The Essence of Thelema
-
It sounds like a restriction of the mind, with the effect of limiting the expression of true will, to insist that one can't simultaneously explore the compatible aspects between Thelema and other belief systems.
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"It sounds like a restriction of the mind, with the effect of limiting the expression of true will, to insist that one can't simultaneously explore the compatible aspects between Thelema and other belief systems."
And when did I say such a thing?
I think if you examine what I actually wrote, you'll see that my point was that these systems are logically incompatible (such that one cannot simultaneously be a Christian and Thelemite, for example), but there are indeed points of similarity that might be interesting to study, for a variety of reasons.
-
Sorry, allow me to rephrase:
It sounds like a restriction of the mind, with the effect of limiting the expression of true will, to insist that one can't simultaneously be a Hindu and a Thelemite; or a Christian and a Thelemite.
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"Sorry, allow me to rephrase:
It sounds like a restriction of the mind, with the effect of limiting the expression of true will, to insist that one can't simultaneously be a Hindu and a Thelemite; or a Christian and a Thelemite."
This seems especially evident to me if we move into Los' p.o.v. that there is nothing inherently religious about Thelema. In that case, the whole field of "one's religious life" is per se untouched, and is outside the definition of Thelema.
Of course, being a Hindu or Christian or whatever could, for a particular person, carry other "luggage" (I don't mean that in a pejorative way, so I didn't use "baggage"; I just mean "bundled up stuff that you choose to carry around and keep close to you"). Some of that "luggage" could turn out to be at odds with Thelema in some fashion. But, then, the same is true of being a butcher, a baker, or a candlestick maker (or, for that matter, anything else).
-
@Jim Eshelman said
" Los' p.o.v. that there is nothing inherently religious about Thelema. In that case, the whole field of "one's religious life" is per se untouched, and is outside the definition of Thelema."
That's a good point. Thelema, in and of itself, isn't inherently theistic or atheistic, for example. It's inherently skeptical, though, and I would argue that Thelema is best practiced in the context of beliefs that can withstand skeptical scrutiny.
So that means -- given the fact that there is insufficient evidence to support the notion that any gods exist and given that, therefore, the proper skeptical position is not to accept the claim that any gods exist -- I would argue that Thelema is best practiced in the context of atheism. However, if tomorrow humanity became aware of sufficient evidence for the existence of gods, then in that case, the proper skeptical position would be to accept the claim that gods exist. In that particular situation, Thelema would then be best practiced in the context of theism.
-
@Los said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
" Los' p.o.v. that there is nothing inherently religious about Thelema. In that case, the whole field of "one's religious life" is per se untouched, and is outside the definition of Thelema."That's a good point. Thelema, in and of itself, isn't inherently theistic or atheistic, for example. It's inherently skeptical, though, and I would argue that Thelema is best practiced in the context of beliefs that can withstand skeptical scrutiny.
So that means -- given the fact that there is insufficient evidence to support the notion that any gods exist and given that, therefore, the proper skeptical position is not to accept the claim that any gods exist -- I would argue that Thelema is best practiced in the context of atheism. However, if tomorrow humanity became aware of sufficient evidence for the existence of gods, then in that case, the proper skeptical position would be to accept the claim that gods exist. In that particular situation, Thelema would then be best practiced in the context of theism."
Considering all that (Hard Absolutism), what if the "belief in something" supports results (regardless of the absolute reality of these things believed in)?
-
@Los said
"Thelema, in and of itself, isn't inherently theistic or atheistic, for example. It's inherently skeptical, though"
I don't agree with that at all.
I don't think it's the opposite - inherently UN-skeptical. But the skepticism elements were Crowley interpolations at a time that he was actively distancing himself from The Book of the Law. They form a part of Crowleyanity.
This isn't me taking a stand either for or against them. I'm only disagreeing that they have anything inerently to do with Thelema. I even lean in the direction that balanced skepticism is the best approach (it's my approach, so of course I think it's the best <g>). However, given the diversity of people, I don't lean so far as to think that it applies to everyone. (And it doesn't replace the deeply Thelemic practice of unreasonable enthusiasm outside of any calculation.)
"So that means -- given the fact that there is insufficient evidence to support the notion that any gods exist and given that, therefore, the proper skeptical position is not to accept the claim that any gods exist -- I would argue that Thelema is best practiced in the context of atheism."
Yes, we know
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"Sorry, allow me to rephrase:
It sounds like a restriction of the mind, with the effect of limiting the expression of true will, to insist that one can't simultaneously be a Hindu and a Thelemite; or a Christian and a Thelemite."
Not any more of a "restriction" than pointing out that a person can't draw a square circle.
Anyway, the idea that it could be someone's True Will to "be a Hindu" (or "be" anything, really) is absurd. True Will is something a person does, as I've been explaining. "I'm a Hindu!" is, at best, a story that a person tells himself (to be clear, so is "I'm a Thelemite!"). These are mental categories and narratives, and getting caught up in them (and stories about "who I am!") is the surest way to get lost in a bunch of distracting narratives.
True Will is what someone does. Might it be someone's True Will to attend a Hindu ritual -- or even perform a Hindu ritual -- because that person enjoys doing it or witnessing it? Sure. But it's not someone's "True Will" to "be" a Hindu -- or to "be" any other abstract concept. To draw an analogy, let's say that Mr. X sees a guy fall and authentically wants to help the guy up. It can be part of Mr. X's True Will to do that specific action in that specific moment, but it can't be Mr. X's True Will to "be an upright and compassionate person who works hard to be kind to my fellow man as a True King should!"
One is an action (performed in a specific context because it's dictated by a person's actual inclinations in the moment). The other is a story that only exists in the mind and is liable to mislead at some point.
-
@Los said
"True Will is what someone does. Might it be someone's True Will to attend a Hindu ritual -- or even perform a Hindu ritual -- because that person enjoys doing it or witnessing it? Sure. But it's not someone's "True Will" to "be" a Hindu -- or to "be" any other abstract concept. To draw an analogy, let's say that Mr. X sees a guy fall and authentically wants to help the guy up. It can be part of Mr. X's True Will to do that specific action in that specific moment, but it can't be Mr. X's True Will to "be an upright and compassionate person who works hard to be kind to my fellow man as a True King should!"
One is an action (performed in a specific context because it's dictated by a person's actual inclinations in the moment). The other is a story that only exists in the mind and is liable to mislead at some point."
So what story are you fooling yourself with to believe you must correct "Thelema?"
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"Sorry, allow me to rephrase:
It sounds like a restriction of the mind, with the effect of limiting the expression of true will, to insist that one can't simultaneously be a Hindu and a Thelemite; or a Christian and a Thelemite."
I agree, if and when we argue dogma and whats compatible with another..
Well ok, What's our quest? As human beings i mean.. as in the fulfillment of that which is potential in each of us.. not just some ego trip but transparent to transcendence? -
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@Los said
"Thelema, in and of itself, isn't inherently theistic or atheistic, for example. It's inherently skeptical, though"I don't agree with that at all."
There's a shocker.
"I don't think it's the opposite - inherently UN-skeptical. But the skepticism elements were Crowley interpolations at a time that he was actively distancing himself from The Book of the Law. They form a part of Crowleyanity."
No, the Book of the Law contains injunctions for individuals to demonstrate things to themselves about their inner experiences, which necessitates skepticism. In order to practice Thelema intelligently, people have to be able to demonstrate (to themselves, not to anyone else) that certain ideas they have about themselves and the universe are wrong. The standards by which they do this should be no less strict than the standards by which they demonstrate anything else, which allows us to be able to talk about, in general, how a person goes about "discovering" the True Will beneath the false ideas about "who I am" that the mind generates.
Thelema is skeptical to its core: at its basis is the notion that most people -- probably all or nearly all people -- are misled by their own minds, that their ideas about themselves are mostly wrong and need to be thoroughly doubted.
-
@Los said
"Thelema, in and of itself, isn't inherently theistic or atheistic, for example. It's inherently skeptical...."
This is an "is of identity" error (Korzybksi); it's also a misuse of "in and of itslef" (Kant). Thelema's not a thing. I see you still haven't done the homework I assigned you. Pity. Your energy could take you far, if only you'd apply it right.
-
@Los said
"Thelema is skeptical to its core: at its basis is the notion that most people -- probably all or nearly all people -- are misled by their own minds, that their ideas about themselves are mostly wrong and need to be thoroughly doubted."
I thought sceptical-atheistic-naturalistic-moral-nihilists believe the concept of "mind" is an illusion and that the self doesn't exists (like Daniel Dennett's "there's no you in you").
Are you sure you're a sceptical-atheistic-naturalistic-moral-nihilist?
Are you certain your'e not one of those people misled by their own "mind"?
Have you scrutinized "yourself" enough to know your're not in the "mostly wrong" camp?
How do you know your "thorough doubt" hasn't been thoroughly extended to your own "mind/self"?
-
@landis said
"
@Los said
"Thelema is skeptical to its core: at its basis is the notion that most people -- probably all or nearly all people -- are misled by their own minds, that their ideas about themselves are mostly wrong and need to be thoroughly doubted."I thought sceptical-atheistic-naturalistic-moral-nihilists believe the concept of "mind" is an illusion and that the self doesn't exists (like Daniel Dennett's "there's no you in you"). "
Side-note: I don't think Dennett would say that the self doesn't exist outright. He'd say the self is virtual; a virtual captain of the crew of a bunch of formerly-specifically-evolved brain gadgets, when they're gerrymandered to work as a functional whole. He likens the self to a "centre of narrative gravity", by analogy with the centre of gravity of a physical mass. Someone who went in search of the Earth's centre of gravity in a mole machine would be making a category mistake, it's not a thing like that. Yet the centre of gravity of the Earth is real enough and objective enough (you can make calculations with it and predict things with it).
Another description he's used is that the self is "fame in the brain", i.e. the brain has multiple processes working in parallel, reporting to each other constantly. When some combination of brain processes is dominant for a while in steering the organism, they are "famous" and other brain gadgets defer to them.
The concept is highly reminiscent of AC's "dust devils" in The Book of Lies.
Another Dennett trope is that we are not the experts on ourselves that we think we are; this, contra the notion of privileged access to private contents of the mind.
For anybody interested in modern, scientifically-informed phliosophical takes on the mind that are sort of friendly to the stuff we're interested in, Dennett is very good (both in himself and for exposure to a compendium of current ideas), as is a fellow called Thomas Metzinger (book called "The Ego Tunnel"). Another philosopher of interest in this area is Ricardo Manzotti, who's well worth checking out for his idea of the "Spread Mind". Another philosopher worth looking at is Francesco Varela (the "Embodied Mind").
-
Does anyone here remember Froclown? Los is giving him a run for his money.
-
@Mercurius said
"Does anyone here remember Froclown? Los is giving him a run for his money."
I respectfully disagree.
I can't explain the basis for my claim without making characterizations of Froclown that would be imprudent to post publically.
-
@Los said
"No, you're misreading me. Here is what you said originally: "Going further, a collection of Thelemites can have core beliefs that they agree on, all according to their True Will, which may create a religious system around these beliefs. Which, in fact, they have -- it is called Thelema.""
No, you're misreading me. Again.
You're confusing Thelema as the Greek word meaning "Will" and Thelema "as religion" again. I can follow your argument -- but all you're doing is playing word games. Pay attention.
Based on empirical evidence and consensus, Thelema is a religion. Whatever "initiated" viewpoint you have is fine. I'm not here to argue against your daydreams. From an "objective" and anthropological perspective -- it is a religion. We've been over this three times now...
Taking my words out of context doesn't make you correct.
@Los said
"You can choose to call them actions, sure, but the concept "True Will" just isn't about the kinds of things we call opinions and thoughts and beliefs. More often than not, opinions, thoughts, and beliefs are the "restrictions" that the mind throws up to obstruct the True Will."
Do I need to point out to you that your above statement is an opinion, a thought, AND a belief about the True Will? By your own definition, your above opinion is a "restriction" that obstructs your True Will? Wow.
Your skepticism still needs Work. These contradictions are causing cognitive dissonance, IMHO.
@Los said"[Los]...doesn't fit the romanticized self image of himself that he prefers."
@Los said
"I already explained the benefits of discovering the True Will. What, are you asking me for personal stories about the specific benefits I've received from discovering my True Will? I'm not inclined to share, especially since this isn't Los Story Hour."
As a skeptic, you should be willing to peer review your data -- unless your opinions about the True Will are not worthy of skeptical review. Otherwise, you just speak from platitudes and we're expected to take your word for it.
I choose to not accept your daydreams regarding the True Will until I can examine your evidence and evaluate your claims based on reason. And you specifically mentioned "practicing" Thelema. Show me evidence of this "practice" and how it helps you find your True Will. If you cannot provide evidence, then your ideas are as real as goblins.
Unless, of course, you just want to relate a personal story, the way most people talk to each other in everyday conversation. That might be more beneficial for us and, possibly, everyone here. I would actually enjoy that and we might be able to learn something that we can all relate to. Further, we may be able to come to a consensus reality, unless that doesn't interest you...
You may be more interested in your personal "spooks."
@Jim Eshelman said
"I can't explain the basis for my claim without making characterizations of Froclown that would be imprudent to post publically."
I agree -- one of them had a religious upbringing that was reacted against much more violently.
-
@gurugeorge said
"Another Dennett trope is that we are not the experts on ourselves that we think we are; this, contra the notion of privileged access to private contents of the mind."
Which would have to extend to, "Dennet's not the expert on himself he thinks he is" (Los' problem). Which raises doubts about the trope. I agree though, Dennet is fun to interact with, even if one disagrees with him.
@gurugeorge said
"For anybody interested in modern, scientifically-informed phliosophical takes...."
What do you mean by "scientific" and "philosophical"?
@gurugeorge said
"...on the mind that are sort of friendly to the stuff we're interested in, Dennett is very good (both in himself and for exposure to a compendium of current ideas), as is a fellow called Thomas Metzinger (book called "The Ego Tunnel"). Another philosopher of interest in this area is Ricardo Manzotti, who's well worth checking out for his idea of the "Spread Mind". Another philosopher worth looking at is Francesco Varela (the "Embodied Mind")."Thanks for the references. I'll try to check them out (I'm familiar with Metzinger). Other references I'd add, most of which will help keep us from veering off into scientism (although I can't vouch for their friendliness) are the Buddha's anatta doctrine; Max Stirner's The Ego and It's Own; the chapters in William James' Principles: "The Automaton-Theory," "The Mind-Stuff Theory," "The Relations of Minds To Other Things," "The Stream of Thought," and "The Consciousness of Self;" Korzybski's Science & Sanity; John C. Lilly's Programming and Metaprogramming in the Human Biocomputer; Robert Anton Wilson's Quantum Psychology and Prometheus Rising; John Searle's (Dennet's principal antogonist) Minds, Brains and Science, The Rediscovery of the Mind, and the The Mystery of Consciousness; Steven Pinker's How the Mind Works and The Blank Slate; J. Allan Hobson's The Chemistry of Conscious States and Consciousness (homage to Frater 639); Mario Beauregard & Denyse O'Leary's The Spiritual Brain; Mario Beauregard's Brain Wars; Joseph Ledoux's Synaptic Self; Antonio Damasio's Self Comes to Mind (homage again to Frater 639); and Daniel J. Siegel's Mindsight.
-
Landis, I deleted your last post, and removed some small content from the one before that. The trimmed content consisted of gratuitous personal remarks about another forum member, and the one I deleted was you baiting Los.
This thread isn't about Los, so (at best) the form of your engagement was off-topic. This thread has crept off-topic and I don't want to have to retrace to where it happened, so let's just bring it back ON topic now, k?
If anyone wants to know what the thread is about, please read the first post. That's your guide.