Secret Chiefs and attainment
-
@Frater 639 said
"
@Los said
"It's always possible to contrive a situation in which believing something false (or at least unsubstantiated) might be useful, but in the long run, it is always of immense value to an individual to accept as many true claims and as few false claims as possible."Absolutely correct. And it is up to the individual to investigate and decide for themselves."
Everyone who makes a decision necessarily decides for themselves. But not everyone does a good job of it: witness, for example, nutbars of various religious stripes accepting claims that are unsubstantiated, from the existence of the Christian god to the Hindu gods, to goblins, to (yes) Secret Chiefs.
Pat Robertson, Ray Comfort, various wacko Muslim clerics, etc., etc., all of them "decided for themselves" to adopt beliefs that are insufficiently supported by evidence.
Obviously, a person can do whatever the hell he pleases, but the presumption is that when we come together on a discussion board to discuss (how about that!) what's actually true -- in the sense that it's true that the bus comes every day at 8:30 and that it's false that purple people eaters live in my broom closet -- we're not going to just throw our hands up and say, "Hey, everyone's beliefs are just as good as everyone else's!" (since, if we did that, it would render discussion completely and totally pointless)
Since you agree above ("Absolutely correct") that it's of immense value to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible, then it follows that you also agree that it's of immense value to determine the criteria by which people can accurately determine whether a claim is likely to be true or likely to be false.
And when we make these kinds of determinations, we can conclude that there are no valid grounds for accepting that "Secret Chiefs" exist.
"You wish for me to provide concrete examples for realms of possible benefits pertaining to another individual's beliefs?"
No. I wish for you to support the claim you implicitly made: that beliefs are justified when they're "beneficial."
If that were the case, then surely you should be able to name some potential benefits of the belief. What concrete benefits -- aside from the vague warm and tinglies that are easy to induce -- could an individual get from accepting the claim that oogity-boogities control the universe and send magic happy smile daydreams to their chosen few?
"If so, please give me three concrete, specific benefits that non-belief in "Secret Chiefs" could possibly give an individual."
You were the one implicitly claiming that beliefs are justified if they are "beneficial." Hence my question. Ididn't claim that non-beliefs are justified when they are "beneficial." On the contrary, I think the supposed "benefits" of a belief have nothing to do with whether or not one is justified in accepting it as true. I asked you to provide some specific benefits in order to show that even if we accepted your implicit claim, there still is no reason to accept that there are Secret Chiefs because there really aren't any practical benefits to be had in telling oneself stories about oogity-boogities.
You can't just reverse every statement I make and pretend like you're engaging in sound discourse.
-
Some Thomas Jefferson quotes I like:
"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent."
"In fine, I repeat, you must lay aside all prejudice on both sides, and neither believe nor reject anything, because any other persons, or description of persons, have rejected or believed it. Your own reason is the only oracle given you by heaven, and you are answerable, not for the rightness, but uprightness of the decision."
(There's another that is even more directly responsive, but I can't recall or find it at the moment.)
-
Instead of looking into your argument point by point, your premise is faulty. Many scientists look further into phenomena when they lack evidence. That is the cornerstone of the scientific method.
Moving on, do you have any sort of background when it comes to the physiological effects of beliefs? If not, there is no point in engaging you in discourse. I say this to encourage you into actually performing your own research while looking past an early 20th century materialist POV.
It is of tremendous value to determine what is true and what is false. I agree completely. Which is why I brought up the aforementioned encouragement.
Speaking of discourse, your tone is rather emotional and not very beneficial to me. That is the truth. If I believed it was beneficial to me, it could possibly create a positive feedback loop which is supported by modern neuroscience and psychiatry. If you don't believe me (note the reference to "belief"), I invite you to research the effects of the adrenal system -- which is directly influenced by the amygdala. Emotions, which are related to the amygdala, directly affect the physiology, and can be largely based on belief. See the placebo effect, biofeedback, etc.
I didn't answer your question directly because it was faulty -- you wanted me to dispute the potential of the brain. That's absolutely ridiculous.
Also, please take care with your tone and have some respect; otherwise, I will not continue the discourse.
-
@Frater 639 said
"Many scientists look further into phenomena when they lack evidence."
But they don't accept claims as true until they have gathered sufficient evidence. We were talking about accepting claims about Secret Chiefs, not about "looking further into phenomena." You're all over the place.
"Moving on, do you have any sort of background when it comes to the physiological effects of beliefs?"
Depends on what you mean. If you're asking whether I've observed my own physiological reactions to beliefs that I've held in the past -- and, more broadly, to states of mind that I generate even to this day through imagination exercises, including "invoking" various beings and pretending to talk to spirits -- then yes.
\If you're asking whether I'm a scientist who has personally performed experiments on test subjects, then no.
If you're asking whether I'm extensively familiar with scientific literature on the subject, then the answer is not really, and I fail to see what relevance that question has to the question of believing that Secret Goblins are weaving their spells all over daydream land.
"If not, there is no point in engaging you in discourse."
Do whatever you like. You don't need my permission or some phony baloney reason to stop talking to me and to do something else with your time.
"I didn't answer your question directly because it was faulty -- you wanted me to dispute the potential of the brain. That's absolutely ridiculous."
Once more, you implied that some people believe in the Secret Chiefs because they think such a belief is "beneficial." I was asking you to substantiate what you were saying by naming a few such benefits. My question had nothing to do with "disput* the potential of the brain," whatever you might mean by that weird phrase.
"Also, please take care with your tone and have some respect; otherwise, I will not continue the discourse."
I think I've been far more respectful than the topic of "Secret Chiefs" deserves, but at any rate, my tone is my business. Your reaction to my tone is yours. If you don't want to talk to me, then don't. There is no need for you to justify your actions to me or to anyone else.
-
@Los said
"But they don't accept claims as true until they have gathered sufficient evidence. We were talking about accepting claims about Secret Chiefs, not about "looking further into phenomena." You're all over the place. "
You're confusing personal beliefs and what one considers quantitative facts supported by scientic evidence. You're all over the place. Again, you have an issue with qualititative data and quantitative data and where they meet -- and their inclusion in all aspects of the scientific method. I suspect this has to do with your following statement:
@Los said
"If you're asking whether I'm extensively familiar with scientific literature on the subject, then the answer is not really...."
It is obvious that you are not familiar with modern neuroscience. I can see why you fail to see my point. And even after you've admitted your own perceived effects of various mental states here!:
@Los said
"If you're asking whether I've observed my own physiological reactions to beliefs that I've held in the past -- and, more broadly, to states of mind that I generate even to this day through imagination exercises, including "invoking" various beings and pretending to talk to spirits -- then yes."
Which could be considered beneficial in some cases, no? Especially when deciphering what is true and false from a qualitative POV. As an example, I don't like onions -- is that a true statement from my perspective? Anyway, do you care to discuss these observations? It might further the idea of qualitative measurement -- which is what your observations are...
Can't you see when you dispute any qualitatively based belief, you're disputing your beliefs based on your own observations above? Are all of your observations true for me? You just gave merit to subjective reality by your above statement! What makes your self-observation true?
@Los said
"Do whatever you like. You don't need my permission or some phony baloney reason to stop talking to me and to do something else with your time. "
Again, you're trying to give me options as to how I should behave. And you continue to talk about what I'm implying -- this is your confusion, not mine. And you lack politeness and common courtesy when speaking with people to boot! Charming!
@Los said"Once more, you implied that some people believe in the Secret Chiefs because they think such a belief is "beneficial." I was asking you to substantiate what you were saying by naming a few such benefits. My question had nothing to do with "disput* the potential of the brain," whatever you might mean by that weird phrase."
Beliefs have everything to do with the brain and its potential. Do the research and argue with modern neuroscience. Belief in Secret Chiefs can have benefits for some, but not for others -- these are largely qualitative when considered psychologically -- does that make them less real? You seem to dispute the value of qualitative phenomenon -- why is that? Is it because you're not really "extensively familiar with scientific literature on the subject?" This could be why you have a hard time grasping these ideas. Weird means unfamiliar, which seems to be why these concepts may be trying for you. You should probably not look into the merit of the statement and just fall back on your bias like a true skeptic...
@Los said
"You can't just reverse every statement I make and pretend like you're engaging in sound discourse."
But you just said I could do whatever I want!
You cannot refute my claims of how various beliefs can have respective effects on the physiology -- some of which are considered beneficial (which can be a qualitative measurement hands down). This isn't discourse because you lack the expertise to talk about effects of beliefs intelligently...looking past your own unsubstantiated and undereducated bias (quantitatively speaking - partially based on your own admission of not being familiar with the subject).
Like any conversation with you -- you seem to try to turn the argument into a confirmation bias argument. I believe that confirmation bias exists. No argument there. If you want to talk about neuroscience and beneficial beliefs, let's talk about it. If you want to say that truth is only real when it has large amounts of quantitative data backing it up, then we're done here. That is not correct in the eyes of the scientific method or true skepticism. Remember, you should stay skeptical of science too!
-
The idea that the best thing is to believe all "true" ideas, and reject any "false" ones is claptrap from the intellect.
A rock succeeds at accepting reality without error better than any human mind ever could.
A mind struggles with ideas, emotions, motivations, inspiration. It errs, and is not lessened by erring, so long as it keeps struggling on the problems put before it. Only a fanatic would strive to interrupt that process in others, by trying to settle an issue.
To answer "yes" or "no" to a fascinating question like whether or not the Secret Chiefs that Crowley discusses exist is a boring and mind numbing response. IMHO...
-
@Frater 639 said
"As an example, I don't like onions -- is that a true statement from my perspective?"
The statement "onions taste bad" isn't a factual claim, so it can't be said to be true or false. It's just an expression of the values of the person making the statement.
On the other hand, the statement "Frater 639 doesn't like onions" is a factual claim, and it happens to be true.
"Are all of your observations true for me?"
There's no such thing as "true for you." A factual claim is either true or false (unless it's unintelligible or self-contradictory); a values statement ("Onions taste bad") is just an expression of preference.
"What makes your self-observation true?"
Observations aren't factual claims, so they can't be said to be true or false. They're just observations. One can build factual claims on the back of observations ("Invoking Venus tends to produce such-and-such feelings"), but the observations themselves have no truth value.
"Belief in Secret Chiefs can have benefits for some"
Like what? Give a concrete example of what you're talking about.
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"The idea that the best thing is to believe all "true" ideas, and reject any "false" ones is claptrap from the intellect."
All ideas are "from the intellect," by definition. You happen to be misrepresenting this particular idea. This particular idea is not that "the best thing," unqualified, is to believe as many true claims and as few false claims as possible: the idea is that believing as many true claims and as few false claims as possible makes it easier to navigate the world (about which those claims are made).
Those of us interested in navigating the world will want to believe as many true claims about that world and as few false claims about that world as possible. Duh.
"A rock succeeds at accepting reality without error better than any human mind ever could."
Since "accepting" is an activity done by minds, rocks can't accept anything because they don't have minds. Are you even reading this stuff before you post it?
"A mind struggles with ideas, emotions, motivations, inspiration. It errs, and is not lessened by erring, so long as it keeps struggling on the problems put before it. Only a fanatic would strive to interrupt that process in others, by trying to settle an issue."
Blast those cursed fanatical math teachers, daring to "settle an issue" by telling their classes the "correct" answers to problems!
Blast those fanatical English teachers, daring to "settle an issue" by labeling a sentence grammatically "incorrect."
Blast those fanatical architects, daring to "settle an issue" by teaching students how to build bridges instead of just letting them guess how to do it!
Blast those fanatical nuclear scientists, daring to "settle an issue" by showing people how to build nuclear reactors instead of just letting them guess or do it by trial and error.
How dare people try to "settle an issue"! Don't they know that just randomly guessing is just as "valid" an approach to reality? Don't they know that telling people facts is "interfering with the process" of randomly guessing?
Jeez Louise, it's a good thing that people who actually do practical things for humanity don't adopt your ridiculous point of view.
"To answer "yes" or "no" to a fascinating question like whether or not the Secret Chiefs that Crowley discusses exist is a boring and mind numbing response. IMHO..."
There's an occultist response for you: rejecting correct answers on the grounds that they're "boring."
You know what's "boring"? The tiny universe that a great deal of people have built in their heads, in which spooks float around with nothing better to do than to help humans find their lost cat or help the pimple-faced kid in the Glee club get the girl. Or where every little coincidence is a message from your invisible super friends, who are telling you what a special little snowflake you are, so special that your daydreams are really magic fun happy communications from the great beyond appointing you Grand Poohbah of a new religion that you are destined to spread over the earth so that everyone else can bask in the white, warm glow of your imaginary chums.
A world that like is ridiculously small and hollow, completely trivialized for the sake of fantasies to make people feel special. "Boring" is too nice a word for it.
You know what's not boring? The real world, which is vast and intricate and complicated far beyond the wildest imagination of any mind: the real world is huge, dwarfing any conception we could have of it, and it doesn't give two flying hoots about human beings, who are tiny creatures among zillions of other entities engaging in the dance of spacetime.
-
Math and English classes are about teaching students how to work stuff out, not handing them answers. Much more do at the university level, where the process of debate is viewed as of the highest value.
I called your stance boring, because your purpose seems to be to shut down thinking, so it matches your view. That's fanaticism, and the opposite of a good teacher, who enables and inspires his/her student to think for themselves.
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"Math and English classes are about teaching students how to work stuff out, not handing them answers."
While it's true that those classes are typically about method, they also instruct students in the correct ways to go about reaching answers. No good math or English class ends with the teacher saying, "Looks like everyone's right, no matter what answers they give! Everyone gets an A...."
The whole point of having classroom discussions is that a qualified instructor is present who can steer the conversation toward correct answers -- or at least toward a range of correct answers -- and who can guide students into getting better at correctly practicing the method of reaching right answers.
Sorry, but sometimes students need to be told "you're wrong," because there are right and wrong answers. Sometimes students need to get a failing grade on a paper.
The implication you're making -- that clearly and simply explaining correct answers to people somehow robs them of a chance to "discover things for themselves" -- is absolutely looney tunes. An engineering student, for example, isn't being denied a chance to "discover things for herself" if she hears a lecture about how to design and construct a bridge. That's how we pass on knowledge: by directly telling the next generation the stuff that previous generations have discovered. That's why human knowledge doesn't reset with each generation -- each generation doesn't have to start from scratch and figure everything out on their own.
The subject of learning how to practice Thelema is, in theory, no different than learning how to build a bridge. The only difference is that a person who poorly learns how to build a bridge is going to cause a spectacular disaster when he tries to build one, such that everyone will know that he poorly learned the material; meanwhile, someone who poorly learns how to discover his True Will isn't going to give off any outward signs of his failure.
In fact, if he's not willing to accept that he might be wrong -- and if he buys the nonsense that just making sh!t up is just as "valid" a way of knowing things as actually knowing -- then he could go on fooling himself, for a very long time, that he's some kind of "master."
Take, for example, the question of supernatural entities, which brings us back more directly to the topic of the thread. Is there any good evidence at all that they exist? No, there's not. That's the correct answer, just like it's the correct answer to say that the sun is roughly 93 million miles from the earth or to say that the evidence tells us that all species evolved from common ancestors.
If you think it's "boring" to learn correct answers, fine, but good luck accomplishing anything with that attitude.
"your purpose seems to be to shut down thinking"
No, I don't want to shut down thinking. I want to encourage good thinking, and a prerequisite for good thinking is starting with positions that accord with reality. It's not "shutting down thinking," for example, for a science teacher to correct a student who denies evolution and who tries to make a faulty argument based on "intelligent design." It's similarly not "shutting down thinking" for me to correct people who think there is sufficient evidence to accept the existence of supernatural beings.
"a good teacher [...] enables and inspires his/her student to think for themselves."
I've responded to this already. If you want a longer explanation of why this idea of "thinking for yourself" or "having your own answers" is really a valorization of ignorance, you can read my blog post on the subject:
thelema-and-skepticism.blogspot.com/2011/09/finding-your-own-answer.html
The attitude you're espousing is common among occultists, but it is also deeply poisoning to any attempt to arrive at an accurate view of things.
-
Straw man.
I talked about debate; you argued against teachers telling everyone they're right.
Universities don't function at all how you suggest.
But we're getting of topic here, and I suspect the teachers in this extension of the College of Thelma will steer the conversation back.soon.
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"But we're getting of topic here"
So get us back on topic and show us how your idea of "debate" works. I say there's zero good evidence that any "Secret Chiefs" exist. I'm supposing you don't agree, so I'd be curious to hear the case you would make in favor of the claim that they do exist.
-
The question in the OP isn't whether Secret Chiefs exist; it's about the nature of communication with them.
To continue the University metaphor, if, in a biology class, a person comes in and says that evolution is nonsense and shouldn't be taught, the teacher will likely say to take that debate up elsewhere; in this class we are debating a hypothesis on hereditary altruism.
That said, the question of whether the A:.A:. is guided by ascended masters, as Crowley and all branches of.the A:.A:. claim, is, as I said earlier, not something I would like to take a simple yes/no position on.
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
" if, in a biology class, a person comes in and says that evolution is nonsense and shouldn't be taught, the teacher will likely say to take that debate up elsewhere"
Sure, but if a student said, "Hey, hang on a second, how do you even know that evolution happened?" the teacher would be more than capable of pointing to the extensive evidence that demonstrates that evolution is unquestionably true.
On this forum, people are merrily chatting away as if these ghosts and goblins actually exist, but I'm pointing out a much more basic problem, that there is no good evidence to think that there such beings at all, rendering the practices little more than daydreaming and mentally wanking.
This subject, then, is entirely unlike evolution, in that there is no good evidence at all for the existence of the things under discussion.
"That said, the question of whether the A:.A:. is guided by ascended masters, as Crowley and all branches of.the A:.A:. claim, is, as I said earlier, not something I would like to take a simple yes/no position on."
But, in point of fact, it's either true or false that such beings exist. A person's beliefs about such creatures, of course, don't have to be limited to those two options. A person could accept that they exist, a person could not accept that they exist, a person could accept that they do not exist, or a person could not accept that they do not exist.
If you're saying that you don't actually accept that these beings exist but that you're willing to entertain the idea to give yourself some thrills or to fuel a bunch of silly imagination exercises, then knock yourself out. But the point still stands that there's no good evidence at all to think that they exist.
-
@ Los;
You, me, pink elephants and secret chiefs are all the qualia of consciousness.
If you want to focus on what is real or true about consciousness then you need to focus on the functionalism of consciousness, and as yet I haven't seen you tackle this subject.
May I introduce you to this primer on the topic, and ask you if you dispute the first line of this statement. Thanks.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=f477FnTe1M0&list=PLtN1lObTV33qbiPPtkH55v-yPlW64LoJU
-
You've previously stated that no evidence could be presented that could persuade you to change your beliefs about the reality of the universe. So it's not really sincere to request such evidence.
However:
I accept the premise that humans are capable of spiritual development beyond what you consider normal/factual, having both anecdotal and peer reviewed evidence for such.
(For an example of peer reviewed evidence, I refer you to the available documentation on the Ganzfeld Experiments.)
In reference to Secret Chiefs, Crowley, in Chapter IX of Magical Without Tears, says:
"The first condition of membership of the AâŽA⎠is that one is sworn to identify one's own Great Work with that of raising mankind to higher levels, spiritually, and in every other way."
I don't accept your goblin and ghost talk, because I have no idea what you're talking about.
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"You've previously stated that no evidence could be presented that could persuade you to change your beliefs about the reality of the universe."
I don't believe I've ever said that. If you could actually present compelling evidence that Secret Chiefs exist, I would accept that they do.
At any rate, I said that I'm curious about the case you would make in favor of the claim that they do exist. If you don't want to make that case, fine. I strongly suspect it's because you can't, and you know it.
-
@Los said
"
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"You've previously stated that no evidence could be presented that could persuade you to change your beliefs about the reality of the universe."I don't believe I've ever said that. If you could actually present compelling evidence that Secret Chiefs exist, I would accept that they do.
At any rate, I said that I'm curious about the case you would make in favor of the claim that they do exist. If you don't want to make that case, fine. I strongly suspect it's because you can't, and you know it."
I strongly suspect that neither you nor anyone else can make a case in favour that you exist. And if you ignore this post I'll take that as confirmation that you know it.
-
I've already begun.
First, do you accept the evidence from the Ganzfeld Experiments? I've brought them up to you in threads at least 3 times, but you haven't responded yet.
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"First, do you accept the evidence from the Ganzfeld Experiments? I've brought them up to you in threads at least 3 times, but you haven't responded yet."
I finally looked these up, and they sure do seem like utter and complete BS. The fact that the existence of "psi" is not accepted by anywhere close to a consensus of the body of experts who study science strongly suggests that my impression that the whole thing is total nonsense (and pretty laughable, too) is right on the money.
But even if I granted that "psi" exists -- and that it's actually possible to make guesses at slightly above random chance under the right conditions -- that gets you not even a single step closer to demonstrating that "Secret Chiefs" exist who control the universe.