College of Thelema: Thelemic Education

@Frater Horus said

"And what does make it awful? Just because you say so...?"

No. It's awful because it's poorly constructed, it mischaracterizes the point I'm making, and it begs the question.

Here, I'll now proceed to show you how this is. I know that supporting claims is something not often seen on these forums, so get your pencils out, everyone.

Here's your terrible analogy:

"So say britney spears fans when jazzmen mention they dont like britney spears and that it hurts their ears whenever they have to listen to it going to the supermarket.

I know its hard to believe jazz is music for the deaf. "

Like all analogies, it's attempting to compare two different things: an image and an idea it tries to convey through that image ("Metaphor" comes from roots that literally mean "to carry across" -- you're trying to carry the idea to someone else by comparing the idea to an image)

The image of the analogy is simple. Jazz fans say they don't like Britney Spears music because it hurts their ears, and Britney Spears fans hear the jazz fans say that and react badly. Also, deaf people can't hear jazz, so they find it hard to believe that jazz is music.

The thing to which you're attempting to compare this image is the present conversation, in which I am analogous to the Britney fans, in which I suppose you and your buddies are analogous to "Jazzmen", and in which my reasonable objections to your nonsense are the objections of the Britney fans.

So first, it's poorly constructed because the image isn't internally consistent. You switch between the image of someone with bad taste in music (Britney fans) to the image of someone literally incapable of hearing music at all (deaf people). As a result, you're also inconsistent about the reason for the Britney fans' complaints: You first suggest that they complain because the jazz fans are saying that Britney's music is bad, and you then suggest that they complain because they can't even hear the jazz music (but they apparently can hear Britney's music?). It's all mixed up.

That point alone makes it an awful analogy.

But second, you've entirely mischaracterized my post. I'm posting neither because I'm upset that you don't like some position of mine (which would correspond to Britney fans complaining because the jazz fans don't like her music) nor because I'm incapable of comprehending your opinion (the deaf not being able to hear jazz). I understand the point of view you're trying to communicate: I just think it's puerile for the reason I already stated -- that there's no good reason to think your ideas are correct. Feel free to demonstrate that I'm wrong by showing us all what leads you to think you're right.

And third, it begs the question. "Begging the question" is when you start an argument by assuming the very thing you intend to prove. By comparing your own position to jazz music that the deaf cannot hear, you're implicitly stating that your position is correct and that anybody who thinks it's wrong is just incapable of seeing how right you are. You're saying, in essence, "I'm right because I'm right."

As long as you start with the assumption that you're right and never question that assumption, you can always find some way to twist the facts to convince yourself that you're right. Wisdom can only begin by questioning your own assumptions.

It's Los, b!tch.

@Takamba said

"So... this idea of an infinite number of incarnations coming out of one (as opposed to an infinite number of incarnations coming out of themselves) was considered imbecile to Crowley... that is, it did not "appeal" to Crowley as Los claims."

I didn't mention incarnations. I'm talking about the narrative that the universe is a dualistic presentation of my true nature to myself, for the purpose of learning about my true nature. Or the narrative that Unity has split itself up into a lot of individual things to enjoy experience. Ideas that can be found everywhere in Crowley's writings.

@Frater Horus said

"So say britney spears fans when jazzmen mention they dont like britney spears and that it hurts their ears whenever they have to listen to it going to the supermarket."

Oh man, awful analogies! I've missed these forums -- it's like a museum of bad arguments and fallacies.

@Gnosomai Emauton said

"From what I've read of [Crowley's] writing, he wasn't too centrally focused on the Empire or his role as a Britisher. A decent amount of his poetry, in fact, downright excoriates the British character. To my eyes, his affinities tended eastwards. His near deification of Vivekenanda and his adoration of the Tao Te Ching and life-long obsession with the I Ching are enough for me but, if you want to define the guy by the generalized national character of the country of his birth, that's your prerogative."

I wasn't "defin* the guy by the generalized national character of the country of his birth." I was pointing out that he lived at a time when the British controlled a great deal of the world. It would have been taken for granted by someone who lived in that time and place that the British "owned" a lot of the world and are entitled to own it, so it's not all that surprising that he embraced a narrative that can be considered a kind of abstract imperialism (i.e. the idea that the whole universe is really just a dualistic representation of my self).

It's also unsurprising that Crowley would feel justified in freely appropriating the beliefs of other cultures, as you point out. He picked and chose from among world beliefs, much as the British would bring back artifacts and curiosities from the colonies.

His distaste for the puritanical attitudes of the British is well-known, but so is his support of his country politically along with his casual racism directed at people with darker skin. I'm not trying to say that any of that is "bad," but I'm pointing out that Crowley was influenced by the society in which he lived, and it's not exactly shocking that he espoused some of these ideas because they fit so neatly with the dominant narrative of his age.

"If you're going to start tossing around ad hominems"

Nothing I've said is an ad hominem. An ad hominem is a kind of argument where you attack the person instead of the argument and then pretend like you've attacked the argument. I haven't done that. In the first place, I'm not attacking people. I'm just explaining why people might be compelled to hold these beliefs.

And in the second place, I'm not attacking the arguments. Other than pointing out how these silly beliefs have no justification, it's too obvious a point to want to waste much time on it.

The ideas being dribbled out onto this thread are, of course, puerile in the extreme and hardly worth the time to critique. But here's a fragment of a post that can actually serve as a springboard to a much more interesting idea:

@Gnosomai Emauton said

"The world has always been awful. Life is a terrible horrible thing. From the genocides in Africa to the horrors of the dinosaurs, asteroid impacts, inquisitions, plagues, book-burnings, colony extinctions, world wars, typhoons and terrorist attacks, from viral infections to the 24/7 air time of the Kardashians, "All is Sorrow".

If you choose to look at it that way.

I choose to take the view of the Hindu-Buddhist-Gnostic-Mystical tradition that everything that we experience as "reality" is just a big game of Unity experiencing itself. Unity got bored with itself and fractured itself into multiplicity in order to experience duality. Duality isn't "nice". Duality is conflict. Every bit of experience, every bit of Maya, every bit of universe is part of that game. How we as individual points of consciousness (facets of that original Unity) choose to experience and interact with the rest of Universe defines our particular role in the game. It's a matter of perception."

When it's framed like this, we can read all of this "mysticism" stuff as a narrative designed to help the individual avoid having to confront unpleasant realities. If children starving in Africa makes you uncomfortable, never fear -- turns out the whole thing is just some kind of cosmic game. Oh, that crazy ol' "Unity," up to its old tricks as usual....Starving children! What a show! I wonder what wacky idea it'll roll out with next....

And best of all, this sort of narrative makes the individual the star -- as in "star of the show." All of this illusion...why, it's all for me of course. "Reality" is just a moving picture show in which my higher self is choosing to reveal its nature through the "illusion" of duality. All we have to do, apparently, is "choose" to think of it that way. How convenient, eh?

From this perspective, it's not hard to see why this sort of egotistical -- we should really say "egomaniacal" -- narrative appealed to the ever self-aggrandizing Aleister Crowley. It's also no surprise that Crowley lived during the tail end of the British empire because this kind of narrative is a sort of hyper-imperialism: it sets out to conquer the entire universe and make it mine.

It's the sort of philosophy that appeals to privileged first-worlders who have way too much time on their hands and a vested interest in pretending that suffering around the globe is some sort of illusory side show, a b-story in the cosmic me-me-me program.

It's downright creepy, actually. The only thing that might be creepier is the narrative that there's something wrong with suffering and that the "right thing" to do is to work to end it. This is, of course, just as much an illusion as pretending that the world is a picture-show for your entertainment or pretending that people you don't like are "demons" or "shells."

@Frater INRI said

"Freedom.

Or not.
LOL
"

The idea that there is no self is, of course, just one way of looking at things. From another way of looking at things, of course there is a self.

Each way of looking at things is possible at once, and that's another application of the 0=2 formula.

Realizing this -- that is, not just intellectually, but coming to see it for yourself and understand it -- is the ultimate freedom, but it can simultaneously be viewed as the "strictest possible bond" to the illusion-show that's constantly emerging out of the zero.

@Aleister Crowley said

"
Thus, he [the Devil, the O at the end of IAO] is Man made God, exalted, eager; he has come consciously to his full stature, and so is ready to set out on his journey to redeem the world. But he may not appear in this true form; the Vision of Pan would drive men mad with fear. He must conceal Himself in his original guise.

He therefore becomes apparently the man that he was at the beginning; he lives the life of a man; indeed, he is wholly man. But his initiation has made him master of the Event by giving him the understanding that whatever happens to him is the execution of his true will."

A study of Pan (i.e. "All") -- particularly in the context of the Star Ruby ritual -- is most illuminating on these matters.

@Jim Eshelman said

" I'm not quite sure "contradiction" you mean. Both perception and the idea of (and experience) of existence has changed over time. Buddhism as defined by Buddha - as people sitting around on the grass in 5th C. BCE India could have understood and practiced it - is different from what people can perceive etc. today."

Uh huh. It's like I said earlier on this thread: as long as you start from the assumption that there's no contradiction -- and as long as you get to make sh!t up, like this bald declaration that we today perceive differently than the first Buddhists -- then voila! No contradiction.

It's like talking to Christians who start with the assumption that there can be no contradictions in the Bible. If that's the first assumption, then there's always a way to spin evidence to match the assumption (especially if we get to just make sh!t up).

The problem is, that's not a pathway to truth of any kind. It's just a way to reinforce the assumption without critically examining it.

@Jim Eshelman said

"In short, nirodha-samapatti isn't a final attainment."

But that wasn't the point. You had said that since Buddhism is "Old Aeon," "The best Buddhism (as voiced by Buddha) could hope to achieve is [...] [what] A.'.A.'. marks as Dominus Liminis."

Yet Liber B identifies one of the Buddhist trances as a state far above this level. It doesn't resolve the contradiction to point out that there are many layers to attainment and to our understanding of the self.

" I'm not sure that some final opinion on whether there is a "final" self really matters to the present question, which addresses more the perception of extinction."

Whether or not it matters to the present question, there actually is no final self. After all, what you call "you" is ultimately just a bunch of atoms buzzing around. The perception of thought -- even the thought we might call "extinction" -- is itself a thought. Thought/experience and its perception rise up together out of nothing: this is another application of the 0=2 formula.

The bottom line is that "you" aren't anything at all. Certainly, any trippy fantasies you might have about some "higher self" isn't anything -- we might even say that those fantasies are less than nothing.

@Jim Eshelman said

"I did say that "Master," as currently understood in A.'.A.'., represents a state of conscious that wasn't active in more than a trace of human consciousness in the 6th C. BCE"

And you said this based on what, exactly?

That's a sweeping statement, and I'm curious to know the evidence that leads you to think it's true.

@Le Premiere Homme said

"The only Law is Do what thou wilt?

That must by definition be political anarchism, mustn't it?"

No, not necessarily at all.

The Law of Thelema is Do what thou wilt. The laws of society are something entirely different. They're stipulations that groups of people have dreamed up so as to maximize the benefits for the cooperative group (these laws work in similar ways to the laws and social structures that other cooperative animals, such as packs of wolves, abide by).

It's very natural for people to make laws -- just like it's natural for wolf packs to make laws -- so there's no necessary conflict with Thelema for people whose Will it is to create laws in order to shape the kind of society that makes it easier for them to accomplish their True Wills.

After all, it's an enormous help to my doing my True Will to have easy access to food and clean drinking water every day. In a state of nature, accomplishing one's "True Will" might be consumed almost entirely by doing things to survive. But in a cooperative society run on laws, one has all of this extra leisure time to pursue other aspects of the True Will, such as posting to internet forums and blogs.

As far as temporal laws go, the Law of Thelema gives you every right to violate those laws, but it equally gives other people the right to catch and punish you for violating them.

The Law of Thelema just isn't a political philosophy, Crowley's rather childish attempts to design Thelemic Utopias notwithstanding. The Law of Thelema is an entirely individual philosophy of action that holds that the only standard of action for the individual is that individual's own True Will.

@Gnosomai Emauton said

"But then [Los] ends his post with a nice pithy pun that equates those who attempt to grapple with symbols at a non-logically defined level with the simple-minded. It breaks his internal consistency in a shallow attempt to throw dirt."

No. There's no contradiction because nowhere in my post do I do anything "at a non-logically defined level."

People have a very weird idea of logic on these forums.

Attributing meaning to symbols -- and discoursing on those symbols and their meaning -- is a rational process that involves the use of logic.

The mere fact that we can attribute more than one meaning to a symbol in no way means that those attributions are “non-logically defined.”

" nowhere did Jim suggest that there was a "higher type of logic" on which his point depended. As I understand him (and please correct me if I'm wrong), symbols encompass ideas which transcend 4D space-time and therefore cannot accurately be described using 4D logic."

Then he’s advocating the existence of a “higher type of logic” – or some kind of “higher faculty” that “transcends” “4D logic” (what a stupid phrase) and therefore apprehends some kind of “higher truth.”

He’s wrong on both counts: no ideas “transcend 4D space-time,” and there is no faculty that perceives some kind of “higher truth.” At least, there’s no reason to think that either of those assertions is true.

"And, as Danica said, when it comes to Los and the possibility of something that is not logic: "I didn't experience it, it absolutely does not exist - not from any possible perspective, ever.""

No, that’s not my position. My position is that nobody has demonstrated that there is some “higher faculty” than logic that actually does really grant insight into some “higher truth.”

People, of course, can baldly assert such things – and they can poorly reason that their experiences somehow “confirm” such things…but they can’t demonstrate it. They just make baseless claims, which Eshelman does all the time, and which I was parodying by invoking a silly idea like “8D logic.”

After all, can you prove I didn’t discover 8D logic and that I didn’t uncover incontrovertible evidence that Eshelman is wrong? (Sorry, I mean, "8D Intuition")

This is, of course, the problem with all “spiritual claims” that rest on “intuition” or other supposed “higher faculties.” Tons of religious people run around making all sorts of claims – claims that are mutually exclusive with other spiritual claims, mind you – all supposedly supported by their “intuition” or whatever term they come up with for these supposed “higher faculties.”

Which one’s right? How do you tell?

You can’t, obviously. Each one of these religious folks, from Eshelman to the Christian down the street to the Hare Krishna at the airport to the Muslim at the store, etc. – each one makes claims (mutually exclusive with other people's claims) based on some sort of “higher faculty” or whatever. Each claim is equally undemonstrated and equally a bald assertion.

What’s happening is that each of these religious folks has had an experience that they have rationally interpreted in different ways. Then they tell themselves that they have "transcended logic," ironically blinding themselves to the way that reason is leading them astray.

Let me frame this another way. If you look at this thread, whose post is the most informative, well-written, thought provoking, and demonstrates the fullest grasp of these symbols and their place in Thelemic thought? I’m not trying to toot my own horn when I say it’s mine (and that I composed that post in only a few minutes), but I am trying to underline something important: my knowledge, understanding, and insights have all been achieved without believing that there’s some “higher faculty” that gives me insights that are somehow “beyond 4D,” whatever the fluck that might mean.

So what use is the belief that there exist insights that are somehow “beyond 4D”? What use is the belief in some supposed “higher faculty”? It doesn’t seem to be adding anything substantive to the conversation – and certainly, it hasn’t added anything to anybody’s ability to explain any of this stuff (which, at the end of the day is the only way to judge someone’s understanding of a subject).

This claim about the existence of “higher faculties” is undemonstrated, unsupported, hasn’t helped anyone be able to explain the subject, and has added nothing to the conversation.

The evidence clearly suggests that this claim is totally and completely useless and should be discarded until such time as there’s evidence for it.

@Al-Shariyf said

"Like him or not, he killed it with his theory of Hadit. Kudos to you Los."

tips hat

@danica said

"what you are basically saying (all the time!) is: "I didn't experience it, it absolutely does not exist - not from any possible perspective, ever.""

Well, no, I'm not saying that. I've experienced 8th dimension logic. And that kind of logic reveals incontrovertible evidence that Eshelman is wrong.

Until someone discovers 9th dimension logic, my conclusion stands.

EDIT: Oops, I misspoke. It wasn't "8th dimension logic" after all. It was "8th dimension intuition." It transcends the first seven dimensions and logic entirely. This means that the evidence that this higher faculty reveals is even more strongly in my favor, since I am clearly not depending on logic. QED.

@Jim Eshelman said

"A logic explicitly founded on 4D time-space can't be counted on to assess 5D or 6D perspectives."

Well, unfortunately for you, I’ve recently discovered an 8th dimension perspective and logic based on this 8D, and in the 8th dimension, there is incontrovertible evidence that you're wrong.

Obviously, our logic rooted in 4D can’t access this evidence, but neither can your logic, which is apparently rooted in the 5D and 6D. So unless you’ve discovered logic above the 8th dimension, I’m afraid I’ve just proved beyond all doubt that you’re wrong.

See the problem with making sh!t up? If you can do it, I can do it. I just find it harder to keep a straight face while doing it.

@Jim Eshelman said

"I don't think we can address Hadit adequately with such a logic."

George Carlin once commented that religion was the easiest class in school. “All you had to do,” he pointed out, “was suspend the logic and reasoning that all the other classes were trying to teach you.”

Of course, that’s a very accurate summary of one of the primary problems and dangers of the religious mindset in general – and occultism is only one manifestation of the religious mindset. This problem is also one of the reasons that arguing with the religious is often so frustrating and usually a waste of time. There’s no point in seriously engaging in conversation with people who just get to make sh!t up.

It’s important to keep in mind that Nuit and Hadit are symbols. They’re not actual, honest-to-goodness entities, they’re not “intelligences,” and they’re most certainly not literal “gods.” They’re symbols. They mean, embody, and represent ideas.

So what ideas do they represent? Well, there’s not necessarily a “right” way to attribute ideas to these symbols. The best you can do is to be consistent in the attributions. Seriously arguing about it or trying to figure out the “right” attributions or trying to resolve perceived incongruities from being able to attribute apparently contradictory things to the same symbol is, at the end of the day, about as productive as seriously arguing how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.

With that in mind, I’ll give you a quick crash course on one way I like to use these symbols. Nuit and Hadit are unmanifest, being potentials, not actuals. Nuit is all potential, and Hadit is any and every possible point of view capable of experiencing that potential. Their interaction – yeah, sure, their lovemaking, dancing, whatever – is what gives rise to phenomenal experience. Hadit doesn’t say that he’s the core of every star: he says that he’s in the core of every star (read II:6 carefully). He’s the blueprint on which each “True Self” (Ra-Hoor-Khuit or “Holy Guardian Angel,” if you will) is built, the ubiquitous kernel at the center of each person’s Self. He’s the basis for the individuality that gets “clothed” with self-consciousness in order to have experience.

Hadit is motion – in that he inspires the Self, inside which he resides, to constant experience/change – but he is also perfect stillness in the sense of being apart from that experience and, in a very real way, “untouchable” by that experience he inspires. Hence, “she shall be known & I never.”

“I am alone: there is no God where I am.”

“Even as the diamond shall glow red for the rose, and green for the rose-leaf; so shalt thou abide apart from the Impressions.”

Etc., etc.

For further insights, it’s worth studying the Book of Lies 17 (“The Swan”: “In all the Universe this Swan alone is motionless; it seems to move, as the Sun seems to move; such is the weakness of our sight”), the 0=2 formula, the notion of change and stability being identical (see the Tree of Life diagram for an image of the way that the balance of – and ultimate identity of – change and stability “produce” manifest experience in Malkuth), and the concept of opposites containing themselves above the Abyss.

Altogether, this topic is not some insoluble “Mystery” for which some higher type of logic is required. There is no higher type of logic. These are symbols, and – as Carlin joked another time – “I leave symbols to the symbol-minded.”

@Gnosomai Emauton said

"Really great post 639."

Wow.

So, I’ve pointed out before that I don’t bother any more with reading anything written by the “639” guy – ever since he demonstrated himself to be incapable of holding a conversation – but after two votes of confidence, I decided to skim his post and see what the fuss was about. Yikes.

As expected, the post conflates statements of fact (“It’s beneficial to avoid making mistakes and to correct mistakes”) with statements of morals (“Everyone ought to worship Christ and hate teh gayz”). Stunningly, the implied (loopy) conclusion is that each statement is just as much some kind of arbitrary belief.

Why does the post draw that ridiculous conclusion? Because it’s possible to phrase the two statements in a similar way (“It’s better to do X!”), and that somehow makes the ideas similar. I’m not sure if it’s worse than Eshelman’s argument that matter and consciousness are identical because we can phrase (very different) claims about them in similar ways.

For the record, that avoiding mistakes is beneficial is a simple statement of fact when speaking in the (very obviously implied) context of doing stuff (and more specifically, given the ostensible subject matter of this forum, performing one’s True Will).

If one were to build a desk, it’s beneficial (in the context of building the desk) to not make mistakes in following the steps to build it and to detect and correct any mistakes along the way. If I said to a would-be desk-builder, “Hey, it’s a smart idea to avoid making mistakes when building that desk,” it would be fairly obvious that I’m not affirming some kind of “ultimate goodness” behind the idea of not making mistakes…I’m just affirming the usefulness of avoiding mistakes in the context of doing something. In the same way, it’s always beneficial in the context of doing one’s True Will to not make mistakes along the way, such mistakes including thinking that “god” exists and wants you to “hate teh gay.”

It’s an entirely different claim to say that the world would be a “better place” if people did such-and-such.

The fact that these very different claims can be phrased in similar ways in no way suggests that the ideas are similar.

What we see here – as is quite usual on these forums – is incredibly sloppy thinking that gets applauded as some kind of fantastic insight. I have a strong suspicion that such instances are so common on these forums because many of the regulars have little experience of this subject outside of the contents of their fevered imaginations. Hence, they only have words to go on, and similarities between words therefore become treated as confirmation of the similarity of ideas.

My observation is not intended as a personal attack, nor is it directed at anyone in particular. I am making an observation about this forum, the (low) quality of discourse here, and the resistance of its denizens to refine their thinking.

@Takamba said

"one such as Fred Phelps, who espoused so much against what current society is leaning toward, actually brought society together against him and his ideas. Such a mistake as Fred Phelps actually improved the world around us (in my opinion)."

Sure, good things can come from mistakes. That’s trivially true.

But I think Phelps would be a lot better off himself if he didn’t make that mistake in the first place or if he came to see his mistake for what it is. I’m sure it seems perfectly true to him to that there is a god and that “god hates fags” or whatnot – in fact, I’m sure he thinks he’s experienced these things, much in the way that some people around here think they’ve experienced hanging out with goblin buddies – but I think that idly sitting by and just “accepting” what seems to be the case is really bad advice, as this example nicely shows.

And frankly, I think that on virtually any scale you want to use to measure societal well-being, all societies would be better off if all people stopped making the kinds of mistakes of the sort that Phelps makes: misconceiving their overactive imaginations and energized enthusiasm as evidence that supernatural critters exist.

"An individual application would be the mistake of getting yourself physically addicted to a substance and then after treatment realizing you'd never have become so in control of yourself if you hadn't learned such issues in the first place."

Once again, you demonstrate something trivially true: mistakes can eventually lead to good things. Of course, in this example, the “good thing” came from the individual realizing that he has made a mistake and correcting it, not from just “accepting” his mistake.

I realize that the way you’ve structured this example is that the individual “needed” to make that mistake in order to gain self-control, but what this example shows us is that this self-control is gained by realizing the mistake, which can only be achieved by striving for “lucid correctness” in understanding the Self.

One cannot help but make mistakes, whether it’s mistaking one’s own overactive imagination for actual goblins (as in your first example) or mistaking one’s impulses for the True Will (as in your second). It’s only by striving for “lucid correctness” in perceiving the Self and the environment that one overcomes these mistakes and thereby grows or "attains."

What Jim was saying above – as a response to my participation on these forums last year – is that he thinks it's not true that “this path requires lucid correctness in all things.” I’m assuming that by “this path,” he’s referring to Thelema, but who knows.

But as your examples show, Takamba, “lucid correctness” is precisely what individuals should strive for and what would produce optimal results for themselves and for society.

@Jim Eshelman said

"I agree - try not to make mistakes. But then accept whatever you stumble into."

Just accepting what seems to be the case is in direct conflict with trying not to make mistakes. If you're just accepting how stuff seems -- and not bothering to challenge or question it -- then you're not trying to avoid mistakes.

It could be that we're just using words differently, though. Can you give a specific example of what you mean?

@Jim Eshelman said

"these illusions [...] Even when they are factually wrong, they will, more often than not, be exactly what you need to propel you in your next small step."

So you arbitrarily declare. Having observed your pattern of behavior over the past year, I don't expect you to try to support a statement like this. And indeed it would be unwise of you to try, since it's unclear by what standard you would judge something to be "exactly what you need," other than arbitrary declaration.

It's a little interesting to note that your observation here -- that making a mistake can sometimes lead to good things -- is trivially true, but the observation in no way undermines the notion that it's always better in the long run for an individual to try not to make mistakes in the first place (or for an individual to correct errors when he does make them).

@Gnosomai Emauton said

"Has your time away caused a 180?"

Nope.

"This is the exact point that the two of us couldn't see eye to eye on three months ago"

No, it's not. Above on this thread, I'm discussing different ways to conceptualize physical reality and different discursive systems established by perspective. Months ago, our disagreement was about something entirely different: it was about factual claims made in the context of one specific discursive system, and you were arguing -- incorrectly -- for some version of "Everybody's opinion about this factual claim is correct, hurray! (Well, except for Los' opinion, of course)."

Your continued inability to grasp the subject under discussion, while unsurprising, is a nice illustration of the kinds of elementary errors constantly made on this forum.