Jim Eshelman’s “Temple of Thelema” forums (found here) is, in my humble estimation, a regular fruitcake factory. While there are sometimes interesting nuggets to be had in these forums, many of the “discussions” there are filled with ridiculous supernatural claims and all sorts of distractionary nonsense that are little more than impediments to serious students of Thelema. It’s unfortunate that a number of participants in the threads seem to be sincere seekers who are looking for truth and are, instead, being peddled supernatural claptrap.
[For relevant background information, see here, here, and here for Erwin Hessle’s insightful posts about dumb comments Eshelman has made in public and about how serious Eshelman's organization appears to be]
On one recent thread over there, one poster was explaining to the others that none of the supernatural tripe they believe in is actually real. As would be expected, these religious believers didn’t take very kindly to someone pointing this out, and Eshelman posted a short rant misdescribing such a basic observation as a “fundamentalist religion.”
This post will refute Eshelman’s rant.
Here is the text of Eshelman’s response:
[The poster in question] is here preaching his own fundamentalist religion.
If a fundamentalist Christian came on this forum, they would be welcome. If they started preaching Christianity on every thread they touched, it would seem out of place to the community, and off-topic to the forum. That doesn't actually mean there's anything bad about it, except in the way that "dirt" is defined as "matter in the wrong place."
[The poster he’s addressing] is here preaching a different religion: fundamentalist materialism. Materialism is every bit as much a religion as, say, Christianity. (Materialism, formally defined, is the belief that only matter exists or, in any case, that matter is the controlling agent. Informally, there are variants on this.)
His preaching of this alternate religion is as out of place to this community, and as off-topic to this forum, as the theoretical fundamentalist Christian mentioned above. He is "dirt" in the specific sense of "matter in the wrong place."
This doesn't mean he has nothing to contribute. For one thing, I'm always happy to see someone mention that the Great Work involves work - actual work. Even though we sometimes differ on what that looks like in practice, we to share that common value in much the same way that Jews and Mormons both value Adam.
In the first place, let's note that Eshelman defines materialism as “the belief that only matter exists or, in any case, that matter is the controlling agent.”
As I suggested in the introductory post of this blog, a better definition of naturalism (which is a term I use interchangeably with materialism) is “the philosophical position that the natural world is the only world that is demonstrable and thus the only one we are justified in accepting.”
In other words, it’s obvious that the material world exists. We have plenty of evidence of this fact. Until and unless there is convincing evidence that some other world exists, the default position is to believe in the material world and not in any other worlds.
While it may be true that philosophical materialism is some kind of belief, as we can see, the position that I’ve advanced above – which nearly all naturalists would agree with, from what I can tell – makes “materialism” not a dogmatic belief of any kind, but simply the lack of belief in non-material worlds. This lack of belief exists for the same reason that an atheist lacks belief in gods: there is insufficient evidence to convince the materialist that there is any other world than the material one.
After all, everything we have learned about the universe in the past few hundred years is entirely consistent with a naturalist/materialist perspective, absolutely nothing we’ve discovered suggests that there is some other world out there, and much of what we have uncovered about brain science – such as, for example, the fact that consciousness appears to depend on brain chemistry – suggests very, very strongly that consciousness, which was once considered ooky-spooky mysterious and divided from the material world in a dualistic way, is simply an emergent property of material things.
In other words, the materialist position is one that is founded upon evidence. A great deal of evidence.
Look at the sneaky move Eshelman pulls next, trying to equate an evidence-based position with a faith-based position:
Materialism is every bit as much a religion as, say, Christianity.
Religionists of all stripes love to claim that their stupid, faith-based positions are on equal footing with positions that are evidence-based. The reason for this is that it places all positions on an equal plane and suggests that there is no objective way to differentiate one position from another. This being the case, the religionist is free to continue believing in his stupid position because “Hey, the other position’s just as much a religion, man.”
In actuality, pointing out that the material world is the only world for which human beings have evidence is no more “fundamentalist religion” than pointing out that evidence strongly suggests that there’s only one sun in our solar system.
But religious believers – especially religious believers who have made a reputation out of peddling vacuous supernatural answers to life’s questions – have a vested interest in trying to pretend that every position whatsoever is a “religion.”
Ironically, Eshelman agrees with the other poster that Thelema requires “work.” Unfotunately, the “work” Eshelman appears to be interested in is the “work” of religiously clinging to Crowley’s instructions, believing all manner of supernatural tripe on the basis that it “works for him” and that it’s “true to him," and engaging in imagination exercises that are as effective at discovering the true will as watching TV.
Indeed, Thelema requires work, and the hardest work for many people is surrendering the false beliefs that they have, in many cases, spent a lifetime building up. Until they do, they will be stuck in a mental prison of their own creation.
Amen. Brother Los.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the props. (It's ok to use my name, if you are on my side)
That's froclown.
ReplyDeleteor preferably
Fr. Apocryphon
Since it keeps my name hidden I see.
"(It's ok to use my name, if you are on my side)"
ReplyDeleteNoted. Generally, I like to keep my posts centered on ideas, and I only use names if the person in question is some kind of leader in the Thelemite community or if the name is connected to relevant background material that is useful for putting the comments in context.
I have no idea why your name isn't showing up on your posts.
Speaking of technical glitches, I'm getting this weird glitch where Eshelman's text appears at the *end* of the post for me. I see it sometimes and not other times. Are others getting this same glitch?
I don't understand how they believe that doing LBRP all day every day, a million times, or never missing a Resh, or playing masturbatory mind tricks on themselves, will work to teach Thelema and critical thinking to the masses, or establish even a small community that lives by Thelemic ideals and teaches them, or helps to combat anti-thelemic propaganda in the media and social traditions, let alone helps to totally revamp the entire world to replace superstition, "slave morality" and gullibility with "Scientific Illuminism" (It certainly does not help to dissociate Thelemites from new-age nuts, role players and satanists, which we desperately need to in order to earn enough social standing to be listened to without enraging prejudice against us before we can even give our apologetic)
ReplyDeleteHave you read any David Chamlers? If not, I'd suggest you pick up a copy of his "The Conscious Mind". He makes a very compelling argument for a form of dualism over materialism. Furthermore, he has some very strong arguments to the effect that consciousness is not reducible to physical systems.
ReplyDeleteRegardless of your view, it should be noted that consciousness has not been explained in physical terms. Whether it ever will be is another matter--in the meantime the issue is not settled.
“Have you read any David Chamlers?”
ReplyDeleteI’ve not.
“If not, I'd suggest you pick up a copy of his "The Conscious Mind". He makes a very compelling argument for a form of dualism over materialism. Furthermore, he has some very strong arguments to the effect that consciousness is not reducible to physical systems.”
I might consider adding it to my reading list, but the little I’ve been able to glean from glancing at a few reviews of the book doesn’t sound terribly promising.
Just about everything I’ve read seems to indicate that Chalmers is doing philosophy of mind, coming to conclusions by speculating about thought-experiments, rather than doing original neuroscience research and drawing conclusions from hard evidence. For example, I understand that one of his arguments runs something like this: imagine a zombie – a creature identical to you, molecule by molecule, but lacking conscious experience. Since the existence of such a being is logically possible – in that it doesn’t entail any logical contradictions – consciousness must not be dependent on the physical.
Perhaps I’m not representing his argument correctly – I am, after all, basing the above on a handful of reviews, so I could always be mistaken – but if that’s really the gist of his “argument,” then he’s got less than nothing to offer. The above “zombie argument” is absolutely laughable, in that it starts from the premise that the book is trying to demonstrate: that consciousness is not dependent on the physical. It’s a circular argument, if I’m reporting it correctly.
The problem with philosophy is that logic applied to false premises will invariably yield conclusions. The only way to go about distinguishing false premises from true is to go out and look at the world.
You can’t argue in favor of a dualistic worldview by saying, “Oh gee, there’s no perfect naturalistic explanation yet…*and* I can analyze an inane thought-experiment.”
“Regardless of your view, it should be noted that consciousness has not been explained in physical terms. Whether it ever will be is another matter--in the meantime the issue is not settled.”
Sure, but again, just because there’s no perfect natural explanation of consciousness doesn’t mean that any other theory gains any more credence.
In order to demonstrate that dualism is true, you’ll need more than just a bunch of thought experiments and wishful thinking. You’ll need – at minimum – some actual evidence.
And this brings us right back to my point in this post: we have plenty of evidence that the natural world exists and none – absolutely none – that indicates that any other world exists. Given those facts, the materialist position – the notion that the material world is the only one we’re justified in accepting – is the best one currently based on evidence.
I'm awed by the clarity and brevity of your response (bows).
Delete:-)
I wrote: "The problem with philosophy is that logic applied to false premises will invariably yield conclusions. The only way to go about distinguishing false premises from true is to go out and look at the world."
ReplyDeleteObviously, that first sentence should read "The problem with philosophy is that logic applied to false premises will invariably yield *false* conclusions."
It is for this reason that even if I am misrepresenting Chalmers' argument, it wouldn't make too much of a difference -- questions of this kind can't be solved by sitting in your room and thinking about them. You need to go out into the world and actually look for evidence, as distasteful a thought as that might be to some.
How do you address those who claim there is more to truth than facts and factual statements about the world, and then accuse you of being autistic and unable to understand social emotional truth which is in some way deeper and more real than facts?
ReplyDeleteBelievers sometimes claim that “Truth” – capital T – is more than just “mere facts.” They’ll say something like, “Oh, 2+2=4 is an observable fact, but there are other, deeper truths….like, for example, a mother’s love or the bonds of family, that can only be felt emotionally and can only be conveyed through poetry and art.”
ReplyDeleteAnd, of course, they’re equivocating on this idea of “truth.” When they say “Truth” – capital T – they’re not talking about a correspondence between one’s ideas and reality: they’re talking about values, which obviously do exist -- and which obviously can be conveyed through art -- but are not “true” in the sense that 2+2=4 is true.
Seeing as Crowley intended that Thelema should crush all, superstiton and establish a religion and social order based on rational science, ie sciemtific illuminism or phyrro-Zoroastrianism. How can we as thelemites crush and fight superstition in the world, while Thelema itself and all of it's institutions are fully innendated with superstiton and out right nonsense? I mean is there a way to maybe establish a thelemic order or institution that actually represents reason and the principles of the book of the law, rather then a bunch of occultists new age bullshit? Maybe something closer to Fullers "A star in the West" and not based on convoluted version of "the Secret".
ReplyDeleteJust a short reply to the idea of establishing a religion and social order based on rational science:
DeleteI've met plenty of naturalist OTO brothers and sisters (some are hard-line science types, others are just atheists who like to do mantra). The poetry of religion can be seen as similar to the aesthetics of an artform. I myself practice a pretty much materialist/naturalist philosophy when going about my everyday existence as a Thelemite. Walking in the world "tuned in" to the poetry and aesthetics of experience is what a religious outlook can do. A religious/spiritual outlook does not necessitate "spooky" answers (answering the world with a belief in mind, or a doctrine, or a feeling of self-importance that relies upon revelation or holy book). In my opinion, a hermeneutic approach to texts in the world is simply a deeper dive into the natural world. A Thelemic lifestyle need not indulge in belief at all, nor in revelations other than the natural world unfolding in all its beauty, imbalance, and maze-like treasures.
'93, y'all! Has anybody ELSE read Julian Jaynes Phd-Thesis/Book: "THE ORIGIN OF CONSCIOUSNESS ...etc"? Might we first TRY to Define What we MEAN by the WORD "Consciousness" (per se) to help us SEARCH for something 'like' THAT narrative specification? JJ's Doctoral dissertation begins by DEBUNKING the many Semantical ABUSES which have snarled Brilliant MINDS in GLIB discourse for CENTURIES!! Dr.Jaynes lucidly lists a dozen common Illusions of so-called 'Consciousness' that Neuropsychology can demonstrate today.
ReplyDelete===========
'Korzybski Semantics & Crowley Magick speak of VIRTUALITY as ''REAL' as Goeddel's Paradox, or "Imaginary Numbers" and other useful (but 'NON-material)! I call these "Structural Fictions" of thought!
===========
As Cybernetics of AI research & Micrologic simulation progress ever closer to CP3O/R2D2-Fantasies, Computer Designers must be able to ask: HOW DO WE KNOW that "IT" is actually "Conscious? Consider actor Will Smith dilemma in "I ROBOT"! Digest "AI" movie metaphors before Thee gibber Metaphysics of 'Cosmic Consciousness"!
=====
Maybe it's AS simple as "THOU ART WHAT SPEAKS THEE!"
The TOT forum is an interesting place for sure, and I myself have received a variety of responses on one thread (http://www.heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=14297) regarding Thelema, reason, and evidence. (As you've seen, Los.)
ReplyDeleteI don't think everyone on that forum is quick to jump into ridiculous claims, but there are some.
(I will admit that I sometimes become confused and get lost in tangents during these kinds of philosophical discussions, but throughout the thread I tried to keep things cogent.)
Anyway, I wanted to comment on a few things you wrote here. I think that we are in agreement on many philosophical topics, but occasionally have different views. Of course, that's a natural thing (or at least seems so), but, anyway, I'd like to comment:
You say that naturalism (which is a term I use interchangeably with materialism) is “the philosophical position that the natural world is the only world that is demonstrable and thus the only one we are justified in accepting.”
I mean, yeah, that's basically metaphysical naturalism.
But, I do think that there's something to be said for the validity of Buddha's "two truths doctrine," however, in which one has an "as if" or suppositional approach to phenomena--basically, assuming (for the sake of practicality) that what can be observed and evidenced and reasoned out is real, but that it doesn't represent ULTIMATE (noumenal) reality. So, to be pragmatic and act as if what is (conventionally) real is real, but understand--in an epsitemological way--that uncertainty rounds all human affairs.
(Much as I may disagree with some of what Jim Eshelman says, he did help me understand a kind of "as if" scenario, as it pertains to the AA.)
Arcesilaus said, "nothing can be known, not even this."
You also say: "While it may be true that philosophical materialism is some kind of belief, as we can see, the position that I’ve advanced above – which nearly all naturalists would agree with, from what I can tell – makes “materialism” not a dogmatic belief of any kind, but simply the lack of belief in non-material worlds. This lack of belief exists for the same reason that an atheist lacks belief in gods: there is insufficient evidence to convince the materialist that there is any other world than the material one."
Yes, it's because of the lack therein that this "philosophy" is so powerful. A little off topic, but it reminds me of some of Laozi's aphorisms in the Tao Te Ching: essentially, how it's the "emptiness" of a thing that give it its true power.
The philosophy that makes the least claims, and especially the least unreasonable ones, is open-ended enough to receive truth, and elss likely to be undermined, IMO. That's the power of its "emptiness"--conceptually.
Just a thought.
{CONTINUED}
DeleteYou say: "The problem with philosophy is that logic applied to false premises will invariably yield conclusions. The only way to go about distinguishing false premises from true is to go out and look at the world."
Yes, that's true. But we should be pragmatic. Looking at the world provides us with a basic understanding, but we can intuit other things. Abstract things. Hence why we have philosophy in the first place.
What exists is concrete reality (seemingly) and abstract thoughtforms/conceptualization (seemingly).
Just another thought.
You say: "Indeed, Thelema requires work, and the hardest work for many people is surrendering the false beliefs that they have, in many cases, spent a lifetime building up. Until they do, they will be stuck in a mental prison of their own creation."
See this:
“We must not suppose for an instant that the Book of the Law is opposed to reason. On the contrary, its own claim to authority rests upon reason, and nothing else. It disdains the arts of the orator. It makes reason the autocrat of the mind. But that very fact emphasizes that the mind should attend to its own business. It should not transgress its limits. It should be a perfect machine, an apparatus for representing the universe accurately and impartially to its master. The Self, its Will, and its Apprehension, should be utterly beyond it.”
-- The Commentary to The Book of the Law, II:28
You say: "And this brings us right back to my point in this post: we have plenty of evidence that the natural world exists and none – absolutely none – that indicates that any other world exists. Given those facts, the materialist position – the notion that the material world is the only one we’re justified in accepting – is the best one currently based on evidence."
I half-accept this. I think the materialist worldview is a provisional one. Understanding non-duality, as a concept, yields something a bit different. "Emptiness is form," if you follow the Mahayana.
I try to avoid "extremes," philosophically, while still trying to remain reasonable.
You say: "Ironically, Eshelman agrees with the other poster that Thelema requires “work.” Unfotunately, the “work” Eshelman appears to be interested in is the “work” of religiously clinging to Crowley’s instructions, believing all manner of supernatural tripe on the basis that it “works for him” and that it’s “true to him," and engaging in imagination exercises that are as effective at discovering the true will as watching TV."
You're right that it's not very useful to work from false premesis, but, than again, I think someone can be deluded and still find their purpose. There's nothing that bars a schizophrenic person from accessing their will and a state of real happiness, or "summum bonum," if you're looking at Liber Resh.
... Then again, can anything be known? Haha!
But, I do think that there's something to be said for the validity of Buddha's "two truths doctrine," however, in which one has an "as if" or suppositional approach to phenomena--basically, assuming (for the sake of practicality) that what can be observed and evidenced and reasoned out is real, but that it doesn't represent ULTIMATE (noumenal) reality. So, to be pragmatic and act as if what is (conventionally) real is real, but understand--in an epsitemological way--that uncertainty rounds all human affairs.
DeleteI'm not sure how you think what you say here differs from what I'm saying. At no point do I claim to be absolutely certain about reality, and at no point do I make claims about ULTIMATE reality.
What I'm saying in this post is that I have lots of evidence for the existence of the material world and that I have none for the existence of other worlds, so I believe the material world exists and I don't believe other worlds exist. That's not any kind of absolute declaration. Show me some evidence, and I'll change my mind.
Get this idea of ULTIMATE reality out of your head. If it's impossible for humans to know ULTIMATE reality, then it's completely and utterly irrelevant to any conversations.
Arcesilaus said, "nothing can be known, not even this." [...] Then again, can anything be known? Haha!
You're equivocating on the meaning of "know."
The word "know" has at least two meanings: the first meaning is to think something is true and be absolutely correct about it. The second meaning is to have a very strong, reasonable level of confidence that something is true.
When you say things like, "Nothing can be known!" you're using the first definition of "know," which is a useless definition, since nobody appears capable of achieving absolute certainty.
When I say that I "know" things, I'm talking about having a reasonable strong confidence, based on evidence. Under this definition, there's plenty that I know about the world. This is the definition that counts for all practical conversations.
Don't confuse yourself by playing with words to your detriment.
Looking at the world provides us with a basic understanding, but we can intuit other things. Abstract things. Hence why we have philosophy in the first place.
What exists is concrete reality (seemingly) and abstract thoughtforms/conceptualization (seemingly).
I don't know what you mean. I questioned your use of the word "abstract" on your blog, where it wasn't clear. It's a little clearer here, but I'm still unsure what you're driving at.
What's something "abstract"? Do you mean ideas, like "freedom"? I obviously agree that the idea of freedom exists.
I suppose I'm confused because it sounds as if you are offering this notion of "abstraction" as if it somehow contradicts materialism (as I've defined it). It doesn't.
I half-accept this. I think the materialist worldview is a provisional one.
Me too, as I explained in my post. Is this the half you accept?
Understanding non-duality, as a concept, yields something a bit different. "Emptiness is form," if you follow the Mahayana.
I don't know what you mean by this. It sounds like gobbledy-gook. Can you explain with more precision?
Trying to have this sort of in-depth conversation in a blog comment section is a little difficult because of the space restrictions. If you really want to continue this discussion, could you email me?