Joining Thelemic Orders != doing ones true will.
-
@Patthana Gati said
"An atheist withholds belief. i.e.: An atheist or scientist can not prove a negative and thus withholds belief. They do not grant the view in question any validity and continues on until such a time that it is proven (if it ever is)."
An agnostic (literally, "not-knower") withholds belief. An atheist (literally, "not-godist") has a firm belief that there is no god.
"In the case of the Book of the Law there is a great wealth of evidence to disprove the story of the reception and so that is a denial of a belief rather than a withholding of a belief."
Is is a belief against another belief. (And, in this case, it's very much a belief; specifically, an opinion.)
Of course (as you cite), if we frame this in the procedures of contemporary scientific method, the rules change. So far, it doesn't look to me like that's the subject matter of this thread.
"hmmm. I'm wondering to myself if I would consider most members of this forum as people who are in their primary training years. At least to their faces...
"Well, there is that
"Primary training years" does have the last word as a plural
. I'd say that at least 93% of the people here are either in the primary training years, or haven't even started primary education. Since I'm such a no-accomplishment lazyass, it's probably not fair to offer up that I put myself in that "primary training" category for at least the first decade after I formally began directed work (and it would probably be fairer to say that it was for the first 14 years)."As a person who actually trained as a gymnast (which can be extremely dangerous) then I brought a lot into my training that my trainers had never encountered before, as I was simultaneously taking yoga instruction. No-one ever told me to stop introducing my other practises into the Gym class or told me not to go off program, and instead something rather more natural arose. My coaches spent some time watching and validating that it worked and then encouraged me to instruct my peers."
I'd call that working on-program, rather than off-program: The one responsible for your training program validated the practice and adjusted the curriculum.
-
What I don´t get of this "school learning" thing is that sort bureaucratic language. I know schools have to make it serious and that, but it still sounds a little.. artificial. The thing is I´ve known so many mediocre and untalented people with the mentality that joining a class of whatever they will to learn to do that thing, when they only learn mere technique, that I´m inclinned to think that the very most part of an school of that kind has to be of that type. And for the master/student relationship.. I don´t know how that goes in a "school" , but from my experiencie I´d say that the only valid relationship between a master and a "student" is usually almost casual and of friendship and collaboration, it has to be a mutual thing and in equal conditions, both have to have something to lose from that, otherwise, pure bullshit.
-
@SmokingMonkey said
"...from my experiencie I´d say that the only valid relationship between a master and a "student" is usually almost casual and of friendship and collaboration, it has to be a mutual thing and in equal conditions, both have to have something to lose from that, otherwise, pure bullshit."
That's very narrow view. For most places through most of history, there has been a dedicated studenship - ashram environments being an example. People leaving home and dedicating years of their lives to study and drill under close observation.
In modern times, we've gained some things and lost some things by endeavoring to do the same thing mostly in non-monastic contexts.
-
Yes, it's an old observation, one that I first read in high school in Mein Kampf. Hitler argued effectively for youth have energy and idealism in abundance without yet having the skill or power to put it in place; and that the more aged that had the skill and power to put it in place were no longer blessed with the abundance of energy and idealism.
I have always found this a fascinating characteristic of the eternal generatiional hand-off.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@SmokingMonkey said
"...from my experiencie I´d say that the only valid relationship between a master and a "student" is usually almost casual and of friendship and collaboration, it has to be a mutual thing and in equal conditions, both have to have something to lose from that, otherwise, pure bullshit."That's very narrow view. For most places through most of history, there has been a dedicated studenship - ashram environments being an example. People leaving home and dedicating years of their lives to study and drill under close observation.
In modern times, we've gained some things and lost some things by endeavoring to do the same thing mostly in non-monastic contexts."
Well one thing is a master as a personal mentor or something, and another a teacher. I was referring rather to the first one. Of course one can learn from a teacher or a variety of them in an school environment, the same way as one can learn from books and practice and mixing with people of the environtment in a freelance way. The important thing in any case is aside, in it´s most part.
-
@SmokingMonkey said
"Well one thing is a master as a personal mentor or something, and another a teacher. I was referring rather to the first one. Of course one can learn from a teacher or a variety of them in an school environment, the same way as one can learn from books and practice and mixing with people of the environtment in a freelance way."
One learns, hopefully, from everybody.
BTW, you do know (don't you?) that the word "master" most fundamentally means "teacher," yes? Only in modern time does it have the implication of boss, slave-owner, or the like. In addition to the secondary (associated) meaning of "someone with great skill," etc., the Latin magister (the sense in which we use the word) means "teacher." (This has only tended to survive in modern times in the term "headmaster," or "head teacher.")
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@SmokingMonkey said
"Well one thing is a master as a personal mentor or something, and another a teacher. I was referring rather to the first one. Of course one can learn from a teacher or a variety of them in an school environment, the same way as one can learn from books and practice and mixing with people of the environtment in a freelance way."One learns, hopefully, from everybody.
BTW, you do know (don't you?) that the word "master" most fundamentally means "teacher," yes? Only in modern time does it have the implication of boss, slave-owner, or the like. In addition to the secondary (associated) meaning of "someone with great skill," etc., the Latin magister (the sense in which we use the word) means "teacher." (This has only tended to survive in modern times in the term "headmaster," or "head teacher.")"
In theory it could be, but "master" always sound much more high than teacher. At least, when someone refers to a "master of painting" or whatever, you know already what they are talking about.
Btw, refering to the technique that was on target before, a quote of Plato I think every student of whatever should have to have stuck in over it´s head bed:
"
"He who approaches to the temple of the muses without inspiration, believing that mere technical it´s enough, will always be a thief and his poetry will be obscured by the songs of the maniacs"" -
So true. (The Plato quote.)
-
"An agnostic (literally, "not-knower") withholds belief. An atheist (literally, "not-godist") has a firm belief that there is no god."
I think there's a common or vernacular understanding of what the terms mean, and then there are somewhat different definitions used in philosophy.
In strong atheism, there's a positive claim: "There is no god, or gods".
In weak atheism, there's a negative claim, or simple absence of belief: "I don't believe in a god or gods"."Strong", "weak", "positive" and "negative" here are technical terms, not value judgements.
Agnosticism is simply the position that, to quote Wikipedia, "claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity... are unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable". It's a claim about knowledge, not belief.
Thus it's possible to be an agnostic atheist, a gnostic theist, an agnostic theist or a gnostic atheist. The theist-atheist scale is about belief; the gnostic-agnostic scale is about knowledge.
In the vernacular, "agnostic" usually is the equivalent of "weak atheist".
At least that's how the atheists explained it to me over beer...
(edit): Yikes, the thread has moved on since then, my apologies for going off-track there.
-
@sozos said
"
"An agnostic (literally, "not-knower") withholds belief. An atheist (literally, "not-godist") has a firm belief that there is no god."I think there's a common or vernacular understanding of what the terms mean, and then there are somewhat different definitions used in philosophy.
In strong atheism, there's a positive claim: "There is no god, or gods".
In weak atheism, there's a negative claim, or simple absence of belief: "I don't believe in a god or gods".""this is the law of the strong"
"Be strong, o man!"
"Wisdom says: be strong!" -
"I think there's a common or vernacular understanding of what the terms mean, and then there are somewhat different definitions used in philosophy.
In strong atheism, there's a positive claim: "There is no god, or gods".
In weak atheism, there's a negative claim, or simple absence of belief: "I don't believe in a god or gods"."Strong", "weak", "positive" and "negative" here are technical terms, not value judgements.
Agnosticism is simply the position that, to quote Wikipedia, "claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity... are unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable". It's a claim about knowledge, not belief."
Well the problem with asking an atheist whether there is faith involved in atheism is that it's just like asking a conservative Christian if it's their opinion that they are being hateful to homosexuals. They can't see it. Their doctrine rejects hatred, so they just reinterpret their actions as loving. They will only respond that they are acting in the most loving possible manner, by warning homosexuals strenuously of their eternal damnation in Hell. This rejection and condemnation, in their opinion, is the most loving action possible. Same thing with trying to get atheists to see their faith.
Atheists reject faith. It's a central tenet of their unspoken doctrine: "Ye shall not have faith!" So, of course, any attempt to reframe their believer script to them in terms of the "faith" that they have (in Reason alone) will be met with denial. Their doctrine rejects faith, so they just reinterpret every aspect of atheism as reason.
But calling atheism a "faith" is simply pointing at the presuppositions in their logic and saying, "You have a belly-button too."
Reality: Theistic OR Atheistic is like Light: Particle or Wave.
How you determine to experience Reality affects your results.
-
Your reaction begs the question posed to me by an atheist:
"Logically, how can animosity be the result of a LACK of belief in something? It can't be, can it?"
No.
-
"mock·er·y; n. pl. mock·er·ies
- Scornfully contemptuous ridicule; derision.
- A specific act of ridicule or derision.
- An object of scorn or ridicule
- A false, derisive, or impudent imitation
- Something ludicrously futile or unsuitable."
". . . Veil not your vices in virtuous words. . ."
Such veiling of hatred for faith behind the logic of atheism is precisely the problem of self-blindness that I observe.
-
@Patthana Gati said
"
@Bereshith said
"Such veiling of hatred for faith behind the logic of atheism is precisely the problem of self-blindness that I observe."I just don't have much use for it and I consider a believer script to be incompatible with Magick. Do you think Crowley hated faith though? I think I might agree with that, but then... he had good reason to, didn't he?"
So much of this is a matter of definition, though.
Is faith the issue? Or is "faith as applied in conservative Christianity" the issue? (I have faith - certainty unfounded in linearly-linkable facts - in all sorts of things, like, say, the idea that the 2016 Presidential candidates will lie during their campaign.)
Is belief the issue, or particular beliefs, or beliefs leveraged in particular ways such as rigid rejection of knowledge as its equal partner? (There has never been a belief-free society recorded in the history of humanity.)
I define faith as the language of superconsciousness. It isn't "unreal" unless you define "unreal" as necessarily including any cognitive content that can arise without physical sensation, reason, or emotion / pattern recognition.
And belief is the best word in the English language for labelling the "reading between the lines" cognition of implicit and inferred information that is natural to the right hemisphere of the human cerebral cortex. (Knowledge "reads the lines." Belief "reads between the lines.")
So, to respond to two of your remarks, I consider belief to be the very stuff of magick, and yes, I think Crowley hated the kind of faith-based religious behavior in his formative environment.
-
@Patthana Gati said
"We're getting to the good stuff Jim! Before I reply though, can I ask you if you consider your position to be representative of the White School of Magick?"
Of course you can ask?
Oh, but you also want me to answer!
I try to avoid that sort of categorization. (I deny "Gerard Aumont's" assertion that the three are "perfectly distinct." They make a nice mental exercise for an Exempt Adept, though.) In any case, it's mostly true that my "front" is white school themed (i.e., Rosicrucian-derived). The particular point of view in my last post was white-yellow (i.e., only specifically excluding the black from the conversation, without denying it outright).
-
Moving toward spiritual experience: Faith = Gas, Doubt = Brakes
Moving toward analysis of experience: Doubt = Gas, Faith = BrakesTools.
But if every instance of the application of faith is going to be condemned outright, then one gets stuck in analysis alone with no gas to move toward spiritual experience.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
I define faith as the language of superconsciousness. It isn't "unreal" unless you define "unreal" as necessarily including any cognitive content that can arise without physical sensation, reason, or emotion / pattern recognition."Name dropping time: Tarkovsky´s best film, "Stalker", centers on a idea of "faith" that could fit pretty well with that definition.
-
@Patthana Gati said
"It may help our readers to think in those terms."
LOL, I think that most of "our readers" don't have clear distinctions on the Three Schools. It's likely to serve only as a device of dialectic. Nonetheless... I like the idea of framing remarks within a point of view from the start, to the same advantage as defining one's terms.
-
Well yeah, Patthana, I see you as attacking the White School from a Black School perspective.
If you really understand the instruction process and learning curve of each as well as their ultimate unity, what's the point?
Why "should" and "because" a school whose methods you personally reject, but whose ultimate outcome is the same?
-
@Patthana said
" The mystical experience of a state of enlightenment - that is so powerful as to remodel the unconscious and conscious mind. All other beliefs are merely shadows built upon the ecstatic revelation of the adepts who undergo it.
We may observe that the delusions of the adept in this period have a trickle down effect and that in wrestling with the temptation for ego expansion, the adept becomes a symbol for everyone who has yet to experience it but can yet understand it on another lower level in the realm of Netzach and/or Hod and/or Yesod. Thus we get the type of Jesus avatar of religion we are all familiar with, and the masses make it their own without knowing it for themselves or understanding what is going on in the realms of the functionality of consciousness. They just understand the qualia. And even the adept may be deceived by the qualia and this is more the case than not. Thus from the delusion of the adept the delusions of the believer may be entrenched more often than not.
Today's science is catching up to strip that away and I welcome it.
"To me, it sounds like your expectations outstrip the needs of students.
From the developmental perspective, humans will always begin as children, who will always take metaphors literally at first. Always. They are unable to do otherwise, no matter the metaphors presented to them. The developmental process of becoming able to understand the really deep stuff is always going to have stopping points along the way, and each stage has its own delusions and conflicts to be resolved on a higher level, as one enters the next stage.
In short, I think the misconceptions you are hoping to prevent are natural to the process of development and, as such, are to a great degree inescapable.