College of Thelema: Thelemic Education

Haha, yeah it all made so much sense in that state of mind anyway.

Oh shit, I posted this, didn't I? Yup. Well... I was high. My bad.

Thanks for the input, though. I couldn't agree more with all of you.

Hi, folks. I'll wanted to ask the occult crowd about a thing I wrote (for another purpose, but stick with it and you'll see there's pretty solid reasoning a bit into it). The reason is that I'm interested - if the argument can be followed through the ranty style - in input on these thoughts and theories. It's a little poetic and stuff that doesn't fit the topic, but it's hard to edit out, so never mind that, if you will.
Here goes then:

"The originating entity at the creation of reality is at the bottom of all the hearts in the universe and has forever existed in limbo between lingam and yoni, a coexistence that is transcendent in nature. Transcendental existence is the reality of many points of views entwined into one single point of view through which the deduction of an infinitude of information nodes can be represented as the consciousness of an individual; the awareness, centered in the brain of a human being. The cortex crystallizes ideas, processing them in the network of nodal activity around which the tissue builds proportionally to the activity being conducted in the hardware form of electrochemical revolutions of molecular bonding, such that produces a matrix of semantic systematization, upon which thoughts can protrude and build evolution principles, forcing the bodily tissue as a whole to either attract or repel specific designs around it and of itself, so as to conform the organismic sensation as one singular awareness, a harmonic resonance upon the web of space-time, deduced at genetically programmed signatures of biochemical information, certain switches pulled, others inertly waiting to be polarized and activate a stream of new chemistry with which to staple candid molecular bonds, plus and minus communicating through logical gates such that carry out the instructions sent from the consciousness, which it in turn carry out due to physical and mental communication on a higher level of functioning. This system of processing information is an integrated field in the common matrix that picks up concentrations of conscious points of views and programs them into logical instructions derived from the infrastructure of the local environment, to which pertains the field directly consciously detectable of awareness in its utmost sense to the human organism, contrasting its proportions in levels beyond the divination model of physiology, why we have to revert our basic scientific paradigms of reality and cross the barrier of reason into the hyper-dimensional existence to understand the depths of our inner aura, that bubble of which we spun our ego into the bewildering dreams of our neo-cortex, into this human form of life. The basic idea of existence is therefore the tendency of its own cancellation, which consists of the binary principle that spins never-ending spirals of DNA to reprogram the divine ordnung in the shape of whatever presence we appear to ourselves as, bound up as we are, in this field of endless questions, continuation in the chaotic sphere of maddening reason. The spirit of the Self is that part of our mind which is undivided, and therefore comes prior to any constructs, and builds its field of awareness by means of the subconscious kaleidoscopic visions. This field is governed by no preset modalities, and so functions by means of synthetic permutations, singular overlaps intrinsic to the holistic resonance, emanating from nothingness. Therefore, it is said to be known only by way of the unknowable and is and is not all at once."

Oh, I see. Yes, it's quite possible it was 51 I was thinking of, because that description sounds sort of familiar. Well then, I've been trying to avoid 52 for nothing then. Thanks for clearing this up!

I remember reading somewhere by Crowley that he thought 52 was a really bad number. Why is that? What does it mean in a magickal sense?

Nice new forum btw!

This is one example of the reason for my question. The Will and how it applies in the environment is certainly a difficult topic:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxSoUlEfcFQ&NR=1

About 3 minutes or so should be good. Now, I assume he's pretty much the person who tells himself the same rant in his head over and over for years until nothing is true, everything is permissible as it applies to irresponsible action where the judgment is clouded by temporary outbursts and the like, but judging from the way he argues, I have a hard time judging if a J Random Thelemite would say that he is living close to his True Will or not.

I have to reply to the posts in the beginning of this thread as well, because I think one thing remains to be answered, unless I've missed it, which validates a request for clarification, at least. Well then:

If a person is, like I see myself e.g., outside the herd, not finding a lot of "soul-mates" or anything like that anywhere, and therefore feels more drawn to individualistic tendencies, but am capable of handling most social situations pretty well, give a good enough appearance of "normality" that SHe gets away with not internally being one of the herd without raising eyebrows, in that situation, when one strives for greater individualistic freedom whilst on the surface moves with the herd so as to give oneself the largest possible amount of personal freedom to work with the Self or whatever, how does one differ between detrimental feelings/notions/thoughts/etc. and beneficial if the aim is that, as I understand it from the discussions in this thread, Thelemic aim to individuate oneself and discover one's True Will in the midst of the "ignorant" herd?

I.e. if I am in that situation where I can choose to participate and be "one of the guys", where I have the ability for that, but mostly don't feel the need for it because I'd rather read/study/do research than talk about sports/parties/social interactions and all kinds of update information which I find to be a waste of my time and therefore very tedious, But say there are a few types of situations in which it's hard to define what's best for me to do; worry about myself directly or think more long-term and allow others to do as they please so that in the long run cooperation benefits me personally. I guess what I'm asking is how to balance myself, and to do that I need to know what specific fundamental tenants I should choose to balance. In short, how much to follow the world and how much to fuck the world and do my-way-or-the-high-way-routine.
According to Crowley's book on astrology, this is one of my major tasks in this life, because I'm one of the Pisces who have the least focus and am drawn to every direction; interested in everything and unable to prioritize unless absolutely forced to (but I refuse to take orders, so that's paradoxical as well).

I'm coming at this from the point of view where Froclown and, I believe it was beneathabloodredsky (?) argued about if it was considered to be teenage angst-conformity or pure individualism to go against the herd, and that discussion didn't quite clear these tenants, as I call them here, up for me. Do I need to clarify my question, anyone?

@Fnord said

"You could just as easily make an analogy with music. A song is played on an instrument, but a song is not identical with the instrument. Many different people can play the same exact song on many different instruments. And yet there would be no songs without instruments, and the way the songs sound is related to instruments in a lawful way. Now that's some spooky metaphysics."

Hey, this analogy brings me immediately to associate with the ToL. Chokmah comes before Binah; action before form. But people like Froclown seem to think more in terms of "you have to have a car before you can run it anywhere" and prioritize things opposite the Qabalistic manifestation path.

Btw, sorry for quoting an old post.

Thank you as always, Jim!

Are the constellations merely arbitrary observations that people started to do work with and which then became an integrated part of some thought system, or do they actually have topologically important properties? And in that case, naturally, what properties?

Thank you for answering DavidH! a lot calmer

93 everyone!

I might have a problem with one of those things. Recently I watched the (I suppose in this place) fairly well known documentary "The Dark Mirror of Magic", where they do an invocation with one of them (I can't remember the name, but it was apparently prophetic and quite a nice guy, according to the experts in the movie) and at the end they show its sigil and recite a second invocation with it. I looked away just to be safe after about 1-2 seconds of seeing the sigil, but continued listening to the imitated conversation.

Jim, you once told me that looking even for a short time on such a sigil could have some effects, and I suppose if one has dabbled a bit in the field of magick, that one might be even more liable to its effects than as a complete layman, so this is why I took this seemingly minuscule incident as the reason for a quite strange behavior of my heart rhythm lately (which started either the day or the day after I watched it).
My heart rate seems a bit too fast and there are some slight chest pains every now and then. I exercise regularly, eat nutritious food, have had some prior aggression problems though, which are certainly suspected reasons, but since this heart "problem"(?) started so closely after this, I gotta ask ye wise mages. Sometimes I have double-beats (or whatever it's called in english) every now and then, and the pains are extremely minor, so I'm not exactly worrying about a heart attack.

As a precaution I did the LBRP right after watching it, I pray regularly to my HGA (Which seems to be coming to greet me lately - wonderful feeling that!), do yoga twice a day and did another LBRP the day afterwards. This was 3-4 days ago now.

Worth mentioning in addition is possibly that I saw a flickering facial structure some time afterwards in my mind's eye. This is the way (I think) I've previously experienced visits from Kas (if my terminology serves, that would be the slough left behind of a deceased person), one of which was auditory (in the mind's ear, so to speak).
The same experience also seems to come along when I talk to my Angel (no, I'm probably way away from the K&C with It, so I'm not talking about that, but I do address it nonetheless) though, so I'm not sure. Since I asked for more protection, it might as well be It, but I'm always too paranoid to dare listen (fall into the experience) in case it's the demon or anything not very psychologically nutritious.

I haven't even thought about using goetic magick, and have hardly read through Crowley's foreword in his book about it, so see me as the total beginner in this.

1. Should I be worried?
2. If yes to 1), what should I do?

@Draco Magnus said

"BTW, anyone notice that V from "V for Vendetta" has the exact same motto as A.C. did?"

Yes! I did! proud

I apologize for perhaps taking this a bit further off the topic, but I gotta ask. I read by Wilhelm Reich that the supposed orgone particles turn into a damaging reaction if left to simply build up. Is there a special emphasis on doing some inner activity (like lots of yoga) with the orgone particles instead of having sex, or has his theory become moot?

@Froclown said

"If there is no world outside the mind, then what is it the mind makes models of?

If the mind can make up whatever it wants, with no external model to compare with, then their is no distinction between True and False."

You don't only necessitate the existence of models, but also that of a mind to reflect it. The most objective standpoint is the one with least necessary conditions to support it (again, Occham's Razor). Objectivity is the observation point of truth. By your objectivist perspective, you claim more than I do in mine. By that simple reasoning it's more likely that I and not you tell the truth. I've won because I include your arguments in mine, but you don't include mine in your's.

You speak of truth, while I speak of efficiency and we generally mean the same thing. When I speak of truth I am silent or utter a meaningless 'Mu!' to encapsulate only the inexpressibility of "it".

This is where I levitate out of this discussion, because we've now repeated the cycle of reasoning in it 23 times and I want to go to a holier place.

@Froclown said

"I take the entire tree of life to be a model of our minds, even Kether is subjective, the objective world of things I refer to exists beyond the tree of life, across the triple abyss of the ayn sof."

Ait. I on the other hand take it to be a model of existence-as-a-whole along with the above stated Hermetic axiom, which concludes that the mind's model of the world can only work if it's modeled by the blueprint, so naturally we should be able to make internal models for how our minds work from it, or it wouldn't be the model of how existence works, right? So, this system given, how does that make us know that we're not the butterfly dreaming about a man dreaming about a butterfly? How do you figure you're going external on yourself in order to judge this with authority?

I see. Thanks for the clarification!

@Froclown said

"first of all "that I exist because I can think" is just stupid.

Thinking is a physical process of existing matter. Thus, thinking is a result of existing not its cause. Even were there to be no thought, things still exist. That is the fatal flaw in your position, You say thought creates not only beings, or even all being, you claim that thought is the origin of BEING itself. it is the case, however, that thought is a product of existing beings."

First and foremost, I might be misinterpreting here, but you didn't mean that I was of Decartes' opinion, right? I'm not in any case. I used his argument as an example of the same fault I think you're making. Just to make that clear.

My argument goes along with the Tree of Life formation: first there is Chokmah (activity) and then there is Binah (form), so something is rotten in the state of Denmark at this very juncture, sir. Like Anchorite says, whatever one says a thing is, it isn't. Our minds have first and foremost created a system of interpretation with what we call things around us, so there can be communication. We wouldn't be aware of things around us if it hadn't been for that thing happening first. Then we have the axiom of "as above, so below", or in other words, if this is how it works inside our minds, then our minds are reflections of what goes on around them.

But your p o v seems to have fooled you into thinking I am of the opinion that thoughts are what the world is made of. That's too one-sided for my mind. The above reasoning is only to show you that we can argue both ways. Like I've stated from the beginning of this discussion, I take the middle road and go with that it is the communication alone; that neither the thoughts nor the things need to exist at all, in the end. And that this mindscape we're in right now is a playfield preparing us for the next step.

@Froclown said

"Things exist first in and of themselves and in their own right. It is only the interplay of existing things from which all thought, ideals, emotions, WILL, reason, and the irrational mind come to be.

There is nothing that IS without being something that exists first. Existence has mother or father, the mind does not give birth to existing things, it only gives rise to ideas, impressions, symbolic models of other things that exist.

MIND is not some kind of immaterial something, it is a mechanism made of parts that existed before it did."

I don't know how many times this has to be repeated before you answer it with something that actually answers this criticism of your arguments: those are models made by your mind. You can make models for how those models are made in turn, which seem to close the circle, but you can't do anything other than putting one turtle on another turtle's back IMO.

@Froclown said

"We take loose gears and parts and make a car, We do not think about a car and it appears. There is a limited world with a limited amount of existing material in it, and we can not do anything unless we use that material. We can never make more of it, we can not create without using mechanical means to augment existing material.

Magick is no escape, magick is the art of efficiently using the material of the world to achieve a pre-determined goal. It offers us no means to create without effort, of to perform feats not potentially inherent in the substance we are using."

You keep repeating this line of reasoning as well, as if you were of the mind that I contradict you and say that I'm in the possession of some absolute truth, because it seems you believe you are. Try stepping out of that tunnel, like Anchorite suggests. And before you suggest it, yes, I've tried stepping into the tunnel you seem to be in. I came from there about a decade ago.

Froclown,

That "outward form" is seen by YOU to be a male form because you seem to be of the perspective that those physical characteristics, predefined by our typical western povs, are of the inherent natures they present themselves as to you. I would use a physical constant to make it easier for you to see how the True Will can be applied in this transgender case: the True Will is the natural tendency for everything in the omniverse to reach the state of least potential energy charge.

I.e. if there was always a voice inside luxinhominefactum that told her the present state of her body was wrong, then the fruition of that inner calling was to have an operation. All in conformity with Will. And if the voice inside was content with that, then why do you (in being another person) use that example to point out the fault of that person's choice?
To my mind, this is the same fault as literally interpreting the Bible and defending that notion with "this is the word of God" and forgetting that "but this is my personal interpretation of that word". Sorry if I come off as harsh, though. Just stating my observations as usual.

@Froclown said

"3) Every failure proves that one or more requirements of the postulate have not been fulfilled."

What we call Magick only occurs when two concepts are correlating with each other, such as mind and matter in conformity with will. Will - the connecting medium - in being the definition of the change that occurs, is continuously transcendental in nature and therefore not fixed as anything physical. It is a definition of something physical (in being a definition known as 'phenomenon') only as a means for the bridge to occur between subject and object, which, taken by themselves, are also nonexistent as fixed phenomena. The seemingly finite contents of the communication that makes change to occur must in the end be infinite if it is to continue, or otherwise it would hit a wall somewhere; thusly, we can't know for sure, we can only play and have fun - the Aeon of the Child! Wohoo!

The way past the threshold is only a fixed statement to the entity believing itself to be fixed and thusly integrating itself with certainties by synchronizing in certain ways with certain concepts. There is a limitation in stating that willful expressions exist just as there is a limitation to say that I exist because I can think. If something is true, it must surpass everything, and if it can be defined as a physical concept, then it would exclude the definition of other possible concepts, because the simple definition that "perhaps something will some day render present truth falsity" is enough to falsify such statements as truth in themselves.

Illustrative example: For someone to know anything at all with certainty, SHe has to know everything, since, as long as there is still some unknown information, that information can potentially render faulty the information thus far gathered, and so, none of that information is valid as a statement of knowledge in the sense of truth.
That given, when a person learns the ultimate truth - the last bit of possible quantifiable information - something automatically changes in hir perspective, since the new information, in order to be conceptualized by the individual, must fit into correlation with the rest of the gathered knowledge, and thusly a new bit of information comes into existence, making the process of truth-gathering an endless cycle.
If these are the circumstances we have to face, the only thing we can do is gather information in a constant state of change. Since everything changes, not even the seeming connection between two particles can be called a fixed statement of physical truth, and all these words are merely a model for elucidating this information. Ergo: no thing exists.

This, however, says nothing about what present temporary connections we have to play with, but the only thing we can really do is play with them. There is no one reality before another. It is absurd to state that we can never know more than we do now. Even the Book of the Law implicitly states that it won't exist forever, but will also change someday, so TRUE WILL is not necessarily an absolute Law either.

@Froclown said

"Froclown note (the environment exists on its awn not as a manifestation of the mind, the mind when in harmony with the WILL works to adapt ones behavior to the environment, not to change the world by wishing)"

The above statement is excellent to comment. Since, first of all, you treat things physically and non-physically inside the confinement of definitions, such as the differing between 'wish' and 'WILL', why this discussion does not seem to go beyond reason, which the definition of the Supernal Triad does, so we're still stuck in Kansas. That's okay; we differ there too, it seems, or otherwise, our discussion of it would not be about it, but about our limited understanding of it.

@Froclown said

"Froclown note (Observe that Crowley says galaxies effect the way consciousness manifests in the universe, not that the galaxies are manifest examples of conscious thought)"

Agreed, so it seems. Though a fool sees not the same tree a wise man does, so even with this, we're unable to state anything about the galaxies in themselves, or us either for that matter, until we're at that point where we are in our True Selfs.
Take e.g. the literal translation of the myth that Lao Tze vanished when he became one with the Tao.

@Froclown said

"21) There is no limit to the extent of the relations of any man with the Universe in essence; for as soon as man makes himself one with any idea the means of measurement cease to exist. But his power to utilize that force is limited by his mental power and capacity, and by the circumstances of his human environment."

I think you just shot yourself in the foot here, because this theorem implies the limitation it describes; vicelidet, by defining the mental power and capacity. For that's what you must do if you are to state something as truthful, and if you do that in any way, you limit the ability to grasp the limitlessness of Man's potential.

@Froclown said

"28) Every man has a right to fulfill his own will without being afraid that it may interfere with that of others; for if he is in his proper place, it is the fault of others if they interfere with him."

Let's take this one as an example of what my line of thought leads up to. The only thing that with certainty can ever be an expression of the True Will seems to be to do nothing and everything simultaneously, and thus stepping out of the Wheel. God, in that case, must do this non-doing-doing, BUT! Since you insist on determining the factors, such as calling the person doing its Will a Man and setting him up to certain limitations, that could never happen, because in being defined and circumvented by your definitions, he would not be eternal. So again, we can't finitely define reality.