Don’t do it, kids
Over on Jim Eshelman’s Temple of Thelema forums, there’s a thread called True Will and physical obstacles. The original poster asked:
A man, who is black receives repeated racial discrimination and abuse which affects his life so badly that he feels suicidal. He makes every effort to live his True Will and the path that involves etc. but he finds that the racism means he can’t even get through most days with peace in his own home and his ambitions (which because he is a ware of his True Will ARE in accordance with his True Will) are thwarted at every attempt…How do you suggest they [the original poster provided two other similar examples – EH] have caused the obstacles that they would have to overcome, not only to discover their True Will but to also follow that True Will? And how could they have avoided those obstacles?
to which Eshelman made the following astonishing reply:
Roll it back… Why did that individual incarnate as a black man in a time and place where this is the case? Until that questioln is answsered, we can’t really know what his True Will is. Under the conditions you mentioned, his True Will must include the component of the struggles that he dropped himself right into the middle of.
The original poster, understandably, asked for clarification:
So, you’re saying any problems people have, no matter how horrendous, they ‘dropped themselves into’?
You’re saying that racism is a collaboration between the black person (or other race) and that the black person (or other race) is actually permitting the racism. That idea would also suggest that people wanted to go into concentration camps – that they collaborated with the Nazis. And that paedophiles victims are collaborating with their abusers – how do you suggest a child ‘permits’ or ‘collaborates’ with that?
which received the following even more startling reply from Eshelman:
I am saying that, yes, we pick the essential elements of our lives in advance and enter into them as an act of choice…I am saying that, given the context of racism, choosing an incarnation that has you step into a suppressive situation as one of those guaranteed to be suppressed is a choice.
Now, let’s get an obvious objection out of the way first. Unlike some others, the present author doesn’t get “offended” or “outraged” at the mere suggestion that racism, for instance, is anything other than a self-evident outrage against the universe. While other people may have moral objections, we don’t. The principle objection here is that this is a stupid thing to say. An unbelievably, boneheadedly, stupid thing to say.
The primary culprit appears to be Eshelman’s colossal misunderstanding of will:
their True Wills cannot (by nature of how the universe is compose) conflict with yours. Not at all. Not in the slightest. Their wants can conflict. Their choices can conflict. But not True Will.
The Ethics of Thelema has already deftly dealt with this particular misunderstanding, so we need only point out here that this is the kind of stark, raving, drooling insanity you’re going to come out with if you doggedly stick to a self-evidently stupid idea and incorrectly insist that that’s how the universe must work without actually bothering to check.
Talking of which, here’s the real kicker from Eshelman, the one that makes it all worthwhile:
I’m not arguing for anything. I’m answering your question by explaining the nature of reality. I don’t care if you’re convinced. I’m instructing you in how the universe works
We refer the reader back to A belief in experience, Evidence of the supernatural?, Scientifically testing the supernatural and Go-go-Godel! for more. The gall of this clown in even mentioning the word “reality” is almost awe-inspiring. Almost.
So you see? We’re really not making this stuff up, kids. If you go about believing in reincarnation, secret chiefs, goblins and all the rest of it, this is going to happen to you one day. You don’t want to turn out like that idiot. Don’t do it. Just say no.
9 Comments on “Don’t do it, kids”
People often say things that can sound incredibly stupid if you don’t ask for clarification. Thelemites seem to do this a lot. Maybe it’s just an adoption of Crowley’s bizarre sense of humour.
If you look further down in that thread, I asked Jim the same question, but with a different approach, and a more personal example.The resulting discussion on Yesod as the adaptive aspect of the Tree I believe serves to clarify much of Jim’s confusing statements implying the “choice” of the “self” in “collaborating” with restrictive situations.
It would be interesting if you included some of this discussion in your post. But then, that might mean sacrificing a bit of your rabid tone.
I thought I was going to some pains to be clear about the nature of my objection, but for some reason you do not appear to have successfully grasped it, Bryan.
Eshelman is saying that:
1. People are reincarnated (and he has repeatedly said be believes this); and that
2. People choose the details of the lives into which they are reincarnated.
Either of these statements, alone or together, is unbelievably, boneheadedly stupid. You may have been later talking about “totally forgiv[ing] [your]self for any mistakes or flaws or whatever that have brought [you] here”, such mistakes presumably being in this life, but he sure wasn’t in those passages I quoted. The purpose of this post is not to critique anything and everything that might have been said in that thread, but to critique the particular parts of it that I extracted. If you want to claim that “we pick the essential elements of our lives in advance” of being alive means something other than what it actually does, then you’re going to have a very hard time doing that, since he confirmed it twice in different words and then went on to claim he was giving “instruction” in “how the universe works” by spouting such drivel. No amount of talking about something completely different later in the thread is going to change this.
So, you have a choice. Eshelman is either:
1. foolishly saying something unbelievably, boneheadedly stupid which he believes; or
2. not meaning what he says, and therefore being a pathological liar, but still saying something unbelievably, boneheadedly stupid.
Take your pick, but there’s nothing “confusing” about that exchange. Whether he’s telling enormous lies, or whether he’s just a deluded idiot, the statements themselves remain unbelievably, boneheadedly stupid, which is exactly what I said in this post.
I’m not certain on what basis you’re reacting to Jim’s beliefs, Erwin. Do you feel reincarnation is just playing with the fairies and pink unicorns or do you sensibly remain agnostic on this in the spirit of the classical Pyrrhonian skepticism?
It doesn’t look like you’re arguing from the latter position. Jim’s belief in reincarnation may look silly to the aetheist but to the pyrronic skeptic the aetheists position also looked equally ill advised, boneheaded and… stupid. :P
I’m not certain on what basis you’re reacting to Jim’s beliefs, Erwin. Do you feel reincarnation is just playing with the fairies and pink unicorns or do you sensibly remain agnostic on this in the spirit of the classical Pyrrhonian skepticism?
Amazing. Predictable, but amazing.
I provided no less then four links in the entry in question where you can go and find out exactly what my position is, but you clearly didn’t bother to do so. On the exact subject of reincarnation and agnosticism in particular, there’s also The delusion of selective “agnosticism” which spells out exactly what my position is, and anyone who has read that entry will know exactly what my position on this subject is. “Anyone” that is, apparently, except for you, since despite the fact that you commented on that very same entry three times you still feel the need to ask this question. You absolute gibbering imbecile.
Your ad hominem is strong, however it doesn’t make for a good argument. Do keep in mind that your interpretations of Thelemic ideas, are exactly that- your interpretations. This does not entitle you to be insulting to other people purely on the basis of them having a different world view. What kind of maturity do you believe it conveys?
Your ad hominem is strong, however it doesn’t make for a good argument.
Correct. It’s my arguments that make for a good argument. Not being able to be bothered to read what’s right before their eyes appears to be a hallmark of the occultist.
Do keep in mind that your interpretations of Thelemic ideas, are exactly that- your interpretations.
Yes, they are my correct interpretations. Backed up by, you know, evidence and stuff. Hard to come to terms with, I know, but keep trying.
This does not entitle you to be insulting to other people purely on the basis of them having a different world view.
No, it doesn’t. It’s the fact that they have an utterly, boneheadedly stupid world view that entitles me to be insulting to them.
What kind of maturity do you believe it conveys?
People – or their agents – who believe in goblins, secret chiefs, and magic spells really shouldn’t be trying to lecture others on “maturity”.
Yes, they are my correct interpretations. Backed up by, you know, evidence and stuff.
Your interpretations are backed by evidence?
I have read your posts where you detail you beliefs, and support them with quotes from AC’s books, but this isn’t evidence, nor does it make your world view correct, nor does it make your interpretation any better than anyone else’s.
Evidence relates to the empirical method. Your interpretations of a philosophy are not well empirical, therefore have zero evidence going for them.
Personally (To comment on the end of your reply) I believe the various gods/demons/magical workings are anthropomorphized psychological processes. To remove them from Thelema would remove the very core of what makes Thelema different from the Eudaimonian philosophy.
I have a different interpretation of Thelema to you, yet neither your nor mine have a single shred of evidence going for them. Neither does the supernatural of course, the Randi prize is still waiting, but still this doesn’t make your interpretations of Thelema correct, multiple opposing views can arise even from the scientific paradigm. What I wanted to make clear in the end is an interpretation is no more than an opinion. Insulting other people and repeating that you are right, don’t make it true.
Your interpretations are backed by evidence?
Yes. If you didn’t see it in the posts I generously linked for you, then you’re either blind, illiterate, stupid, lying, or some combination of the four.
I have read your posts where you detail you beliefs, and support them with quotes from AC’s books
Read the ones where I support my arguments with other evidence, then.
And “quotes from AC’s books” is evidence when what you’re talking about is Thelemic doctrine, since he, you know, invented it and stuff.
What I wanted to make clear in the end is an interpretation is no more than an opinion.
And you are absolutely, fantastically, unequivocally wrong. All interpretations are not equal.
For instance, let’s take your master’s “interpretation” above. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that we really do get reincarnated, and we really do get to “pick the essential elements of our lives in advance and enter into them as an act of choice.”
It would follow, therefore, that for every victim of sexual or racial abuse sitting up in limbo or wherever they go to choose the details of their upcoming lives, then there is another individual sitting around rubbing their hands with glee thinking to themselves, “phoar, I can’t wait for my next incarnation, I get to go down to earth and abuse me some little kids, and lynch me some niggers! Awesome!” Do you really think this jives with the idea of multiple incarnations as some kind of progressive spiritual perfection? Do you people seriously think this is “how the universe works”?
Secondly, what happens if the number of prospective abuse victims and the number of prospective abusers do not coincide, as they almost certainly will not? Do you think you’re going to get discarnate paedophiles roaming the heavens begging people to incarnate as a victim next time so they can get their jollies? “Phoar, it’s alright luv, it’ll be spiritually healing for you, don’t worry petal!” Or discarnate five year olds wandering around limbo trying to cajole poor unsuspecting individuals into abusing them in the next life? “Oh, I know you’ll be destroying your own karma, but you’d be doing me such a favour, and I am very cute, aren’t I?” This “interpretation” relies on all the “essential elements of our lives” being matched uniquely and individually with the “essential elements” of another individual’s life, at any given point in time. If this were true, then there would only be one possible set of elements you could pick that would match the choices of everyone else, or it wouldn’t be physically possible to incarnate into those choices without compelling someone else to collaborate, and if there is only one possible set of elements you could pick then that completely contradicts the idea that either you have any “choice” in the matter whatsoever. What we have here, then, is a stupid interpretation that doesn’t even internally make sense, let alone match up with any actual facts.
For fuck’s sake, why don’t you clowns start thinking things through before you begin spouting them? If you seriously think that “an interpretation is no more than an opinion” and that all opinions are equal, then you, my friend, have one major screw loose.
Joseph is one of the people I look up to in the OTO a deedcatid magician, he is an excellent spokesperson for our Order and does much promulgate the Law of Thelema; to explain its importance, its impact, and the promise it holds for our country and the world. An agile mind and remarkable energy, creativity and enthusiasm. I am proud to be associated with him and Horizon Lodge.