• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Evidence for Thelema.

Here, the present-day Mental Health industry is described. I've said before that their conviction that they're helping is what makes them capable of
unlimited cruelty. This is presented here as a horrible thing trying to kiss you. The book is full of great imaginative poetry like that, hitting
the nail right on the head for those who are at that level.
Well, I can accept that you perceive that passage to be describing the mental heath "industry", but it could be interpreted in many different ways. Just as people regularly come here and tell us that various verses in the Bible mean various things to them, it is entirely a matter of the interpretation you (or they) place on the words.

For example, why cannot the passage be read as a literal experience, or dream, or fantasy? Why does it have to be allegorical - and even if it is allegorical, why must we interpret it as being to do with mental health treatment rather than any other interpretation?

What you consider to be evidence doesn't seem to fit the definition of evidence here (often given as something like: any fact that leads one to consider a proposition more or less true).

None of your posts in the "Kent Hovind supports eugenics" thread contains the word "paradox". You have over 170 posts in the "Why women shouldn't wear pants" thread, and only one of those contains the word "paradox" to wit:
Paradoxically, in my Philosophy, this is actually just True Compassion.
Remember Colonel Kurtz : It's judgement that defeats you. That part of the movie is really about a paradox in the concept of Love for in True Love,
even suffering is Joy. It's slave morality that gets everything backwards so it's not surprising that the true nature of Love is complete paradox
to most people. 'Nor let to fools mistake Love!'
You assert that the true nature of love is paradox, but you certainly don't explain what you mean, or what your religion says about love.

For the benefit of the readers, the "this" in the first sentence appears to refer to witch-burning, which TheAdversary advocates. No, I don't know how it's on topic for a thread about daft theists advocating control over wardrobe choices.
 
Here, the present-day Mental Health industry is described. I've said before that their conviction that they're helping is what makes them capable of
unlimited cruelty. This is presented here as a horrible thing trying to kiss you. The book is full of great imaginative poetry like that, hitting
the nail right on the head for those who are at that level.


That's what this thread is about? You're taking passages of Crowley and trying to attach one specific meaning to each of them, to argue that the world is one specific way rather than another?

Crowley is spinning in whatever higher plane he's no doubt moved onto.
 
Maybe I just have to give it some time, wait until the Reason degenerates further and they start arguing for even more absurd things.
Maybe Magical Computer Programmers in another Multiverse just isn't absurd enough. I thought this was already the threshold; It can't
get more absurd than almost being able to deduce Lord Xenu from your theories ... and still laugh at Scientologists.
But to complete the thread, a Religious statement : Liber 418 describes a Logic Theory that can handle the problem of logical trivialism, the logic problem
that causes all theories to break down (and why they now start arguing for absurd theories), by using Aesthetics, ultimately culminating in Orgasm.
This is how consciousness is removed or reduced and why the reductionists are unable to do that in their, perverse, way. You can't find the
algorithm for consciousness because it is solved in another way; Removed in another way. By Love. Your way keeps people in the state of no-Love.
But good luck with your Magical Computer Programmers in the Multiverse. I'm sure that's a much more sound path for academics.
 
The universe is a computer simulation, because I will it so.

There. All square with Thelema now?
 
Still beating that strawman that people in this thread believe simulation or multiverse theories, I see.

Are you contending that "reductionists" never enjoy an orgasm? (I can't believe I just typed that, it's beyond absurd).
 
<snip>

Those theories of Multiverse or Simulation are no better than Religion

No. They are amusing speculations based on what we currently understand about the Universe. They can be discussed over a beverage of your choice.

Religion, on the other hand, claims absolute knowledge about the Universe that is contradictory and not supported by evidence. It is to kill for.

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. Love is the law, love under will.
 
I am certain that, somewhence, in the multitudes of Verse, there exists a Crowley who makes sense. It must be so for the scientists have underlined it thrice.

When I execute my master programme, a game of hangman with zero underscores, the last impediment to true machine intelligence will expire: its highest task is to find that Crowley and execute him before he can jump no-carry directly to reason.

After that, all will be a liberty of white-space encryption; where love is all we require to open files.
 
I just talked to 'Thelema' and she asked not to be disturbed since she is busy writing a new screenplay about some reindeer with a glowing red nose.
 
No, because Computer Simulation is a regressive argument. That's why Free Will is the base concept.


Okay, fair enough.

But you see what I meant about how you're using Crowley's Libri, right? I mean, if I wanted to base my beliefs on ambiguous poetic revelations that somebody wrote down, that then somebody else comes along and tells me their true meaning, there are plenty of Roman Catholic churches still around.
 
Looks like Crowley's writings are as ambiguous and easily interpretable according to the reader's wishes as those of Nostradamus.
 
Looks like Crowley's writings are as ambiguous and easily interpretable according to the reader's wishes as those of Nostradamus.
You ninja'ed me before I could type the first letter of this post!

How this can be evidence of anything is beyond me.
 
TheAdversary, let me suggest an informal test. Post a passage from Crowley's Libri that you believe has an obvious interpretation, but don't post your interpretation. See if anyone can either (a) work out what you believe is the correct interpretation, or (b) come up with their own interpretation that embodies more details of the passage than yours (as I've already tried to do with the mental health industry / M25 traffic jam example, in which you'll note I included many more features of the original than the one you referenced). Then you can tell us why your interpretation is superior. If nothing else, we could all find it entertaining. Fancy a try?

Dave
 
I'm running under the assumption that Thelema and Aleister Crowley are well known, in a pop-cultural sense of the word. I think that's fair.
Not fair, and not correct. I'd second the following sensible suggestion:


If you are to start a new thread about Thelema, it might be worth saying who Thelema is, and what is claimed on his/ her behalf, don't you think? You might also say who Crowley is, what the Liber 418 document is, and give a summary of Zena's Arrow Paradox if they are pertinent to whatever point you are trying to make. Having done that, you could link to some supporting evidence for whatever you are trying to say.
 
This post got moved a couple of times, because the moderators didn't think it was relevant. It is because it contains evidence for the existence
of 'occult' phenomena. The last time I posted it, it was in response to someone who tried to ridicule Thelema, just to show that there's more to
Thelema than 'hogwash'.

I can provide evidence for the 'occult' as well. (Hint : Show me the money!!!)
The point is that there are remarks in this revealed document, Liber 418, that speak of the relation between contradiction and continuity
and Zeno's Arrow Paradox. Much of this knowledge was beyond what was known at the time and certainly beyond Crowley's knowledge, as Crowley himself
acknowledges many times in the Book; The communicating entity also says this over and over. 'utterly beyond thine understanding'
The Book was revealed after the performance of Sex Magick Rituals. The fact that it's communicating knowledge beyond the capabilities of the
receiver proves the communicating entity legit, in this sort of Operation.

Let's start with Achilles and the Tortoise. Achilles is very fast, so the Tortoise is given a head start in their little competition.
Now, whenever Achilles moves, the Tortoise moves as well. Slower maybe, but he still moves. And since there's never a moment where Achilles moves and the
Tortoise doesn't advance his position, from this Zeno concluded that Achilles could never overtake the Tortoise. And since there's obviously no such
problem in the real world, you have a paradox. So what's wrong? Measure is improperly defined. Measure or lenght, area and volume, cannot be defined
by summing points on the real line. A line might be composed of an infinite number of points, you cannot define the length of a line in this way without
running into paradox. A proper measure function, that obeys the rules of summation, needs to be defined. Then the Achilles/Tortoise problem disappears.
There's also another way to remove the paradox using smooth infinitesimal analysis, where a point doesn't have zero measure, (which is the source of the
paradox, that a point has dimension zero,) but infinitesimal measure. And summing points as infinitesimals is an integral, obeying the rules of a proper
measure.
(For those of you interested in my Religious theory, you might want to check out Liber 418 by Aleister Crowley, The Cry of the 5th Aethyr.
The Vision of the Arrow therein described is a version of Zeno's Arrow Paradox, but whereas the paradox can be resolved by relaxing the law of excluded
middle (smooth infinitesimal analysis), the Vision describes a higher problem of the continuum to be resolved by relaxing the law of no contradiction.)

Later in the discussion I wrote this :

The physical sciences are now becoming so nonsensical, they really can't laugh at Scientologists any more. That would be almost, but not quite,
completely hypocritical of them. And now Crowley's system actually has more evidence going for it.
Are there any books about Magical Simulation Programmers talking about interesting Philosophical or Mathematical issues that weren't known before?
(And before you think I believe in Angels or Gods, I don't. I think the further step in understanding the Universe will turn out to require
Aesthetics, so the Deities are like literary devices. I'm presenting a new Logic Theory.)

Thoughts?

You are pretty much all wrong and like so many who miss the old days of plague and famine and most people being throwaway serfs. Science fixed a goodly deal of that and a lot of stuff we had no way of knowing then. The physical Sciences are running along in top form and doing good stuff (by me anyway) for all of us. I doubt Crowley is any more useful now than when he was alive - except as an old fart with esoteric but pointless ideas and actions. Fun to read about, but silly to attach importance to.
 

Back
Top Bottom