They Sold Their Soul To Rock And Roll: Aleister Crowley (Page 5 of 8)

Zejith_Themis.  That is some kind of intense statement, 'AC being involved in human sacrifice'.  I suppose that is the reason so many people come forward with such strong opinion concerning Crowley.  It is because of things like that being attributed to him.

Standing merely apart, and examining such functions of the human constitution, immediately creates a fatal duality of observer and observed, of subject and object, thus setting up a barrier of distinction. It is only by being it; it is only by becoming that one understands and comprehends; otherwise one merely talks about or speculates upon what they are studying.

That is how it might be OK to read his text rather than simply condemning it outright based solely upon incomplete or totally false insinuations.  Standing merely apart, and examining it.

Z_T I'm glad you said what u said.  Some people seem to have a distasteful 'know it all' attitude.  It is unseemly, and I'm not directing that at Nexus or khalil.  The only thing I've been getting closer to with my studies, is an increasing clarity of the level of my stupidity.  What you state below is important in that maybe Nexus is correct, because in the context "Eyes cannot behold..." is placed, perhaps it is.  But he did not include the context, he simply removed that sentence and inserted it in his message.

I was pointing out the fallacy of literalism, nothing more.

Eyes cannot behold for 1 of 2 reasons: nothing's there or they are blind; just saying they cannot behold does not specify. if you push one or the other interpretation you pretend to know the original intent. why don't you just re-write all sacred scripures for me at that point?

Zejith I was aware of the "joke" as you call it, (nice way to twist things) you obviously understand semantics but were not able to pick up on the play of mantra and blue sky and assume I took these literally.
Thank you for helping me to understand that the sky is not really blue, I must obviously be a first grader who has not yet learnt  why the sky seems blue in colour.
Is the rest of the world stupid to you?
I cannot say what makes me think "something tells me" because it is just a feeling, I am just expressing a feeling but as these are not proof of life why should I qualify it?
You really need to learn to voice your disagreements in a more subtle or friendly manner as your "bull in a china shop" approach will raise the hairs on the cats back everytime.
Have you always been like this?
Do you often read something someone wrote and then attack them by calling them names because it does not agree with your view of the world?
So far I am a yokel, idiot, and inquisitor this certainly shows your good intent.
Mabye I am being too sensitive but would I have the intelligence to be so or be able to recognise when someone is insulting me?
I am sorry that any conversation you have with me will be boring for you, I am obviously beneath you.
I do not think I would enjoy a conversation with you either because I believe it would be all one sided.
I wouldn't be able to get a word in edge ways.
I am sorry these types of things can offend you.
It shows great sensitivity to go along with your great intelligence.
Your superior attitude could be your biggest weakness.
I have two words for you, anger managment.

Take it easy dood.

Troll?  He's not a troll.  He's been here for a bit of time.  He started out under one handle name, and had to change handle names for personal reasons.  But the last time I checked, a troll is someone who wanders from forum to forum, spamming with obnoxious provocative comments, name calling and insults, someone who has no interest in genuine participation and exchange of ideas.   

Khalil has been participating here and there at NR all year, never causing any trouble.   You conversely were here awhile back, then disappeared for a long time, then popped back up - only to roam around fighting with people and putting down the forum and tossing out name after name, and derogatory insults to anybody who doesn't fall in line with your views.   So who's the "troll" now?   Not Khalil, that's for sure.  He didn't deserve the treatment he got from you, and your name calling is getting old and very obnoxious.

no, i don't. care to explain in what sense?

i never said don't speak or write, i said please realise that "truth" in any absolute sense (and as long as we're on the subject of divinity it would have to be) will never be inequivocably present in words.

my point is keep that in mind, apparently not a popular thought here. odd, because when i joined i was rather under the impression it was.

Lyra: read back over the posts. 'es using troll tactics, whatever his trip be. I haven't thrown blood libel in, yet you seem to think that comment was ok, while my underscoring the lack of substance is not.

what name caling? does he not pretend simplicity when his examples are faulted? (yokel remark) does he not avoid examining any concrete material, get "moralistic" and personal, never coming back to the points i addressed? (inquisitor remark)?

from your own definition:  "... someone who has no interest in genuine participation and exchange of ideas. "

that's where that "name calling" comes from. wanna deny the fact that "he resembles that remark"?

and what the hell does "never causing trouble" mean? that nicey facades and political correctness are more important than accuracy? to point out lies is somehow "ickiness"?

it's not about falling in with my views, as you so contemptuously put it Lyra, now you're sounding offensive at random. address the points, and there's something to talk about.

if someone lies and i point it out it's not commandeering the view. Saying that opinions should interrogate some information and not form in a vaccuum is not forcing views on others.

Notice that i don't try to direct to a particular site or page or article, but simply set forth  that the material is out there for those who don't want to spew BS without having a leg to stand on. You seem to support that, on the other hand, as long as it coincides with your view. I rather think (but could easily be wrong) that you would NOT take that kind of absurdity applied to certain other figures, but here you just say "Who cares.  It's an argument about Aleister Crowley." apparently meaning that as long as it's him, anything goes.

I fail to see how Khalil's "pleasentness" over the course of a year has a single thing to do with it. please re-read the thread, Lyra, and avoid this "ickiness" you lamented earlier. troll is as troll does, and he's using pure invalidator tactic with no substance. i have no idea what term you would choose for that, please illuminate me.

what other names are there? i called someone who gratuitously brought blood libel a jerk. I stand by that statement, as it's uber-assinine to shrug off the thread with morningsun's innuendo; and i call a jerk a jerk. don't like it? Well i don't like such accusations just 'cause i point out scandalous fiction being presented as fact.

if you expect me to be all obsequious and PC, forget it.   i shall continue to call a spade a spade. 

you can skip reading my posts, Lyra, and avoid that evil crowleyan ickiness!!  OR you could actually check out what of substance there has been in the thread.

my opinion, as of now, is that i'm eliciting a lot of negativity by attacking the tribal dogma. to suggest a shade of grey in the mythological black of AC seems to get this kind of response constantly... again, just look in the damn telescope! 

i'm not running around tossing out name after name, picking fights. I've actually done research on stuff, and when i hear crap like this thread, it's like hearing people still insist Saddam=9/11, understand? How would YOU evaluate soeone coming in and making that statement, only to ignore counterpoints, ignore evidence, and make moral judgements on you for not adhering to the headbobber chorus?

for how many posts would you continue to give the benefit of doubt?

i know it's crap, i know they think it because of misinformation. i try to remedy a bit, but when someone refuses to even examine, when there's this poddy reaction, well what can i say?   i'm not spamming with gratuitously offensive coments, I see the wide range of conspiracy lore that throws Thelema and AC in to suggest evil beyond description, and how popular such material is. But i have only so much patience, and if i see manipulative statements, avoidance of actual subject matter etc.etc. i call it out.

a naked-emporer-pointer-outer SHOULD appreciate at least THAT; however i remand you to your first posting in the thread, and the ~who cares~ statement... notice any dissonance?

i mean is there any "nicey" way to set this stuff out? got some style suggestions that don't involve taking BS lying down? i'd be glad to hear them, as defusing poddy reasoning is a core objective of mine; and as long as i piss the subject off, i'm not going to succeed.

however examine the "names" used and why i put them. yes, there is yokelism. yes, there is the inquisitor's spirit of needing no facts to make a decision. i'm quite sure i could have, at length, explained the concept without the simile; but it was such an appropriate simile that i coudn't resist.

and do notice that you too, Lyra, only adressed one line... the troll line. Not one iota given to the reasoning in the thread, just the "negativity". care to address the rest of the post you responded to? care to address the REASONS for which i called troll?

"eppur si muove.", he muttered under his breath.

[edit- that last line means "but it DOES move.", q.v. Galileo's trial.]

Khalil, go ahead and put troll on the list, but remove idiot because i've gone through again and still can't find it.

i shall hereafter refrain from making any personal definitions, realising the non-constructive nature of the practice.

However i will address your tactics even more closely now, and you may find that even more unbearable.

A:

don't tell me what i feel, it is a manipulative invalidator tactic. i remand EVERYONE to check out that article.

B:

uh... "Search Forums" by poster? and stop telling what i want and feel, dude. we already know where that tactic is at.
need i state again what kind of a tactic that is ? (hint: the T-word)

use phrases like "it appears" "it seems to me" "i feel..." and quit with the silly inuuendo.

C:

answer: to establish the proposition that the commonly held knowledge that the sun circles the earth, under examination, appears false; and that the inquisitor's attitude was to avoid examination to hold on to their belief.

get the simile yet?

D:

my points attack faulty points. your evaluation of worth fails to touch any point. notice whaen i said there was a comment not worth responding to, i highlighted which comment it was.

am i draining your energy? i assure you i'm not getting a bit of it over here... must be lost in transfer. [--oops forgot to put IRONY ALERT]

D:

Twist words? Dress it up? Play games?  Sir, you have not to date touched any of the points in the thread, i beg you quote the word twisting, game playing and dressing up you've uncoverd in your research.

Also, you read the thread, you research the subject, something you continue to refuse to do!

And of course, you are entitled to your opinion on anyone, as am i.

i continue to see zero content in your last post, and now 100% offense without quotes to justify the evaluation, or a minimum consideration of the subject matter that WAS at hand.

i submit that the energy drain comes from these sort of entropic tactics. 

1: dismissal without consideration ("not worthy of intellectual retort")

2: refusal to address points (you're continually silent on the actual subject, going ad-hominem and never to the actual grist)

3: insults, you just dropped a load of them, having been pushed out of your nice safe innuendo phase (v.s.)

4: innuendo and characterization without a single point adressed "twisting, games, etc."

it's nice that you admit to ego, and i admit that knowing that others are full of crap on a subject i might have the missing bits on gets me on a drive to bring them.

i will also admit that the frustration i feel when facing non-trolls who just happen to be trolling today is at least 70% ego itself. (i.e. "i'm being so FARKING clear, he must be pretending to not see it ON PURPOSE!" .....when in fact there may just be some cognitive barrier to ovecome)

however i stand by my statements in here and again invite you to please address at least some point pertinent to the discussion... that would help dissuade me from my negative opinion.

"... someone who has no interest in genuine participation and exchange of ideas. "

i said troll. OK, I Apologise; but if i am wrong, then prove me wrong, dammit!

you just keep reinforcing the idea!

stop it so we can have a real discussion!

Lyra, have you read his last post? ah yes you did because you support the ass statement. hmmm.

I accept your hit and run. I like those "final contribution 'cause you aren't worth it" escapes. quite convenient.

But no matter, even if you don't want to discuss this honestly i will still address your points:

Differing definitions of troll:

reread his posts in this thread, and your own definition. past behaviour and personal liking don't enter into it, he did here what he did here. maybe tomorrow he will act completely different... i'm writing on this thread, not on his life. 'nuff said.

Blood libel irrelevant because you don't care about this thread:

non-sequitur. 'nuff said.

name calling waffling:

ya got me here. as i said above, the right way was to parse the tactics, not define the poster. i give contrition for this. my bad.

I however submit to you that Khalil's postings on this thread reflect "... resort[ing] to name calling and derogatory personal insults in lieu of neutral debate? "; [#70,#65]
as i am still waiting to discuss the subject matter, and I am still fending off paramoralisms and PC lunacy.

resembling the remarks:

again confront contents (ENTIRE contents, Lyra! cherries are out of season) of the last 3 postings of each. 'nuff said.

"asking information": 

interrogate: to question formally and systematically.  bad choice of words, perhaps, but i really think it commuicates the sense of it. the point was that passing judgement with no information is prejudice; forming an opinion with nothing, and not formally and systematically questioning any reperable facts. i have already addressed elsewhere the fundamental problem of this mentality, whether you give a crap about occult studies or not, the mechanism applies everywhere.

the meaning was be thorough.

also, to comandeer is to take control, command. you were specifically accusing me of doing this. i did not think it was that hard to grasp, sorry.

language barriers?

yes a grandiose language barrier: only seeing emotional words and filtering out all the information. Fnord.

But I can see how it comes across that I'm like....:

not comes across!! not can be inferred, not might be misunderstood. it's what you said!

now after your clarification, i must say i'm in accord... fighting on emotional terms is not debate. 100% with you on this. however my contention was not that the figure of AC be all that important. it's not. the fact that disinfo leaves people with false fears and aversions, strings to be pulled whenever. re-read my head-bobber comment. stop filtering out all the content i've presented to cherry-pick "ickiness". not honest.

notice my CONTINUAL appeals to address points, parse info and address topic. you make it sound like my opening post up to here has been nothing but ad-hominem attacks. i beg you re-read.

Purposeful inflammatory comments designed solely to provoke discord and distraction and....trouble. :

re-read Khalil's posts on this thread. I have no idea what he's been doing all year, i've only met him in this situation, and the hat fits. i've not heard yet form him a question of "why and how do you hold your opinion, friend ass?" though i've desperately tried to get it across. no, i just get called an ass 'cause i can't dance the head-bob. that saddens me.

agree to disagree:

why, when we have a slew of posts showing the direction? why except to leave a parting blow and refuse to look in the 'scope?

You're coming across as being a bit mentally off, like maybe you have a lot of personal problems and are overreacting here as a result, taking things out on the wrong target, getting upset over what really isn't worth being upset over. :

mentally off? quotes, luv... that's a very nasty bit to throw in as a goodbye to the thread. when someone responds to actual subject matter i'm all for discussing it. when someone is using logical fallacies and manipulative language i point it out clearly.

i suppose, that by societal standards deviation from the tribal myth and the common mores is to be considered insanity... but i rather thought we were avoiding poddishness here.

that may be "windbagging" for you, it's logic to me. 

now resorting to insinuating mental instblility, continually telling me what i feel and think... all of this avoids any discussion on the subject and is at best soft-core ad hominem abuse.

and both K and L, stop attempting to anger me then telling me i'm angry.. i'm not going to forget your points or fail to address them, and it just looks bad.

i've been irritated yes, but i've adressed the irritating factors point by point.  i've gotten no such courtesy in return, and have indeed been slandered (actually i think it's libel in here, Lyra) but that's not even my point!

it's not about "he called me stoopid!!" "waaaahhh!"

it's about the tactics used to derail discussion, those annoy me. it's the effect i'm worried about, not the words... it's not 2 kids slinging 'yo mamas' at each other, it's a forum. Antaeus was trying to glean some info from it. how much do you think he got from the last posts? Zip is my estimate.

in fact i bet all he got from the entire thread is that there are those wilfully ignorant and willing to spread disinfo without a second thought, and forcefully opinionated about it at that... and that there are idiots like me who actually waste time trying to have some reasoning with them, and get foolishly worked up at that.

not much to show for his time... you are sure right on that.

but i submit that it is neither the subject nor the rebuttal of falsehoods making it "icky"; it's those who just lob random statements out there and get pissy defending the indefensible. if the discussion had been at all honest up to now, we'd be quite somewhere else.

so i formally take back the troll accusation, but submit that there's a lack of honesty, no will whatsoever to discuss the topic, and continual ad hominem. that doesn't make him anything, it's just a description of the current flow of communication coming from him. i have likened this to the attitude of Galileo's prosecution, rather descriptive, but taken as insult. my bad on that, too, but it sure does SEEM like y'all would cut your leg off rather than having a peek.

actually more likely my leg..

Okies?

[edit - forgot this gem: "Also consider........what if morningsun76 knows something about Aleister Crowley that you don't?" -- how about the more obvious vice-versa, Lyra? will you EVER consider that? or how about we start to talk some turkey here and stop with the suppositions, cmpfire stories, innuendos and what ifs?   if you parsed the content of the thread you'd find that was my original scope here.  it got derailed... and i'm sure not getting anything out of that!]