Alright PM underway.
Except… you don’t do PMs, I see.
I will watch your first video on Kabbalism and if it is of any interest then I will probably watch all of them
I know absolutely nothing about it other than it is derived from Judaism and Madonna was once interested
I feel I should offer something on AC’s behalf here though.
What about one of his very short books?
Here is, for the duration of 30 days, Liber B Vel Magi Sub Figura
easyupload.io/ypgp0x
This bugs me to no end, having written this.
I am yes, honoured, but only by having been able to make a couple of sensible videos by grace of this magnificent heritage.
Are we not all chosen by the knowledge that steps in our path?
The biography will give me a basic foundation and then I can carry on from there
There is plenty of literature on him for anyone that wants to seriously study him
However I am quite a slow reader and so it might be some time before I do get round to reading him
One can only read one book at a time but hopefully there is enough time for me to read all I have to
Forcing too much knowledge into your brain is not practical unless you happen to have a photographic memory
Reading should be done slowly and methodically as that is for me the best way to learn a subject in any detail
Humble.
Aww, there’s like, this one thing in the midst of every other damn thing in the universe pretty much, that you can’t know. And the primate, “Hey, in a geologic time-frame I only learnt to walk upright about 3 seconds ago” is gonna whine about it.
Yup. And I’m the un-humble guy.
Dude man that has no bearing. You’re just… ignoring that you make a claim you cant make.
I like unhumble people but they need to be aware of it.
Like, they need to be as I am. I am unhumble before people but humble before my work. Thats Crowley and thats the Aeonic spunk.
Nietzsche was the exoteric text, which is at least as important as the esoteric. Both are insanely adequate to the cocktail.
Nietzsche is the Apollon to Crowleys Dionysos- or N the theoretical, Spartanly fortified mainframe which could serve as a cauldron to encapsulate the metallurgy of the spirit. Crowley offers means to ends, ends which Nietzsche circumscribes.
Surr - C’s Texts, like the one I uploaded, are neat and short, a few pages max. He wrote tens of hundreds of them and some are slightly longer. But what he calls a Book is mostly a couple of pages.
I can seriously recommend reading a little bit of his noble rantings before you read something as severe and serious as a biography.
Tab
Just call me Eris.
Oh, stop playing the victim. You just learned a valuable lesson here. 
It is good to have you back here for now.
Is that a good example, Tab? I do not have to “believe” in those numbers nor the result. I know them. They exist.
This may not be a good example but I will use it anyway. Let us take for example the fact that you have not been on this forum for quite some time. No one saw you. You did not post under your old username{s}. There was enough evidence and knowledge to say that, in fact, Tab has not been here. Why would I choose to simply “believe” this as opposed to “knowing” it? Yes, I know. We ought not to assume.
Anyway, is it not more logical to say that I have experienced and observed the absence of something? Where does belief come into play there?
I am not an atheist but an agnostic …BUT I hold the below views.
Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods.
Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
Older dictionaries define atheism as “a belief that there is no God.” Clearly, theistic influence taints these definitions. The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as “there is no God” betrays the (mono)theistic influence. Without the (mono)theistic influence, the definition would at least read “there are no gods.”
[b]Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion.
While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. To put it in a more humorous way: If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby. lol
Despite the fact that atheism is not a religion, atheism is protected by many of the same Constitutional rights that protect religion. That, however, does not mean that atheism is itself a religion, only that our sincerely held (lack of) beliefs are protected in the same way as the religious beliefs of others. Similarly, many “interfaith” groups will include atheists. This, again, does not mean that atheism is a religious belief.[/b]
…
atheists.org/activism/resou … t-atheism/
The dust shall never clear.
Perhaps our disconnect is that to me, knowing something and believeing something are exactly the same thing - neurologically anyway.
To me ‘knowing’ and ‘believeing’ are more like expressions of certainty.
I frequently lose my glasses. I know right, when did glasses become a thing in my life…? 
Getting old sucks. Anyway. Right now, my netflix-watching glasses are sitting on the table in plain view, next to my coffee cup. I just prodded them with my finger. They’re real alright.
I’m gonna go out on a limb. I’m gonna say “I know my glasses are on the table.”
Now, I’ve tossed a cloth over them, can’t see them directly, but I can see the hump.
“I still know my glasses are on the table.” Now, I left the room, and told kid#1 to go in, and flip a coin, and if it’s heads, they have to steal my glasses, and bunch up the cloth a bit to make it look the same. Now my kid is coming out. I look at their hands, they’re empty. I fix them with my best dad-stare. “Did you steal my glasses…?” They say no. My dad-radar shows a green light. However, my kids, having my some of my genes, are horribly perfidious.
I’m about 60-75% sure my glasses are still on the table. But do I know…?
Nope, now I just believe they are on the table.
But I’m pretty sure that this didn’t involve a whole different part of my brain, when I switched from knowing to believeing.
Now imagine I reverse this experiment. Glasses initially not on the table, and I know that. My kid has them. They go in. They come out, they look like they just stuck something in the back of their pants.
Now I believe my glasses are not on the table. A negative belief.
Just then I hear the blender click on and a horrible whirring, crunching, glasses-destroying sound. Perfidious kid#1 passed my glasses off to even more perfidious kid#2, who just played “does it blend” with my glasses.
I now believe my glasses don’t exist.
I rush into the kitchen. And look in the blender. It’s full of whizzed-up shards of uncooked pasta. Evil kid#2 hands me my glasses. All smiles. I pat them on the head, though secretly I vow revenge next pocket money day. Oh yeah.
lol Subjectively thinking, what came to mind when I read your words in the instant were things like witches flying on brooms, little fairies, et cetera. They require no thought for me as they are absolutely illogical.
I am not so sure of that. The time that it takes to have an old boyfriend instantaneously pop into your mind, and you, in a moment, unplug it and let it go down the drain requires no thought but only force of habit.
Also, I think that that would have to depend on the subject of the thought and the individual’s interest in it.
But what is involved in “absolutely no thinking” to you?
Hmm, in addition to the last post - this ‘whole atheism is a lack of belief’ thing bothers me.
Lack implies absence of some kind. I lack the ability to play the violin etc. Lol, I also lack the violin.
However I believe in violins, because I’ve seen them.
Atheists have obviously heard of god, otherwise why would they say they’re an atheist…? And not an A?whatnow?ist. 
So atheists do have beliefs about god, just not the same ones as a theist. They do not “lack belief”.
surreptitious75"
I used the term “knowledge” there with reference to the world as we see it and its workings. Any intelligent human being observing all of THIS can derive a creator God, and form a belief of God’s existence, even if wrong.
Is it not true that scientists form their, let us say, beginning beliefs and assumptions and theories based on what they have observed and gathered knowledge on?
Of course, there is that so-called handed-down knowledge which is really nothing more than non-thinking and opinion and dogma carried forward by family.
Of course, the world still goes out of its way to say: “See, here I am. You are correct in your belief.” lol This is not my thinking.
[/quote]
[/quote]
I am not so sure that it can be only a form of emotionalism and nothing else. After all, that belief does have to be based on something but I may be misunderstanding you here.
Tab
It bothers me to the point that I am about to roar like a dragon. lol
So what are you saying here, Tab? You have not yet confirmed the existence of violins so that you can only “believe” in them? What will it take for you to know that they are “real”?
And you have “heard” of fairies and goblins and witches flying on blooms. Do you believe in them?
Is word of mouth the only prerequisite for belief and confirmation?
Would you call the atheist’s thinking “beliefs” or simply thoughts based on the thoughts of others’ concepts of God’s existence?
Thoughts are not beliefs.
On the other side of that coin, very often belief is based on no thought at all.
Thoughts are not beliefs. They have not even begun to step into those waters.
But god is not a strictly empirical certainty. He, in as far as he is defined, exists. Pezer once pointed this Leibnitzean wisdom out to me; God exists by (His) definition.
Glasses are not by definition on the table. They are by definition meant to be looked through, though.
Now, is God in your life? 
a fatal flaw of the pezernian ontological proof is that it infers the existence of god from the claim that our idea of god involves existence… which is the same thing anslem and descartes did.
so because existence is not a ‘property’, and properties are contingent features of modes and attributes of a single necessary substance, substance itself cannot be defined by its properties because it must be prior to its modes. ergo; substance, i.e., ‘god’, is not proven to exist by the definition of the things said to be the modes and attributes of it. so while the essence of a substance must involve its existence, we do not infer from the existing things which do not share that essence that god must exist. we only infer the existence of god through the reasoning that a self-caused substance must exist prior to the causal relationships we observe between existing properties in the world that cannot be defined through themselves alone.
and btw ‘god’ is only ‘nature’, not some watchmaker outside space and time who gives a shit about what’s happenin. so ‘god’ cain’t ‘be in your life’. nothing changes about/in your life if you are able to conceive of what ‘god’ is. i know, that’s some cold shit, but all mountains are cold at the highest altitudes.
Hey Arc,
I believe they are not real. However, the point is, I believe something about them. The content of the belief maybe a negation, but the belief itself, is a positive thing, ie. I hold it. I do not lack a belief about goblins and fairies, I have one. It’s the same for atheists. They have a belief about god. The content of that belief is a negation or some form of negation, but it is a belief all the same.
Theist believes unprovable X + Atheist believes unprovable Y = waste of braincells.
I can’t put it any plainer than that tbh.
Hey Fixed,
Thanks, that was all very obscure, obfusticatory, and knowing you, occult.
And quite frankly, in practical terms, a giant pile of steaming bollocks.
I say quite openly, “we cannot know”. With a subtext of “debates of this type are a massive waste of time - move along.” Which is a practical statement. Life is short, and there are other more tractable things to think about.
Look at the lengths you and karpel have had to go to preserve your vainglorious state of ‘being able to know everything’. Karpel with his - ‘well it’s impossible to know anything for sure, and yet we do anyway.’ Sophist hand-washing. And your - ‘well if you bend your mind in strange enough ways it’s maybe possible to divine some inkling of god’s nature.’
How does any of that help fix the sink…? What’s the point…?
And nature does not per its definition exist?
Bye Tab.