Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [t93] re:0=2

Expand Messages
  • hvonhofe13
    Hm -- how about God is the blank spot at the back of your mind ? the coming forth out of emptiness, as it were... love hal ... also ... Sybolised ... is ...
    Message 1 of 28 , Dec 26, 2001
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Hm -- how about "God is the blank spot at the back of your mind"?
      the coming forth out of emptiness, as it were...

      love

      hal

      --- In thelema93-l@y..., "Eric O'Dell" <eodell@s...> wrote:
      > On Tue, 25 Dec 2001, jbsteele777 wrote:
      >
      > > 0 is the most true concept of God, it can not be described, it is
      also
      > > boundless.It is what existed before the concept of a universe.
      Sybolised
      > > by the sky goddess, the circle, the buddhist' great "no-thing".
      >
      > Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
      >
      > How do you get God out of Zero? Zero cannot be described because it
      is
      > Not; it is boundless because there is nothing to bind. It did not
      exist
      > "before the concept of a universe" because time and causality only
      come
      > into being with the passage of the Lightning Stroke from Binah
      across the
      > Abyss to Chesed. (The prudent will accordingly exercise extreme
      caution
      > in attributing linear, causal order to the progression
      > Kether-Chokmah-Binah.)
      >
      > Ignoring its superstitious popular forms for the moment, Buddhism
      owns no
      > God, and does not confuse Nirvana -- annihilation -- with some kind
      of
      > heaven. If "no-thing" becomes a positive entity and not just a
      clever way
      > of saying nothing without the hyphen, one has fallen back into the
      realm
      > of illusion.
      >
      > Not means Not, not "Negative Existence" as Mathers and his ilk
      vainly
      > believed as they tried to reconcile their vulgar Victorian
      Christianity
      > with the sublimity of the Qabalistic Zero. The Ain ain't. Imposing
      God
      > upon the Ain, if it is not merely an exercise in stubbornly wishful
      > thinking, is just a cryptic way of saying There Is No God. "God"
      only
      > comes into being with Kether, and even there He is more potential
      than
      > actual: Elohim = "I *will* be".
      >
      > The Gnostic conception of the universe was excessively paranoid --
      > probably for much the same reason that the Buddhists reached
      similarly
      > hostile opinions about the universe -- but shares much with the
      Qabala if
      > you strip away the pious layers of exoteric Judaism. God is part of
      the
      > world, or perhaps a synonym for "world", but God and all other
      partial,
      > incomplete nonsense stops at the boundary defined by AIN.
      >
      > Love is the law, love under will.
      >
      > Regards,
      > Eric
    • hermesx66
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law, ... or God is the blind spot at the back of the eye ? The unseen. Love is the law, love under will, Cameron
      Message 2 of 28 , Jan 5, 2002
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law,

        --- In thelema93-l@y..., "hvonhofe13" <hvonhofe169@c...> wrote:
        > Hm -- how about "God is the blank spot at the back of your mind"?
        > the coming forth out of emptiness, as it were...

        or "God is the blind spot at the back of the eye"? The unseen.


        Love is the law, love under will,
        Cameron
      • Hvonhofe169@cs.com
        Lo Cameron! Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. ... oh yeah! i like putting it in the eye! ;-) Love is the law, love under will. Hal
        Message 3 of 28 , Jan 5, 2002
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Lo Cameron!

          Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

          > --- In thelema93-l@y..., "hvonhofe13" <hvonhofe169@c...> wrote:
          > > Hm -- how about "God is the blank spot at the back of your mind"?
          > > the coming forth out of emptiness, as it were...
          >
          > or "God is the blind spot at the back of the eye"? The unseen.

          oh yeah! i like putting it in the eye! ;-)

          Love is the law, love under will.

          Hal
        • skr1ptk1dd13
          93 Let me start off by saying my intention behind quoting Kant was merely to direct you to what I have come to conclude as the definitive response to the
          Message 4 of 28 , Jan 6, 2002
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            93

            Let me start off by saying my intention behind quoting Kant was
            merely to direct you to what I have come to conclude as the
            definitive response to the question of god's existence. It is not my
            intention to provide an in-depth explanation of Kant's system(which
            could very well be impossible!). If you have not yet taken the
            opportunity, read Kant's first critique to see just what I mean(and
            to be illuminated, amen).

            --- In thelema93-l@y..., "Eric O'Dell" <eodell@s...> wrote:
            > As I read it, it seemed Crowley was poetically rather than
            literally
            > describing a Liber E-ish mental exercise for prospective Magisters
            Templi,
            > i.e. to deal with the world as if it were personally meaningful.
            The key
            > word here is "interpret".

            As I read it, it is no less literal than libers E & O, however, with
            the added clause that its true application of meaning will only be
            accessible to a full exempt adept. To anyone else its going to look
            like mere poetry. Crowley did that quite alot.

            > What *do* a watch, a ship, and a regiment have in common with the
            world?
            > Nothing, unless we are working from the _a priori assumption_

            An a priori assumption is the absolute crux whereby Kant's system can
            begin to make sense. Again I recommened reading Kant's own thoughts
            in full.

            > watch : watchmaker :: world : The Unknown
            > as if the world requires a maker ... _simply because he has
            compared the
            > world to a watch_, and because a watch has a maker, so must the
            world have
            > a maker

            This is to grossly misunderstand Kant in the first place. He provides
            the analogy not as justification, but merely as an analogy. Surely
            youre not accusing Kant of making the childish error of resting proof
            on the basis of a related analogy. Only qabalists with their chaotic
            permutations make errors like that.

            But to shed more light on Kant's analogy, the reason we must assume
            god exists is because the principle of sufficient reason strives for
            the greatest possible synthetic unity, and makes an invalid inference
            from the conditioned of sensibility to the unconditioned of pure
            reason, giving rise to the transcendental illusion as well as the
            antinomies of pure reason. To meet the principle of sufficient
            reason's demands, certain assumptions, which are entirely outside the
            boundary of possible experience, must a priori be made because of the
            fundamental nature of our own cognitive processes. (I wouldnt expect
            anyone who has not read CPR to understand a word of this. The only
            thing that can be done is to read it for yourself.)

            One of those assumptions is god(the prime mover hiding behind the
            vast teleological machinery). Note this does not mean jaweh, allah,
            brahma, nor even ra hoor khuit. What does the earth rest on? A giant
            turtle. What does that turtle rest on? Another giant turtle. And what
            does that giant turtle rest on? Another... You get the idea. This is
            all that Kant is saying. The way our reason works is that it demands
            a first cause a priori to anything we experience. But he proves such
            a first cause can never be experienced, which is why we must assume
            it "as if" in order to keep from straying into the same errors which
            all previous metaphysicians and theologians(and qabalists!) committed.

            Best Regards,
            RK
          • 333
            ... agreed. the first is an sub-topic of philosophy, which is primarily intellectual in character, but which pertains to ontological assessment (reality). the
            Message 5 of 28 , Jan 6, 2002
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              > From: "jbsteele777" <j.steele@...>
              > Metaphysics is not Magick.

              agreed. the first is an sub-topic of philosophy, which is primarily
              intellectual in character, but which pertains to ontological
              assessment (reality). the second is a system of mysticism (when
              understood as a Crowleyan product, Magick) or of symbolic actuation
              (when understood as a more general activity, magic). while mysticism
              bears a relation to the real (in its attempt to reside in it, to
              perceive it clearly, etc.), it is not necessarily so much of an
              attempt to intellectually comprehend it so much as affect personal
              experience with respect to it. symbolic actuation must utilize the
              real, and therefore operate according to some kind of metaphysical
              principles if it is to work at all, but again it need not be at all
              concerned with what these principles are as long as its mechanism
              can be shown to work as desired.

              > Magick can not be made subservient to the intellect.

              there is no reason that this should be the case, given the notion
              of thelema (will) and its role in causing change.

              > The mind is nothing more than a dog chasing its'tail.

              ahh, the old 'the mind is the superficial effects of the workings
              of the brain' dismissal of volition as the fundament of magic. I'd
              agree it is a valuable perspective, though I'm not sure it is easily
              compatible with either Thelema or magic/k. you seem to have mixed
              feelings about it, if I understand you correctly, when compared
              with your other expressions below.

              > ...the original inspiration was the concept of Brahman.

              typically this dispute arises out of mystical (often nondualist)
              quarters. usually it is used to destroy the very idea of magic in
              general as a real or valuable thing, and will sometimes make
              possible the use of magic for mysticism (Magick).

              > All thoughts are lies, they are descriptions of things, and not the
              > thing itself.

              a lie intends to deceive. symbols as representations are not lies,
              they are merely place-markers. understanding the difference between
              maps and terrain helps us keep from demonizing the maps for being
              intraversible.

              > They also place "rules" on the thing percieved.

              I see no evidence for this, unless perception is the primary causal
              factor in cosmic flux or if you mean "rules" in a kind of sarcastic
              or faux way (in which case I would agree that these rules are nothing
              of the sort, merely perceptual disguises or misguided thoughts that
              surround the object of perception).

              > If the infinite is described it is no longer infinite, it becomes
              > finite.

              mathematically this is false. the character of an infinite set may be
              described and yet not limited. I gather you're talking about some kind
              of ambiguous "the infinite", "God", etc., which I believe is
              fallacious and unnecessary, but it seems to serve your purpose as
              some kind of example.

              > Therefore "God" can not be named or known.

              I don't follow the logic, actually. naming something inexpertly
              doesn't necessarily affect the thing except in perception. now,
              if you mix up personal perception with ontological condition,
              then I suppose you could get this result. in any case I see no
              reason why an ineffable cannot be known, even if poorly named.
              this is the principle behind many mystical disciplines in fact.

              > Hence the 0.

              if you're describing 0=2 here, then I'll accept this as your
              premise without further contention.

              > The intlectualised concept of God (the sacred cow), in my opinion,
              > is the reason religeon and philosophy are failing to keep mans'
              > social, political, and moral structure intact.

              this doesn't follow from your apparent premise above that the mind
              is just the run-off of brain-doings. religion and philosophy are
              just symptoms, in such a case, not anything that can have a lasting
              affect other than to represent any concordance which does exist.

              that is, what gives you faith that religion and philosophy operate
              in this manner, keeping man's social, political and moral structure
              (there's only one?) intact?

              > Man is in dire need of something beyond himself, without it he
              > becomes just another monkey.

              this seems to be your secondary premise, and may be a generalization
              that does not hold for all human beings. perhaps as societies we
              do in fact need these kids of visions and security blankets. maybe
              the change from needing them to not needing them should be the focus
              of Thelemic liberationalists.

              > He doesn't realise hedonism is an art form that requires discipline.

              here I'm inclined to agree that humans seem to have a very immature
              relation to hedonism, but it seems in part to be a result of the
              longstanding conditioning *against* hedonism as legitimate, such
              that those who wish to engage it do so awkwardly, as a taboo, and
              make no refined mastery of pleasure as a perfect end. this is the
              reason that FUCK is the word of the present Aeon of the Adversary
              (because its centrality on hedonism is blatantly obvious, its perfect
              nonreproduction of the species being simultaneously an example of
              ethical behaviour and of the pleasure-centeredness of the sacrament).

              > The infinite "energy" becomes finite (known) through observable
              > manifestation. This same "energy" (the finite) returns to the infinite
              > thruough "evolution". "All is one and one is All"- Stairway to Heaven

              this seems to be more of your religious faith, unfounded and seemingly
              emanationalist (thus fitting in with a good deal of Hermeticism).

              > If any one else has an idea of what 0=2 means, I'd like to hear it.

              'nondualism has the same legitimacy as dualism.'

              > How does the infinite become finite?

              'infinite' like 'chaotic' is perceptually-defined. limitation
              (which defines and destroys perceptions of limitlessness,
              infinity) and pattern (which defines and destroys perceptions
              of patternlessness, chaos) are structural forms without
              absolute persistence. an 'infinite' set of numbers becomes
              finite when you try to count it. an 'infinite' expanse or
              continuum becomes finite when you try to look AT it rather
              than 'into the distance'. thus perception can be turned upon
              itself, refining apparent nonlimitation to finitude. whether
              the cosmos is itself finite or bounded is irrelevant and as
              some physicists have speculated, we may be dealing with a
              spatial curvature which allows no 'edge' but is effectively
              limited by being turned back upon itself (sphere metaphor).

              > Havoc gave me an idea from his post maybe the 2 in the
              > equation is YHVH?

              the God of most religions of the Book seem to revolve around
              the number 1, rather than 2 (monism, monotheism, monolatry,
              etc.).

              must it mean only one thing? :>

              333
            • hermesx66
              Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law, ... In this case it seems the light is flowing into God opposed to flowing from. Love is the law, love under
              Message 6 of 28 , Jan 7, 2002
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law,

                --- In thelema93-l@y..., "hvonhofe13" <hvonhofe169@c...> wrote:
                > > > Hm -- how about "God is the blank spot at the back of your
                > > > mind"?
                > > > the coming forth out of emptiness, as it were...
                > >
                > > or "God is the blind spot at the back of the eye"? The unseen.
                >
                > oh yeah! i like putting it in the eye! ;-)

                In this case it seems the light is flowing into God opposed to
                flowing from.


                Love is the law, love under will,
                Cameron
              • Hvonhofe169@cs.com
                In a message dated 1/7/02 2:28:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, cbailes@shaw.ca ... placing it id god in the eye s blind spot still makes it flow from i think...
                Message 7 of 28 , Jan 7, 2002
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  In a message dated 1/7/02 2:28:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, cbailes@...
                  writes:

                  > --- In thelema93-l@y..., "hvonhofe13" <hvonhofe169@c...> wrote:
                  > > > > Hm -- how about "God is the blank spot at the back of your
                  > > > > mind"?
                  > > > > the coming forth out of emptiness, as it were...
                  > > >
                  > > > or "God is the blind spot at the back of the eye"? The unseen.
                  > >
                  > > oh yeah! i like putting it in the eye! ;-)
                  >
                  > In this case it seems the light is flowing into God opposed to
                  > flowing from.

                  placing it id god in the eye's blind spot still makes it flow from i think...
                  lux ex tenebris & all...

                  as someone on another list said (dr theaux on akhnaton) "the only way we have
                  indeed to assert 100% the Truth is to say "I lie.""

                  or eye lie, ai guess... adona-ai, aten-eye...

                  93s

                  hal
                • Eric O'Dell
                  ... Given the kind of dumping ground for theological flatulence that God is, identifying Him with a blind spot is entirely appropriate. -e.
                  Message 8 of 28 , Jan 7, 2002
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Mon, 7 Jan 2002, hermesx66 wrote:

                    > --- In thelema93-l@y..., "hvonhofe13" <hvonhofe169@c...> wrote:
                    > > > > Hm -- how about "God is the blank spot at the back of your
                    > > > > mind"?
                    > > > > the coming forth out of emptiness, as it were...
                    > > >
                    > > > or "God is the blind spot at the back of the eye"? The unseen.
                    > >
                    > > oh yeah! i like putting it in the eye! ;-)
                    >
                    > In this case it seems the light is flowing into God opposed to
                    > flowing from.

                    Given the kind of dumping ground for theological flatulence that "God" is,
                    identifying Him with a blind spot is entirely appropriate.

                    -e.
                  • joo castel-branco
                    God is like zero. Is everywhere. Binary code is the base of this, as masculin or feminin, yes or no, and so on. Time is there, just for watching us. Once upon
                    Message 9 of 28 , Feb 6, 2002
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      God is like zero. Is everywhere. Binary code is the base of this, as masculin or feminin, yes or no, and so on.
                      Time is there, just for watching us.
                      Once upon a time, the Romans invaded the Palestin. Romans didn't know what zero was. But they have brought the money.
                      In that area, there was a vulgar person who believed in the number zero (Romans didn't believe), and didn't know what money was.
                      Romans murdered him.
                      400 years ago, Romans brought a new idea, new "religion".
                      This religion, have killed so many people after the murdered of a man, it was so evil as the money of self.
                      Time and time.
                      Well, no time ago, theres was a war about who was onwer of the "evil money". People who as brought the "evil money" to Europe. Money now is the base of the animals we are.
                      So what idea is this? What is "terrorism"? Nothing but the discussion of na idea. The people who were killed by there idea, thinked very well. They thought "Oh! Oh! There are there two towers (like a chess). Let's destroy'em. We won't kill as much as they are killing us.".
                      So we live in the � of the world were we are, and we hace more than 90 percent goods of the �.
                      Isn't this funny?



                      ---Jo�o E. F. Castel-BrancoICQ: 98082723Telem: +(351) 91.823.36.55


                      ---------------------------------
                      Do You Yahoo!?
                      Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!

                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.