BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Temple >

THE PURPOSE OF MAGIC (The great work)

  
  

Page: (1)23

 
 
jihadreflection
17:30 / 14.06.06
THE PURPOSE OF MAGIC (The great work)

Ok. I’ll start. I hope you don’t mind if I lay some ground rules to try and keep the discussion productive.
We give each other the benefit of the doubt
We assume (even if wrongly) that we all want to learn about each others views of the world.
We try to sort out definitions so we don’t argue at cross purposes.
We don’t assassinate each others characters because people have different views to us.
We ask for clarification before we criticise.

Feel free to criticise the above.

So here goes. I’ll try for some definitions first. Let’s hash them out. Disagree and call me on the following if you want.

Magic: Let’s not use the word. It means so many different things it can get a bit confusing as to what we are actually referring to. Can we refer to an operation or state instead.

I’ll define operation as a process. Something you do. For example you do Zazen. You do the LBRP. You do the invocation of Thoth. You do a sigil.

I’ll define state as. This is tricky. Samadhi. Enlightenment. Anger. Desire. Maybe all these things are states. It’s a being as opposed to a process. (I’m not happy with being words generally but I guess this will get very tricky if we don’t allow them)

My definition of a system of attainment.

A system of attainment takes place in a tradition. A tradition is something like Daoism, Golden Dawn, Thelema, Buddhism, Scientology.

Many of these traditions have as there goal a final end point for the self.
You rise in attainment through different ranks BY PERFORMING OPERATIONS, to reach this end point.
For example in Zen Buddhism (I know there are different schools) you could say that there are only two processes. Zazen and Koan. The aim of these processes is to reach an end state. Enlightenment.

In Thelema there are several processors in each rank. The final goal is to have knowledge of your ‘true will.’

In scientology there are also an order processors. The goal is to become ‘clear.’

Even in Carrollian chaos magic (as defined by liber null) there is a three tier set which contains processes.

The basic idea though is that there is an end state worth having and you get to that end state by performing certain actions.

Ok maul me
 
 
Anthony
17:47 / 14.06.06
i'm not sure there's a static end state because life changes thus we change. there are deeper and deeper degrees of initiation though and by no means necessarily pleasent. initiation can be a horrifying experience at times, "self-shattering revelations" as my former teacher put it.

if there's a goal at all in a wider sense i do think it's to guide the course of evolution as a whole, in our interactions with others.

broadly speaking i think the battle between light & darkness (not necessarily formulated in the general terms) is a real one in which we're all fighting or losing.
 
 
Princess
18:17 / 14.06.06
Not to be an DiscordianCliche, but how about "fun"?
 
 
jihadreflection
18:40 / 14.06.06
Yeah Anthony the state thing is a bit dodgy.
The other problem is some systems won’t define there end state because they say you can only experience it. Also it could be that each system has a different outcome. Enlightenment isn’t necessarily the same as finding your true will for example (or is it?).
Would any one take issue with ‘the end result is a finished product?’
As in you do the steps and then you don’t have to redo them? Once enlightened you remain enlightened. Once you found your true will it stays found.
Specifically this applies to Golden Dawn, Yoga originating in Hindu cosmology, Thelema and Buddhism. It doesn’t have to mean you remain static after obtaining that state. It does mean that you can ‘finish’ the system though.
(This might be tricky because I’ve lumped a load of these systems together. Does anyone think this is unfair? Should we discuss a few systems in particular?)
 
 
Quantum
18:44 / 14.06.06
The basic idea though is that there is an end state worth having and you get to that end state by performing certain actions.

I don't know about the end state, it seems to be different to everyone and difficult to define or describe. I think of it more like learning to play an instrument, you perform certain actions in order to gain the ability to do certain things.
I mean, you can play chess until you can beat Deep Blue but you'll still have more to learn. There is no end state as such, more like a level of proficiency. 'Initiation never ends' and all that.
 
 
Doc Checkmate
18:56 / 14.06.06
I think that you're right in declaring those states to be endpoints, with one little nitpick. Yeah, once you've become a Buddha, that's basically the end of the character arc. However, in Thelema (as far as I understand it), knowing your True Will isn't the final realization or the end of the road. You find your True Will in the Knowledge and Conversation at Tiphareth, but you still have to keep climbing, hop the Abyss, and high-tail it outta here via Kether if you want to be good and thorough. Discovering the True Will is the first and essential key to doing all of that, i.e. once you've found your Angel you can be your own guide for the rest of the path, etc. But there's still the rest of the path. And obviously, it's much less like a board game than I've made it sound.
 
 
jihadreflection
19:15 / 14.06.06
Ok very tricky.
I kind of get you Quantum but a problem (for me) occurs because if you take something like Thelema say. You do have a set of processes and it is related to an end goal.
The set of processes in this case consists of a Variety of breathing exercises, internalising a cosmology and learning to relate to the world in terms of that cosmology and sets of rituals.
It does have an end goal. It does have a ranking system. Person X say an illustrious knight is more adept (further on the path) than say a magus. They even have a numerical rank. 0 – 12.
Buddhism has enlightened and non enlightened.
Now when you get to 12 or enlightened you may still be learning more but the system itself is finished. Without an end state then why would a person practice?
Some systems don’t have an end state. Satanism as proposed by Anton Lavey for example. Some Taoists have told me that there system has no end state (others have told me it does).

Take psychology. Certain psychologies have as there goal the aim to make someone ‘authentic’ or ‘whole’. They have a set of practices by which to do this.
Others like NLP have no such end state. They consists solely of techniques. The techniques being utilised to solve a specific problem. (Phobia, depression, lack of confidence). Or in the positive (heightened sensory awareness, more skill at a particular subject.)

Don checkmate just pointed out that ‘true will’ wasn’t the final goal in Thelema but such a goal does exists. (Thanks for clarifying that Don)
In fact I’ve kind of just re-written what he said (damn).

Non end point systems seem to me different from end point systems and it’s in end point systems you find concepts like ‘the great work’ and transcendence.
(again feel free to rip that apart)
 
 
Haloquin
19:52 / 14.06.06
*shrugs* I do what I do because its what I do. The systems I play (I prefer the word "play" to "work", not to imply I don't take it seriously) with I choose on a basis of how they feel to me.
I choose them to help me learn about me, and to help me enjoy life. And because, as Swashbuckling said; its fun.
In fact, I think enjoyment may be the ultimate goal of anything, the whole hedonistic path idea, but of the "good life" hedonism rather than short term pleasure... to attempt clarification; hedonism in terms of looking for happiness, happiness in itself requiring a good life and long term pleasure, without taking the immediate gratification that leads to pain/discomfort (such as eating lots of lovely lovely food... and then being sick because you're allergic to it!)
Which I guess is why ordeals can be said to be a part of a happy life as they can lead to a better understanding, stronger person and a happier life overall.
So seeking to know my "True will"... or knowing "all my parts"... or merging with kether... are ways of looking for a good life, a hedonistic route... or, I repeat; fun

Having said that, I'd like to learn things in a way that means I can help people, hence the course on holistic therapies; I wanted to learn some healing techniques. But then, helping people often makes me happy so...?

And definite agreement that this isn't a process I'm going down with an end or goal in sight... it seems to be more of a way of living, in my mind, and systems are more about learning techniques to live a better life and be a "better person" over time, than something you do till its done. Apart from the cases when you work with a system until you outgrow it, then I guess you could say its done.

Like I said, I do what I do because its what I do... I began learning when I was young and did it because it was fun, since then "magic-as-I-think-of-it" in general has become a part of life. Like I strive for constant honesty because my words create my world... I make spells by living with an expectation that what I *decide* will be so will be so because I make myself open to it. Maybe this is better expressed by saying I have a slightly different perspective on the world than a purely materialistic one.
(Although I am gradually using systems to study my own intentions.)
 
 
Haloquin
19:57 / 14.06.06
Why practise without an end-state? Do you live purely so you can die? (*frowns at how pretentious that sounds and hopes its taken as it was meant*)
I guess you could take karate as an example... most people think the highest goal is black belt... but in actuality (at least in the system I know) once you reach black belt you can gain more stripes as your proficiencey increases. Even reaching an end state, you presumably have to work to maintain that state, so can it really be the end?
(Am I repeating things? If so, I apologise.)
 
 
LVX23
20:07 / 14.06.06
To dust off an old cliche, the journey is more important than the destination.

The ultimate endpoint of any spiritual path is death, my friend. Milestones are important but endpoints are illusory. They serve as magnets to draw one along the path but as you move closer to your final goal, acquiring more experience and wisdom, the goal itself will likely change. It always does, ever slippery and amorphous, offering what you need to progress through the next stage but always ultimately unattainable.

Do you think that your future self would in any way resemble who you are now when you finally attain that Magus degree after 15 years of intense practice? It's fair to say you would probably be a very different person with very different ideas about life, love, and Thelema itself. Every answer brings more questions (at least it should if you're really using your head) so I would assume that attaining Magus would expose ever more vast fields of the unknown pushing that imaginary endpoint of illumination that much further out.
 
 
LVX23
20:14 / 14.06.06
I think the sticking point for me in this thread is this notion of "end point" versus "goal". One can have many goals along the path but I don't believe there is anything real in the notion of final, one true Goal.

[And I deliberately did not refer to the lofty ipssissimussiness...]
 
 
Doc Checkmate
00:12 / 15.06.06
The ultimate endpoint of any spiritual path is death, my friend.

Not if you´re Buddhist. In fact, not if you´re any number of things. For yogis too (and I guess Hindus in general, although most of the stuff I´ve learned was written/taught by yogis, and I don´t want to generalize), death is an intermission between acts rather than the terminal point.

I can´t recall right now what Thelemites believe happens after the "Greater Feast." LVX23, you´d know that better than I would. Didn´t our friend in the triangle hat believe he was the reincarnation of Eliphas Levi?
 
 
Professor Silly
04:43 / 15.06.06
so a system of attainment can have an end-goal even if life doesn't (outside of the greater feast). I don't think this invalidates the systems. Within the Thelemic model one is to personally write all rituals after the "knowledge and conversation of their holy guardian angel" anyway...so even if a person does reach the rank of Ipsissimus (the highest rank, corresponding to Kether) they still have work to do--it's just that they determine the what and the how on their own.
 
 
LVX23
04:57 / 15.06.06
well even if your faith abides in reincarnation surely those 42 some odd days in the Black Lands would reveal the Absolute in all it's infinite glory gently guiding the path of your life engineered and architected to fulfill your unique part on the Great Stage, ready to graduate to your next life and play a new role in the vast unfolding. In other words, I'm inclined to suspect that any illumination that does not grok death intimately and immediately is missing half the picture.
 
 
LVX23
05:03 / 15.06.06
"A feast for life and a Greater Feast for death."

Crowley did believe he was one in a line of reincarnations but I don't know that reincarnation is a tenent of any of the western systems. He obviously had a soft spot for the eastern mysteries. AKAIK, Thelema does not make any claim to reincarnation. However, Crowley spoke of Secret Chiefs, which supposedly include Buddha and Christ and other dead-but-ascended masters (one would suspect that Crowley himself would be a reasonable candidate for that elite club). So there is some allowance for an extended engagement with the kingdom post-mortem.
 
 
LVX23
05:08 / 15.06.06
[Hehe, reading my last post made me laugh. I didnn't mean to compare Crowley to Christ or Buddha. Rather, that he seemed to have a line to some sort of aetheric after party and could probably have arranged a spot on the guest list.]
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
09:52 / 15.06.06
So seeking to know my "True will"... or knowing "all my parts"... or merging with kether... are ways of looking for a good life, a hedonistic route... or, I repeat; fun

That's more or less how I look at it. I don't think something like the grade system of the A.'.A.'. should really be considered as a series of merit badges leading to a final, finite goal. So much as a useful poetic metaphor that provides a certain degree of structure to your work, if you want to make use of it. If you go about hungering for grades in order to prove how great you are, you are missing the point like a twat. Exactly as you would be if you hungered for a black belt in the martial arts, instead of just knuckling down and learning how to fight - understanding that the grades only really mean what you yourself put into them. It is not about ego, but actual attainment.

For instance, I could sit here and look at my own history of attainment in magic and append all manner of lofty grades to myself that I "think I probably am". You get idiots doing this all the time. "I reckon I must be at least an Adeptus Minor by now." etc. Missing the point. For me, such systems are not about status or anything else that appeals to the ego, they are simply a tool for focusing my individual development as a human being and as a magician.

The Neophyte Grade, corresponding to Malkuth, gives me an opportunity to focus all of my magical endeavors towards those particular mysteries. Where I am right now. The physical world. My senses. The roots and trees, flora and fauna. How I make my living. The Zelator Grade, corresponding to Yesod, gives me an opportunity to move on from that work, and fully explore the astral world, dreams, fantasies, sexuality, the Moon, the Sea, psychic powers, witchcraft. And so on, through the various other grades, using the whole thing as a metaphorical climbing frame for exploring different aspects of myself and the universe - and having fun with it as I do so. I'll spend years at a time on these grades, because it's not about status or ego. It's about having fun with it and learning something. I'll work with Malkuth until I honestly feel I'm deeply established in those mysteries enough to want to look at the universe from another point of understanding, and no sooner. That's the "Great Work", as I understand it. What else is it going to be? What does it mean if you are a Philosophus? Who are you trying to impress with that exactly?

There is no lust of result here. Yes, there is a theoretical "end goal" of Ipsissimus in the A.'.'A.'. system, but the way I see it, those grades are a bit hypothetical anyway. If I gradually worked through the first five grades, really deeply internalising the mysteries and attempting to master the magics of Malkuth, Yesod, Hod, Netzach and Tiphareth - according to my own personal aesthetic and with my own creative spin - then that's a full, life's work right there. I'm not really that interested in what might lie beyond. I don't really care right now. I'll cross that particular Abyss when, and if, I come to it and no sooner. I don't especially want to lose myself in glorious union with Kether just yet, thanks.

It might be the ultimate goal of the A.'.A.'., to complete the journey and return to the source of all things. But the journey itself is what it's all about. I'm in no hurry to get to Kether at all, I've just come from there. I am an emanation from Kether, manifesting through all of the Sephiroth of the Tree and taking physical form in Malkuth. My job is to understand the mysteries of that process, by participating in the journey of magic that is laid out before me, the Great Work, if you like.
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
10:14 / 15.06.06
Jihad reflection: You are asking politely to be mauled, yet you still seem a bit squeamish about actually elaborating on your reasoning behind the statement:

"As to transcendence or the quest for a true will, authentic self. I simply find no value in believing in such things.

What wound me up in the first place was a strong, dogmatic claim like that being dropped into the conversation without any background as to why you think such things are meaningless, or any reasoning given for why you have arrived at that position. I wanted to draw you out and get you to quantify what you mean by that. Without providing any context or explanation for a statement like that, and ideally one that is rooted in your own personal experience of magic, it just comes across as arrogant and irritating. You can't really expect people to take your opinions too seriously if you don't provide any evidence of the thought process and experiential basis that might be informing them.

So far, you've just provided a few definitions of terminology and conspicuously avoided getting into the meat and bones of the subject that you have been called on. Could you do that please.
 
 
illmatic
10:33 / 15.06.06
once you've become a Buddha, that's basically the end of the character arc

Buddhism has enlightened and non enlightened

Both of you are generalising about subjects you have no direct experiecne of.

Do you know what these concepts actually *means* in Buddhism? To actually living practising Buddhists? As even the Dalai Lama doesn't claim to enlighened, what actually value is the assertion of the state of enlighment? I'd argue that it's an idealised end goal which is used for a variety of rehtorical purposes, and the actual experience of Buddhist practice is very different, and offers a broad spectrum of insights and realisations.

Furthermnore, if you read some of the more well known Buddhist authors, "enlightenment" is often held to be synomonous with *giving up* this goal. There's a set of very interesting paradoxes embodied in these teachings, which imply certain mind explosions when thought and lived through.
 
 
jihadreflection
11:18 / 15.06.06
Just about to Gypsy. I needed to provide a context we can agree on so that we were not arguing at cross ends as it were.

Dogmatic: How does me saying that I (Jihadreflection) find no use in such notions strike you as dogmatic. I’m not saying that you don’t find use in such notions or even that you shouldn’t.

You use the Tree of life as a map that you interpret reality through? Am I correct?
The tree of life in your case allows for understanding of reality based upon the ten spheres?
So although your not focussed on the end. Your enjoying the journey. You still have a road map based upon the ten spheres?

Again correct me if I’m wrong.

Why should I value transcendence? Why should I value true will?
Does this mean that I’m some kind of sinner. That I’m somehow broken and only by becoming enlightened or gaining knowledge of my holy guardian angel can I reach salvation.
Original sin and the morality of self hate. That’s what I personally see it as.

You asked if I find any value in becoming a ‘better’ person. What is better. Better to what standards. My values exists only in my head. The universe as I perceive it is amoral and valueless. What to you could seem like mindless consumerism, could to somebody else be the height of spiritual attainment.

Unless of course you think the universe has a code hidden in it that allows us to partake in the mysteries. Isn’t that the basis of all religions? That there is a truth and those who accept the truth and follow the path are enlightened. That the rest are sheeple and unenlightened and the very worst are those who just say ‘no. I am myself. I need nothing more.’

Well I say NO.

I have tried the exercises. I have even felt myself connected to all point in space and time and felt the bond between all things that some people call love. Yet I saw this as illusion. I see everything as illusion. Everything as a lie we tell ourselves to give the world meaning.

I myself don’t want to partake of a lie that says my present state is unclean, wrong, sick. I don’t want to traverse some spiritual path that says ‘yourself is not yourself’.

I see morality in most spiritual traditions and I want nothing to do with morality.

Yet I’m still avoiding your question. So let me reply head on. I may feel the need to change something. The parts about the world I change and about myself I change are nothing more than preferences. In fact I see the whole world as being competing preferences. I see the worst of dogma come from people who say ‘you have no understanding of my (insert preference here).’ People who state preference as truth. I do not see there being any truth. Only different points of view.

So my spiritual path is the creation of a cosmology, a mythology, based upon my own preference. I stand in the centre. I don’t seek understanding of the world because I do not think there is anything TO understand. I do not seek understanding of self because I AM myself. Everything I say about my self I say only about an ‘image’ a ‘phantom’.
This is my problem with doctrines like ‘true will’.

Now admittedly. One can experience any truth with enough brainwashing. I think all spiritual systems are forms of brainwashing. They indoctrinate you into their view of meaning and universe. (in my opinion don’t forget)

You and me can be made to value anything. I value what I value and say it is arbitrary. You value what you value and get angry when others do not share the same values and then proceed to insult them.
If that’s spirituality then it’s a nasty, dull, spiteful, petty spirituality. A spirituality that denies multiplicity.

You ask why I keep on with. My opinion. Well I think that is all there is. All that exist are my desires. You hammer down my desires as being about ‘money and women.’
Well maybe. Maybe other things as well. Maybe learning new skills for the joy of it. Maybe creating art. Maybe destroying.

You find me arrogant and irritating gypsy, ‘does that mean I AM arrogant and irritating or is that just your opinion.’
I know that were I born with the same body, brain and has the same experiences as you, I would think exactly the way you do. Maybe this makes me a little less judgemental.
To state a preference makes me arrogant and irritating you said.
Wrong.
To state a preference that ‘you’ do not like makes me irritating and arrogant to you.
In every one of my posts I state that people are free. In yours they are only free if they comprehend ‘your’ mysteries on ‘your’ terms. There’s some divergence sure. Someone else can follow a ‘holy’ path, hollowed by tradition and you’ll accord them the respect you think they deserve. Woe betide the moron who equates NLP with magic though. Surely he must know nothing about ‘your’ mysteries. Woe betide the moron who discards true will. Surely he must know nothing about ‘your’ mysteries.
Then finally you do not teach. You mock. You laugh. You deride.
f—k your spirituality if that’s what it is.
 
 
Quantum
11:30 / 15.06.06
I use the Tarot major arcana as a map or a path. You ascend from Fool to World, but that isn't an 'end state', you return to the Fool again simply with a better understanding, as though the path is a spiral stair with 22 steps to a flight.
It's an infinite spiral stair with no top or bottom mind, the work is climbing it. Where does it go? Upwards.
 
 
trouser the trouserian
11:32 / 15.06.06
I think it'd be useful to try and set the term "the Great Work" within some kind of historical context.

The phrase "the Great Work" (from the Latin, "Magnum Opus") turns up in a wide variety of contexts. It's often used to denote literary, artistic or scientific masterpieces, or the "great undertaking" of an individual's life, so for example, Darwin's "Origin of the Species" could be considered his "magnum opus". According to Webster's dictionary, it entered common English usage in the mid-to-late 18th century. This in itself is interesting, if we consider the European occult 'revival' of that period, which was characterised by a high degree of religious syncretism and the search for a lost Primordial Tradition. One of the most important movements of this period was Martinism, heavily influenced by the writings of Jakob Boehme. Papus describes the work of the Martinist Order as:

"the Order, as a whole, is especially a school of moral knighthood, endeavouring to develop the spirituality of its members by the study of the invisible world and its laws, by the exercise of devotion and the intellectual assistance and by the creation in each spirit of an all the more solid faith as it is based on observation and science"

A central tenet of Martinism is that Man can return to the divine state that he possessed before the Fall - and that through "the Inner Way" the Personal Will can be merged with Gods' Will.

It's also during the eighteenth century that one sees the emergence of the notion that it is the duty of occultists to instruct others towards development in esoteric wisdom (particularly in post-revolutionary France) - an idea that turns up later in the Theosophical Society's concept of "the great work".

More to come...
 
 
Quantum
11:36 / 15.06.06
does that mean I AM arrogant and irritating or is that just your opinion.

It could be that you're acting in an irritating manner. Could you tone down your posting a little? Inflammatory statements like 'F_k your spirituality' aren't going to help much.
 
 
jihadreflection
11:55 / 15.06.06
yeah point.
Maybe I should have stated 'If that's what your spirituality consists of then I want no part of it.'

trouser: interesting post
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
12:10 / 15.06.06
Maybe I should have stated 'If that's what your spirituality consists of then I want no part of it.'

No, you should go back and actually flesh out the statements you've made with reasoned argument, preferably demonstrating an active engagement in the work you're writing about instead of getting defensive and stroppy. Otherwise yeah, you look like a guy making arrogant unfounded statements in an irritating manner. I'm just sayin'.
 
 
Doc Checkmate
12:11 / 15.06.06
Do you know what these concepts actually *means* in Buddhism? To actually living practising Buddhists?

Well, all due respect, yes. I don't think I was off-base in pointing out that Buddhist canon considers Buddhahood to be the final point in a being's spiritual evolution. I didn't make any statements about the value of enlightenment, different interpretations of the experience, or people who may or may not be enlightened.

Both of you are generalising about subjects you have no direct experiecne of.

While I haven't formally taken refuge, nor am I certain that I'll do so in the foreseeable future, I do study with a lay Vajrayana practioner of considerable experience, read voraciously on the subject (for what that's worth), sit for samatha twice daily, attend weekly ganachakra, and strive to make contemplation and Dharma practice a part of my everyday life. I'm certainly no expert, but I don't understand why you would draw the conclusion you did about my experience. It's sometimes disheartening how easily conversation on this board can veer from analysis of ideas to assertions of someone else's ignorance or, in more extreme cases, assassinations of character. I don't take offense, but I think it may sometimes put other people off, and not just flameworthy ass hats.
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
12:19 / 15.06.06
I do not seek understanding of self because I AM myself. Everything I say about my self I say only about an ‘image’ a ‘phantom’. This is my problem with doctrines like ‘true will’.

Which amply demonstrates a fair lack of understanding of what that term actually means, and therefore makes it difficult for me to really accept your position as a particularly well thought out argument. This is my point. I'm trying to have a civilised, adult, conversation with you here, I really am. Please stop flinging shit at me.

You value what you value and get angry when others do not share the same values and then proceed to insult them. If that’s spirituality then it’s a nasty, dull, spiteful, petty spirituality. A spirituality that denies multiplicity.

No. I couldn't give a toss what you think or believe, I really don't. I'm not stopping you from doing anything. However, if you are going to make a statement about magic on barbelith, I do expect you to be able to support it when asked to. I get angry when people dismiss things without showing their working, as it were. I get angry at people shooting their mouths off without really adding anything of value to the debate other than noise. I get angry when people expect to be taken seriously but don't provide any grounds or experiential basis for why anyone else should do so.

This has nothing to do with my "spirituality" or what I happen to believe or not believe. If you stated that you find the notions of True Will or enlightenment meaningless, and then went on to tell us why, and talk about the actual experiences you have had that led you to this position, that would have been fantastic. I would be really interested to hear about that. I keep asking you to do that, but you still haven't. Not really.

I know that you are very passionate about the various garbled things you are making a lot of noise about. But I don't really get where you are coming from with any of this. You haven't explained yourself very well. I don't understand why you have decided that the universe is amoral and valueless, for instance. And without that background, or any demonstration that you have really explored all of the things you are dismissing, it is hard to respect your position because you are asking people to do that on faith. That's why I referred to it as a dogmatic statement. You are expecting us to take on board what you are saying as an article of faith, just because you are saying it. I don't think that's really good enough.


You find me arrogant and irritating gypsy, ‘does that mean I AM arrogant and irritating or is that just your opinion.’

I said your unsupported statement came across as arrogant and irritating, which it did to me and to various others. In a text based medium, you are what you communicate. Nothing more, nothing less. You make an awful lot of noise about NLP, but continually demonstrate a total lack of basic communication skills. Which, again, doesn't make me particularly inclined to take your opinions about the subject very seriously.

To state a preference makes me arrogant and irritating you said.
Wrong. To state a preference that ‘you’ do not like makes me irritating and arrogant to you.>

How many times am I going to have to explain this to you? It is not your statement itself that I took offense at. It was the fact that you seem to think it is acceptable, in a debate on magic, to make such a statement without quantifying it or telling us a bit about the experiential factors that led to you taking up that position. It is not. At least not if you don't want to get a bit of stick for it.

Someone else can follow a ‘holy’ path, hollowed by tradition and you’ll accord them the respect you think they deserve. Woe betide the moron who equates NLP with magic though. Surely he must know nothing about ‘your’ mysteries. Woe betide the moron who discards true will. Surely he must know nothing about ‘your’ mysteries.

I'll accord someone respect, in the temple forum, based solely on how well they can communicate their experiences with magic in an interesting, informative and engaging manner. I'll afford someone respect based on what they are contributing to the board. For instance, I have loads of respect for Seth. He is, amongst other things, an NLP guy, and has contributed to loads of fascinating threads on the overlap and interplay of NLP and magic. All of it based on his own personal and emotional experiences with it.

In fact, most of the people I respect on barbelith - hell, most of the magicians I respect full stop - have totally different outlooks on magic to me, work in totally different traditions, come at things from completely different angles. Do I try to shoehorn them all into my own particular world view, as you seem to be accusing me of? No, I don't think I do. We have different perspectives, but we can communicate across them, so long as neither party expects the other to accept a position as an article of faith, without providing any additional material as to why we should give that position some credence. Which is exactly what you are expecting us to do.

You are free to believe whatever you like, in the privacy of your own personal domain. I really couldn't care less. But if you bring a perspective into a discussion forum, it will be challenged, and you will be asked to support it. Not make more noise about it. Not fling shit out of the pram at your interlocutors. But to explain it. Explain where you are coming from. Put up a convincing argument. No more, no less.
 
 
illmatic
12:51 / 15.06.06
Doc: You have my unreserved apologies. Really sorry. I was lumping you in with Jihadreflection. I was just getting a little peeved with the thread in general, as it seemed very vauge and insubstantial.

It's sometimes disheartening how easily conversation on this board can veer from analysis of ideas to assertions of someone else's ignorance or, in more extreme cases, assassinations of character. I don't take offense, but I think it may sometimes put other people off, and not just flameworthy ass hats.

I guess I'm as much to blame for that as anyone, at times. I do think there is value in a robust (read: aggressive) debate at times. But my apologies again.
 
 
Doc Checkmate
13:00 / 15.06.06
No worries at all, and thanks. That was straight up.

Ok, back to whatever it is we're all jabbering about.
 
 
Quantum
13:17 / 15.06.06
(Can I have a flameworthy ass-hat? That's the final goal of my practice, my magnum opus if you will.)
 
 
jihadreflection
13:30 / 15.06.06
Ok Gypsy. I’ll start again. I was maybe out of order that time.

My model of the universe, quickly, from first principles.

I exists and I have desires and preferences. I can feel them.
I have the urge to make real those desires and preferences.
Both of these are based on emotion as opposed to reason.

Reality/ontology: Without going into to much depth.
An apple drops. We use reason and figure that it may always drop. It may not.
Yet we make up a story. This story is the law of gravity. The apple doesn’t drop because of gravity. It drops because it drops. Gravity is a story that allows us to generalise about our predictions.

Reason: Is and ought.
So whenever we say something is, we could be generalising. Traditional morality states the universe is a certain way and so we OUGHT to do a certain thing.

What if we say no to that?
What if we don’t let reason guide us but instead make reason a tool for self.
What is this self?
Anything we say about self is a mode/story of self and not self itself.
I equate self with preference when I’m talking about self. I am the sum of my preferences.
(I’m not. It’s useful model though).

Spiritual traditions: Very often take the position that man is ‘fallen’. This fall can be describes in many ways. Sick, programmed, ignorant, fake, etceteras. (The same could be said of many psychologies).
To get back to the light, the source, the holy, the great. Man must then progress through the tradition. Ignorance is lifted from him. He becomes blessed. He has knowledge of his true will.

So to do that you must first accept the theory that you are not whole. That you are somehow sick. Ignorant. I refuse to do this.

Now I may be generalising. It may be that these traditions tell you something else. That you could be better. More evolved. They frame it in the positive.

I say. Whose evolved? To what standards? Why should Buddha or Crowley dictate what I do?
If you want to change in accordance with the schemata set forth by Buddha or Crowley then do so. I’m just saying that I have no need to. I don’t find there values pleasing. It comes down to preference. That’s what I said at the very start. That’s what I’m saying now.

I hope that clarifies my position and also explains why I’m so adamant in returning to preference. I simply not take it for granted that epistemology reveals a morality.
 
 
Doc Checkmate
13:30 / 15.06.06
(Can I have a flameworthy ass-hat? That's the final goal of my practice, my magnum opus if you will.)

Instructions for constructing you own are easily available on this board. Simply type the appropriate barbarous name into the One Holy Search Box of God and read the posts.

It also helps if you talk about that one time you sent a Goetic demon against the trig teacher who gave you a B-, and the demon totally killed him. Then you popped over to Chesed for a pint.
 
 
Ticker
13:48 / 15.06.06
jihadreflection

It may help to view the Temple forum as a place of testing your assumptions.

I have found in my experience that if someone challenges my statements in a way that I find harsh as I step back from my ego I can perceive the opportunity to learn. Or I have rushed expressing myself in a way that misrepresented my practices in the first place.

There are some folks on here who have been trained in specific forms of analysis and debate. These methods may appear overly critical at times but they serve the community by cutting to the quick of difficult subjects.

If one wishes to engage strangers in this written medium for productive respectful dialogue, one must first look to their own statements.

While I have extended you the benefit of the doubt regarding your use of this medium, and this forum in particular, I do not feel that you have extend my beliefs this same courtesy.

Please be aware that the language you are using (as I cannot see you nor hear your intonation) is immediately dismissive of beliefs that are very sacred to me. I would like to engage with you in a productive manner, to support your beliefs, and your work merely because you are a part of this community.

When you dismiss an entire range of spirituality outright, in this place and in this forum, you are perhaps unintentionally dismissing people who hold those beliefs.

Those who are asking you to speak about your experiences are also trying to get you to speak in a way that is less dismissive by use of generalizations. The Temple is very very polite about personal subjective accounts and reserves heavy criticism for theory (for the most part).

The criticism here is a wonderful thing. Here strangers are taking the time to discuss topics no one else will, with care and profound thoughtfulness. All that is being asked of you is to do the same.
 
 
illmatic
13:48 / 15.06.06
Spiritual traditions: Very often take the position that man is ‘fallen’. knowledge of his true will....

So to do that you must first accept the theory that you are not whole.

Ahem Every man and woman is a star.Ahem.
 
 
jihadreflection
13:57 / 15.06.06
Cool. I'm allready star. Don't have to bother with Thelema then.
 
  

Page: (1)23

 
  
Add Your Reply