Thelema Revisited: A Critique
I am posting this for two reasons: lots of people seem to think I'm still a Thelemite and I wanted to explain why I no longer am. I have no interest in insulting anyone and I am happy for all those who find Thelema to be rewarding. At the moment, I don't have much time for drama, so I'm only willing to reply to thoughtful, even-handed comments. ( Read more... )
While I feel your analysis of Thelema isn't invalid, such critical considerations help to solidify principles both being considered and any proposed alternatives. At the same time I get the impression, beyond your materialistic methods, you already favor a critical explanation already arrived at by the very people who endorse the things you do now profess to believe in. Your materialist argument against paranormal magic for instance uses rhetoric that is normal to materialists who neglect the holes in our own scientific understanding of consciousness. You talk about the inability to reconcile the notion of invisible elements becoming known to and communicated with the fleshy sponge of chemicals firing off millions of electric impulses every second. This alone betrays a lacklustre comprehension materialists have when trying to reconcile empiricism with the phenomenology of the brain. Is consciousness the functioning organ you speak of? Or the unique pattern of electricity and electromagnetism moving through said organs? Magic, particularly paranormal, merely supposes something we already know in physics, that all 'matter' is in truth 'energy', and the vast majority of 'energy' we don't understand (aka dark matter/energy) and yet this aformentioned energy is intimate with all reality. Magic is merely a system with methods seeking to explore the existence of said energy by discipling the brain to process information in unusual ways so as to try an attune to different stimuli, such as what with be say...dark energy thats detectable electrically. Obviously with the glaring lack of proof for occult forces you can say its too much for you to swallow, but given how much science is openly admitting is not understood, not just about physical nature but also biological nature and the nature of the mind, your occams razor 'demand' seems more than anything reactive and distrustfully prejudiced. Perhaps a slightly more Chattons anti-razor approach could help with some further illumination instead?
Your critical ethical argument is also valid, but again, you seem to have already arrived at the answers, which simply box Crowley's meritocratic ethos as quaint victorian sentimentality. All the while voicing as 'fact' things which are now increasingly under scrutiny, among other things, the entirely theoretical existance of 'systemic' prejudices. Try to consider the possible short comings of Dawkins own ethos which could easily be the product of a not so easily reflected upon dark truth about humanists; that their 'belief' despite evidence to the contrary, is not evidence of true faith, but evidence of vain narcissism in humanity.
By such overviews, Dawkins belief in love for all life that is honest, faithful and respectful would have to be shallow in it's indiscrimination to the point that true 'respect' would be impossible. Number 2 & 8 have in recent times are treated as incompatible also with humanism's humans. Aleister's ethics in many respects would permit, if not indirectly encourage, cruelty. So at the very least, would require significant modification to remove their obvious maledictions for society without betraying their essential aims. But with that being said, his meritocratic ethos still seems more integrated than Dawkins.
Reply
I'll give just a couple of quick responses.
The first is that you are employing a common logical fallacy, being the Argument from Ignorance fallacy (also known as the God of the Gaps). You are essentially arguing that because science doesn't have all the answers, therefore it is reasonable to assume the truth of claims for which there is no empirical justification. But logically, there is simply no reason to assume that any magical/supernatural/mystical force/being/process/place exists for the simple reason that no non-anecdotal evidence exists for it. Once reliable and verifiable evidence comes to light, then we can talk. Until then, I'm happy to tentatively stick with things we know are probably true and to say "I don't know" for all the rest.
But on a personal level, after many years of working magical systems and knowing a great many people who tried themselves, I never saw any evidence whatsoever of anything beyond self-deception, wishful thinking, and motivated reasoning. I saw no evidence whatsoever that any of these practices led to greater insight, knowledge, or ability that could not be had through non-supernatural means. Quite the opposite-I frequently observed dysfunction, confusion, and dogmatic absurdities. More often than not, magick got in the way of wise action and genuine growth and healing.
I'm sad to report that systemic discrimination is a very real phenomenon, but happy to report that #2 and #8 in Dawkins' list remain perfectly valid and sound within humanism. I'm not aware of this "dark truth" to which you refer, but I've yet to discover it. What I have discovered is that humanism is, to date, the best ethical system devised in terms of promoting human well-being and social flourishing. Any given principle can always be up for debate, but one thing we can put to bed: Thelemic ethics is incoherent and promotes misery in its orthodox form. I'll take human flourishing over the illusion of meritocracy any day.
Reply
Leave a comment