See likes

See likes given/taken


Your posts liked by others

Pages: [1]
Post info No. of Likes
Discussion on Thelema: RHP or LHP? Many occultists believe that Thelema is inherently LHP, based on a faulty understanding of the Law of Thelema: Do what thou Wilt. This phrase inspires many people to believe that Thelema is advocating that people do whatever they want, which is a misunderstanding of the Law. Do what thou Wilt is generally understood by practicing Thelemites to mean that people should behave according to their True Will, rather than each whim. Various statements by Crowley imply that the True Will was individual, but followed basic rules, such as that it is no one's True Will to kill another. The acting of self in accordance with True Will is similar to the Taoist notion of people acting in accordance with ultimate nature (the Tao), or the Advaita Vedanta notion of discovering that the True Self (Atman) is just a mask for Ultimate Reality (Brahman). Because of the varied interpretations of True Will, I thought it would be productive to discuss whether Thelema is inherently RHP or LHP. I myself am a practicing Thelemite, and based on my own interpretations of my readings of Crowley, Thelema seems to be LHP, because while it frowns upon certain actions which are a part of free will, the individual is ultimately responsible for their own wellbeing, and must seek to alter the world to their productive desires.

93 93/93
Xeper and Remanifest

April 05, 2017, 08:31:31 pm
3
Re: Discussion on Thelema: RHP or LHP?
I think that there are two inherently different yet equally valid forms of Thelema. The most common is more appropriately called Crowleyanism, because it follows Crowley and his interpretation of the Law of Thelema, rather than what AL actually says. This is obvious because Crowley brought about a very solar based religion, yet the Book of the Law goes to great lengths and imagery to show it is stellar based. Crowley, despite his imagery, very much sought do dissolve himself into the All, losing his isolate consciousness in favor of the will of Nature/God. AL, on the other hand, is an elitist text that draws heavily on the symbolism of the Pyramid Texts. The individual is elevated to godhood, the gods bow before them, the focus is on the night sky, and so forth. So while Crowley seems to have interpreted things as RHP, Thelema can equally be seen as LHP.

My issue with this analysis is that Crowley says "Every man and every woman is a star" means that every person is the center of their own universe, just as a star is the local center of orbit in the vast majority of cases. He says this in his commentary on the AL. I think this reflects that Thelema was indeed LHP, especially when the role of the Sun comes into play as the main God. If worship of the Sun is proper, and every person is their own Sun, than Thelema is very LHP.

April 17, 2017, 03:40:50 pm
1
Re: The Comprehensive Argument for Set This is my argument against this logic, based on the Reddit version of the argument found here. My argument against it is found here. For convience, here is the text of my comment from the Reddit post linked:
Premise 1:
 My critique of this is that it misunderstands the idea of an axiom. An axiom is something which is not provable, but is held to be self-evident. Your argument for it as an axiom is pointless, then, as it is reliant on other axioms, namely, as you argue: "I can reason, therefor I must exist." This utilizes the axiom of "I" existing already, thus your argument is a loop: "I exist, therefor I exist, therefor I exist, therefor I exist..." In order for it to be an axiom, you must simply accept it as true without proof, as something that is impossible to falsify - the issue with infalsifiable principles being that I can posit anything to be true in this manner. If my axiom is "purple flying unicorns that can breathe fire exist," then there is no way to disprove it, as you cannot exhaust all possibilities in searching for it, and thus disprove it. This is the same as the axiom "I exist," as you cannot prove that "you" do not exist, nor do you provide a denition of what "you" are, and thus you cannot possibly argue with it. This is like the traditional arguements for the existence of God, they mean nothing and are merely exercises on the level of 0+0=0.
Premise 2:
 This can be rejected simply on the principle that you cannot demonstrate that two people really "see" the same thing. Describe to me the color red, as a "thing in itself." It's impossible, they call it "qualia." Now, you can only demonstrate that people speaking the same language are prone to call something the same word. You might argue that, if they merit the same responses, they are demonstrably similar in some way. I argue in turn that this demonstrates no actual relation to what is seen - that would be like saying that, if a mouse is trained to behave a certain way to both cheese and broccoli, that cheese and broccoli are, in fact, the same thing. I could also argue that you cannot prove anything at all exists except perhaps yourself, as you can only see external things with your perception - which could be argued into the ground as a type of hallucination. Look at the traditional arguements for Solipsism if you'd like to see some of these. However, arguing that reality doesn't exist is futile, so I will accept these first two premises - I'm merely demonstrating that it's impossible to argue them, and so you must make them truly axioms - don't say "I exist because..." and then call it an axiom, just say "I exist" and then "the external world exists."
Premise 3:
 Again, Solipsism fills out the arguement against this point. A modified form of Solipsism is what I'll use to argue against this point. You cannot axiomize or demonstrate that anything but your perception exists, and thus you can't argue that your mind and the "outside world" are different, because you can't realize the outside world, you can only realize, if we accept that the outside world exists, your own version of it. Thus, the true "outside world" could be very much like your mind, made of immaterial thoughtforms, but you don't have access to that, only your own immaterial thoughtforms.
Premise 4:
 This falls flat because all "explanations" of the world are merely subjective. It is shown in Einstein's theory of relativity that all motion is dependant on a frame of reference, and there is no "objective" frame of reference for motion. Thus, when you walk past a tree and the tree "moves" in your vision, it is actually moving, in your "frame of reference." So, there are two people who speak only in terms of their frame of reference - one is sitting down, and the other is walking toward him. The first person says, "You came towards me," but the other disagrees, "No, you came towards me," and there is no objective solution to it, as objectivity selects no inherent, correct frame of reference. The same is true for all matters of perspective, one of which is the idea that the theory of forms is better in any way than another set of ideas that explain things. And, if we try to speak "objectively," forms cannot exist in and of themselves, as they are classifications of things - that is, ideas - and ideas don't exist without the mind, which makes them not objective. The idea of "objectivity" is mostly useless, though - which both does away with this last bit of argument, and also your argument of forms being superior to any other interpretation.
Premise 5:
 This can be done away with the arguments previously refuting every point.
Premise 6:
 The theory of forms all falls flat here: if the consciousness "form" is a collection of subtypes, than this can apply to "consciousness and other," and thus not only is there a "CodeReaper" consciousness form, a "rock" form, and a "Three_Scarabs" consciousness form, there is also a "CodeReaper picking up rock" form, and a "CodeReaper talking to Three_Scarabs" form, rendering all forms as insignificant among the infinite possible divisons of the one form of "all reality," which both argues against the existence of the self as an axiomatic thing (as it's made of infinite unknowably smaller forms and is also merely a part of an infinitely large single form which must then all be demonstrated) and against the separation of mind and matter (as these now are reduced to parts of a single manifested form, the Monad, which is the form of "all reality.")
Premise 7:
 Same as 5.

May 09, 2017, 06:48:42 pm
1