tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7256090797190349666.post1892018958020557498..comments2023-09-09T06:37:53.204-07:00Comments on Thelema and Skepticism: That’s Me in the Corner….Loshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03552150840148273277noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7256090797190349666.post-50749999165440014662017-08-04T23:45:00.391-07:002017-08-04T23:45:00.391-07:00How could someone attain a relatively high rank in...How could someone attain a relatively high rank in such an organization and yet have such a misunderstanding of Thelema?" HahahDomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04700890265985371850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7256090797190349666.post-22259257067024468702015-08-08T21:38:02.086-07:002015-08-08T21:38:02.086-07:00this also assumes that evidence is the means to kn...<i>this also assumes that evidence is the means to knowledge.</i><br /><br />I wouldn't really call that an assumption. Evidence-based inquiry is demonstrably the most consistently reliable method of evaluating fact claims.<br /><br /><i>I'd say [evidence is] the best means to objective knowledge (or at least the most practical), and that perspective and intuition also help us form views and approximations.</i><br /><br />First, I'm not sure what the qualifier "objective" adds to your point. Knowledge is just knowledge. There is only one consistently reliable method of acquiring it: applying reason to evidence.<br /><br />Second, perspective and intuition aren't separate methods of gaining knowledge, distinct from evidence-based inquiry. Perspective -- assuming that you mean what I think you probably mean by it -- is just the ability to look at situations from multiple points of view, which can help a person reason <i>about</i> evidence, but isn't a separate method. Intuition is a word we use to designate a host of "gut feelings" we have. I've argued that "intuition" is actually just reason operating on evidence at lightning speed in the "background" of conscious thought. You can read more about my opinion here: http://thelema-and-skepticism.blogspot.com/2013/11/intuition.html<br /><br />Thanks for your response.<br />Loshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03552150840148273277noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7256090797190349666.post-47317624597839995102015-08-08T16:36:51.593-07:002015-08-08T16:36:51.593-07:00Of course, this also assumes that evidence is the ...Of course, this also assumes that evidence is the means to knowledge. To clarify, I'd say it's the best means to objective knowledge (or at least the most practical), and that perspective and intuition also help us form views and approximations.<br /><br />But that's all epistemology anyway.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12826058905608653650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7256090797190349666.post-35542550189535898822015-08-08T16:35:39.602-07:002015-08-08T16:35:39.602-07:00*can't*can'tAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12826058905608653650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7256090797190349666.post-11852330083720926942015-08-08T16:35:08.865-07:002015-08-08T16:35:08.865-07:00It's my opinion that some religions can be &qu...It's my opinion that some religions can be "secularized" in the sense that their superstitions can be reduced to symbolism and aspects of the psyche. Hence we have the Secular Buddhist movement, religious naturalists, those who are "spiritual but not religious," and some more fringe ideas like mystical positivism or rational or secular mysticism. (Not that people can hold non-evidence-based beliefs otherwise.)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12826058905608653650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7256090797190349666.post-53113708238528509272012-05-05T22:34:29.151-07:002012-05-05T22:34:29.151-07:00You might be interested in this post:
http://ac20...You might be interested in this post:<br /><br />http://ac2012.com/2012/03/31/science-and-religion/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7256090797190349666.post-66368248464574346542012-01-07T11:48:48.177-08:002012-01-07T11:48:48.177-08:00You write: "A quick note: transversegirl’s &q...You write: "A quick note: transversegirl’s "On True Will & the Self" link is broken."<br /><br />Thanks. I fixed it. Feel free to point out any other technical glitches you come across.<br /><br />You write: "I think it's a fool's errand to try and make the term "Thelema" mean what we want it to mean - the coherent philosophy, instead of the mishmash of incoherent supernatural boo-boo most "Thelemites" think it means."<br /><br />Well, just to be clear, I'm not on some kind of quest to get everyone to use terms as I do. But I am in the business of writing about things that I find interesting, and in the process of doing so, I find it necessary to define my terms and explain why other definitions are less useful and -- from a certain perspective -- harmful to the "Thelemic community," insofar as there is one.<br /><br />One might compare it to defining the term "atheism." I use it to mean "lack of belief in gods," while others (usually believers) use it to mean "belief (or certainty) that no gods exist." I always go out of my way to clarify how I use terminology and to explain why I think my usage of terms is more accurate and better (in the particular context in which I'm speaking). But I'm not necessarily on some quest to get everyone to use language the way that I do.<br /><br />You write: "How about we just call our stuff "skeptical Thelema", and leave the supernaturalists with their own sandbox.<br /><br />(I also thought about naming it "Hesselian Thelema", but I think that would be a mean thing to do to Erwin. ;-) )"<br /><br />The reason I don't want to do that is that I don't think it's really accurate or useful. My position is that what I'm explicating is Thelema.<br /><br />My argument that Crowley's Thelema is best practiced by adopting skepticism -- and thereby chucking out a lot of beliefs on other subjects that Crowley at least claimed to hold -- doesn't make what I'm talking about any less Thelema. As I've noted before, it's hardly unprecedented in the world of ideas that a thinker comes up with an idea that other people refine and develop later on.<br /><br />I also don't think "Hesslerian Thelema" is a good term either because Erwin -- although he was the first really outspoken and articulate skeptic in Thelema -- is himself talking about Thelema in terms that Crowley did. Part of what I liked about Erwin's essays when I first came across them is that they expressed pretty much what I had concluded about Thelema from an independent study of Crowley's writings and a study of reality. The only difference was that Erwin's writing was so much more specific and lucid on the subject than my own thoughts on it were (probably because he had been thinking about Thelema for somewhere around 20 years before I had even heard of it).<br /><br />So that's the long and short of it. If others want to call what we're doing "skeptical Thelema," then that's their business, but I'm going to stick with "Thelema."Loshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03552150840148273277noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7256090797190349666.post-4627383486969269162012-01-07T02:23:19.729-08:002012-01-07T02:23:19.729-08:00A quick note: transversegirl’s "On True Will ...A quick note: transversegirl’s "On True Will & the Self" link is broken.<br /><br /><br />Otherwise, an excellent article. Though I disagree on one thing:<br /><br />I think it's a fool's errand to try and make the term "Thelema" mean what we want it to mean - the coherent philosophy, instead of the mishmash of incoherent supernatural boo-boo most "Thelemites" think it means.<br /><br /><br />How about we just call our stuff "skeptical Thelema", and leave the supernaturalists with their own sandbox.<br /><br />(I also thought about naming it "Hesselian Thelema", but I think that would be a mean thing to do to Erwin. ;-) )HGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11422572178687093354noreply@blogger.com