Thelemic Materialism (Thelemic Philosophy)
-
@ldfriend56 said
"I'm 99% certain I left my body, but I come to this conclusion after years of reflection *and reason. *"
Well, of course you come to this conclusion by using reason. All conclusions are the products of reason operating on evidence. But not all conclusions are created equal: some conclusions, for example, don't properly follow from the evidence or are based on a faulty understanding of evidence, and for this reason it's very possible to use reason to draw conclusions that seem to make sense but are in fact wrong.
In your case, the evidence is your experiences, on multiple occasions it seems, on which you appeared to have left your body.
Your conclusion, based on this evidence, is that you really did leave your body.
The unstated premise (or enthymeme) in this argument is "When I have an experience in which it seems like I did X, it's incredibly likely that I really did X."
(Here, "really did X" is meant to distinguish "really doing X" from something like "just dreaming (or daydreaming) about doing X")
So we can summarize your own thought process like this:
- When I have an experience in which it seems like I did X, it's incredibly likely that I really did X.
- I had an experience in which it seems like I left my body.
- It's incredibly likely that I really did leave my body.
(Where "really did leave my body" is meant to distinguish "really leaving one's body" from something like "just dreaming (or daydreaming) about leaving one's body)
Before I show you why this reasoning is flawed, I'd like you to confirm that the syllogism above is an accurate representation of the reasoning that led you to this conclusion.
A simple yes is all that's required, but please correct anything I got wrong.
-
@Los said
"
Well, of course you come to this conclusion by using reason. All conclusions are the products of reason operating on evidence. But not all conclusions are created equal: some conclusions, for example, don't properly follow from the evidence or are based on a faulty understanding of evidence, and for this reason it's very possible to use reason to draw conclusions that seem to make sense but are in fact wrong."yes, that's reasonable, but how does this apply to my claim that I left my body?
"
In your case, the evidence is your experiences, on multiple occasions it seems, on which you appeared to have left your body."
correct, but also hearing similar experiences from others
"
Your conclusion, based on this evidence, is that you really did leave your body."
Correct, but we never talked about what the 'I' means. So we are on the same page, I mean my consciousness and POV left my body.
"
The unstated premise (or enthymeme) in this argument is "When I have an experience in which it seems like I did X, it's incredibly likely that I really did X.""
Correct, similar to common everyday application of such form, such as 'I am having an experience typing this sentence right now, it's incredibly like that I really am typing this sentence right now.'
So you're suggesting this common application is a logical fallacy of some kind?
"
(Here, "really did X" is meant to distinguish "really doing X" from something like "just dreaming (or daydreaming) about doing X")"Now you just made a leap sir outside of your form! You are introducing day dreaming into the scenario. I was not day dreaming.
"
So we can summarize your own thought process like this:
- When I have an experience in which it seems like I did X, it's incredibly likely that I really did X. "
Correct
"
- I had an experience in which it seems like I left my body."
correct
"
- It's incredibly likely that I really did leave my body."
True, but written in poor form. The way you write it here assumes that what makes 3 true is points 1 and 2, and that doesnt come to follow in my case. There was more into it that 1 and 2. Please stop projecting your tautologies onto me
"
(Where "really did leave my body" is meant to distinguish "really leaving one's body" from something like "just dreaming (or daydreaming) about leaving one's body)
Before I show you why this reasoning is flawed, I'd like you to confirm that the syllogism above is an accurate representation of the reasoning that led you to this conclusion.A simple yes is all that's required, but please correct anything I got wrong."
Well, it's tautologically accurate, but it's also incomplete. Because I am a third value guy, I would have to answer both yes and no. Since your a two value guy - I can say yes to you if you want, but I would not rest your argument on your tautology if I were you!
But carry on, I look forward to seeing what you do here.
-
@ldfriend56 said
"True, but written in poor form [...] it's tautologically accurate, but it's also incomplete."
Ok, then write a syllogism that accurately reflects the reasoning that led you to your conclusion, and I'll respond to that.
-
@Los said
"
@ldfriend56 said
"True, but written in poor form [...] it's tautologically accurate, but it's also incomplete."Ok, then write a syllogism that accurately reflects the reasoning that led you to your conclusion, and I'll respond to that."
For what purpose? This seems unnecessary to me. You claimed there is reason to conclude there is no evidence for such a claim and that such a claim is impossible. I've asked you to provide this to me about 5 times now. I already explained to you that I came to my conclusion through Occam's Razor. That if my claim was not true, that it was 'all inside my head' that I would by definition be then assuming many more things about reality than by just taking the experience at face value, like I do with any other direct waking experience. Sometimes the simplest explanation is best.
The assumption that it was all inside my head does not address the fact of how that information got inside my head considering I had a direct POV of myself. This means if it is in my head, my brain has the ability to generate a 'holo deck' type experience that can match sensory information perfectly even though any sensory inputs (such as my eyes) were closed off from it. Since I am only claiming this is true for myself, and no one else (I am not requesting anyone believe me, I too would be skeptical of anyone whom made such a claim) - I am again asking you to explain how it is that I should change my personal understanding of my experience.
-
@ldfriend56 said
"
@Los said
"
@ldfriend56 said
"True, but written in poor form [...] it's tautologically accurate, but it's also incomplete."Ok, then write a syllogism that accurately reflects the reasoning that led you to your conclusion, and I'll respond to that."
For what purpose?"
So that I can show you where the flaws are in your thinking and demonstrate that you have drawn a conclusion that is invalid or unsound.
"You claimed there is reason to conclude there is no evidence for such a claim and that such a claim is impossible."
What I said is that no one -- including you -- has sufficient reason to accept the claim that you left your body.
You were very clear earlier that it was your use of reason that led you to the conclusion that you left your body. If you'll illustrate the thought process that led you to the conclusion that you left your body (by constructing a numbered syllogism), I'll gladly show you where your reasoning is invalid or unsound.
I took a stab at constructing such a syllogism above, but you suggested that I was misrepresenting your thought process (since you said the syllogism was "written in poor form" and "incomplete"). Ok, so construct a syllogism that doesn't misrepresent your thought process, and I'll show you where your reasoning flawed.
-
A is a subset of B
A only contains odd integers
B contains no even integers -
@Los said
"
Ok, so construct a syllogism that doesn't misrepresent your thought process, and I'll show you where your reasoning flawed."You have my reason. You can place my reason inside of one of your syllogisms if you want. But I asked you to show me the evidence you mention, that this is impossible. You cannot prove that to me by deconstructing a syllogism, if it were that easy Philosophy would have ended a long time ago. I'm not going to waste my time feeding you pivoting away from this discussion. If your relying on me phrasing something a specific way to make your point, you're already floundering.
If you're implying now that there is only insufficient evidence to accept that people leave their bodies, we are in agreement if you mean scientifically speaking. If your implying that I have no reason to accept that I left my body because all the evidence suggest I can't, then you need to show me that evidence or accept that it's unknown scientifically which would allow anyone having the experience to need to rely on more than just scientific consensus for them to interpret their own experience accurately.
If you wish for me just to accept your claims at face value and assume they are true, sorry, I can't do that.
-
the basis of the universe in the thelemic sense is the divine will. This divine will is the force that causeth the ain to concentrate within itself the point of kether. The three supernal sepheroth are beyond the comprehension of the intellect. they are unknowable in the most profound sense. they are not quantifiable-not measuable. science in the emperical sense has nothing to offer here. it is not by intellect or measurement that one becomes aware of this sublime revelation. it is by clearing the dross of mind phantoms through mystical and magickal means that one sees that one has as ones own core this unknowable transendant aspect within oneself. There is little to be written even in the most poetic forms about this state or revelation or vision.
This discussion about materialism et al while seemingly intruguing has nothing to do with the core activity of thelemism. Yes, discuss it as you will, but you are not advancing into the teachings or understandings which constitute thelema or the A.'.A.'.
This is useless spinning of wheels in the MUD OF THE INTELLECT. This while my opinion is also simply true. All the books of science and all the discoveries of science in the material vien are but phantoms to dillude you into thinking that the self described ascendancy of the intellect is a reality when the intellect can barely rise as high as tipareth in yetzerah. the intellect burns away before one enters the city of the pyramids. What then of all that it discovered? the abyss is that very boundary which separates the bull from the shit.
-
@Los said
"
Show me some demonstrable effect of these supposed superpowers that you're so eager to hold out hope for.
Show me someone who can somehow access the random word plucked out of the dictionary next door and keep doing it.
"Hey listen there foolish child. SHOW YOURSELF! thats the dictum! either do it or don't but seriously whats your deal? can you be honest about that? you're a nettling imp. ill sqaush you like a bug. you haven't even acumen in physics but you are an authority on thelema?
You are like a flailing fart in the wind your words like ripe decaying matter. the death of the intellect will be hard in this one! nay he shall forever be lost to the voids of Because!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! foolish imp. NEVER temp Magicians to show you there power! Your pissant little 'theories'! Please go fallate dennet or dawkins on their own personal websites. There is alot of doubt about things thelemic on this sight or this imp would have been roundly gainsayed long ago. those such as you have no help to offer us except to weed out those whom you can snag on that gnarled rotting stump you call knowledge. I only read this to find you and snub you out. now begone with this bull. -
@amunra said
"
@Los said
"
Show me some demonstrable effect of these supposed superpowers that you're so eager to hold out hope for.
Show me someone who can somehow access the random word plucked out of the dictionary next door and keep doing it.
"Hey listen there foolish child. SHOW YOURSELF! thats the dictum! either do it or don't but seriously whats your deal? can you be honest about that? you're a nettling imp. ill sqaush you like a bug. you haven't even acumen in physics but you are an authority on thelema?
You are like a flailing fart in the wind your words like ripe decaying matter. the death of the intellect will be hard in this one! nay he shall forever be lost to the voids of Because!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! foolish imp. NEVER temp Magicians to show you there power! Your pissant little 'theories'! Please go fallate dennet or dawkins on their own personal websites. There is alot of doubt about things thelemic on this sight or this imp would have been roundly gainsayed long ago. those such as you have no help to offer us except to weed out those whom you can snag on that gnarled rotting stump you call knowledge. I only read this to find you and snub you out. now begone with this bull."While it's none of my business, this possibly doesn't, you know, help. Anyone. Manners?
Just passing through.
-
I think what he meant was don't be a jerk, I doubt that changes much over time.
-
@kasper81 said
"I agree though that a lack of 1) politeness, 2) gentility, 3)civility, 4) self-discipline and 5) "respect for others" are worthy of withdrawal of affection."
@Archaeus said
"I think what he meant was don't be a jerk, I doubt that changes much over time."
Exactly.
@kasper81 said
"That's the issue each individual must as themselves. Can we genuinely live without human affection? Do we need it and from whom?"
Yes. No! Yes, from people relevant to us. What is relevant can be defined in relation to one's authentic intentions, called true will around these parts.
At least that was what I meant.
-
3 and a half years ago I first joined this board and found myself stupidly being drawn into a remarkably similar set of arguments with a user named "sol" (no relation, I'm sure).
Interesting to see the evolution (or lack of) of some kinds of thinking.
93 all.