Shaving With Two Razors: On Truth and the Apprehension of Truth

Introduction

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

Truth is repeatedly referenced in Occult literature. The quest for Truth, the pursuit of Truth, or otherwise understanding Reality (or the Truth about Reality) is a common theme in Occultism. Wisdom is derived from the application of truth. Affecting desired change on a thing necessitates knowing the Truth of a thing. Scientific Illuminism attempts to understand Truth via the scientific method. Thelemites are Scientific Illuminists.

As Liber AL tells us, ”Also reason is a lie; for there is a factor infinite & unknown; & all their words are skew-wise.” (AL II:32). In other words, reality is fundamentally irrational, it is important to learn how to identify the Truth, in as much as we can grasp it, so as to avoid Delusion. The current of Mysticism is always present within Magick. A siren’s lure leading us to destruction through self-delusion (q.v. Dangers of Mysticism). The Magician acts, the Mystic receives.

What is Truth?

To begin we must ask, “What is Truth?” This is a rather difficult question. Certainty has oft led mankind astray. History is littered with various mistakes. As Chantel Delsol tells us in Icarus Fallen, modernity is the traumatized remnants of failed certainties of the past. Given that “unknown factor”, it is far easier to highlight the truth by shading out that which is not truth.

Innocence, another unprovable condition, is defined as the absence of guilt. Merriam-Webster tells us that Innocence is defined as (a) “freedom from legal guilt of a particular crime or offense” or (b) “freedom from guilt or sin through being unacquainted with evil : blamelessness”. This is why American courts have to prove guilt, rather than forcing the defendant to prove their innocence. In a sense, one could argue that innocence is the baseline and that guilt is the failure to meet that baseline.

In a similar manner, Truth is the absence of falsehood. This is a scientific way of pursuing Truth. One falsifies premises until one can no longer falsify a premise. That premise is then held as true until it is falsified. Further, one never ceases in their attempts to falsify a premise. As we are told in Terrier-Work, “Doubt all. Doubt even if thou doubtest all.” Only in this way do we persist in truth rather than falling into the pit of dogma as have other attempts at ascertaining the truth, both sacred and secular.

Obviously, one must know and understand the basic principles of logic (& its limitations). One should endeavor to be clear and concise with one’s speech and actions. However, there are some useful tools one can use in the search for truth. Some of the more helpful ones are the Scientific Method, Occam’s Razor, Hanlon’s Razor, and a knowledge of logical fallacies, both their use and misuse.

Tools for Finding the Truth

The Scientific Method is a constantly evolving doctrine. In reading Crowley, I feel that he was thinking of a more Humean version, however the modern version is more than enough to assist one in the pursuit of truth. I’ve linked a beginner’s description below. One thing to point out is the concept of the Null Hypothesis. The null hypothesis proves that your hypothesis is wrong. If I believe that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects, a simple example of a null hypothesis would be that objects fall at the same rate regardless of their mass. The use of a diary and the setting of concrete goals is integral to the Thelemic system so that an analysis of the record would confirm or deny our hypotheses. Another important concept is Falsifiability. There must be a way to say ’This is true’, or ‘this is false’. A statement such as “all is Buddha nature” is not falsifiable. Anything not falsifiable is logically irrelevant. 

It should be mentioned that not everything is testable. Given the factor infinite and unknown, this should not be surprising. However, the scientific method will let us properly identify and account for these. As they are untestable, we can just accept them provisionally until something better comes along. After all, the fact that I cannot prove the efficacy of logic (proving logic would be a self-referential fallacy) does not mean that I am unwilling to utilize logic and accept its validity on a provisional basis. The utility of a provisional axiom lay in whether the conclusions drawn from that axiom match with what is known, observable, and testable.

Now, in day to day life, there are some handy tools for determining the probable validity of any hypothesis or chain of events. The first of these is the more commonly known Occam’s Razor. Officially, it states “entities should not be multiplied without necessity”. More simply, “the simplest solution is most likely the right one”. Ensure that every item is necessary in your hypothesis. While it is possible that the plant was knocked off the shelf by trespassers sneaking into your home, it is more likely that the cat (who is already known to be present) did so.

The second is known as Hanlon’s Razor. For some reason, the occult community is rife with conspiracy theorists and shadowy secret cabals. To counter this, we have Hanlon’s Razor, which states “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity”. Large chunks of convoluted arguments can be dismissed by virtue of these two razors. Keep them sharp.

Finally, we get to Logical Fallacies. Knowing logical fallacies is a poor substitute for knowing logic, but it quickly becomes apparent that many people have done just that. Some fallacies to keep in mind are equivocation (especially in its Motte and Bailey form), Appeal to Authority (whether popular or elite), and ad hominem.

Equivocation is the switching of a term’s definition mid argument. An example I recall was on the word “accept”. While it was being used in the sense of “agree with”, someone switched it to mean “received”. They claimed that because Liber AL had been physically handed to them, they had “accepted” the Book of the Law. Another form of the equivocation fallacy is termed Motte and Bailey. This is used quite often in political discussions where people will push for some radical policy but pretend that the opposition is attacking the non-radical core. A current example would be someone questioning the need to stockpile a month of supplies being told that they are dismissing the seriousness of the corona virus.

The Appeal to Authority is where someone perceived as an authority basically says “because I said so”. Now, this appeal should not always be discounted. If a medical doctor gives his assessment on a medical condition within their field of authority, it should be considered seriously. This is actually a common form of its misuse, to discredit the knowledgeable because it does not pander to one’s prejudice. It should be noted that the “Authority” does not have to be a single person or thing. “Everyone agrees” postulates that “everyone” is an authority and that the claim is true for no other reason than that agreement. Likewise, referencing an elite group sets that group as an Authority. These last two variations are commonly misused. Just because “everyone agrees” or “the cool kids like it” does not mean that the claim is automatically false, either. Egalitarians like to dismiss inconvenient claims by pointing out their appeal to the snobs and elites do so by pointing out their appeal to the vulgar masses.

Next is ad hominem. Attacking the person rather than their arguments does nothing to discredit the validity of their arguments. Hakim Bey’s (support for) pedophilia does not discredit his commentary on Cop Culture. Neither does Marx’s inability to handle money discredit Communism. It probably explains their motivations, but the truth or falsity of the arguments stand on its own. Ad hominem is commonly misused by people over-identifying with their argument. This is especially a problem if you analyze their logic. Another misuse is due to insults. If someone says “My god, you are so stupid,” that is not an ad hominem. It is an insult. It is totally separate from the argument. If they provide nothing else, the proper response is “and?” or “that’s nice, can you actually address the argument.”

Conclusion

To lay this out as a train of thought : Innocence is the absence of guilt. Likewise, Truth is the absence of Falsehood. By learning to identify the false, the invalid, the lie, one is able to remove that falsehood. If one were to remove all falsehoods, what remains would be truth. Therefore, what one holds to be true must be tested and tried. Ultimate Reality is likely irrational, or at the very least, vast enough that we will never encompass it all. However, where we live is governed by the Ruach (or if you prefer, the Mind). Thus, Logic, Data, and Facts allow us to strike down the falsehoods. Like a sculptor chipping away at a block of granite, the true shape of reality will eventually be brought forth. Truth is found in the rubble of falsehood.

By ascertaining the Truth, we can then progress along the path of perfection. The path of perfection, or, as I think of it, the accomplishment of one’s will, is an ongoing process. By conceiving of one’s perfected self, one creates a goal. When one achieves this goal, the imperfections in one’s prior conception of the Perfect become readily apparent. Thus, one formulates a new conception of perfection and the process repeats. Perhaps, one will achieve an objective manifestation of perfection. Perhaps, we will become mired in Zeno’s paradox. Though I feel that overcoming this paradox is a suitable target for perfecting the self.

Truth is found in the rubble of falsehood.

Love is the law, love under will.

Citations, References, and For Further Information

AL II:32
M-W “Innocence” (04 APR 2020)
Book of Lies, ΚΕΦΑΛΗ ΝΑ “Terrier-Work” p112
Six Steps of the Scientific Method (04 APR 2020)
Occam’s Razor (04 APR 2020)
Hanlon’s Razor (04 APR 2020)
Common logical fallacies (04 APR 2020)
Motte and Bailey (04 APR 2020)
Zeno’s paradox (04 APR 2020)

Mircea Eliade's Journal Entry on Julius Evola's Death

July [1974]

Today I learn of the death of Julius Evola. Our last meeting goes back about ten years, even though I have passed through Rome several times since then. Memories surge up in me, those of my years at university, the books we had discovered together, the letters I received from him in Calcutta in which he instantly begged me not to speak to him of yoga, or of “magical powers,” except to report precise facts to which I had personally been a witness. In India I also received several publications from him, but I only remember a few issues of the journal Krur.

I had met him for the first time in 1937 at Nao Ionescu’s. Besides the three of us, Octave Onicescu and our professor’s current girlfriend were also there. That very morning Evola had had the opportunity to talk with Codreanu, and that meeting had impressed him greatly. Since Evola had asked him about the political tactics he expected to employ and the Legion’s chances during the coming elections, Codreanu had spoken to him about the effects of incarceration on the individual, of the ascesis it provokes, the contemplative virtues that can arise there, in solitude, a silence and a darkness which are just so many means by which an individual is revealed to himself. Evola was still dazzled by him. I vaguely remember the remarks he made then on the disappearance of contemplative disciplines in the political battle of the West.

Then the war came, and I heard nothing more of Evola until the day when I received his letter from Rome at the Hôtel de Suède. He had obtained my address through René Guénon, who must have gotten it himself from Valsan. He let me know that he was henceforth “immobilized for the rest of his days,” but that he would be happy to see me at his home, in the event that I should pass through Rome.

That is what I did in August 1949, after having notified him by phone of my visit. Having arrived at his home, I was taken into the drawing room where his father and a nurse asked me to wait while they helped him get up from his chair. He greeted me standing up and shook my hands for a long time. Then his father and the nurse helped him to sit down again, which he couldn’t have done himself without collapsing. We talked for over an hour. He told me that since from then on he had all the time in the world, he took advantage of it by translating French and German authors. He also spoke about Metaphysics of Sex, a book he was planning to write. We were at that point in our conversation when he took a little key out of his pocket, showed me an ivory elephant, and told me how to open it. The elephant contained a miniature bar, with numerous flasks and little glasses all made of crystal. He asked me what I’d like to drink, but the afternoon was steamy, and I didn’t want any alcohol. He insisted, however, under the pretext that we were carrying out a rite and I had to submit to it. I had to give in, and we both raised our glasses before ceremoniously drinking the contents.

I was to see Evola only once more, in 1952 or 1953, but we corresponded regularly. One day I received a rather bitter letter from him in which he reproached me for never citing him, no more than did Guénon. I answered him as best I could, and I must one day give the reasons and explanations that that response called for. My argument couldn’t have been simpler. The books I write are intended for today’s audience, and not for initiates. Unlike Guénon and his emulators, I believe I have nothing to write that would be intended especially for them.

Title	Eliade/Fagan: Journal III, 1970-1978 (AbeBooks)
Author	Mircea Eliade
Translated by	Teresa Lavender Fagan
Publisher	University of Chicago Press, 1989
ISBN	0226204081, 9780226204086

Partial Text on Google Books

Review of '93: An Aleister Crowley Primer' by Jerry and Erica Cornelius

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

Jerry Cornelius, IX* and head of the Grady McMurtry A∴A∴, with Erica M. Cornelius, has given us another work sharing their insights into Thelema, titled 93: An Aleister Crowley Primer (2019). Reminiscent of Crowley’s Magick Without Tears, it covers a wide range of material suitable to variable levels of experience and exposure to Thelema.

Generally speaking, I dislike “Beginner Books”. By calling itself a primer, 93 places itself in that category. However, this book is closer to what I want to see.

Let me start with what I dislike about the book. First, its presentation is lacking. The book itself is visually unimpressive. I got it at the same time as another book which was double stitched and had all the other bells and whistles that I have come to expect from a limited edition book. I realize that 93 was priced as a standard book (i.e., $31) so this is a quibble. However, my initial impression was not favorable.

Next is the font. The font on the cover and elsewhere in the book reminds me of the font I used in my Anarcho-punk zines in the 1980s. This also detracts, in my opinion, from the impact of the book. Even though I acknowledge that these are rather piddly concerns, I feel it makes the book look a bit sad and dated.

As always, I find the lack of an index to be disappointing. While it is less of a concern given the question and answer format of this book, an index would still be beneficial.

A final complaint, if you are going to put a word in over-sized font, make sure it is spelled correctly. I have been unable to find a definition for the word “Aherant”. I can only infer that it is a misspelling of the word “Adherent”, which is discussed in some detail earlier in the book. Perhaps I missed this word, “Aherant”, being defined elsewhere in the text, but I do not recall it, nor did I find it anywhere near the text in question. Having complained about this, I will no doubt introduce a glaring typographical error in this essay.

So, what do I like about the book? First off, it isn’t another beginner book where the author just gives us a simplified version of what Crowley wrote. DuQuette’s The Magick of Thelema is useful because it actually puts the god-names for the Hexagram ritual as a footnote to the Hexagram ritual. For some reason, Crowley did not. Useful, yes. Ground breaking, no. Even Shoemaker’s Living Thelema engages in some of this. That is not the case for 93. The book is a discussion of Thelemic thought, not a collection of recipes with the chef’s notes in the margins.

Being more akin to Magick Without Tears than Liber O, we get several questions with their answers. As it explicitly points out, this is from the Grady McMurtry school of the A∴A∴. Jerry has a rather fascinating history of his own in the Thelemic community. I will not claim I agree with him on everything, but I will give him a fair hearing. If I agreed with someone on everything, I would need to assume they were lying to me.

There are 116 questions (assuming I can still count), and six non-questions (including the preface et al). As I have been a Thelemite for three decades or so, I already had answers for some of the more basic questions — “What are the Secret Chiefs?” or “What is a Kaaba?” — though it is important to read these as one needs to know how the author is using the term. Various A∴A∴ lineages can have divergent meanings for the same terms. This doesn’t mean any of them are wrong, per se. It does mean that you can get tripped up when you assume they mean X but they actually mean Y.

I really enjoyed where they start discussing the Tunis commentary and various trends within the present day Thelemic community. They also discussed some of the flaws of the prophet. While I may not agree with all of their assessments, or the ramifications deriving from those assessments, it is refreshing to hear something a bit deeper than “he fails to meet up with the modern western moral values, so he is bad and wrong”. Objectively speaking, Crowley failed some of his charges as the prophet of the new aeon. Denying this will lead one into falsity and error.

So, all in all, this book is worth the money I spent on it. It is also worth the time I spent reading it — this being a more significant evaluation these days. I look forward to re-reading portions of this book and seeing if any other insights arise. I do plan on discussing a couple of portions of the book, so look forward to those videos.

Truth is found in the rubble of falsehood. 

Love is the law, love under will.


https://www.bitchute.com/video/n5k5gxEQ09wT/

Ezra Pound: Religio or, The Child’s Guide to Knowledge (1918)

What is a god?
      A god is an eternal state of mind.
What is a faun?
      A faun is an elemental creature.
What is a nymph?
      A nymph is an elemental creature.
When is a god manifest?
      When the states of mind take form.
When does a man become a god?
      When he enters one of these states of mind.
What is the nature of the forms whereby a god is manifest?
      They are variable but retain certain distinguishing characteristics.
Are all eternal states of mind gods?
      We consider them to be so.
Are all durable states of mind gods?
      They are not.
By what characteristic may we know the divine forms?
      By beauty.
And if the presented forms are unbeautiful?
      They are demons.
If they are grotesque?
      They may be well-minded genii.
What are the kinds of knowledge?
      There are immediate knowledge and hearsay.
Is hearsay of any value?
      Of some.
What is the greatest hearsay?
      The greatest hearsay is the tradition of the gods.
Of what use is this tradition?
      It tells us to be ready to look.
In what manner do gods appear?
      Formed and formlessly.
To what do they appear when formed?
      To the sense of vision.
And when formless?
      To the sense of knowledge.
May they when formed appear to anything save the sense of vision?
      We may gain a sense of their presence as if they were standing behind us.
And in this case they may possess form?
      We may feel that they do possess form.
Are there names for the gods?
      The gods have many names. It is by names that they are handled in the tradition.
Is there harm in using these names?
      There is no harm in thinking of the gods by their names.
How should one perceive a god, by his name?
      It is better to perceive a god by form, or by the sense of knowledge, and after perceiving him thus, to consider his name or to “think what god it may be.”
Do we know the number of the gods?
      It would be rash to say that we do. A man should be content with a reasonable number.
What are the gods of this rite?
      Apollo, and in some sense Helios, Diana in some of her phases, also the Cytherean goddess.
To what other gods is it fitting, in harmony or in adjunction with these rites, to give incense?
      To Kore and to Demeter, also to lares and to oreiads and to certain elemental creatures.
How is it fitting to please these lares and other creatures?
      It is fitting to please and to nourish them with flowers.
Do they have need of such nutriment?
      It would be foolish to believe that they have, nevertheless it bodes well for us that they should be pleased to appear.
Are these things so in the east?
      This rite is made for the West.

Minor editing/formatting by Nexist Xendaths.
Source 1: Pavannes and Divisions (eBook in which it originally appeared)
Source 2: Pagan Reveries (Mainly because I hate typing)

Ezra Pound: Axiomata (1921)

I

1. The intimate essence of the universe is not of the same nature as our own consciousness.
2. Our own consciousness is incapable of having produced the universe.
3. God, therefore, exists. That is to say, there is no reason for not applying the term God, Theos, to the intimate essence.
4. The universe exists. By exists we mean normally: is perceptible to our consciousness or deducible by human reason from data perceptible to our consciousness.
5. Concerning the intimate essence of the universe we are utterly ignorant. We have no proof that this God, Theos, is one, or is many, or is divisible or indivisible, or is an ordered hierarchy culminating, or not culminating, in a unity.
6. Not only is our consciousness, or any concentration or coagulation of such consciousness or consciousnesses, incapable of having produced the universe, it is incapable of accounting for how said universe has been and is.
7. Dogma is bluff based upon ignorance.
8. There is benevolent and malevolent dogma. Benevolent dogma is an attempt to “save the world” by instigating it to accept certain propositions. Malevolent dogma is an attempt to gain control over others by persuading them to accept certain propositions.
   There is also nolent,¹ un-volent² dogma, a sort of automatic reaction in the mind of the dogmatiser, who may have come to disaster by following certain propositions, and who, from this, becomes crampedly convinced that contrary propositions are true.
9. Belief is a cramp, a paralysis, an atrophy of the mind in certain positions.

II

1. It is as foolish to try to contain the Theos in consciousness as to try to manage electricity according to the physics of water. It is as non-workable as to think not only of our consciousness managing electricity according to the physics of water, but as to think of the water understanding the physics of electricity.
2. All systems of philosophy fail when they attempt to set down axioms of the Theos in terms of consciousness and of logic; similiter³ by the same figure that electricity escapes the physics of water.
3. The selection of monotheism, polytheism, pluralism, dual, trinitarian god or gods, or hierarchies, is pure matter of individual temperament (in free minds), and of tradition in environment of discipular,⁴ bound minds.
4. Historically the organisation of religions has usually been for some ulterior purpose, exploitation, control of the masses, etc.

III

1. This is not to deny that the consciousness may be affected by the Theos (remembering that we ascribe to this Theos neither singular nor plural number).
2. The Theos may affect and may have affected the consciousness of individuals, but the consciousness, is incapable of knowing why this occurs, or even in what manner it occurs, or whether it be the Theos; though the consciousness may experience pleasant and possibly unpleasant sensations, or sensations partaking neither of pleasure or its opposite. Hence mysticism. If the consciousness receives or has received such effects from the Theos, or from something not the Theos yet which the consciousness has been incapable of understanding or classifying either as Theos or a-Theos, it is incapable of reducing these sensations to coherent sequence of cause and effect. The effects remain, so far as the consciousness is concerned, in the domain of experience, not differing intellectually from the taste of a lemon or the fragrance of violets or the aroma of dunghills, or the feel of a stone or of tree-bark, or any other direct perception. As the consciousness observes the results of the senses, it observes also the mirage of the senses, or what may be a mirage of the senses, or an affect from the Theos, the non-comprehensible.
3. This is not to deny any of the visions or auditions or sensations of the mystics, Dante’s rose or Theresa’s walnut; but it is to affirm the propositions in Section I.

IV

1. The consciousness may be aware of the effects of the unknown and of the non-knowable on the consciousness, but this does not affect the proposition that our consciousness is utterly ignorant of the nature of the intimate essence. For instance: a man may be hit by a bullet and not know its composition, nor the cause of its having been fired, nor its direction, nor that it is a bullet. He may die almost instantly, knowing only the sensation of shock. Thus consciousness may perfectly well register certain results, as sensation, without comprehending their nature (see I, 1). He may even die of a long-considered disease without comprehending its bacillus.⁵
2. The thought here becomes clouded, and we see the tendency of logic to move in a circle. Confusion between a possibly discoverable bacillus and a non-knowable Theos. Concerning the ultimate nature of the bacillus, however, no knowledge exists; but the consciousness may learn to deal with superficial effects of the bacillus, as with the directing of bullets. confusion enters argument the moment one calls in analogy. We return to clarity of Section I (1-9).
3. The introduction of analogy has not affected our proposition that the “intimate essence” exists. It has muddied our conception of the non-knowability of the intimate essence.
   
   [Speculation.—Religions have introduced analogy? Philosophies have attempted sometimes to do without it. This does not prove that religions have muddied all our concepts. There is no end to the variants one may draw out of the logical trick-hat.]

V

1. It is, however, impossible to prove whether the Theos be one or many.
2. The greatest tyrannies have arisen from the dogma that the Theos is one, or that there is a unity above various strata of Theos which imposes its will upon the sub-strata, and thence upon human individuals.
3. Certain beauties of fancy and of concept have arisen both from the proposition of many gods and from that of one god, or of an orderly arrangement of the Theos.
4. A choice of these fancies of the Theos is a matter of taste; as the preference of Durer or Velasquez, or the Moscophorus, or Amenhotep’s effigy, or the marbles of Phidias.
5. Religion usually holds that the Theos can be, by its patent system, exploited.
6. It is not known whether the Theos may be or may not be exploited.
7. Most religions offer a system or a few tips for exploiting the Theos.
8. Men often enjoy the feeling that they are performing this exploitation, or that they are on good terms with the Theos.
9. There is no harm in this, so long as they do not incommode anyone else.
10. The reason why they should not incommode anyone else is not demonstrable; it belongs to that part of the concepts of consciousness which we call common decency.
11. We do not quite know how we have come by these concepts of common decency, but one supposes it is our heritage from superior individuals of the past; that it is the treasure of tradition. Savages and professed believers in religion do not possess this concept of common decency. They usually wish to interfere with us, and to get us to believe something “for our good”.
12. A belief is, as we have said, a cramp, and thence progressively a paralysis or atrophy of the mind in a given position.

Note

This terse statement of his philosophy was Pound’s farewell to London. Having made it, he went to Paris, and then to Rapallo.

First published in The New Age, Vol. XXVIII, No. 11, 13 January, 1921, pp. 125-6.
Proofread and annotated by Fergus Cullen (2016-7).
Further proofreading and annotation by Nexist Xenda’ths.
Source: https://philosophylibrary.wordpress.com/2017/07/11/axiomata-ezra-pound-1921/ (2018 August 21)

-------

1: Nōlent: third-person plural future active indicative of nolō. Nōlō: I am unwilling, I wish not, I want not, I refuse. 

2: Volent: exercising volition 

3: Similiter: a reply by which the pleader in a common law pleading concurs with the other party in requesting trial by jury. (I think it is saying that both agree they are not bound by the laws which bind the other). 

4: Discipular: of, relating to, or befitting a disciple. 

5: Bacillus: (generally) all cylindrical or rodlike bacteria.

All footnotes are Nexist Xenda'ths. If I had to look it up to make sure I understood the word/context, I added a footnote. Also, Blogger hated the hyperlinked footnotes, so they were removed.

Thelemic Ethics and Rights (Video + Script)

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

• I believe I mentioned this last video, but
• I am changing my ending track. I am tired of getting an automated copyright flag, disputing it with the Creative Commons license, and then having them approve some and disapprove others. Annoying.
  • The New Track is “The Charon” by Keosz from the “Entity EP”.
  • My Opening is still “Chant of Night Blades” by Kai Engel form the “Deathless: The Renaissance” album.
  • Links are below.
  • My use should not be taken as endorsement of my content by either artist.
• I went to Enoshima yesterday
  • Honored Benzaiten and The Dragon God. I also stopped by a Shingon Temple, but there was no fire so I didn’t stay long.
  • It was hot and muggy, but the discomfort will fade away and I will treasure the memory.
• My favorite Japanese gods are Inari, Benzaiten, Kannon, Jizo, and Tenjin.

So on with the video

• Thelema is an individualistic philosophy.
• Thelema borrows heavily from Nietzsche.
• Thelema also borrows heavily from various spiritual and religious practices from around the world
• Finally, it also borrows from Science, both Soft and Hard.
  • Please see my video on Thelema and the Scientific Method.
• Thelema positions itself as the inheritor of the past ages of mankind.
  • Rather than being post-modern, it attempts to inject a meaning and purpose back into life.
  • The influence of the Christian/Modern age cannot be undone, nor should it.
  • Those who seek to undo time are delusional
  • Also, those who seek to continue on the path of modernity to post-modernity are lost, directionless, and adrift.
  • This can be seen in the fractious and unrealistic behaviors of the more extreme elements of society
  • The seeds of modernity sown by Christianity have their natural culmination in behaviors of the SJW crowd.
  • Water flows downhill. Going back would merely return us to where we are today. This is the path of least resistance.
  • Thelema is resistance. A fight against the Spirit of Gravity. An upheaval which will divert the river onto a new path.
• Which brings us to the topic of this video.
  • The highest state of Overcoming is knowing one’s will. This typically involves work, discipline, and time.
  • One’s Will is the summation of one’s being. So how should one act until one achieves knowledge of their will?
  • Also, what if it is not one’s will to seek one’s will. Not everyone is meant to be a magician, hermit, or priest.
  • How should the Baker and the Banker act?
• Crowley penned three documents which are helpful in this regard.
  • Liber OZ sub figura LXXVII
  • Liber Libræ sub figura XXX
  • And an essay titled “Duty”
  • These documents form a basis for a Thelemic Society

Liber OZ sub figura LXXVII was written by Crowley to explain the “Rights of Man” in simple words of one syllable.

• It should be born in mind that this was written back when Man was still commonly used to refer to all humans of both sexes
• I’ve actually had some morons try to tell me that they didn’t apply to women (usually feminists)

Liber OZ is divided into 5 sections

1. Moral
2. Bodily
3. Mental
4. Sexual
5. And the right to Resist Tyranny

The title contains the mark of the beast in the seven pointed star (associated with Babalon) & several quotes from Liber AL.

• The symbolism of the graphic is rather obvious and outside the scope of this video. 
• Also, the I will also set aside discussion of the verses. 
  • I’ll include a link to the commentary of Liber AL for those interested.

So let us move on to the enumerated Rights. They are pretty straightforward, so comment will be minimal.

• 1) Man has the right to live by his own law—to live in the way that he wills to do: to work as he will: to play as he will: to rest as he will: to die when and how he will.
• 2) Man has the right to eat what he will: to drink what he will: to dwell where he will: to move as he will on the face of the earth.
• 3) Man has the right to think what he will: to speak what he will: to write what he will: to draw, paint, carve, etch, mould, build as he will: to dress as he will.
• These first three points pretty much cover all the basics for the life of a true Anarch or Autarch. Note that this is specific to the individual. No one else has to like it. And except for the last two items of section two, no one else is necessarily involved. If I choose to dwell in another persons house, or choose to move through another persons property, this may cause conflict. We will deal with that in section five.
• 4) Man has the right to love as he will:—“take your fill and will of love as ye will, when, where, and with whom ye will.” —AL. I. 51
• This often involves another person. As indicated, will tends to have a special meaning in Thelema (which itself is a word indicating Will). 
• I will quote a small portion of Crowley’s commentary on this verse: “But he should not injure himself and his right aforesaid; acts invasive of another individual's equal rights are implicitly self-aggressions. A thief can hardly complain on theoretical grounds if he is himself robbed. Such acts as rape, and the assault or seduction of infants, may therefore be justly regarded as offences against the Law of Liberty, and repressed in the interests of that Law.” (New Comment)
• I recommend reading the whole thing.
• 5) Man has the right to kill those who would thwart these rights.
• This is the most controversial of our rights. This is where the Will is so important. Is what you are trying to do important enough to kill? If I deem it is my will to dwell in your house, and you seek to stop me, then by section five, I have the right to kill you. However, in section one, you have the right to die when and how you will. Thus, you have the right to kill me. It can get complicated. Crowley added some more considerations in “Duty”. 
• However, we can also look at this as a form of the “Mandate of Heaven” (ala Confucius). The fact of there being a conflict is indicative of having lost the “Mandate of Heaven”, or, in Thelema, of one party not being in accord with their Will.
• This can easily go down a Theological rabbit hole, so suffice to say, no one wants to live where we are in constant danger of being killed, so this should probably be viewed as something to be reserved for an extreme case.

Liber Libræ sub figura XXX is an official instruction of the A.’.A.’.

• As such, it has a much more spiritual and occult tone.
• I will skip over much of it and only point out parts that would be of use to the layman
• The full text can be found in the link provided in the comments.

The title gives an indication of the tone of the work.

• Libræ refers to the astrological sign of Libra, the Scales
• XXX is the number for the Hebrew letter Lamed, which refers to an “Ox Goad”
  • The Goad is used to keep the beast moving in the proper direction, that is to guide it in the proper direction
  • Lamed is also attributed, in the Hermetic Qabalah, to Libra
• Thus the book (Liber means “book”) is meant to guide the aspirant in the proper path, that of balance.
• Liber Libræ is also referred to as “The Book of Balance”.

So, some of the relevant portions

• 0. Learn first — Oh thou who aspirest unto our ancient Order! — that Equilibrium is the basis of the Work. If thou thyself hast not a sure foundation, whereon wilt thou stand to direct the forces of Nature?
• 5. Yet, oh aspirant, let thy victories bring thee not Vanity, for with increase of Knowledge should come increase of Wisdom. He who knoweth little, thinketh he knoweth much; but he who knoweth much hath learned his own ignorance. Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? There is more hope of a fool, than of him.
• 6. Be not hasty to condemn others; how knowest thou that in their place, thou couldest have resisted the temptation? And even were it so, why shouldst thou despise one who is weaker than thyself?
• 9. A man is what he maketh himself within the limits fixed by his inherited destiny; he is a part of mankind; his actions affect not only what he calleth himself, but also the whole universe.
• 10. Worship and neglect not, the physical body which is thy temporary connection with the outer and material world. Therefore let thy mental Equilibrium be above disturbance by material events; strengthen and control the animal passions, discipline the emotions and the reason, nourish the Higher Aspirations.
• 11. Do good unto others for its own sake, not for reward, not for gratitude from them, not for sympathy. If thou art generous, thou wilt not long for thine ears to be tickled by expressions of gratitude.
• 12. Remember that unbalanced force is evil; that unbalanced severity is but cruelty and oppression; but that also unbalanced mercy is but weakness which would allow and abet Evil. Act passionately; think rationally; be Thyself.
• 15. Nevertheless have the greatest self-respect, and to that end sin not against thyself. The sin which is unpardonable is knowingly and wilfully to reject truth, to fear knowledge lest that knowledge pander not to thy prejudices.

So, the target for this is for “newbies” — people who are joining the group. Just in case it isn’t obvious, these are people who are not yet aware (or fully aware) of their Will. This is a general instruction meant to guide people along the path to become Thelemites.

• The general themes are toward restraint, to avoid false vanity, to respect and honor oneself, to do things for their own sake.
• I want to bring special attention to items 12 & 15.
  • We can see these in modern politics. Calls for unbalanced mercy are routinely made in Identity Politics, Migration Policy, etc
  • Failure to practice unbalanced mercy are met with equally unbalanced severity, as can be seen by anti-fa, BAMN, etc
  • As an aside, the terms mercy and severity refer to the right and left pillars of the Hermetic Qabalah (I am unsure if they are also in the original Jewish Qabalah).
  • Thelema, being a Middle Path tradition (as is the original Buddhism), exhorts us to follow the Middle Pillar (aka Aaron’s Rod).
  • 15 makes an allusion to the unpardonable sin of Christianity (there is only one). Which is to sin against the Holy Spirit. As we are all gods, we are holy spirits, thus the only unpardonable sin is to sin against one’s self.
  • Obviously, any harm to ourselves cannot be forgiven, as that harms effects are everlasting, but we can overcome by ceasing to sin against ourselves.
  • The nature of this sin against ourselves? “Knowingly and wilfully to reject truth, to fear knowledge lest that knowledge pander not to thy prejudices”.
  • If only the entire world ran on that principle.
• Again, this work is pretty straightforward, and I think most of my commentary would be redundant repetition of the obvious.

With this we have pretty much covered the individual. We will move into the final work, “Duty”.
The best I can find for dating “Duty” is circa 1921. The manuscript is not dated and it was not printed during his lifetime. However, it does show Crowley’s thoughts on how Thelema would be applied to a broader context.
While several unofficial versions appeared from 1978 through 1994, the OTO published an official version in 1998.

• The linked version below is to the OTO website.
• Duty is divided into four parts.
• Part A covers one’s Duty to oneself. This holds a theme similar to the prior two works.
• Part B covers one’s Duty to other individual men and women. These are:
  • To seek union/interaction with others for mutual development
  • To avoid interfering with another’s will
  • If two wills do come into conflict, to battle as brothers. Conflict of this type is a form of Dialectic.
  • To, if it is one’s Will, instruct others who ask or to instruct those who are about to infringe on one’s will.
  • To recognize the divinity in others, just as one recognizes it in oneself.
• Part C covers one’s Duty to mankind.
  • This is to establish the law of Thelema.
  • This Law being a Law of Liberty, the aim of the legislature must be to secure the amplest freedom for each individual in the state, eschewing the presumptuous assumption that any given positive ideal is worthy to be obtained.
  • Crime is also viewed as interference with the Will of another.
  • And here is my guiding principle: “The rule is quite simple. He who violated any right declares magically that it does not exist; therefore it no longer does so, for him.”
  • Those who kill declare that they have no right to live. Those who steal declare that they have no right to private property. Those who interfere with another’s Freedom of Speech declare that they have no right to speak.
• Part D covers one’s Duty to all other beings and things.
  • This is summed up by applying the Law of Thelema to everything.
  • For those who want something a little more concrete, “It is a violation of the Law of Thelema to abuse the natural qualities of any animal or object by diverting it from its proper function, as determined by consideration of its history and structure.”
  • Essentially, treat yourself and the world with respect.
  • Clear-cutting the forest violates the integrity of the forest and its biodiversity. Logging does not, so long as what is taken is necessary and sustainable. Coercive behavior towards your fellow man is unacceptable. Really, most of the sane aspects of conservative and liberal practical ideology are all predicated on this simple principle.

Duty delineates a Thelemic Society.

• The purpose of a Thelemic Society is to enable its members to accomplish their wills
• The individual is paramount.
• However, the individual does not exist in isolation.
• The individual belongs to a network of relations which, if properly established, serve to enhance and define the individual.
• Since we define our universe via our perceptions, when we deny another some right, we are declaring its invalidity.
• We cannot demand a right that we have declared invalid by virtue of denying it to another.
• If you attempt to deny me a right, e.g. my right to physical integrity, you exclude yourself from my consideration of you on that right.
• E.g. if you try to hit me, I can hit you back.

Alright, so what does all this mean? I’ll attempt to synthesize these works. This is my interpretation. I will undoubtedly integrate knowledge from other works, both Thelemic and non, into this. I will endeavor to attribute them all appropriately.
It is important to remember that Thelema is about the will. Its purpose is to assist you in manifesting your will. However, it may very well be that it is some people’s will to not explicitly know their will — and this is fine. Existence is pure joy, so as long as what you are doing is filling you with joy, we can infer that you are doing your will. Librae and Duty are geared toward people who have not yet attained knowledge of their will.
My key take-away for interpersonal relations is that you deny yourself any right that you deny to another. The murderer has no right to life. The Thief has no right to enjoy the fruits of their labor — especially property. The person who would remove another’s right to speak has no right to free speech. It is actually very simple. I know I have been harping on this theme, but it is something that I believe in passionately.
Now, what about OZ? What about those who have come to understand their own wills. This is a common enough concept, rife throughout religion and philosophy. The Stoic Sage, the Taoist Sage, the Confucian Superior Man, the Christian “Saved” (at least in some conceptions), and (I would argue) Nietzsche’s Ubermensch exist in an exalted state where the common rules do not apply. They are not, however, free from physics or its spiritual equivalent. OZ specifically exists for these people, and it can be summed up as “You have the right to do your will and destroy those who would prevent it”.
Now, it may be your will to travel a path that will result in conflict. That does not mean that it is your will to win that conflict. Your will may be to conflict with another will and from that dialectical conflict, a proper path will emerge. Crowley does advise caution. He tells us that, while it may be our will to descend a cliff, it may not be our will to do so by stepping over the edge and plummeting to our death.
Many of these topics are elaborated in Magick Without Tears, a work Crowley completed just prior to his death.

• It generally represents his final thoughts on a topic
• In some cases, this represents a contradiction of earlier positions
• A classic example argued in Thelemic Circles is whether Thelema is a religion.
  • To sum up, our system is a religion just so far as a religion means an enthusiastic putting-together of a series of doctrines, no one of which must in any way clash with Science or Magick.
  • Call it a new religion, then, if it so please your Gracious Majesty; but I confess that I fail to see what you will have gained by so doing, and I feel bound to add that you might easily cause a great deal of misunderstanding, and work a rather stupid kind of mischief.
  • The word does not occur in The Book of the Law.
  • MWT: XXXI: Religion–Is Thelema a "New Religion"?

So, yeah, I hope this was informativeTruth is found in the rubble of falsehood
Love is the law, love under will.

On Reality (Video, Notes, and Comments)

DWTWSBTWOTL

Update

• In Japan
  • Haven’t had time to do much more than film people on the street from my balcony
  • Samsung S8+
• Trying to figure out how to unobtrusively use my phone to take videos as I walk around. No one seems to have a lanyard for a cell phone…
• These videos are being posted on Vid.Me and YouTube
• Also, anything that could be said on the Google Memo has been stated quite well by the article “The Google Memo: Four Scientists Respond” (link below)
• And, Black Pidgeon Speaks just uploaded a hilarious video regarding the Chinese tourists busted for Sieg Heiling outside the Reichstag.
  • If only they had been raping children instead, they would have gotten a free pass, just as many refugees have. Link Below.
• On with the show

[TKK Excerpt]
I do believe in an actual objective reality.

• However, do to the mediating force of our senses, we cannot actually apprehend this reality
• However, I feel that a strong basis for postulating its existence can be drawn from the various commonalities of experience.
  • We all apprehend the sun, we can experience its light and warmth directly.
  • We can observe its effects on plants, animals, etc.
  • There is some objective truth which we interpret as the sun

Sadly, it is not just the senses interposing themselves between us and objective reality

• Our minds puts forth a filter which sifts through the sensory input
• This filters prioritizes and interprets phenomenon.
• Now I admit that I find Metaphysics confusing
  • Sadly, for me, Metaphysics is very important in this schema.
  • “being as such”, or rather our conception of it colors our understanding of “reality”

Our metaphysics give rise to our values

• Or perhaps it is more accurate to say that our values derive from the metaphysical interpretation of objective reality.
• Sadly, few people examine the values they hold
• Fewer people look at the metaphysical constructs which give form to those values
  • And yes, Heidegger is also confusing.
• I doubt anyone has looked at pure objective reality freed from the forms given it by our values and metaphysics. 

OK, so if people do not look at their values or examine their metaphysics, how are these values made available to them?

• There are two expressions of socio-cultural values
  • Art
  • Religion
• Now I am using some special definitions for these terms, so I will clarify.
• Art covers  all creative endeavors: music, painting, sculpture, poetry, video
  • One could argue that sex and procreation are also art
  • Art is a primal expression of socio-cultural values
    • Even degraded as it often is in the modern age
    • Early medieval art was ugly because it reflected the Early Christian view that the world was corrupt
    • Likewise many modern artworks are ugly to reflect a similar antipathy to the world as it is.
    • Our liking of a piece of art is often dependent on how it reflects the internalized values we hold.
• Religion covers all ideologies that govern the relationship of the self and not-self.
  • Those things which give us a place in the world
  • Those things which define the I’s relationship to the not-I.
  • So, yes, in this sense, Atheism is Religion
  • So is Science

Below Religion is the manifestation of the Political

• Religion tends to focus on the relationship of the self to the eternal
• Politics is focused on the temporal.
  • One’s conception of the eternal will color one’s perceptions of the temporal.
• However, with the death of god, the center which anchored human society was broken.
• This has created some hybrid ideologies, such as Humanism, Communism, or Fascism.
• This also explains the cultish behavior of various SJWs and Groups like BAMN, Anti-fa, or Wobblies.
• As opiates are synthetic endorphins, so are these ideologies a synthetic “religion”.
• And just like heroin destroys the mind and body, so do these ideologies destroy the mind and soul.
  • But I digress

Now we finally get to Morals, which are the practical application of your values, religious beliefs, and political structures.

• For example, the moral belief that murder is bad derives from a value that holds human life as important, a religious injunction (e.g. Do not murder), and political laws (e.g. the criminalization of homicide).

This whole process can be summed by Chapter 38 of the Tao Teh Ching

• The Tao Teh Ching is my second favorite set of Scripture.
• Translation by Derek Lin from Taoism.net
  • Therefore, the Tao is lost, and then virtue
  • Virtue is lost, and then benevolence
  • Benevolence is lost, and then righteousness
  • Righteousness is lost, and then etiquette
  • Those who have etiquette
  • are a thin shell of loyalty and sincerity
  • And the beginning of chaos
• Modern society operates on a level far from “Reality”
• To be fair, this problem has been around for, at least, the 4th century BCE
  • Even I don’t posit that the Modern Age started that far back.

While I have explained these in a linear fashion, it should be noted that they are actually reciprocal. Things lower provide feedback to those higher. Those parallel feed into each other. It is all actually very dynamic. Religion defines the avenues of science and science validates or invalidates religion. God didn’t die of old age, Science killed him, and into the void flew a multitude of similar, but competing, ideologies.
What benefit does this knowledge/structure/System give us.

• Well we can see what trumps what and what influences what.
• It allows us to analyze our own system of beliefs
• To understand where these beliefs came from.

One of the biggest problems I see with modern social movements is their inability to understand what they are promoting.

• They are generally working at the level of morals with occasional bumps into Politics.
• They do not examine (and many do not even acknowledge) what I have termed the Religious elements.
• They conflate their morals with Values
  • This can be seen by the contradictory impulses that both support and oppose any given value.
  • They say they value equality, but posit unequal treatment of various group
  • They say they value women, but support groups who oppress women
  • They say they value pacifism, but continually vote for warmongers
  • They say they value certain ethnic groups, but promote policies that destroy those same groups.
• A simple analysis of their behavior through the system I have outlined, and an understanding of the hierarchical nature of these items would bring a level of sanity and clarity to our social interactions.

So, to sum up.

• Reality exists, but none of us can actually apprehend it objectively.
• Reality is mediated through a series of layers which reciprocally influence each other.
• Our values are expressed in our art and “religion”.
• The lowest of these is morality.
  • I sneer at the good person, those who can, do, those who can’t console themselves with how moral they are.
  • [Crass Clip]
• Only by examining these layers can we come to understand what we are doing
• Only by understanding what we are doing can we eliminate contradictory impulses
• Only by eliminating contradictory impulses can we succeed in implementing the values we actually hold.
• Further, an understanding of all of this is necessary to apply reason and chart a path to maximize our individual freedom and garner success for our beliefs.
• This illustrates some of what Crowley meant by “A Devil With Unity Would Be A God”.

As a side note:

• The occultist works with Art and Religion to manifest their Values.
• Magick is the science and art of causing change to occur in conformity with will. (AC, MTP)

Truth is found in the Rubble of Falsehood
LITLLUW
Earlier blog post on this topic
Google Memo:Google’s Ideological Echo ChamberThe Google Memo: Four Scientists RespondNo, the Google manifesto isn’t sexist or anti-diversity. It’s science
Black Pigeon Speaks:https://vid.me/88Xq8
Derek Lin’s Tao Teh Ching: http://taoism.net/tao/tao-te-ching-online-translation/ (Note: This moved from it’s prior location)
Samples:My Life With the Thrill Kill Kult - Nervous XiansCrass - Berkertex Bribe
Opening:Kai EngelChant Of Night BladesDeathless: The RenaissanceLicense
Ending:Ami DengA Strange CommunityHukamLicense

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

1. We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
2. Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes.
3. 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.
4. 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:

1. Define a question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form an explanatory hypothesis (this includes the null hypothesis & falsifiability)
4. Test the hypothesis by performing an experiment and collecting data in a reproducible manner
5. Analyze the data
6. Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. 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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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”.
• Modern Spirituality, Religion, and the New Age movement have fallen into the trap Crowley warns against.

Truth is found in the rubble of falsehood.

LITLLUW

SOURCES:

Method of Science

• Wikipedia: History of Scientific Method: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_scientific_method
• Wikipedia: Scientific method: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

David Hume:

• Wikipedia: David Hume: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume
• David Hume dot Org: http://www.davidhume.org/

Haidt:

• Podcast Interview & Transcript: http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/the-righteous-mind-why-liberals-and-conservatives-cant-get-along/
• AEI article: https://www.aei.org/publication/liberals-or-conservatives-whos-really-close-minded/

Crowley:

• Liber O (hermetic.com): https://hermetic.com/crowley/libers/lib6
• Chinese Music (45): http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/crowley/lies/48.htm
• Terrier-Work (51): http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/crowley/lies/54.htm
• The Dangers of Mysticism http://lib.oto-usa.org/crowley/essays/dangers-mysticism.html

Personal Update:

• Political Theology http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/P/bo3649910.html
• Judas https://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Judas-Second-Rodolphe-Kasser/dp/142620048X
• De Naglowska https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_de_Naglowska
• Randolph https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paschal_Beverly_Randolph
• View from the Right https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/grimberg/view-from-the-right-by-alain-de-benoist
• Laibach Thus Sprach Zarathrustra http://mute.com/mute/also-sprach-zarathustra

Two Videos on Francesca

• Armoured Skeptic: My Life Lesson https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJanCTIhDJ0
• Andywarski: The End of the Franny Saga - Betrayal  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV3g1xLfCsU

List of Recommended Channels

• Roaming Millennial https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLUrVTVTA3PnUFpYvpfMcpg
• Barbara4u2c https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-oGhTTXFHBydqyG-ENiwTw
• Blaire White https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDmCBKaKOtOrEqgsL4-3C8Q
• Sargon of Akkad https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-yewGHQbNFpDrGM0diZOLA
• The Thinkery https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpiCH7qvGVlzMOqy3dncA5Q
• Armoured Skeptic https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1BWMtZbNLVMSFgwSukjqCw
• Bearing https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwW_vaMPlq8J4weKDsfeJzw

Goose & Gander (Equality, Merit, Standards + Brief Personal Update)

DWTWSBTWOTL

A quick update:

• I’ve been sick, this has combined with my allergies to make me truly miserable.
• I am normally critical of “Big Pharma”, but thank god for modern medical science.
• I’ve also been distracted by getting my orders and travel ready for my trip to Japan this August.
• I may do a video montage as a bonus video
• Being sick may impair my ability to write, but it did give me time to play around with Audacity, hence the intro and outro Music.
• Also Libre Office Impress for Ending and Beginning titles.
• I’ve also been trying to figure out my image archive. I have some 20,000 images and I am trying to tag them so I can find them when I want to use them in my videos.
• And I found some cool stuff on the Free Music Archive, not that I have used it yet.
• Current Reads: re-reading “Political Theology” by Carl Schmitt. Reading “Aristokratia, Volume 1”
• So, on with the show

I really like the phrase “What is Good for the Goose is Good for the Gander.”

• Evidently it can be traced back about five centuries.
• It reflects my standards based, meritocratic leanings.
• It also confuses people who don’t know what a gander is.
• As the French Syndicalist, Georges Sorel, once said, “There is only one pleasure greater than that of being appreciated by intelligent people, and that is the pleasure of not being understood by blunder-heads, who are only capable of expressing in a kind of jargon what serves them in the place of thought.”

For those of you who do not know, this is a gander….

 And this is a goose.

• Yes, a Gander is a male goose. There is a verb “gander” which is slang for “look”, but we can ignore that.
• Just FYI, a baby Goose is called a gosling. 
  
  
  
  
  
• They are so cute before they become tasty.

I did find it interesting that the dictionary reverses the sex order of the saying.

• A strict reading says “What is good for the (Female) Goose is Good for the (Male) Gander.”
• However, Dictionary.Com gives: “What is good for a man is equally good for a woman; or, what a man can have or do, so can a woman have or do.”
• To be fair, Wiktionary.Com does give it in the correct order, and provides a sex-neutral version which points to the essence of the proverb’s meaning.

While the proverb is great, Let us not forget what it is referring to…

• What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, but in our modern world, your goose is still cooked.

Now, I believe in displayed merit. This means I do not believe in equality.

• Any two people, even identical twins, are not equal. 
• I do, however, believe in standards and judging people accordingly.
• After all, this is how we determine an individual’s merit.
• Some standards vary according to the situation
• I value the Mechanic more highly than the Physician when I need my car fixed.
• Likewise, I value the Physician more when I am sick.
• Others remain fairly consistent.
• E.g., I always value the truthful.
• Different standards apply to different classes of people.
• Politicians, the Military, and Policemen should be held to a higher standard in our society due to their duties and responsibilities.
• This posits an inherent societally based inequality.
• Any two groups held to different standards are not and cannot be equal
• Those who meet a higher standard are intrinsically superior to those who do not, or cannot, meet that standard.
• Note that an individual may transcend their group if they aspire to, and maintain, a higher standard than is expected of them by society.

Our society does not grant equal rights to children.

• Neither are they held to the same standards.
• If a child hits another child, it would be considered cruel to throw them in jail for assault.
• Likewise, we look on with amusement at some of their more creative interpretations of the world around them
• I have heard it said that we begin to really possess the capabilities for logical reasoning around age 15 and complete them around 25
• However studies have shown that neither high schools nor colleges teach critical thinking.
• I cannot find a link for the statistical age at which logical reasoning skills develop and when the brain structures are fully formed, so feel free to take that statement with a grain of salt.
• Children are not the equal of adults

Any group to which we give a “pass” for failing to adhere to the nominal standards of civilized behavior is automatically less

• Further, one could argue that they are being infantilized. 
• When we fail to hold groups such as BAMN, Antifa, or BLM accountable for acts of violence, theft, or any other violation of the norms of civilized behavior, we are positing that the are inferior beings who just can’t help themselves.
• Just like when a toddler smacks their sibling in the head for taking their toy.
• Actually, they are less than the child, since we admonish the child.
• Full disclosure, I’ve disliked Antifa since the early 90s when SCAR (Skins Committed Against Racism) and SHARP (Skin Heads Against Racial Prejudice) were running around in gangs and beating up the Goths, Ravers, and Street Kids for not being members of their clique. They’ve also ruined several shows.
• When Feminists allow, even encourage, other women to act out in illogical rants, how are they any different than the caricatures of patronizing men who are believed to diminish women by smiling at their tantrums and saying “There, there” or “Don’t worry your pretty little head about it”.
• What’s really amusing is how complicit the SJW crowd is at diminishing and infantilizing themselves.
• A more conspiratorially minded person must wonder if the “movers & shakers” are merely encouraging the SJWs in order to make them more malleable, or whether it is a self-defeating monstrosity, a beast with no head.

The lazy, the loser, the ugly, the stupid, etc etc resent standards.

• They find their feelings hurt when they realize that they do not meet the standards.
• Nietzsche and Kierkegaard referred to this as “Ressentiment”
• According to Wikipedia, “Ressentiment is a sense of hostility directed at that which one identifies as the cause of one's frustration, that is, an assignment of blame for one's frustration.” I recommend the article, it is concise.
• I do like the Kierkegaard excerpt “The ressentiment which results from want of character can never understand that eminent distinction really is distinction. Neither does it understand itself by recognizing distinction negatively (as in the case of ostracism) but wants to drag it down, wants to belittle it so that it really ceases to be distinguished.”
• Nietzsche points out: “But it is not the same concept [of] ‘good’; on the contrary, one should ask who is actually evil in the sense of the morality of ressentiment. The stern reply is: precisely the ‘good’ person of the other morality, the noble, powerful, dominating one, but re-touched, re-interpreted and reviewed through the poisonous eye of ressentiment.”
• But I digress, suffice to say that if Nietzsche were a prophet, his accuracy in describing the Modern World would have put other prophets to shame.

Sadly, for these SJWs, the elimination of explicit standards merely results in the impositions of implicit standards.

• You see this in the way that dissent within the SJW community is vilified. 
• Thought Criminals, to salute Orwell, or Apostates, to recognize the post-Christian roots of their ideology, are savaged.
• Much like how the early Church needed Satan in order to bind the sects and factions together, SJWs need the “fascists” (whomever they may be on that day).
• LaVey explicitly mentions this in his Nine Satanic Statements
• I plan on discussing the lineal descent of Christianity to Post-Christian society (I.e. Modernity & Post-Modernity) in a later video
• We expect a certain level of “Otherizing” of their opponents by the SJW community (it is part and parcel of the human psyche).
• However, the internal infighting of the SJWs really shows their devotion to  Matthew 12:30, “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.” (NIV)

Ursula K. Le Guin authored an interesting work called The Dispossessed.

• The work portrays an Anarcho-Communist society that managed to be successful enough that they were ceded the moon of their world.
• The original society and the new society were isolated from each other.
• While professing to be free, social convention created a set of unwritten laws.
• E.g., Names were assigned by a computer to ensure they were unique, people had to “volunteer” for the hard labor of terraforming the moon
• Most importantly, dialog with the original society was restricted, as were certain ideas which risked undermining their ideology
• The story revolves around contact being made and involves an interesting critique of both societies.
• Bringing this back to standards, Le Guin is a fantastic Author.
• She doesn’t need the artificially restricted pool of “Women Authors” in order to stand out.
• She can be held to, and evaluated by, the same standards that makes any author great
• She is an adult.

I should also point out that the inherent subjectivity of any given set of standards is a non-issue

• Even if we bypass the philosophical argument that all things are subjective by virtue of our perception and contextualizing process, and merely go for cultural comparisons
• We can point out that some standards are actually cross-cultural: don’t murder, don’t steal
• Also, we are pointing out cultural norms. The sphere of discussion is the culture from which we culturally construct the standards
• The arena in which we fight is actually pitting those of the current standards against those who seek to lower those standards
• Standards can be arranged in a hierarchy based upon their difficulty and social cohesion.
• It is harder to tell the truth and suffer a penalty than it is to lie and gain benefits. 
• Further, social cohesion is increased by virtue of being able to trust what the other person is saying.
• Thus the person who generally tells the truth is superior to the person who does not. 
• Also, those who hold truth-telling as a virtue are superior to those who do not.
• Another example
• It is generally accepted that controlling your emotions is more difficult than letting them sway you to acts of violence
• Randomly assaulting people, even if they are despicable people, lessons social cohesion by interjecting doubts about whether one will be a target of violence.
• Remember, Barabbas was chosen over Jesus
• Devadatta worked against Siddhartha
• MLK was shot
•  Thus, those who refrain from randomly assaulting people are superior to those who do not.
• And, those who criticize randomly assaulting people are superior to those who encourage randomly assaulting people.
• Decrying the subjectivity of any given set of standards is merely an attempt to divert the discussion. It is the instinctual reaction of people’s ressentiment.

So, to summarize:

• “What is good for one type is equally good for another type, despite any irrelevant differences between the types.”
• Standards exist, whether you want them to or not. Eliminating overt standards leads to the creation of covert standards
• Failure to hold a group to the same set of standards categorically relegates them to an inferior status
• People can aspire to a higher set of standards than set by societal expectations and this makes them superior.
• The subjectivity of standards is a non-argument

Links are provided below. My notes will be posted to my blog.

Truth is found in the rubble of falsehood.

LITLLUW

----

Video Link: https://youtu.be/YmRvOBJzhSw

Music Used in This Video:

Swans - Better Than You (Intro)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylo6w-Umy0c

Ordo Equitum Solis - Father of Incantation (Outro)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BW18XT-x39o

Current Reading:

Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty by Carl Schmitt
https://books.google.com/books/about/Political_Theology.html?id=MXPs7149s9sC

Aristokratia edited by K. Deva
https://books.google.com/books?id=ENsFmgEACAAJ&dq=Aristokratia&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi524r6-p_VAhUEzGMKHe3lDHUQ6AEIKDAA

Links:

Proverb Definition:

Dictionary: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/what-s-good-for-the-goose-is-good-for-the-gander

Wiktionary: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/what%27s_good_for_the_goose_is_good_for_the_gander

More on Geese than most would want to know:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goose

Critical Thinking:

https://www.criticalthinking.org/https://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/the-state-of-critical-thinking-today/523

Ressentiment:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ressentiment

(Essay on) http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/genealogyofmorals/section3.rhtml

Hell, just read Genealogy of Morals
(PDF) http://www.inp.uw.edu.pl/mdsie/Political_Thought/GeneologyofMorals.pdf

Nine Satanic Statements 

http://www.churchofsatan.com/nine-satanic-statements.php

Matthew 12:30 (I used the NIV)

http://biblehub.com/matthew/12-30.htm

The Dispossessed (Wikipedia)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dispossessed

Credits:

Goose, Gander, Gosling:

Pixabay
https://pixabay.com/en/goose-bird-animal-canadian-nature-35856/

https://pixabay.com/en/goose-top-hat-politics-politician-41344/

https://pixabay.com/en/gosling-chick-goose-fluffy-spring-810541/

Roast goose in yat lok restaurant

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Roast_goose_in_yat_lok_restaurant.JPG