tends to attach a narrative onto those internal standards along the lines of, "These are my own, personal codes that are just for me, that come from me, and only I need to live up to them, and that's how I'm true to myself, and" blah blah blah."
But see, your concept of rejecting all standards for living in the Will in the moment, as you describe it - to me, that's an external standard. It's your standard, not mine.
That's how we got off on all this in the first place: "what's a standard?" "good standards versus bad standards," "minsterpretation as a standard" ...etc...
Because I was trying to get you to see your own standard that you refuse to call a standard.
But it doesn't suit me. It reflects your understanding, not my own. You have never mentioned the connection between Will and Love or the connection of such living according to your Will in the moment to Love. And I think attempting to answer that question is fundamental to Thelema. To me, your concept seems a smaller, less-satisfying concept than what I already understand as Will. Your idea seems to me to be nothing more than simple Id-appeasement, which can be just a million little "loves-not-under-Will" all running around and conflicting with themselves from one moment to the next. I understand Will as something more holistically organizing of each of these million little loves-not-under-Will so that they are all placed under one's True Will.
Whether I'm wrong about it or not... In short, it's your own standard. And to me, it's an external standard.
And ...lol... as it attempts to breed uniformity through preaching one and only one understanding of True Will, I resist it with all of my might.
-
I dunno, I find the societal ethic of not murdering really helps me not be murdered, so that I can continue following my true will.
-
@Legis said
"But see, your concept of rejecting all standards for living in the Will in the moment, as you describe it - to me, that's an external standard. It's your standard, not mine."
Again, it's not a "standard," in the sense we've been talking about, becomes there is no sense that one "should" do it or that it's a "good" thing to do. It just is.
"You have never mentioned the connection between Will and Love or the connection of such living according to your Will in the moment to Love."
Sure I did. Earlier in this thread, I explained how love is defined in Thelema -- in Thelema, "love" specifically refers to expansion of the Self into Nuit (that is, obtaining experience through the fulfillment of possibility). Go back and read that post.
" I understand Will as something more holistically organizing of each of these million little loves-not-under-Will so that they are all placed under one's True Will."
This is meaningless drivel. What's a practical example of what you're talking about here?
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"I dunno, I find the societal ethic of not murdering really helps me not be murdered, so that I can continue following my true will."
lol... Then, in my view, it would be okay for you to make that a functional internal standard to serve your own purposes until your Will needs to contradict that. But don't go around* not *murdering people just because society says not to. lol...
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"I dunno, I find the societal ethic of not murdering really helps me not be murdered, so that I can continue following my true will."
Well, first of all, I'm not convinced that believing "murder is bad" is what prevents most people from murdering. I don't know about you, but I don't walk around with a burning desire to commit murder while having to restrain myself by telling myself how "bad" it is.
I have no desire to commit murder. I strongly suspect that the vast majority of other people similarly have no desire to do so.
In other words, I think you've got the causality backwards: it's not that people avoid doing it because it's considered "bad"...rather, people consider it "bad" because most people normally avoid doing it.
And even in those cases where people have a desire to commit murder, I would suggest that the practical consequences of murdering someone else (such as being locked up) are far more deterrents than the abstract idea that it's "wrong" to murder.
And even if you were right and it was the belief that "murder is bad" that actually prevents others from murdering you, that still wouldn't be a reason for you to accept it. It would just be a reason for you to want others to keep accepting it.
-
Evidence?
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"Evidence?"
For what? My strong suspicion that the belief "murder is bad" isn't the primary deterrent for murder?
I already explained in that post that I'm extrapolating from my own experiences and those that have been reported to me by others, in addition to supposing the more immediate consequences (such as imprisonment) would be more immediate and greater deterrents. Since no one is capable of reading other people's minds, that's the best we can do, but as it stands, I consider that to be a solid argument.
-
And you were raised in a society where the ethic is to not murder. How do you know that ethics isn't responsible, and that you're not unconsciously repressing a murderous impulse?
-
@Los said
"
@Legis said
"But see, your concept of rejecting all standards for living in the Will in the moment, as you describe it - to me, that's an external standard. It's your standard, not mine."Again, it's not a "standard," in the sense we've been talking about, becomes there is no sense that one "should" do it or that it's a "good" thing to do. It just is. "
Your disputed interpretation of Will is the standard to which I refer. And you do preach it in what are basically terms of "should" and "good."
@Los said
"
@Legis said
"You have never mentioned the connection between Will and Love or the connection of such living according to your Will in the moment to Love."Sure I did. Earlier in this thread, I explained how love is defined in Thelema -- in Thelema, "love" specifically refers to expansion of the Self into Nuit (that is, obtaining experience through the fulfillment of possibility). Go back and read that post."
Done. You say, "...any course of action is equally an act of Love -- an act of experiencing possibility..." That definition of love is so abstract and impractical that it is meaningless to me. To me, it seems as if in that definition Reason defines love in a way that removes all sense of feeling from it. And love is a feeling word.
Nuit is not unmanifested possibility alone. She is also concretely manifested possibility. She is everything else - everyone, everything thing - and I do not understand loving her in terms of merely "experiencing possibility." I understand loving her as truly learning to love everyone and everything, for through everyone and everything is Nuit manifested.
In my view, Will is always performed in love of her - "to her," who is everyone, and everything, and ALL possibility. The act of Willing to Love all manifestations of Nuit whether or not they return that Love or whether or not they are able to understand and appreciate my loving action as "loving" is the goal, or else Will would be placed under the desire for returned Love.
Is "Do unto Nuit as you Would have her do unto you" so repugnant a standard through which to gain experience of love and learn from it even temporarily - under the Will of learning to love her?
Nevermind. Don't answer that.
@Los said
"
@Legis said
"I understand Will as something more holistically organizing of each of these million little loves-not-under-Will so that they are all placed under one's True Will."This is meaningless drivel. What's a practical example of what you're talking about here?"
The desire to be an offensive asshole must take second place to the desire to instruct others if the larger, more holistically organizing Will is to instruct others. Love of being an asshole (in the moment) must be placed under the larger goals of Will.
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"And you were raised in a society where the ethic is to not murder. How do you know that ethics isn't responsible, and that you're not unconsciously repressing a murderous impulse?"
Certainly the influence of society shapes a person's preferences (what we call "True Will"), but I would characterize it as "my upbringing has left me without any desires to murder," not that my upbringing has forced me to repress my murderous desires (which, as far as I can tell, it hasn't because I don't have any such desires at all).
I wouldn't say that "ethics" has influenced my desires -- I would say that society has. There's a big difference.
To give you an example of the difference: if, tomorrow, the ethical belief that "murder is wrong" suddenly and magically vanished, we would still have laws against it. Why? Because (secular) laws aren't based on ethics or morality: they're based on societal health and creating the kind of society we want to live in. We all prefer to live in a society where murder doesn't happen...not because it's "wrong" but because we simply don't want that kind of society.
-
@Legis said
"You say, "...any course of action is equally an act of Love -- an act of experiencing possibility..." That definition of love is so abstract and impractical that it is meaningless to me."
Well, in a sense, it is meaningless since any action could qualify as Love. It's Will that gives direction to Love. Hence, "love under will."
[By the same token, "Will" is meaningless without objects toward which to move...Love and Will are two sides of a single coin and complete one another]
"Reason defines love in a way that removes all sense of feeling from it."
In Thelema, "Love" doesn't refer to a feeling: it has a specific definition, the expansion of the individual into Nuit.So, to explain further, from the perspective of Thelema, everything that you do is an act of Love. Everything. Eating a ham sandwich, watching a ballgame, walking in the park, going to the bathroom, behaving like a jerk, feeding a baby, singing a song, cheating on your wife, getting into a streetfight, watching Breaking Bad, writing a short story, having a daydream, going to a party, moving to the mountains to become a hermit, shaving, scratching your balls, turning on a light, reading a book, etc., etc., etc.
Each of those things is an example of "Love," the way that word is defined in Thelema.
So if Love can be anything, what's the point?
The point is that Love is directed by Will ("love under will") -- your experiences are put under the control of your Will so that you choose acts of Love that are in line with your particular nature. Each act expands your Self further.
"Is "Do unto Nuit as you Would have her do unto you" so repugnant a standard through which to gain experience of love and learn from it even temporarily - under the Will of learning to love her?"
You're just way too in your head here. If you're distracting yourself with all this meaningless jibber-jabber, you're really not going to be able to perceive your Will in the moment. Just drop all of it. Stop thinking and just observe yourself.
-
Albert Ellis posits three major insights of REBT:
*Insight 1 – People seeing and accepting the reality that their emotional disturbances at point C are only partially caused by the activating events or adversities at point A that precede C. Although A contributes to C, and although disturbed Cs (such as feelings of panic and depression) are much more likely to follow strong negative As (such as being assaulted or raped), than they are to follow weak As (such as being disliked by a stranger), the main or more direct cores of extreme and dysfunctional emotional disturbances (Cs) are people’s irrational beliefs — the "absolutistic" (inflexible) "musts" and their accompanying inferences and attributions that people strongly believe about the activating event.
Insight 2 – No matter how, when, and why people acquire self-defeating or irrational beliefs (i.e. beliefs that are the main cause of their dysfunctional emotional-behavioral consequences), if they are disturbed in the present, they tend to keep holding these irrational beliefs and continue upsetting themselves with these thoughts. They do so not because they held them in the past, but because they still actively hold them in the present (often unconsciously), while continuing to reaffirm their beliefs and act as if they are still valid. In their minds and hearts, the troubled people still follow the core "musturbatory" philosophies they adopted or invented long ago, or ones they recently accepted or constructed.
Insight 3 – No matter how well they have gained insights 1 and 2, insight alone rarely enables people to undo their emotional disturbances. They may feel better when they know, or think they know, how they became disturbed, because insights can feel useful and curative. But it is unlikely that people will actually get better and stay better unless they have and apply insight 3, which is that there is usually no way to get better and stay better except by continual work and practice in looking for and finding one’s core irrational beliefs; actively, energetically, and scientifically disputing them; replacing one’s absolute "musts" (rigid requirements about how things should be) with more flexible preferences; changing one's unhealthy feelings to healthy, self-helping emotions; and firmly acting against one’s dysfunctional fears and compulsions. Only by a combined cognitive, emotive, and behavioral, as well as a quite persistent and forceful attack on one's serious emotional problems, is one likely to significantly ameliorate or remove them, and keep them removed.*
It sounds like Thelema is just a fancy precursor to REBT.
Isn't there more than that?