Secret Chiefs and attainment
-
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 A∴A∴ 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.
-
The fact remains that the experiments, over decades, have shown consistent results that are not attributable to chance. That increasing controls have not changed the results.
Whether it sounds silly or not is irrelevant.
"I've already said exactly what it would take to make me change my mind: someone scoring a hit (and then repeating it,to confirm) in an experiment with controls as strict as the ones I put in place. I would change my mind, admit I'm wrong, and probably become a passionate advocate for the "other side" of this debate, and that's all it would take."
There have been thousands of hits with stricter controls than you suggested.
"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."
The odds against these results happening from chance are tens-of-thousands-to-1.
It's a first step. There would be no point in producing more evidence, if you reject the evidence I present with offhand remarks like "they sure do seem like utter and complete BS".
The data requires an explanation. It's can't be an anomaly, since it's been repeated extensively. It doesn't fit your model for the universe. I'm not going to proceed unless I have evidence of your good faith in the discussion. It would be pointless.
It is important to the argument about Secret Chiefs. A cursory investigation of Crowley's writing on the subject should make that obvious to anyone.
-
@Los said
"
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."
You didn't answer the question. Is it true from my perspective?
Moving a observation from first to third person doesn't make the statement factual, it simply moves the perspective and point of observation. Unless you mean something else.
Also notice -- that both statements still involve an observation.
"
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."Here we disagree. A values statement is not necessarily an expression of preference. I have pain in my leg is an observation that has nothing to do with preference -- unless we're talking some BDSM, etc.
But there is such a thing as "true for you" and it involves a subjective assessment. See the Crowley quote below for more on this. IMHO, it is important that something "true for you" should also be useful to you. Something being useful to someone personally has value. Is this what you mean by "factual claim" below?
"
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."Which would still involve an observation of the "factual claim." This has to do with perspective, which would directly affect the usefulness of the "factual claim."
Now, I think we agree mostly here -- and, to make my point, it is up to one to adopt the POV that is most beneficial, which leads me to the next statement...
@Frater 639 said
"Belief in Secret Chiefs can have benefits for some"
@Los said
"Like what? Give a concrete example of what you're talking about."
If it is an aspect of your True Will to believe in them. I am intentionally going to ignore the neuroscience behind contemplating potential and infinite power through suspension of disbelief (which can be considered a form of bhakti yoga) since it doesn't seem to interest you.
Do you mean that a "factual claim" can be built on observations of what a person finds to be in accordance with their True Will? Then I agree completely, and that is closer to my definition of truth. But, it is "true for me" as my True Will is unique to a certain extent -- that's what I mean here. It is not necessarily true for Los...
The true, the final test, of the Truth of one's visions is their Value. The most glorious experience on the Astral plane, let it dazzle and thrill as it may, is not necessarily in accordance with the True Will of the seer; if not, though it be never so true objectively,* it is not true for him, because not useful for him.** (Said we not a while ago that Truth was no more than the Most Convenient Manner of Statement?) *
Now, real quick so we're on the same page:
I'm not arguing for or against the material existence of Secret Chiefs -- even though I'm not quite sure that anyone ever said they were corporal. I am reserving rational judgment for reasons that would involve another essay. But let's analyze:
1.) I totally agree with you -- there is no published scientific evidence that supports it -- that being said, I'm not sure it could be measured quantitatively since there is no real qualities that can be agreed on! It's like trying to find out if a zebra is real without being able to describe one accurately. Doesn't mean that they don't exist -- and I'm sure you agree that science is fallible.
2.) Based on the material evidence we do have, whether they are "real" or not doesn't affect my perspective of them. Can't really say I think about them all that much -- then again, I like to fuck, I don't like to sit around and theorize about if fucking is real or not. I love bad bitches and its a f*ckin' problem.
But to go a bit further, just like a Genii of the Carcer -- whether it is real or not doesn't matter -- calling it an "Intelligence" is just a matter of convenience. You've read Notes for an Astral Atlas, so I'm assuming you know what I mean.
3.) Perspectives do not always involve what is "real." In fact, one could argue that all "factual claims" are perspectives -- and there are a million perspectives. Some statements are more true for certain people than others -- just as I can see Polaris at night but my gay Aussie friend cannot. It depends where we are at in the world to see certain stars in a vast sky. But it would be great to see both skies at the same time, but that would take a different, more all-inclusive perspective...
Sure, some statements are more plausible materially speaking, but in the end, it is the Value (the "benefit") that has to be figured out by the "seer," regardless if science backs it or not. Who cares if someone is batshit crazy in the eyes of the populace, like your friend Blake. Value should be assessed in light of the True Will -- which is unique for everyone. Hopefully one can "play with their perspectives" sufficiently to adopt the most useful POV for their unique True Will.
In short, if someone's True Will involves belief in the Secret Chiefs, then far be it from me to even want to judge or put limits on their True Will. And I think we both agree that living in accordance with one's True Will is beneficial.
You may disagree -- but your disagreement could be an aspect of your True Will. I may have a Goblin that whispers the secrets of the Universe into my brain, but who really cares? I'm not trying to tell someone else to believe in my Goblin, so why try to talk someone out of it? It's when someone else tries to tell me what I should be doing or believing or whatever -- that's when I take issue...
Let us fuck who we want to fuck, let us drink as we want to drink, let us believe how we want to believe. If one wants to start a cult of Thelemic Skeptics, let them start one. I'm kidding.
Verily and amen.
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"The fact remains that the experiments, over decades, have shown consistent results that are not attributable to chance."
That's not the case at all. If it were, the scientific community -- which is like a pack of ravenous dogs that chase new evidence to overturn our previous assumptions about the universe -- would swarm all over parapsychology, trying to get grants to study this amazing phenomenon.
We don't see that happening, and that's because the vast majority of people who professionally study science don't see anything there. That all by itself is a pretty strong reason to suspect that the whole thing is BS, and that's without even bothering to look at the "tests" and laugh at how stupid they are.
"
@Los said
"I've already said exactly what it would take to make me change my mind: someone scoring a hit (and then repeating it,to confirm) in an experiment with controls as strict as the ones I put in place. I would change my mind, admit I'm wrong, and probably become a passionate advocate for the "other side" of this debate, and that's all it would take."
There have been thousands of hits with stricter controls than you suggested."
No, there haven't. For example, these experiments that you made me waste my time looking up involved people describing scenes they see in their imaginations and then experimenters trying to match the descriptions with objects with multiple components (like videos), bolstering the chances that some piece of babble from the "receivers" would match something in the object.
Why not do this experiment with four numbers? Or why not ten numbers or twenty numbers? Guess the number. If this is a real superpower, then the test subjects should be able to do that to a statistically significant degree.
[By the way, you notice that you quoted me above explaining what it would take for me to change my mind, when just a few posts ago you said that I claimed that nothing would change my mind...I trust you'll be retracting that false statement of yours]
"[The existence of "psi" is] a first step."
No, it's not. It's utterly unconnected to the claim that superbeings control the universe.
"The data requires an explanation. It's can't be an anomaly, since it's been repeated extensively."
Like I said, it sure seems like BS. It's a bunch of fruitloops babbling about visions and then experimenters trying to match up their babblings with objects that are way too complicated for these sorts of tests.
Get them to guess one number out of twenty, and get them to do it consistently enough to make real scientists sit up, take notice, and scramble to get grants to study this stuff. Until then, reasonable people are more than justified in concluding that this stuff is just a bunch of wankery.
" I'm not going to proceed unless I have evidence of your good faith in the discussion. It would be pointless."
I can assure you that I'm proceeding in perfectly good faith, but if you're not satisfied, then go do something else. It's of no concern to me. I think the point has been adequately made regardless.
-
@Frater 639 said
"You didn't answer the question. Is it true from my perspective?"
I didn't answer it because it's a poorly conceived question, as I explained. There's no such thing as "true from my perspective." Factual claims are either true or false. Value claims, on the other hand, don't have a truth value, since they're expressions of preferences and not facts.
"A values statement is not necessarily an expression of preference. I have pain in my leg is an observation that has nothing to do with preference"
"I have a pain in my leg" is a factual claim, not a values statement.
Here's an example of a values claim: "It sucks that I have a pain in my leg."
"
@Frater 639 said
"Belief in Secret Chiefs can have benefits for some"@Los said
"Like what? Give a concrete example of what you're talking about."
If it is an aspect of your True Will to believe in them."
The True Will deals with actions, not with the process of accepting claims.
"there is no published scientific evidence that supports [the claim that Secret Chiefs exist]"
Not just "published scientific evidence." There's not any good evidence whatsoever, including the experiences of nutbars who mistakenly think they've encountered Secret Chiefs.
" Doesn't mean that they don't exist -- and I'm sure you agree that science is fallible."
Obviously, the utter lack of evidence doesn't conclusively demonstrate that Secret Chiefs don't exist, just like the utter lack of evidence doesn't conclusively demonstrate that Jesus Christ isn't the One True God, and just like the utter lack of evidence doesn't conclusively demonstrate that gremlins aren't stealing your socks and won't keep doing so until you build a shrine to them and leave them cookies.
But I don't see you giving your life to Christ or crumbling cookies on a magic gremlin altar, and you know why not? Because "You can't totally prove it's wrong!" isn't anywhere close to a reason to accept a claim as true, as your refusal to accept those claims about Christ and gremlins clearly shows.
"Based on the material evidence we do have, whether they are "real" or not doesn't affect my perspective of them. Can't really say I think about them all that much -- then again, I like to {}, I don't like to sit around and theorize about if {**} is real or not. I love bad bitches and its a fckin' problem."
Assuming I'm reading you clearly through the ridiculous and unnecessary filters on this board, obviously p__sy is real or you wouldn't be f__ing it. In contrast, the Secret Chiefs aren't real, so nobody's actually talking to them. They're just making believe that they are.
"whether it is real or not doesn't matter"
It matters a great deal to people who care about reality. [And, accordingly, not BSing themselves]
"Some statements are more true for certain people than others -- just as I can see Polaris at night but my gay Aussie friend cannot. It depends where we are at in the world to see certain stars in a vast sky."
You're mixing yourself up again. "Polaris is up there in the sky" is a factual statement, just like "I can see Polaris from this position on earth" is a factual statement and "I cannot see Polaris from this other position on earth" is a factual statement. There's absolutely no conflict with all of those factual statements being true, which they are.
Similarly, "There are Secret Chiefs" is an unsubstantiated factual claim. "My friend pretends to talk to Secret Chiefs" or "My friend pretends that his daydreams are communications from the Secret Chiefs" are substantiated factual claims.
"In short, if someone's True Will involves belief in the Secret Chiefs, then far be it from me to even want to judge or put limits on their True Will."
Again, True Will is about action, not belief. What you've just said makes as little sense as saying, "If someone's True Will involves believing that they can fly under their own power, then far be it from me to judge or put limits on their True Will."
It's not "putting limits on their True Will" to inform them that the claim that they can fly under their own power is factually unsupported, just like it's not putting limits on anybody's True Will to inform them that it's factually unsupported that ooky-spookies control the universe.
Stop pretending that it's oppression for people to tell you that you don't really have invisible super friends. Honestly, you need to get out more if you're not used to other people laughing at these kinds of beliefs all the time.
-