A Devil With Unity: Skepticism and Thelema (YouTube Notes)

Video At: https://youtu.be/0uARWh1tlV0

DWTWSBTWOTL

A Brief Update

My Reading List

Completed Political Theology by Schmitt
Rec’d Judas by Marvin Meyer (mainly for the Gospel of Judas)
I’ve also picked up all of the translated works of Maria de Naglowska

Pioneer of Sex Magick who worked with the better known Paschal Beverly Randolph
She was, evidently, a significant influence on Evola.

Finally, I rec’d a while ago, the first volume from the Arktos Kickstarter for translating Alain de Benoist’s View from the Right

I get a lot of music, but I’d like to mention how I enjoy the new Laibach album, Thus Sprach Zarathrustra.

It is a soundtrack (as were Macbeth & Baptism) and is a refreshing change from Spectre.

Internet Drama

Francesca vs. Laci
Not really surprised that Francesca learned that the “Skeptics” were going to VidCon and took steps to neuter the opposition
She played on the inherently decent nature of the Skeptics she was interacting with
In typically short sighted fashion, she outed herself once the immediate goal was met

SJWs et al have poor impulse control & must curtail their ability to foresee how actions now will play out in the future — otherwise they couldn’t push their agenda
She was probably scared of receiving blowback such as Laci Green rec’d

Now I don’t consider Laci Green to be in the same boat.

I am not saying she is “red pilled” (which is quickly becoming a meaningless term, used by each group to mean “agreeing with me”)
But I also don’t believe that the regressives are so monolithic and powerful enough to employ Mata Haris

Speaking of Internet, and YouTube in particular, these are some channels I enjoy

Roaming Millenial
Barbara4U2C
Blaire White
Sargon of Akkad // The Thinkery
Armoured Skeptic
Bearing

I’ll be trying to upload this a bit early, as I am visiting my parents this weekend. Dutiful son and all that (Oh the oppression of societal roles)

I will be forced to listen to Fox

Not really a fan, since I hate yelling
However it is interesting to see the contrast between what the Left claims they are saying and what they actually say

This reminds me of the studies by Haidt

He rose to prominence with some studies a while back that were reported as indicating that Confirmation Biases meant that Conservatives could not accept Contradictory facts
Much less hooplah was made about his findings that it wasn’t confined to Conservatives
Then the study that came out that showed that Conservatives understood Liberal’s positions far better than Liberals understood Conservative’s positions.
Hilarious.

So, On with the show

Thelema is a Spiritual Philosophy, more akin to Nikāya Buddhism than Christianity.

This means it can be applied to Theological positions ranging from Atheist to Superstitious.

It should be noted that Crowley warned against dogmatically adhering to either extreme.
Neither is truly a skeptical position as neither can be confirmed.

The A.’.A.’. Is the spiritual order of Thelema. One could think of it as a monastic hermetic order.

It’s motto is “We place no reliance on Virgin or pidgeon, Our method is Science, Our aim is Religion.” —Aleister Crowley; Motto for the Aஃ Aஃ (1907).

The occult and spiritual practices of Thelema are meant to be subjected to the Scientific Method.

Now this was the early 20th century, so there are some minor differences.
Logical Irrelevance may not have been migrated into the Method of Science as Falsifiability in time for it to be incorporated into Crowley’s conception.

There are several philosophers in the A.’.A.’. Reading List.

Among them is David Hume

Hume was a Scottish Philosopher known for his philosophical empiricism, skepticism, and naturalism.
Contributed to Scientific Method

Thelema has several works which encourage skepticism, so I will finish with some works from the Thelemic Canon: primarily The Book of Lies and Liber O.

333: 45 - Chinese Music; 51 - Terrier-Work
Liber O: Part I

The Method of Science is not set in stone. It is a constantly evolving process

Evidence of the Scientific Method, as we understand the term, can be found in the Ancient Egyptians (1600 BCE)
Then we move through the Greek Philosophers (Aristotle, Plato)
Through Theologians (Roger Bacon) to the Renaissance
Skepticism was emphasized: Francis Bacon, Descartes, Hume, Galileo

You can thank Francis Bacon for those lists you had to draw up in Science class of properties and observations

Finally, the alchemist Isaac Newton
Humes’s extreme skepticism lost out to neo-Kantianism.

The concept of falsifiability was introduced around 1934.

This seems to be an extension of the logical concept of irrelevance.

Logically, any statement that cannot be demonstrated as false is irrelevant (in the sense of Logic). Examples include

God exists
All is Buddha Nature
Logic is the best system

Note that this is not a value judgment, merely a comment on its provability.

It is unlikely that this was in Crowley’s conception of the Method of Science.

I’d like to draw attention to Newton’s contribution. This would have been in Crowley’s conception

We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes.
The qualities of bodies, which admit neither intension nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever.
In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phænomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, until such time as other phænomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions.

To explain all nature is too difficult a task for any one man or even for any one age. 'Tis much better to do a little with certainty, and leave the rest for others that come after you, than to explain all things.

What is the (current) Method of Science:

Define a question
Gather information and resources (observe)
Form an explanatory hypothesis (this includes the null hypothesis & falsifiability)
Test the hypothesis by performing an experiment and collecting data in a reproducible manner
Analyze the data
Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
Publish results
Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

Six jumps back to three until the scientist is satisfied.

Not all of these steps are utilized every time, neither are they always used in this order.

Scientists, like other philosophers, tend to be a contentious lot

Anyone who prioritizes Science over Philosophy is an idiot, and ignorant of history.
Gratuitous jab at Tyson, is he still relevant?

Given that the Occult is often dealing with observable phenomenon derived from unobservable phenomenon

The Thelemite must beware Violating Newton’s 1st and 2nd principles. (Dangers of Mysticism)
However, in as much is possible, he must apply to his own workings the Method of Science
He must also avoid the problems rife in the scientific community (especially in the Social Sciences) of falsifying data

David Hume was, among other things, a Scottish Philosopher from the 18th century.

Highly Skeptic, perhaps to an unworkable degree
Committed Atheist
Key take-away (imo)

While we are capable of reason, it is a mistake to categorize people as rational
We use our reason to justify our emotive responses.
That is, we use our reason to provide a justification for feeling what we feel
A “rational being” is one who, when faced with contradictory facts, can actually change their feelings.
The last item is my inference. Hume was far more pessimistic.

Hume’s Essays are, as I mentioned, on the A.’.A.’.’s reading list.

By taking this into account, we really can gain a greater understanding of people’s behavior

Haidt refers to Hume’s description as riding an elephant

The elephant is our feelings, the rider is the reason.
When we don’t realize we are riding an elephant, it is hard to control
The first step to understanding, & thus becoming a rational (or more rational) being, is to realize we are on an elephant.
Then we can direct the elephant.
Never forget that it is the bigger and stronger partner, and when it rampages, there is little the shrieking rider can do to stop it.

Haidt is important due to his studies in morality and the divide between (American) Liberals & Conservatives.

His work is also useful for understanding modern socio-political behaviors, both IRL and OL.
I plan on picking up his book, The Righteous Mind, soon. I’ve read many of his studies, but I would like to see where he takes it.

So, back to Thelema, or more accurately, Crowley.

In one of his works on practical instruction, Liber O vel Manus et Sagittae sub figurâ VI, part I, Crowley writes:

This book is very easy to misunderstand; readers are asked to use the most minute critical care in the study of it, even as we have done in its preparation.
In this book it is spoken of the Sephiroth and the Paths; of Spirits and Conjurations; of Gods, Spheres, Planes, and many other things which may or may not exist.
It is immaterial whether these exist or not. By doing certain things certain results will follow; students are most earnestly warned against attributing objective reality or philosophic validity to any of them.
The advantages to be gained from them are chiefly these: (a) A widening of the horizon of the mind. (b) An improvement of the control of the mind.
The student, if he attains any success in the following practices, will find himself confronted by things (ideas or beings) too glorious or too dreadful to be described. It is essential that he remain the master of all that he beholds, hears or conceives; otherwise he will be the slave of illusion, and the prey of madness.
Before entering upon any of these practices, the student should be in good health, and have attained a fair mastery of Asana, Pranayama and Dharana.
There is little danger that any student, however idle or stupid, will fail to get some result; but there is great danger that he will be led astray, obsessed and overwhelmed by his results, even though it be by those which it is necessary that he should attain. Too often, moreover, he mistaketh the first resting-place for the goal, and taketh off his armour as if he were a victor ere the fight is well begun.
It is desirable that the student should never attach to any result the importance which it at first seems to possess.

I Want to draw particular attention to The second point.

Despite the fact that Occultists regularly work with gods, angels, demons, spirits
Despite the fact that we use models and maps of the heavens and spiritual realms
We are enjoined to remain skeptical

The map is not the territory
The validity of things are found in their utility

The Book of Lies, also known as Liber 333, contains two items that I would like to draw attention to:

Chinese Music (45)

From Commentary: The attitude recommended is scepticism, but a scepticism under control. Doubt inhibits action, as much as faith blinds it. All the best Popes have been Atheists, but perhaps the greatest of them once remarked, “Quantum nobis prodest haec fabula Christi” [How much profit the story of Christ], attributed to Pope Leo X
The ruler asserts facts as they are; the slave has therefore no option but to deny them passionately, in order to express his discontent. Hence such absurdities as "Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité", "In God we trust", and the like. Similarly we find people asserting today that woman is superior to man, and that all men are born equal.

Terrier-Work (51)

This one’s commentary is primarily technical, since the text itself is pretty clear.

So, to recap:

The basic instructions for Thelema encourage both Skepticism and Critical Analysis
This can be seen by the doctrinal requirements of adherence to “The Method of Science” and recommendations of Skeptical Philosophers
I cannot recommend enough that any aspirant to Occult Knowledge, let alone Thelema, read “The Dangers of Mysticism”.