Do What Thou Wilt

[Nungali]

17 hours ago, Mskied said:

You really don't know me, either, as my posts are filled with me questioning my beliefs.

 

In fact, that is all I am actually advising people to do by giving them the tools to do this, something you don't bother helping with, I notice.

 

Dude !  Did you just say Earl Grey  doesnt bother to help people by trying to get them to question their beliefs .

 

 

 

 

  Classic !

[Integrated]

@Mskied

I see the usual suspects are up to their usual business.

It has a quality of deja vu now...

 

I like many of the arguments you make, makes a lot of sense actually.

 

Quote

The unfit can rule too, if their numbers and methods are Good enough to convince the mighty to lay down their arms.

 

But I'm going to give you a little challenge, isn't this just fitness on another level?

If one is unfit one doesn't make it, if one makes it one is fit.

Meaning that fitness has more to do with the environment than anything else.

 

This environment is particularly testing, as many here is basically doing their best to grind you down.

Are they monsters? In a way...

I liked the point you made about art, people who try to set standards on others self expression of art,

are really quite oppressive people; it wouldn't be wrong to term it predatory.

 

[Nungali]

17 hours ago, Mskied said:

Yes you have offered critiques and I am having my own discussion about a variety of ideas, not just Crowley or Thelema.  My conversation is larger than this.  What you people are missing is that I am considering Thelema and Do What Thou Wilt separately, as Crowley himself is not "just Thelema". 

 

 

MIssing it ? ! ?   Dude !  I pointed that out to you when you first started up with all this on this site ages ago !

 

But then again You have been refusing to acknowledge , not only what I wrote but the source material I linked to and supplied to back up what I said .  I have even offered it to everyone else an a few cases specifically directed people towards it .

 

The concept of 'True Will' I linked to  Khvanah of Zoroastrianism (and linked to stuff on that ) . I even suggested AC probably got it via Golden Dawn and their study of 'Chaldean Magic' .  

 

Other sources and influences aside from Crowley :    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thelema#Historical_precedents

 

Of which even the most basic researcher knows about .

 

 

 

 

17 hours ago, Mskied said:

 

 

Crowley is a Hierophant that documented a variety of tools to contemplate with, and commented on HIS interpretation of them, and I am not so much commenting on HIS interpretation of them as MY OWN, which you people seem to take issue with, which to me, reveals the limitation of your "wisdom". 

 

But in doing that you cited him and his precepts . If the above was really your intent ,   then you set up your  arguments in the wrong way .

 

 

17 hours ago, Mskied said:

 

 

All Wisdom is viable in the right light, but I wouldn't expect you to honor that, being that you take your own views "too seriously".  I am mostly addressing this Law, which does not belong to Thelemites any more or less than anyone else, it is the use of this Law that Crowley uses to support his "religion", which, essentially, is the liberty to love who and how you want, to work when and how you want, and to relax as you want-

 

Errrmmmm ... you just did it again !    You  said what essentially Crowley was on about . If that is wrong, people will dispute with that .

 

" Crowley uses to support his "religion", which, essentially, is the liberty to love who and how you want, to work when and how you want, and to relax as you want-"  That is YOUR interpretation of what Crowey means , it isnt Crowleys interpretation of what he means nor is it your interpretation of what YOU mean  ... its you interpreting Crowley .

 

Are you getting it yet ?  You could have presented all this as your own musings, but you didnt, you tried to bring all this other stuff into it, interpreting and telling people what  Crowley meant by certain things , when we have his own explanations about what he meant.

 

17 hours ago, Mskied said:

 

 

and another thing, the major dispute that I recall was when I said Crowley promotes that YOU KILL FOR THIS RIGHT, and I easily quoted the passage of his holy text declaring just this (he also mentions it elsewhere) and you Nungali STILL refuses to read the plain English that it is written in,

 

Rubbish !   I even commented that it was valid and made a comment like ;   well, if you dont agree with this (Man's right to  fight with and kill oppressors ), then just line up for the gas chamber next time a Hitler appears .

 

I am sooo familar with that document its laughable that you now claim I refuse to read it .

 

Dude !  I SIGNED IT !

 

Idiot !

 

 

 

 

 

17 hours ago, Mskied said:

 

 

 

and STILL continues to be a pest on my threads just to grind his damn axe, which he picked up when I simply responded my own interpretation of the septagram.

 

      You never did that !  You couldnt even show an interpretation ... some rubbish about a fairy star !  Then when I started to show I knew something about it you pulled this ;

 

" Well, you either know or you dont know ." and have refused to enter into discussion about it ever since !

 

 

17 hours ago, Mskied said:

 

 

 

  He took issue with my use of calling it the faery star, which I later amended, and he STILL wont let it go.  Hes being a real prick, probably out of jealousy more than anything, because the ACTUAL TRUTH of this star is exactly as I said it was!

 

 

You mean this ;

 

 

 

 

17 hours ago, Mskied said:

 

 

  You people are being a nuisance for no reason, you are failing to accept my apologies for referencing material I am uncertain of, you wont let up on me correctly quoting and backing my statements with the literature- you are, in effect, taking issue with me just to be assholes, and you COMPLETELY IGNORE any of my work here, all you want to do is criticize and belittle, and pretend that YOU KNOW ME, and then accuse me of doing that to you!  I really wish you would all just shut the hell up and let me post my thoughts and 

 

We will .... on your PPP

 

you just dont get it do you ?

 

 

 

17 hours ago, Mskied said:

 

1. Have actual discourse about what I am WRITING NOW

 

or 

 

2. Allow people to communicate with me about what I write!  STOP BEING JERKS!

 

If you start communicating properly, and answering the actual questions yourself ... that might come about .

 

and you been told this more than once .

[Nungali]

18 hours ago, ilumairen said:

 

Is there something you would like to share in regard to this?

 

 

 

No, very little foresight at all - which was rather the point. It is so glaringly obvious I assumed you'd realise the irony of some of your own posts. But instead of taking a moment to consider why I would bring attention to something so obvious, you misguidedly attempted to deride my understanding of the English language.. you silly little thing. 

 

:tosses a bottle of tea down the pit you've been digging for yourself (you must be parched by now), and the end of a rope should you like some assistance crawling out of it:

 

 

 

[Nungali]

16 hours ago, Earl Grey said:

No, but unlike you, I can quote RAW in context and with appreciation because I’ve read his work and you have not, yet you’re acting like you know it intimately.

 

 

 

 

THIS  ^  is so relevant for so many subjects for so many posters and people in real life .

 

And the reaction when people get busted or called out for that acting because in the modern world people have got the right to free speech confused with the' right to be right' no matter what they say .

 

 

[Earl Grey]

5 hours ago, Nungali said:

 

 

THIS  ^  is so relevant for so many subjects for so many posters and people in real life .

 

And the reaction when people get busted or called out for that acting because in the modern world people have got the right to free speech confused with the' right to be right' no matter what they say .

 

 

What is baffling is that his exposure is only the quotes in my signature. A lot of inferred rationalizing, zero context.

 

I could quote a line out of context referencing the AMA summoning a demon in the Illuminatus trilogy and someone might use that to justify their belief RAW was a demon summoning Satanist.

[Mskied]

Nungali there are so many missed points between you and I that it is a never ending frayed thread to try to weave together to show you where we miss communication on what one and the either is saying.  One point, and I am only choosing just one because there are so many, is that when I was talking about the Septagram you kept thinking I was talking about the faery star- I wasn't, I amended and said I actually misspoke and didn't know anything about the faery star.  I have since, repeatedly, admitted to having less knowledge about structured systems and kept my comments to my own interpretation of my own experience, stopping referencing the work of others and started speaking directly from my own, but you will not relent and admit that I have altered course.  All you want to do is insult me based on what you feel is inadequate research on things you have researched, and I really have nothing to comment on about those things anymore.  Yes, you have read more than me, and whether that means you understand their concepts better I do not know, I only know that I understand my process and my concepts, and am trying to share them here cleanly, without accessing other philosophers work- but you and perhaps others refuse to allow me my understanding, and denounce any opinion I have on subjects that overlap with other thinkers.  If this is going to be the path you pursue in objecting to the fact that I have anything legitimate to say, then so be it.  Unfortunately I did not take the path of discipleship, devotion, or academia- I choose to contemplate on my own course, based on my experience with the septagram- which you haven't got, because that wasn't your course.  When I said "You either know or you don't know" about this star, I meant it- you either know what it can do or you don't, and in my case, you don't know what it did for me.

[Earl Grey]

17 minutes ago, Mskied said:

Nungali there are so many missed points between you and I that it is a never ending frayed thread to try to weave together to show you where we miss communication on what one and the either is saying.  One point, and I am only choosing just one because there are so many, is that when I was talking about the Septagram you kept thinking I was talking about the faery star- I wasn't, I amended and said I actually misspoke and didn't know anything about the faery star.  I have since, repeatedly, admitted to having less knowledge about structured systems and kept my comments to my own interpretation of my own experience, stopping referencing the work of others and started speaking directly from my own, but you will not relent and admit that I have altered course.  All you want to do is insult me based on what you feel is inadequate research on things you have researched, and I really have nothing to comment on about those things anymore.  Yes, you have read more than me, and whether that means you understand their concepts better I do not know, I only know that I understand my process and my concepts, and am trying to share them here cleanly, without accessing other philosophers work- but you and perhaps others refuse to allow me my understanding, and denounce any opinion I have on subjects that overlap with other thinkers.  If this is going to be the path you pursue in objecting to the fact that I have anything legitimate to say, then so be it.  Unfortunately I did not take the path of discipleship, devotion, or academia- I choose to contemplate on my own course, based on my experience with the septagram- which you haven't got, because that wasn't your course.  When I said "You either know or you don't know" about this star, I meant it- you either know what it can do or you don't, and in my case, you don't know what it did for me.

Translation: “I have the right to be right through self-initiation and self-appointed authority to argue the merits of self-serving logic, whether it makes sense to anyone else or not! I have the right to be wrong about my interpretation and the right to argue that I am still right!”

[Mskied]

3 minutes ago, Earl Grey said:

Translation: “I have the right to be right through self-initiation and self-appointed authority to argue the merits of self-serving logic, whether it makes sense to anyone else or not! I have the right to be wrong about my interpretation and the right to argue that I am still right!”

exactly!

 

Of course I’m crazy, but that doesn’t mean that I’m wrong

[Earl Grey]

2 minutes ago, Mskied said:

exactly!

 

Of course I’m crazy, but that doesn’t mean that I’m wrong

nor does it mean you’re right!

[Mskied]

Just now, Earl Grey said:

nor does it mean you’re right!

nor you.  When it comes to what other people have said, I am probably wrong, because 

 

1.  I have not invested myself in reading and thinking about what they said and

 

2.  The only person that can really understand someone is the person speaking.  Its very difficult to declare that we "know" what any other person means or intends- as language is faulty.  

 

All matter of observation is always and ever will be only opinion.  This is an old philosophical argument.  When it comes to my opinion, only I am right about what I experience.  Same for you.  When it comes to actual facts of events- there is the actual result- this man shot that man, and the facts; this man shot that man BECAUSE....

[Earl Grey]

7 minutes ago, Mskied said:

nor you.  When it comes to what other people have said, I am probably wrong, because 

 

1.  I have not invested myself in reading and thinking about what they said and

 

2.  The only person that can really understand someone is the person speaking.  Its very difficult to declare that we "know" what any other person means or intends- as language is faulty.  

 

All matter of observation is always and ever will be only opinion.  This is an old philosophical argument.  When it comes to my opinion, only I am right about what I experience.  Same for you.  When it comes to actual facts of events- there is the actual result- this man shot that man, and the facts; this man shot that man BECAUSE....

The difference is that we have INFORMED opinions and yours is all conjecture, pulling things out of your ass and making everyone believe it shines like a diamond! 

[Mskied]

And what, exactly, makes your information a shinier diamond than my opinion?  When it comes to someones ideas, my opinion should be taken into consideration as well as anyone elses.  The real dispute that caused this is Crowley- and when I said that Crowley said we have the right to kill for what we believe- he said it himself!  But Nungali thinks otherwise.  Do What Thou Wilt is the liberty to do just that, and nothing short of that.  People get caught up in his ideas about True Will, and I am on his side about what that is, and I have gone to great lengths to help people find that thing, as is written in my thread "Knowledge is simple"  

[Earl Grey]

3 minutes ago, Mskied said:

And what, exactly, makes your information a shinier diamond than my opinion?  When it comes to someones ideas, my opinion should be taken into consideration as well as anyone elses.  The real dispute that caused this is Crowley- and when I said that Crowley said we have the right to kill for what we believe- he said it himself!  But Nungali thinks otherwise.  Do What Thou Wilt is the liberty to do just that, and nothing short of that.  People get caught up in his ideas about True Will, and I am on his side about what that is, and I have gone to great lengths to help people find that thing, as is written in my thread "Knowledge is simple"  

Like I said earlier: I read RAW and you haven’t; you’re just quoting your only exposure to him from my own signature! Ha!

[Mskied]

If the wisdom that his phrases represent mean nothing, then why post them here?

 

Of course I’m crazy, but that doesn’t mean that I’m wrong

 

This is a pretty clearly stated phrase, one which you seem to want to deny.

[Earl Grey]

5 minutes ago, Mskied said:

If the wisdom that his phrases represent mean nothing, then why post them here?

 

Of course I’m crazy, but that doesn’t mean that I’m wrong

 

This is a pretty clearly stated phrase, one which you seem to want to deny.

Context is queen, and you’re trying to usurp her authority by you being another drama queen, bub.

 

You still don’t seem to understand it because his madness could be falsified and tested, yours is easily deflated with a few elementary questions. 
 

Besides: unlike you, he was original.

 

He who shouts louder doesn’t make his argument any more believable.

 

The more you talk, the more you should be quiet.

[Mskied]

Save your insults for people that don't try.  You really are proving to be quite a turd.

 

you are precisely as big as what you love and precisely as small as what you allow to annoy you.

[Mskied]

Stop trying to do this.  I already passed the trial of Set

 

teabagging

1) Repeated insertion of ones testicles in another's mouth.

[ilumairen]

2 hours ago, Mskied said:

Stop trying to do this.  I already passed the trial of Set

 

teabagging

1) Repeated insertion of ones testicles in another's mouth.

 

Reminds me of Halo Matchmaking. I'm a female, and perhaps you've heard some of the stories regarding how female gamers were treated. It only served to make some of us better players - while others chose to whine instead. I guess you could call the differentiating factor "will."

[Mskied]

It seemed fitting, as he is named after tea.

[ilumairen]

42 minutes ago, Mskied said:

It seemed fitting, as he is named after tea.

 

My fingers want to type great sassiness, and the set up is almost to great to resist.. 

 

But, I'll leave particular testicles and mouths alone, and simply ask if you're feeling dominated and gagged, and what proactive steps could be taken to alleviate this sense if it is indeed what you're feeling. 

[Earl Grey]

3 hours ago, Mskied said:

Save your insults for people that don't try.  You really are proving to be quite a turd.

 

you are precisely as big as what you love and precisely as small as what you allow to annoy you.

 

3 hours ago, Mskied said:

Stop trying to do this.  I already passed the trial of Set

 

teabagging

1) Repeated insertion of ones testicles in another's mouth.

 

1 hour ago, Mskied said:

It seemed fitting, as he is named after tea.

It appears you are the one who is getting annoyed. Oh, and with the unresolved sexual tension (albeit one-sided here because you most certainly aren’t my type!), I am becoming very wary of the sudden admission of your open obsession for my balls in your mouth...

[Nungali]

11 hours ago, Mskied said:

And what, exactly, makes your information a shinier diamond than my opinion?  When it comes to someones ideas, my opinion should be taken into consideration as well as anyone elses.  The real dispute that caused this is Crowley- and when I said that Crowley said we have the right to kill for what we believe- he said it himself!  But Nungali thinks otherwise.  Do What Thou Wilt is the liberty to do just that, and nothing short of that.  People get caught up in his ideas about True Will, and I am on his side about what that is, and I have gone to great lengths to help people find that thing, as is written in my thread "Knowledge is simple"  

 

Now you are misinterpreting Crowley in yet another misunderstanding   and another misquote.

 

 

These damn misquoties !

 

 

 

 

I challenge you to quote him showing your   bolded words above  .

 

Since you NEVER have shown any quoted reference to anything  , one assumes you are referring to Liber Oz  ... which clearly states that ;

 

" 5. Man has the right to kill those who would thwart these rights ". 

 

Not to 'kill for what we believe " .

[Nungali]

11 hours ago, Mskied said:

nor you.  When it comes to what other people have said, I am probably wrong, because 

 

1.  I have not invested myself in reading and thinking about what they said and

 

2.  The only person that can really understand someone is the person speaking.  Its very difficult to declare that we "know" what any other person means or intends- as language is faulty.  

 

All matter of observation is always and ever will be only opinion.  This is an old philosophical argument.  When it comes to my opinion, only I am right about what I experience.  Same for you.  When it comes to actual facts of events- there is the actual result- this man shot that man, and the facts; this man shot that man BECAUSE....

 

Nah .

 

It is ; 'this man shot this man' because  THE EVIDENCE INDICATES it !

 

You , on the other hand seem to operate without any need or consideration of evidence .

 

You would be good at running an inquisition hearing !

 

 

[Nungali]

7 hours ago, ilumairen said:

 

My fingers want to type great sassiness, and the set up is almost to great to resist.. 

 

But, I'll leave particular testicles and mouths alone, and simply ask if you're feeling dominated and gagged, and what proactive steps could be taken to alleviate this sense if it is indeed what you're feeling. 

 

I guess he could just take the balls out of his mouth .... that would be a bit proactive .