Would you explain your interpretation of this comment to me, Gobbo?
An agnostic is one who acknowledges NOT knowing everything. Calling conjecture knowing is not the province of an agnostic. Conjecture is reserved for the true believers and hardcore atheists.There is much “knowing” that is smoke and mirrors. An agnostic rejects that.
Put another way, an agnostic ‘knows’ that he doesn’t know everything.
Right…
This was published in ‘The Equinox,’ the internal publication of the OTO/A∴ A∴
I have presented it in its entirety.
And I think it says plenty, to those who can grasp it.
Do you take pleasure in presenting yourself as a pompous dickhead, or what? All I asked was for you to explain your interpretation of this comment. Jesus fucking Christ, get over yourself, “…to those who can grasp it” is such a fucking cop-out. I want YOUR take on it, get it? It wasn’t a leading question, it wasn’t an argument, it was a simple request, and avoiding that request to make yourself seem above the asker is total bullshit. Why do you automatically jump to the defense? Why can’t you just answer a straightforward question?
Oh, I’m sorry, was that question too straightforward for you, too? 
If an agnostic knows that he doesn’t know everything, the claim that, “An agnostic is one who thinks he knows everything” is fairly asinine. An agnostic claims to know only one thing for certain – that he doesn’t know everything.
I don’t have to give you an explanation just because you asked. Maybe I want to wait for a couple posts before I give my say; maybe I’ve already done it and you missed it.
Right…
Anyone want to serious attempt this?
Are you getting more toward that which an agnostic ‘knows’ is, even to him, never a certainty? That is, everything he ‘knows’ is essentially accepted as a working hypothesis? Or, in other words, being set in a belief is the same as ‘knowing’?
This, of course, based on the conclusion that there is no real knowledge of everything.
People only stop their intellectual evolution when they think/know they cannot go any further.
The agnostic, before the journey has begun, somehow knows the extent of his ability. He knows he’ll never be able to breach the hard questions, like ‘does God exist?’ or ‘How do they get the caramilk into the caramilk bar?’
I am beginning to understand why agnostics and athiests are shunned; considered profane. There is nothing for them, and nowhere to go, in terms of the true sciences of creation. Refusal of admission isn’t something of spite. On the contrary, it’s purely pragmatic.
Tentative and Blurred already won.
The end goal of at least 2/3s of the illuminated is to further the knowledge of one’s self. I mean globally. Only about a third (but the more affective) seem to want to limit human thought; the rest want to promote it.
The maxim, for thousands of years, on how to do this, is ‘know thyself’
I’ve laid out how agnostics don’t really know, or continue to know, themselves, because they (somehow) know what they cannot know. Then I backed that up statistically, citing the fact that you’re actually not allowed to enter into the realm of occult knowledge without the acceptance of the fact that there are entities outside of this dimension—that there is a God.
So, no, no one has won yet. This isn’t a competition. This is me reading books on my own, and attempting to share some of the value in them, with those who are likely never going to pick up these certain books. Or even… books.
Basically I’m going to talk for a while, no one will like it (in fact, we’ll likely see more anger) and then I’ll leave, and go back to the book(s.) That’s all that will happen. I’m always talking to myself. I’m here for me, not you, but what I do is look out for you.
Sorry, you didn’t lay out how agnostics know what they cannot know. Nobody said agnostics cannot know that god exists if god exists, if god made himself known to an agnostic, surely they can know then that god exists. It is theists who claim to know what they cannot know. If you want to enter an occult as you say you have to accept that there are entities outside of this dimension, that there is a god, without knowing but believing. If it were knowledge, then it would be applicable for that knowledge to be shared so that all rest of the world would too know, just as we know the difference between night and day. After all, believing in god is not rocket science, is it?
And yes, this is a competition. I am the arbiter here of the victor and the loser, self appointed, and there’s nothing you can do about it.
I never attempted to do that. Read the OP again.
Come again?
Theists claim to know god. The restrictions towards (not) knowing [whatever] is self-imposed. Or at least, that is the opinion of the OTO.
Entrance is self-decided. No one is twisting anyone’s arm. Well, unless you’re profoundly psychic. The occult is the study of the divine sciences which are hidden because of the dangers inherent to such. In other words, it’s for the people who know, and do not need listen to others when they say ‘That is a belief.’ It’s not so much a leap of faith. You shouldn’t have to have faith in your own mind. You should own it. The occult practices are the methods for doing exactly that.
Crowley would say that the Qabalah matches any scientific paradigm, and then takes it further, with better explanatory power. What you’re saying here is one of the key tenants of the profane. The assumption that knowledge is a right. It’s not. You are not entitled to know everything, and society as a whole sure as fuck isn’t. That wouldn’t work. People don’t know about the occult because they haven’t earned it. And when I say ‘earn’ I mean expending one iota of personal energy to actually think it through themselves.
Right…
If there is only one thing that you can know, then that can be said to be the totality of what there is to know, i.e., everything. Hence, an agnostic knows everything, which is to say he knows all of what can be known, viz., that he doesn’t know.
Well, that’s not the only time people stop their intellectual evolution.
What about, let’s say, someone who has studied philosophy for years on end, and only then acquiesces to agnosticism?
The conclusion that one can’t know isn’t always arrived at by people throwing their hands in the air and going, “It’s too hard, I can’t do it, so that probably means it can’t be done!” It’s usually done after knowledge is defined, and the standard is set for what it means to know. After that it’s not difficult to see when some beliefs do not meet that standard, and moreover when they can’t.
People who shun atheists and agnostics are not that deep.
Nice. I’d say that could be pretty accurate. Kind of like an oracle of Delphi joke.
That’s true.
Funny choice of words. But anyways, this is a hypothetical journey. There is no time-frame.
Academic P/philosophy is your intellectual ceiling. I get it. I don’t even want to argue with you about that anymore.
That’s untrue; however I will admit that there is nothing particularly deep within the act of (solely) shunning atheists and agnostics.
I’m kind of curious as to what people are taking the word “agnostic” to mean. I have personally never heard it used to mean that all the person can know is that they don’t know anything. That’s like a transliteration of Plato speaking as Socrates. And I rarely hear agnostic being used to mean the belief that something/everything is absolutely unknowable. Usually, when people say I am agnostic about ‘x’, they seem to be saying “In this case, I do not know/am uncertain that the matter can be settled at this time.”
In the sense of God, it is usually the case.
But you’re right, you can be agnostic towards anything.
Well, that’s just XCZ’s attempt at it. I’m/we’re not saying it’s correct. I think it’s a pretty good explanation, though.
For the record, I don’t know what the quote means. As I said, in the Equinox it’s just that, on an otherwise empty page. I’m just playing the Crowley here.