The Paradox of Reason
Tehiru
is to shut off and to inhibit the rational mind altogether, thus
leaving a Tabula rasa upon which the entirely alien faculty -- de novo
and sui generis -- can write its first word.”
Interesting. So the rational mind must be abandoned, if only
temporarily to attain Understanding. Let us take that at face value.
However, Little Essays Toward Truth continues with the admonishment
that “Scepticism, absolute in every dimension, is the sole possible
basis of true Attainment. All attempts to shirk the issue by appeals
to "faith," by mystic transcendental sophistries, or any other
spiritual varieties of the Three-Card-Trick, are devoted to the most
abject destruction.”
Now, how do you feel about this apparent paradox?
Colonel Edmund J. Burke
news:b3277269-d021-4bb4...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
�The only correct and adequate mode of the Attainment of Understanding
is to shut off and to inhibit the rational mind altogether, thus
leaving a Tabula rasa upon which the entirely alien faculty -- de novo
I think you have abandoned your rationality a while back, porkchop. LOL!!
Tehiru
wrote:
> "Tehiru" <tehiru.cha...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:b3277269-d021-4bb4...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> “The only correct and adequate mode of the Attainment of Understanding
> is to shut off and to inhibit the rational mind altogether, thus
> leaving a Tabula rasa upon which the entirely alien faculty -- de novo
>
> I think you have abandoned your rationality a while back, porkchop. LOL!!
http://groups.google.com/g/b3b7fef4/t/643a0d54c543108e/d/56cf544e4f3672d6
Tom
Perhaps it seems paradoxical if one doesn't really get the idea of
what Crowley meant by "absolute scepticism".
It's not a strictly rational viewpoint. Rationality requires accepted
premises as a basis for all its permutations. Absolute skepticism
accepts no premise at all. There is simply nothing for the mind to
work on in any rational way.
So the advocacy of absolute skepticism is not a advocacy for limiting
oneself only to rationality nor is it a call for the "abandonment" of
rationality.
Crowley was describing Neschamah as "suprarational", not
"irrational". One must attend to direct experience without
interpreting it intellectually. Rational and irrational thought both
model experience and make predictions based on that model. We can
discuss the differences between rational modelling and irrational
modelling some other time. What Crowley is talking about as
"Attainment of Understanding" is what we feel when we make no models
at all, when we simply experience something without making anything
out of the experience at all.
" One can say, at most, that it is independent of any of the normal
modes of motion of the mind."
Colonel Edmund J. Burke
On Dec 21, 6:14 pm, "Colonel Edmund J. Burke" <edmundbu...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> "Tehiru" <tehiru.cha...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:b3277269-d021-4bb4...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> is to shut off and to inhibit the rational mind altogether, thus
> leaving a Tabula rasa upon which the entirely alien faculty -- de novo
>
> I think you have abandoned your rationality a while back, porkchop. LOL!!
http://groups.google.com/g/b3b7fef4/t/643a0d54c543108e/d/56cf544e4f3672d6
Another fag using Google, lol!!