Read Similar Articles:

Gnos [...]

The entire phrase, to me, evokes a vast desert of possibility. Kylark’s “everything is true and everything is permitted” seems more like an abundant tropical forest. Where things are just there, ripe for the picking. Not quite as much my style…

But very much mine.

Why do so many men thrive on conflict? They can have their vast deserts and their fights. I’d prefer to explore the forest, hear the different birdsongs, taste the different fruits. (Not to tar all men with the same brush, but love of conflict does seem to be a very masculine trait. It is, of course, present in both genders.)

The problem is that, once the conflict-lovers are done fighting each other in the desert, they make war on the forest.

Oh, for a planet where the forests are safe.

Similar, but entirely different. This one solves a lot of the awkwardness of the other.

“Beleive nothing” is gloriously liberating - it doesn’t just reject the domination of accepting what others push on you, it rejects the pride of thinking you have the answer. It makes no claim as to falseness or the possibility of truth. It is more global - it does not imply a field in which there is no truth, it covers all that falls into view. My own version is “Don’t beleive, look”.

“Dare all” - completely different from “all is permitted”. Doesn’t look for permission, doesn’t grant some unnamed other the right to permit or not.

But most of all, “Believe nothing, dare all” is active. The other describes a situation, this tells you what to do. You can “Believe nothing, dare all” no matter what universe you live in, no matter who or what is trying to control you. “Nothing is true, all is permitted” accepts that there is an authority that you ought to beleive and from which you ought to seek permission, and tells you to go against it.

but no one interpretation is any more valid than the others

Au contraire! Mine is the most valid!

I’m not talking about the silly “Law of Three” or post-Catholic reinterpretations of karma as another form of the sin/punishment dynamic. But, clearly every action has consequences, and a wise mage takes into account as many of the possible consequences as he or she can.

Somebody once said on this site (can’t remember who): “Sure, you can unleash 10000 demons on your boss… But do you really want to live in a universe where 10000 demons exist and they all have your home address?”

A more mundane example: Many years ago I did a very intense form of affirmation/mantra to get the job I have today. It served me well in the short term, but it is becoming increasingly problematic, so much so that I wonder if I made a huge mistake. As I’m interviewing for new jobs, I’m tempted once again to conduct a new ritual (and I still may), but I’m a little wiser and attentive to the saying “careful what you wish for…”

but not everything is logical.

ive always disliked the phrase.

its definitly a nice way out for people who want to avoid personal responsibility for things….

weak IMO…

one
human?

I recall the first time I heard the Hassan quote– it was the ad slogan for David Cronenberg’s film version of Naked Lunch. I didn’t know about Hassan’s allegiance with the Hashishen until later on, when I started smoking pot.

The only hang-up I can see in connection with the phrase in question is the need to re-organize the language of it so that it sounds less sinister. This reminds me of high school Satanists who came for the music but stayed for the blasphemy: after the thrill of hanging out with brain-dead Black Sabbath fans waned, there was still Crowley and Lovecraft and La Vey to reckon with.

What does the phrase mean to me personally? It means “So far all of my gut instincts have been right, so let’s see what else there is to learn about the world I think I know so well…”

“Nothing is true,” suggesting that there is a lack of thing- anything, something. There is nothing, and nothing is true. So long as there is nothing, “everything is permitted” (or possible, if you’d rather). Once nothing ceases to be true, or something is true, then everything is no longer permissible.

I think Schrödinger’s cat is meowling at me.

“Everything is true; nothing is missing” might also be broken down using the same sort of logic. “Everything is true,” suggesting that everything is true- everything exists. The result of this is that “nothing is missing,” or nothing is negated by existence.

Hmm. This (poorly considered) logic exercise is taking the poetry out of the statements.

Right, that was for *me* too.

It doesn’t astonish or horrify me; I don’t picture myself diving into an abyss or kneeling in horror of the utter vastness of the living universe.

I don’t have much interest in all that I guess. As I said originally, the reformulation I did of it was for *me*… everyone else is welcome to explore their own hang-ups.

“Nothing is true; everything is permitted.” Generally attributed to leader of the Assassin order, Hassan-i Sabbah (although that claim is dubious at best)

He’s as good as anyone to attribute it to, given the very nature of the quote.

“Nothing is true; everything is permitted.”

The entire phrase, to me, evokes a vast desert of possibility. Like your world, when abolished of all inherent truth is just a vast field for you to wrest your territory. This is very fitting considering the very physical environment of the middle east. I’m also reminded of King David, and even the modern day state of Israel.

Struggle and survival, for nothing, if not just your own personal truth. Winning and losing doesn’t matter–pick a side and fight.

Permitted by who? BY NO ONE! The whole point is to get rid of that vague sense that there is some ultimate authority. It’s a terrible thing, to know that EVERYTHING IS PERMITTED and it truly is.

We are all we have.

Kylark’s “everything is true and everything is permitted” seems more like an abundant tropical forest. Where things are just there, ripe for the picking. Not quite as much my style…

“Everything is true; nothing is missing” I don’t find particularly resonant; I don’t dispute its mystical truth, but there’s no visceral feeling for me. It reminds me too much of those depressing “everything is perfect”, “all is in its place”, type axioms you hear from Buddhists, and the like. It doesn’t astonish or horrify me; I don’t picture myself diving into an abyss or kneeling in horror of the utter vastness of the living universe.

Ah… It’s a very personal thing.

To me, the saying could almost be an opening to allow one into “The Thunder, Perfect Mind”, and could almost be rewritten to:

Nothing is Absolute; Everything is Absolute. Kinda like Tesla’s EM theories about infinite energy inside a vacuum (Everything in Nothing).

Just a few thoughts…

I don’t think I see much meaning here, unless the phrase is in some context which explains what is meant by “everything”, “nothing”, “permitted”, and most of all, “true”.

As Tim mentioned, “permitted by who?”.
Is “everything” every potential act, every idea, every desire?
Does “nothing” exactly negate the “everything” above? Does it negate perceived phenomena? Is “nothing” a hole that is “true”, rather than the phrase being a rejection of the “truth” of all members of the class in question?

And what does “true” mean in this context? Does it refer to the accuracy of an idea’s correspondance to some ultimate reality? Does the speaker beleive that there IS an external reality, or that it is knowable? (As for me, I am a William Jamesian Pragmatist, and consider ideas to be more like recipies than maps: what it true is what works. Ideas that are maps are maps of a place that may or may not exist, where we can never go - we know reality only as ideas built on sensory phenomena. But some ideas lead to actions that result in desired phenomena, and that’s good enough for me.)

Does “nothing is true” just mean that whoever is doing the permitting is a liar?

Though if everything is an absolute truth, doesn’t that mean that nothing is?

No, I don’t think that necessarily follows at all. That’s like saying: “I stepped into the room that was pitch black, and therefore it was filled with light.” And even if it does logically follow that your statement is true, I personally dont find that saying nothing is true is at all a useful starting point. It leaves me feeling that there is no point or purpose or worth to anything that I do, so why do anything?

Slomo, I get where you’re going and thats one of the better explanations perhaps. But again, it’s a matter of what sparks a fire for me, and for whatever reason, this saying does not.

Interesting to consider:
Linguistics, logic - Left brain
Language production and recognition/understanding - Left brain (Broca’s area and Wernicke’s area)

Also, Charlie’s Horse, is “permitted” used in terms of put through checks and balances (ie. the “permit” you discussed) or is it used in synonymously with allowed? I interpreted it to be “allowed”, but then again, that could have been my “inability of my linguistic symbol system”, lol.

Why can’t everything be an absolute truth?

Though if everything is an absolute truth, doesn’t that mean that nothing is?

So then the snake eats itself and nothing is “true” again.

Which really just shows the inability of the linguistic symbol system and logic to sometimes capture the experiential, imho.

Not that there isn’t such an agency. Just that it isn’t intergalactic fishers-of-men license system.

I like the takes given here more than the original phrase. More hope to it, especially the last half.

That’s just my take though.

A while back in the Comments section of another post, I re-wrote the original quote as: “Nothing is secret; everything is out in the open”… for me, that maxim rings a bit more truthfully. But I get what your rewrite is trying to say: the same thing as the original, only with an inverse emphasis, sort of a reverse psychology to it.