Happy Bloomsday 2012

It would have diverted, if ever seen, the shuddersome
spectacle of this semidemented zany amid the inspissated grime
of his glaucous den making believe to read his usylessly unread-
able Blue Book of Eccles, édition de ténèbres, (even yet sighs the
Most Different, Dr. Poindejenk, authorised bowdler and censor,
it can't be repeated!) turning over three sheets at a wind, telling
himself delightedly, no espellor mor so, that every splurge on the
vellum he blundered over was an aisling vision more gorgeous
than the one before t.i.t.s. --Finnegans Wake Link of the day: Ulysses for Dummies Enjoy!

That’s What He Said II: Distorting Influences of the Mind

The only way to discover the True Will is to observe it free from the distorting influences of the mind.

Some people object to such an absolute statement, protesting that there might be more than one “valid” way of discovering the True Will: yet none of these objectors are capable of explaining how some other method actually works. Many and varied are the egalitarian dimwits who think that discovering the True Will is simply a process of performing rote rituals conceived by Victorian-era freemasons or by medieval magicians. Take, for example, a recent post on the Temple of Thelema Forums, in which a newcomer asks, referring to the Abramelin operation and to the process of "Knoweldge and Conversation," a metaphor Crowley uses for discovering the True Will:

Has anyone developed a workable method to achieve K&C that doesn't involve a month of secluded free time?

The very notion that knowledge of one’s own nature is only available to people who perform an elaborate and complicated regimen of prayers is downright ridiculous: yet people new to Thelema consistently think that “discovering the True Will” is a matter of performing rituals. Their misunderstanding is due both to the individuals themselves failing to read and comprehend Crowley and to the sorry nature of Thelemic teachers in these matters. [Edit: To his credit, Jim Eshelman does tell the poster that there are other methods of attaining, but they all seem to revolve around a different regimen of prayers, organized differently so as to allow normal activity during the day]

Indeed, the only way to discover the True Will is to observe it free from the distorting influences of the mind. This fact necessitates that discovery of the True Will requires a thorough understanding of those distorting influences. As Erwin Hessle wisely says in his important Fundamentals of Thelemic Practice,

The mind must, in short, be trained to become aware of the particular ways in which it colours, influences and distorts perception. It is not sufficient to merely obtain a general knowledge of the ways in which the mind may do this; it must become able to identify the specific ways in which it does this itself, and ultimately able to detect when it is doing this in real time.

“Magick,” rituals, meditation, divination, and all the rest are – at best – actions that can aid an individual in preparing for the work of observing the distorting influences of the mind and observing the self free from them. [Note: this does not mean that the distorting influences go away, merely that the aspirant learns to see through them] Practices such as these train the mind in paying attention, in thinking about situations more broadly and free of mental preference so that it is the preferences of the True Self – in conjunction with an accurate perception of the environment – that dictate action.

This is all well and good, but what did Crowley have to say on these subjects? Is it the case that the “Thelema” explained above is actually some kind of materialist philosophy that has hijacked the word “Thelema”? Or is it that the method outlined above arises from a fair reading of Crowley’s words?

I think we all know the answer to this question. Crowley wrote frequently about the necessity of perceiving the True Will free from the distorting influence of the mind, and it is the purpose of this blog post to examine some of the more prominent quotes from Crowley on the subject.

Unlike some Thelemic commentators who simply post a wall of Crowley quotes without explanation (or very little explanation) – and unlike some dolts who think that serious discussion of Crowley should reduced to lists of quotations so that seekers can “find their own answers” – readers will observe that this post carefully examines and closely reads these quotations, placing them in the framework outlined above, outlined also in the post Skeptical of the True Will, and used to explicate the practices detailed in Erwin’s Fundamentals of Thelemic Practice.

Read on for very much more.

Success is your...wait a second, how do you know it's a success?

My somewhat lengthy discussion with occult author Donald Michael Kraig over on his blog (read it in the comments section of this post) seems to have come to an end. Looking back over it, I see a number of curious strategies on Kraig’s part that deserve some analysis and examination here.

Much, much more after the cut.

Success is your...*poof!* Part II: Unpublished Post

Over at occult author Donald Michael Kraig's blog, our long discussion seems to be drawing to a close (see link here). Kraig decided not to publish my latest comment on his post, so I am publishing it here below, unedited

If other comments appear on Kraig's blog that merit a response, I will continue to post there -- assuming that Kraig allows my comments to be published. Otherwise, I can continue the discussion here with any interested parties.

Full commentary on the discussion will likely be posted up sometime next weekend, so keep checking this space.

My rejected post appears below:

DMK writes: “My friend, do you not see that this critique is splitting you open: why do spells when they’re only pretend? How can you both believe and not believe in magic? Why are you wasting your time doing only “pretend” things.”

You revealed earlier that you have trouble distinguishing between the concepts of actions done in private and claims made in public. Now you reveal that you have difficulty distinguishing between the act of performing rituals for a purely psychological effect and the act of performing rituals with the intention of causing supposed external “changes” in reality. Your confusion is consistent with someone who cannot explain how to distinguish between rituals that cause effects and rituals that just seem to cause effects.

Hopefully, I won’t have to explain the infamous ass/elbow distinction to you next.

DMK writes: “you haven’t done the work […] Los, where are you? Crowley has beginning exercises that were filled with developing self-knowledge. Have you been through them?”

As ever, when occultists can’t address my arguments, they try to turn the conversation to distractionary speculation about me. If you’re really curious about my experience with Thelema and magick, you can ask me on my blog. If you’re not curious enough to ask me there, then I’ll assume you don’t really want an answer. Either way, stick to the topic here: your ability – or lack thereof – to demonstrate that your claims are true.

Vinncent writes: “And, as to the majority of LOS’s points, you imply that there have not been any positive experiments under laboratory conditions exploring the interaction of consciousness remotely interacting with reality. Most of it is still considered “fringe science”, despite sound scientific methods and results being published in respected peer-reviewed journals.”

Well, my focus on this thread has been entirely on claims made by Donald. The research you bring up, even if its claims are all true – which, I’m sure you would agree, is at the very least debatable – doesn’t enable us to evaluate the specific claims we’re talking about here.

Donald’s been claiming that people can do a ritual that will make it more likely that they will come up with a certain amount of money in a certain time frame. That’s a testable claim, one that makes predictions about reality that can be measured and verified. A specific claim like that can’t be confirmed by general research into the possibility of consciousness remotely interacting with reality.

Success is your...*poof!*

Readers interested in Los' recent online exploits may want to check out a discussion unfolding at Donald Michael Kraig's blog in the comments section on a post called "How Magick Works" (link here).

The discussion began when I pointed out to Kraig that before one can speculate about *how* magick works, one has to demonstrate (to oneself, if to no one else) *that* magick works to begin with. Naturally, this involves taking steps to make sure that one is not fooling oneself, to distinguish carefully between rituals that work and rituals that just seem to work (but actually don't).

Notice how I've consistently been asking Kraig for his method of distinguishing (to him) rituals that "work" from rituals that just seem to work. Just as consistently, he has avoided answering the question. It's all well and good to say that "Success is your proof," but as soon as the conversation turns to demonstrating that these magical rituals are a success at all, it's as if -- *poof!* -- the answer just disappears into thin air, never to be heard.

Readers are encouraged to read this post and this post for a more detailed exploration of my point of view.

If any readers wish to jump into the fray at DMK's blog, I would request that you keep your comments "respectful" -- to use what is apparently Kraig's favorite word. Those who wish to observe from the sidelines are welcome to do so as long as the discussion continues (though it may well be wrapping up).

My thoughts on the discussion -- and the delightfully high number of "believer scripts" employed by Kraig -- will likely be the subject of a post next week sometime. And yes, I'm saving all of the comments just in case they mysteriously...poof...disappear.

Third Day of the Writing of the Book of the Law

"How to Pull a Good Horus-coup even when the Oldsire is Dead to the World"

"'tis no timbertar she'll have then in her armsbrace to doll the dallydandle, our fiery quean upon the night of the things of the night of the making to stand up the double tet of the oversear of the seize who cometh from the mighty deep and on the night of making Horuse to criumph over his enemy"

"Conk a dook he'll do. Svap."

--Finnegans Wake

Second Day of the Writing of the Book of the Law

"Ainsoph, this upright one, with that noughty besighed him zeroine. To see in his horrorscup he is mehrkurios than saltz of sulphur. Terror of the noonstruck by day, cryptogam of each nightly bridable. But, to speak broken heaventalk, is he? Who is he? Whose is he? Why is he? Howmuch is he? Which is he? When is he? Where is he? How is he? And what the decans is there about him anyway, the decemt man? Easy, calm your haste!"

"Creator he has created for his creatured ones a creation. White monothoid? Red theatrocrat? And all the pinkprophets cohalething? [...] he is ee and no counter he who will be ultimately respunchable for the hubbub caused in Edenborough."

--Finnegans Wake