lashtal.com :: View topic - Does Evil exist? Or is it lack of knowledge?

lashtal.com

Thelema - Does Evil exist? Or is it lack of knowledge?

sonofthestar - Sep 29, 2007 - 12:56 AM
Post subject: Does Evil exist? Or is it lack of knowledge?

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

A recent posting on another thread brought up the subject of God and the Devil; duality and other such incidentally related subjects. Discussion of the subject distracted from the original topic, so I think it would be worthwhile to address such issues from a “Thelemic” view point. What does Thelema have to offer, that rectifies the problem of Evil, real or otherwise; and the so called “curse of duality”?

We all pretty much know what most religions subscribing to such beliefs have to say concerning the supposed nature of God and the Devil , which they assert to be true with the usual backup of authoritative writ.
I can only state what I personally believe concerning the subject---without the benefit of a legacy of such “clout”.

Evil--if we were to define it Thelemically?--as an opposition to the energy of light, life, love and liberty,--and assuming such a thing exists, could be said to have its origin in “ignorance’. If any such “devil” exists as described, than it means only that ignorance and the mistakes made by the ignorant, have affixed an illusionary “autonomy and semblance of intelligence” onto what really has no true spiritual life of its own.
All are ignorant for a time, until they become knowledgeable of what they were ignorant of; If one does not make use of the knowledge gained, then one would continue to error through “stupidity” and no longer be justified in claiming ignorance as an excuse for the sufferings created through those mistakes.

The battle between Good and Evil, God and the Devil , and such “curses of duality” would seem to rage inwardly as some symptom of an unbalanced mind or state of mental confusion.

On the other hand, we might consider The Devil, as perhaps the human will vilified, demonized, and personalized by those who for some reason or other (fear evoked from ignorance) set themselves up against it, and the “freedom” and “responsibility” willing brings. They would most likely be against Magick/or willing--for the fact that it attest to an inner divinity and source of power that threatens to usurp the proclaimed and supposedly “one true God”.
Such a devil would then be man’s salvation---for without will, he is but a robot and an automation commanded by no thing other than instinct and impulse. This seems to have been the condition the exoteric God of the Bible, (as opposed to the esoteric God of the Cabalah and the mystic) intended for man and woman in the garden of Eden: no responsibilities other than to follow the dictates of the Creator. Of course man supposedly had the power to name all things he encountered (and therefore command them) but the conditions of his “freedom” were quite restrictive. He was free to obey the will of, and to adore---his creator; with time off to enjoy life with his mate, the animals and the plantings. This would indeed be quite enough for many---but has no true basis when applied to the reality of beings having such potential as those that can be called Homo-sapiens. Man is never truly contented by a static state, however pleasant; he must of necessity enquire, explore and fulfill himself to the uttermost of his potential----less he be no thing more than an un-willing parody. In other words, he has no right but to do his will!

So basically, Evil is no thing other than the manifestation and suffering of misfortunes brought on through mistakes made through ignorance and stupidity, and/or persisting in such ignorance through not learning, and stupidity from not willing. Evil then is no thing other than Life without Magick! If Magick is bringing about change through the use of will, Evil could be considered a static and unchanging state--or being imprisoned by conditions with no freedom to act or express oneself. I reiterate as an example--the “evils” of the restrictive society in which Oscar Wilde found himself assailed by, ultimately manifested as prison cell number 333! His ignorance of the dangerous nature of Victorian society’s collective will --and his cavalier attitude in the face of such stern resolve---put him into an Earthly Hell that ultimately smashed his very talented life.
So for me, the antidote to evil is Magick! And Magick could also be considered an active form of worship and as even “the supreme” expression of divinity. It also is an invocation of divine protection--such as is found in the seemingly simple LBRP.

I have not touched upon the spiritual ramifications of persisting in making mistakes throughout life by not learning the things that would overcome various states of ignorance, be it for individuals, or humanity as an whole. Nor have I touched upon the state of spiritual, and mental decrepitude that is the result of persisting in stupidity by not using the knowledge that has removed our ignorance of certain matters occult and how such matters effect every thing an adept touches in a way different than those who know not how to will. Consider also, that many have willed and magicked successfully without being true stereotypical adepts, but the adept or initiate is “schooled” in willing/or--Magick.
Once one has the keys of knowledge, they must be applied, less one fails in one’s duty to self and others. It really does not matter what “school or system” offers them {if it is valid and works} - (all having their peculiar and particular keys) --or whether or not they are obtained through self initiations; ---When such keys become available, and not made use of---then, and usually only then---does a thing born of illusion and ignorance take on a troublesome life of its own. Fear, unrestrained anger, obsessions, uncontrolled emotions etc--become something unto a personal devil that feeds off of its victims. So I would say that such hindrances to will as those mentioned above are not evil in themselves, but have the “potential” to be activated as such, unless they are eradicated and/or brought under control through the obtaining of what has been traditionally called “occult” knowledge and various disciplines.

Nor shall I touch upon the topic of God, other than to say that uttering “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law” is one true, singular and unique God proclaiming “the glad news” to one true, singular and unique God. There are no conflictions in this, for the “curse of duality” is shattered by the strong love of such unions.

Feel free to counter my simplistic view of evil if you will! Do you think that there is such a thing? and that you can explain “Evil” some other way. And if “Evil“ truly exists, how is it manifested and what does Thelema have to say about its origin, and about un-manifesting or “transmuting” such negative or unbalanced energies?

Love is the law, love under will.

BlueKephra - Sep 29, 2007 - 01:26 AM
Post subject: RE: Does Evil exist? Or is it lack of knowledge?

How very Christian.
0=2 dontcha know

fraseth - Sep 29, 2007 - 03:57 AM
Post subject:

First, there is no Thelemic definition of "evil". Ignorance is not evil, it is just, well, ignorant. Someone who doesn't know can't really be evil, since he doesn't know the difference between good and bad. This would also be the Christian definition:

"Eritis sicut deus, sicentes bonum et malum"

These are the words the snake (Satan) told Eve in paradise. You will be like God, you will know the difference between good and bad. Before they'd eaten the apple they didn't know the difference between good and bad, subsequently, they were free of sin.

In reality, evil has seized to exist in 1905, when Einstein developed the Theory of Relativity. Others (Spinoza, Kant, may be even Goethe) had already doubted its existence centuries before, but nobody was actually able to prove its non-existence, other than on strictly philosophical grounds. According to the Theory of Relativity there can be no evil.

Trivial example:

An evil, black magician lets it rain because he hates you and wants to ruin your holiday. Possible scenarios are:

You are on vacation and it rains cats and dogs = bad for you.
You are a farmer and need rain, it rains cats and dogs = good for you.

So one and the same thing can be good and bad at the same time, it all depends on where you stand, because -you guessed it- it is all RELATIVE. The initial evil intention is irrelevant. The force (rain) is neither good nor bad.

Another conclusion resulting from the non-existence of "bad" is the non-existence of "good".

Martialis - Sep 29, 2007 - 07:07 AM
Post subject:

I'm currently perishing with the dogs of reason in attempting to formulate an intelligible reply without going off on a tangent...

However I'll just say that technically speaking, if one wants to find out what bearing "good" and "evil" have on Thelema, well...one has to know one's Will no?

In saying such things as "Evil--if we were to define it Thelemically?" or "What does Thelema have to offer, that rectifies the problem of Evil, real or otherwise; and the so called “curse of duality”? it seems that you're taking Thelema as an objective idea or model through which one might gain insights (in this particular case) into the nature of "evil".

By the way A.C.'s De Lege Libellum has some remarks pertinent to the idea of evil in a "thelemic" context.

As for the 'curse of duality' it is clearly evident when we remember that Thelema is the Word of a Magus.

P.S. I typed this before refreshing this page so now it may seem out of context in relation to the last post. Be that as it may, I'm too lazy right now to revise.

asclepio - Sep 29, 2007 - 07:36 AM
Post subject:

93
This is a great thread, great idea! I'll agree with martialis, I'm perishing with the same dogs right now.

Although philosophicaly speaking evil doesn't exist, because just like fraseth said it's relative to the observer, there is still something that we can, and infact do, call "wrong", or "evil". For instance rape, hard to believe someone will consider it a good thing, but then again action doesnot exist without a context.

On those terms I'd say that evil, or what is wrong, is black magick, any or all actions that directly deny or somehow weakens the true Will, or the Will of others. Martialis was right, one must know it's own Will, but then again date-rape is always a bad thing, it denies the divinity of the victim, and of the one who commits the crime.

Maybe I'm being superficial or too much of a fanatic of the Law, but if you're actions do not assist in the great work, they're wrong. Also, I'd like to make emphasise that we ALL live in a society, in civilized nations were there are laws that must be obeyed, specially the ones involving murder, rape, theft and so on.

So it doesn't help much to asume a mystical position of going "2=0 so therefore all is not, there is no "must do" o "right/wrong" just life", because even though that is correct, in terms of philosophy, or more to the point ontology, we still live in a society with rules and raping and killing an innocent child is just plain wrong no matter how many quotes we can throw at.

In that sense of every-day life, not in the sense of philosophical insight, there is wrong-doing, which I'd say is Black Magick. But again, it's not an ontological duality, but an epistemological one, or maybe just a cultural one.

Again, great idea for a thread.
93/93

nashimiron - Sep 29, 2007 - 10:20 AM
Post subject:

I think with Thelema, the idea of an absolute evil goes out the window. If the closest thing you can get to evil is not doing your true will then it's not something to be too concerned about. When you start seeking your true will your accepting firstly that you have not always done your true will. And despite your lifetime of not doing your true will the sky has'nt fallen down and your not going to any "Hell". All that is required of you is that you endeavor to discover your true will.

So a world full of people not doing their true will is not that bad really cause eventually the momentum of the universe will carry them to a point where they know and eventually do their true will. So if "Good" is doing your will and "Evil" is not doing it, then it would seem that the good is constantly being attained in the environment of the evil. If the first impulse of the universe was then good, resulting in an environment where evil is possible then you could go as far as to say that evil is a symptom of good. Twisted Evil

Azidonis - Sep 29, 2007 - 10:22 AM
Post subject:

93,

Going to try and tackle the three 'major' ideas behind this thread.

1. The idea of the Jeudo-christian "God and Devil" quite simply does not exist in Thelema. It doesn't compute. It could be seen in a "Biblical/Qabalistic" manner, by saying that the course of the two Big Events (Angel & Abyss) in a man's career decide what is beneficial. From there, we could go to the idea of the "Savior", the HGA, and the "Devil", ie. Shaitan, ie. "an aversary" - quite simply, any adversary to the attainment of the K&C. However, The Book of the Law doesn't really deal with that type of thing, and in fact simply dismisses Reason along with Ego.

2.If however, one may want to entertain this idea, it may simply be stated that in the 'beginning stages' of a Thelemite's 'career', when dualities do exist, there can be the issue of what to do and what not to do. A young aspirant may not know hir Will yet, or even have a good grasp of it. So one fixes one's eyes on concepts of "beneficial" and "non-beneficial", in the sense of "this would perhaps be more beneficial in order to attain than that". These discriminations have to be made in the untrained mind. A good example could be the initial battle between "the Angel" and "the Ego". The aspirant makes distinctions based upon hir own genius in order to try and determine the difference between these two concepts.

3. Remember "you are what you eat". Outside of the "common realm" (or the Jeudo-christian thinking), and Outside of the realm of discrimination between beneficial and non-beneficial, is the true Thelemite. It may just be me, but it seems there could be a definite distinction between a "thelemite" and a "Thelemite". The Book of the Law does not say "figure out your Will and do it". It simply says to do your Will. This of course automatically assumes that we know what our Will is! At that point, the discrimination is pretty simple, and seems to be more of a consistent pattern than anything. All of the "do's and dont's" of general habit get worked out after so long, and new habits are put into place as the aspirant evolves, and moves into the position where hir Will is known. The Book of the Law is speaking as though one already is at that point though, and Its Purpose is to explain such and charge those Leaders of Men to Advance the race. For others of us, like myself at this point, it is just a set of guidelines and references.

Also concerning one's Will it is said, "do that and no other shall say nay". I often think of this as an Arrow. If the Path in general is likened to this Arrow, then it may become a bit more clear. First, one has the idea that there is a traget "out there, somewhere". As time rolls on, one finds out there is a means to hit this target, and the promises for doing so. There are tools, practices, and many other things which will allow the hitting of this target. Thus, one learns how to make a bow and arrows. Next comes learning how to shoot them. But this target is far away! So one begins by shooting at shorter ranges, then longer. Really, this entire time one is teaching one's being the habit of shooting the bow and arrow, with the goal of reaching the target. Then finally, the big tournament comes along, and one is able to hit the target! From this point, what occurs? The body and mind have already been conditioned to hit the target. That part is done. One then realizes that the target needs to be hit constantly and consistantly in order for the idea to become 'solid' or 'manifest', or for it not to be a fluke. Thus, a whole new practice has begun, and one takes ones prior skills, and begins hitting the target over and over again. This develops quite a stream and flow between the bow & archer, the arrow, and the target. Wonderful! Not only has this goal been met, it has now become a constant meeting. After a while it simply become "second nature", or in this case, first nature since one's entire life is dedicated to the idea and practice. After so long then, a sort of transformation occurs, in which the bow, archer, arrow, and target all work in perfection unision, and it is as if the event is occuring on its own. Then it is no longer the archer shooting the target, but the entire act in itself quite simply is.

There is no evil in the above analogy. To me, a "Thelemite" would already be past the initial phases, where every single thing is important in preparing to hit the target. The "Thelemite" has already hit the target. Now the "Thelemite" continues to hit the target. In that sense, there is no evil and no good. The Thelemite uses the tools to hit the target, and that is all. Beyond that idea and veil, this intellect cannot properly penetrate at this time. Razz

Oops, guess I did go off on a tangent lol

93 93/93

fraseth - Sep 29, 2007 - 01:25 PM
Post subject:

asclepio wrote: › 93
... and raping and killing an innocent child is just plain wrong no matter how many quotes we can throw at.
93/93

Well, we are getting into the muddy waters of social standards right here. Social standards do not implicate cosmic results, philosophy, Thelema, and the Theory of Relativity do. You may say killing an innocent child is always wrong, and, measured by social standards, it may seem that way.

Always?

What if someone in 1905 would have killed the 14 year old, innocent Adolf Hitler? The long term results could have been that 54 million people, killed in WWII, would have still been alive in 1945.

Nobody knew that in 1905, so an hypothetic Hitler-homicide would have been treated as a simple "evil" murder back then, even though the long-term results may have been "good".

Now, from today's view, if you had the opportunity to go back in a time machine, and kill Hitler in 1905, knowing that this would save 54 million lives, would you do it? Would such action be still wrong or "evil"?

anpi - Sep 29, 2007 - 01:34 PM
Post subject:

fraseth wrote: ›
In reality, evil has seized to exist in 1905, when Einstein developed the Theory of Relativity. Others (Spinoza, Kant, may be even Goethe) had already doubted its existence centuries before, but nobody was actually able to prove its non-existence, other than on strictly philosophical grounds. According to the Theory of Relativity there can be no evil.

Trivial example:

An evil, black magician lets it rain because he hates you and wants to ruin your holiday. Possible scenarios are:

You are on vacation and it rains cats and dogs = bad for you.
You are a farmer and need rain, it rains cats and dogs = good for you.

I think you are interpreting Einstein's theories of relativity in physics quite liberally..

fraseth - Sep 29, 2007 - 02:28 PM
Post subject:

anpi wrote: ›

I think you are interpreting Einstein's theories of relativity in physics quite liberally..

Reason? Or is that an "ex cathedra" utterance? If not, would't it be helpful to say where exactly I interpret it liberally, and why?

Aum418 - Sep 29, 2007 - 05:12 PM
Post subject:

Crowley:
"The first paragraph is a general statement or definition of Sin or Error. Anything soever that binds the will, hinders it, or diverts it, is Sin. That is, Sin is the appearance of the Dyad. Sin is impurity.<<One cannot say that it was "Sin" for Naught to restrict itself within the form of Two; on the contrary. But sin is to resist the operation of the reversion to Naught. "The wages of Sin is Death;" for Life is a continual harmonious and natural Change."

Do what thou wilt shall be teh whole of the Law. There is no law beyond do what thou wilt. Anything that hinders this Will is "Sin," which is better understood (I think) as "Error" (in that Sin presumes a universal notion of justice & Judge)... Either way, this 'error' is only temporary ("Sorrows are but as shadows; they pass and are done [II:9]") and as mentioned above, a manifestation of our ignorance (avidya in Eastern terms) of the true nature of things.

"The nature of events must be "pure joy;" for obviously, whatever occurs is the fulfilment of the Will of its master. Sorrow thus appears as the result of any unsuccessful -- therefore, ill-judged -- struggle. Acquiescence in the order of Nature is the ultimate Wisdom."

and also:

"We are not to regard ourselves as base beings, without whose sphere is Light or "God". Our minds and bodies are veils of the Light within. The uninitiate is a "Dark Star", and the Great Work for him is to make his veils transparent by 'purifying' them. This 'purification' is really 'simplification'; it is not that the veil is dirty, but that the complexity of its folds makes it opaque. The Great Work therefore consists principally in the solution of complexes. Everything in itself is perfect, but when things are muddled, they become 'evil'."

There is no 'absolute Evil,' only the relative/subjective 'error' of diverting from one's will.

65 & 210,
111-418

anpi - Sep 29, 2007 - 05:26 PM
Post subject:

fraseth wrote: ›

anpi wrote: ›
I think you are interpreting Einstein's theories of relativity in physics quite liberally..

Reason? Or is that an "ex cathedra" utterance? If not, would't it be helpful to say where exactly I interpret it liberally, and why?

Einstein's Theory of Relativity is a physical model about how gravity and such things work, not a statement about the relativity of moral standards. I don't know why you interpreted it otherwise, perhaps you could go to a local university and take an introductory course on physics, or read a good book about the subject.

Martialis - Sep 29, 2007 - 05:44 PM
Post subject:

I think that Liber AL speaks in a language different to that in which we find good and evil. So in translating Liber AL into the language of good and evil I feel that, as with most translations, certain fundementals of the original become lost or obscured.

fraseth - Sep 29, 2007 - 07:12 PM
Post subject:

anpi wrote: ›

fraseth wrote: ›

anpi wrote: ›
I think you are interpreting Einstein's theories of relativity in physics quite liberally..

Reason? Or is that an "ex cathedra" utterance? If not, would't it be helpful to say where exactly I interpret it liberally, and why?

Well, right now there is not much need for me to go to a local university to take basic physics. I already took advanced physics at an elite university 15 years ago, before I got an engineering degree.

I also didn't apply the Theory to social standards, I actually promoted the opposite, namely that it makes social standards "relative". The Theory itself is much more than just a model about "how gravity and such things work". I gladly explain this in detail, but I think this would require a separate thread, since this one is about evil.

Without going too much into detail, there is a General- and a Special Theory of Relativity.

Someone asked Einstein once if it was possible to explain the Theory of Relativity in a simple way, so normal people could understand it. He answered:

Yes, of course. Imagine, you put your hand on a hot stove for an hour, and time goes by slowly. Now, imagine you sit with a young, beautiful girl for an hour, and times seems to be flying by.

In the end it all comes down to a simple conclusion:

If you stick your nose up my rear end, we both have a nose up a rear end, but relatively, I am in a better position.

anpi - Sep 29, 2007 - 07:33 PM
Post subject:

Fraseth, I'm happy if you've found some useful metaphor from Einstein's theory to something that sounds like a type of philosophical relativism. I personally think that the phenomena of subjective time slowing down can be better explained with neuroscience, psychology, etc, instead of Einstein's inertial frames and time dilation. Einstein's theory says, for instance, that time slows down for bodies that accelerate or move relative to the observer's frame of reference, not that time moves faster for people talking with hot chicks. Smile

fraseth - Sep 29, 2007 - 08:44 PM
Post subject:

anpi wrote: › Einstein's theory says, for instance, that time slows down for bodies that accelerate or move relative to the observer's frame of reference, not that time moves faster for people talking with hot chicks. Smile

I am the wrong person to address criticism about Einstein's metaphors to. I only cite them.

There are quite a few scientists who work in this field. Stanford is a good place to find some. Since Einstein is not among us any more, why not approach them with your points of view? Or write an article, something like "Why Einstein's Metaphors are Irrelevant."

Be advised, the field is "relatively" sophisticated, and Wikipedia knowledge probably won't get anybody's attention.

anpi - Sep 29, 2007 - 08:57 PM
Post subject:

fraseth wrote: ›
There are quite a few scientists who work in this field. Stanford is a good place to find some. Since Einstein is not among us any more, why not approach them with your points of view? Or write an article, something like "Why Einstein's Metaphors are Irrelevant."

Be advised, the field is "relatively" sophisticated, and Wikipedia knowledge probably won't get anybody's attention.

Thanks, but I'm not interested in that kind of post-modern philosophy or whatever it's called. Smile

I'm sure most of physicists would agree with me that it's total bollocks to claim that Einstein's theory has anything to do with moral relativity and such issues. It's fine if you think otherwise, I just pointed this part out.

http://www.slate.com/id/74164/

fraseth - Sep 29, 2007 - 09:43 PM
Post subject:

[quote="anpi"]

anpi wrote: › Thanks, but I'm not interested in that kind of post-modern philosophy or whatever it's called. Smile

Yep, you are right, Einstein was wrong, so was I. Now go and read Al III 42., and lets get back on topic!

anpi - Sep 29, 2007 - 09:56 PM
Post subject:

fraseth wrote: ›
Yep, you are right, Einstein was wrong, so was I. Now go and read Al III 42., and lets get back on topic!

Stop putting words in my mouth, I never claimed Einstein was wrong, at least in this thread. *grin* But I agree, let's get back on topic.

Uni_Verse - Sep 30, 2007 - 02:48 AM
Post subject:

fraseth wrote: ›
Now, from today's view, if you had the opportunity to go back in a time machine, and kill Hitler in 1905, knowing that this would save 54 million lives, would you do it? Would such action be still wrong or "evil"

The thing is, you also do not know what would have happened if Hitler never rose to power...
Perhaps his replacement manages to kill all the Jews!
Of course, there is always the possibility of gumdrops and rainbows.

But, on to the topic at hand!

With Star(the son thereof) twisting my arm, I would save evil as a lack of knowledge (ignorance).

Even a rape is not necessarily "evil," as there are some women who fantasize about it happening to them!
The trouble is, the rapist is ignorant of whom these women are.
As I type this, I play with the idea of a rapist who begins conversation with his angel and is lead to these women..
But let me not digress!

From the viewpoint of a Thelemite I would seek to define evil as doing an act that is against your Will.
Bearing in mind, the only persons I consider Thelemites are those whom have attained their conversation.
The "other believers," such as I, are aspirants! (But how grand that can be!)

To put it all in the dualistic God/Satan...
God is your Will, higher self looking to manifest
Satan are all the adversaries that keep you from manifesting that
So:
"Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil" (adlib)
Amen!

Martialis - Sep 30, 2007 - 08:51 AM
Post subject:

I thought pretty much the same regarding the Hitler thing. It also seems to suggest that the lives of 54 million people are more valuable than the life of one 14 year old boy....so what is that? Herd mentality? Jesus Christ all over again? Dying for the sins of all mankind? Instead of thinking backwards we should perhaps think forward and ask ourselves what, if anything, has come about as a result of the deaths of these 54 million people? And that's as much as I'll say since I've ventured a bit out of context.

Save me from Evil and from Good!!!!!!!

lashtal - Sep 30, 2007 - 10:23 AM
Post subject:

fraseth wrote: › Now, from today's view, if you had the opportunity to go back in a time machine, and kill Hitler in 1905, knowing that this would save 54 million lives, would you do it? Would such action be still wrong or "evil"?

That seems to be so lacking in imagination for a Thelemite... Why bother with all this nonsense about killing to prevent future wrongs? Why not just go back a further decade-and-a-half and slip some contraceptive pills into a particular Austrian water-well?

Stephen Fry's idea that one, by the way: Making History, 1996.

fraseth - Sep 30, 2007 - 12:56 PM
Post subject:

Uni_Verse wrote: › The thing is, you also do not know what would have happened if Hitler never rose to power...
Perhaps his replacement manages to kill all the Jews!

That's exactly the point, you don't know where it would have gone. It may look good at first, and you may think you do something good, but who knows, the long-term results might have been much worse.

(Please note, these were just questions I asked in order to point out the relativity of the term "evil", not actions I promote)

Uni_Verse wrote: ›
Even a rape is not necessarily "evil," as there are some women who fantasize about it happening to them!
The trouble is, the rapist is ignorant of whom these women are.

Yep, I had a girlfriend like that. Was a real challenge at first, but fun. Took me about 6 months to figure out that she wanted to be raped, vidotaped, and blackmailed into doing "bad things".

-------

Guys, don't tempt me to go back and slip contraceptives into someone's drink! Barb Bush crosses my mind... I know it would be wrong, but who could resist....? Sweet!

fraseth - Oct 01, 2007 - 02:55 AM
Post subject:

Despite an irresistible urge, I couldn't bring this to paper earlier, I had to clean my jacuzzi today. Or, may be, I was still traumatized by the "I never claimed Einstein was wrong, at least (not) in this thread" -part.

Halleluia!

Here you have it, the "do what you will" of the 17th century, the bottom line of Western philosophy about the relativity of good and evil:

"Per bonum id intelligam quod certo scimus nobis esse utile. Per malum autem id quod certo scimus impedire quominus boni alicujus simus compotes." (B. de Spinoza, Ethica Ordine Geometrico Demonstrata, Pars Quarta)

By 1920 at least, the philosopher whom Einstein admired most was Baruch Spinoza, the seventeenth-century Jewish philosopher, who was excommunicated by the Amsterdam synagogue and declined the Heidelberg professorship in order to live as a lens grinder, leading an independent life dedicated to philosophical reflections. Einstein already had studied Spinoza’s Ethics in Berne with his friends of the Olympia Academy and resumed this study several years later. (Max Jammer: Einstein and Religion, Princeton University Press 1999)

In 1920 Einstein wrote the poem “Zu Spinozas Ethik” which gives a little bit of insight on how much he admired Spinoza. It translates:

How much do I love that noble man
More than I could tell with words
I fear though he’ll remain alone
With a holy halo of his own.

Not bad for a guy who normally only wrote about gravity and such things.

Later, Albert Einstein wrote this:

" Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; but I'm not sure about the universe."

enki_carbone - Oct 01, 2007 - 03:26 AM
Post subject:

/me agrees w/ BlueKephra. very Xian.

How does this have anything to do w/ Thelema?
Does this topic even really belong here or have we all spent a few hours redirecting our lives to the puppet-dance of trolls?

Another fool in search of secrets... This is the wrong way to go about it.

sonofthestar - Oct 01, 2007 - 04:41 AM
Post subject:

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

Enki_carbone! Hi…!

0 = 2 is indeed the 1 key that gives both the knowledge of such origins of that illusionary and temporary suffering “perceived” as evil --AND the solution to any so called Curse--resultant from such division that can only be resolved through union. The formula itself as so simply written, roars all at once the answer through that which is conceived as the result of such a silent dawning.
There are detailed “methods” applicable to the arrival and consummations bringing about such unions---that do indeed solve the problem of what has been labeled “evil” throughout time.
One of those methods is the process of learning , or the union of valid experience of what is factual, with mind---producing the child knowledge---which brings about the understanding you allude to.
The study of the nature of “evil” and the explanations given for it by most of the world religions are well known; as surely as most of us also know, that the interpretation and whole reason for the “evil thing” as presented by orthodox Christianity is quite wrong, --it being based upon ignorance or rejection of the equation that is indeed the solution so rightly brought forth by Blue Kephra.

Love is the law, love under will.

fraseth - Oct 01, 2007 - 12:11 PM
Post subject:

enki_carbone wrote: › /me agrees w/ BlueKephra. very Xian.

How does this have anything to do w/ Thelema?
Does this topic even really belong here or have we all spent a few hours redirecting our lives to the puppet-dance of trolls?

Another fool in search of secrets... This is the wrong way to go about it.

How dare you to call someone a troll and a fool simply because he asks valid questions? This is a pointless ad hominem attack.

First, someone who is in search of secrets is not a fool, someone who thinks he knows the answers, but in reality doesn't, is.

Being indeed influenced by a christian, or, at least, dualistic point of view, the guy's message has actually a lot to do with Thelema. Not everyone might see it, though. I am glad he posted it, it is important.

Always remember: There are no stupid questions, there are only stupid answers.

zain - Oct 02, 2007 - 06:24 PM
Post subject:

Just had to challenge and clarify what Uni verse posted. Rape is Rape is Rape. There are no variations. There is no such thing "good" rape. There is only rape. In a Thelemic context, if there is no definite sexual consent or agreement then its not Thelemic in action or practice. There is nothing in Crowleys writng or Thelemic writng in general that suggests otherwise. Uni Verse can you just clarify your post to ensure there is no misunderstanding here? Question

Kalki93 - Oct 02, 2007 - 09:17 PM
Post subject:

I remember reading that Evil is imbalanced force.
It's that simple. It's also an intention to harm others.
Milton's Satan says "Evil be thou my Good." I like that because his evil becomes beneficial.
We all serve a purpose. Evil could also be one's way of perceiving things incorrectly.
Evil to me is also not Loving One's Enemies which is something that crazy evangelists like Jack Van Impe could learn from but never will. To many times we find the faults in others.
I could quote the Bhagavad-Gita but I don't want to right now.

There is Certainty. No Doubt about it. We can determine what is good and what is evil by knowing the Supersoul within.
There should be No Question of what Evil is.
Aleister Crowley said that the Devil was invented by the Black Brothers. Of course I see that as a Joke at the expense of the particular, meaning us.
Still the Devil is real and we should just learn to do what is right because we are all being Tested at every moment. I think the Book of Job proves that and I mean it in a Neutral Manner.

(Sorry if my words are random, this is how I write. It's as if I'm continually meditating and with this Breaking of my meditation I write these explanations down.)

Evil to me is also to interrupt one's Meditation and Peace.

There are many wonderful examples of Evil in the Ramayana and the Mahabharata.
Ravana abducted Rama's wife Sita. He wanted her all to himself against everyone's Will including Lord Ramachandra, God Himself. That was a grave offense. Not because of boundaries but because of disrespect for greater Loving authority.
Evil means not being aware of Authority who is more Loving, Caring, Fun, Amusing than any of us.
If we know Syamasundara we will know that and if not we will Speculate ad infinitum.

Evil is misunderstanding what I am saying here because if one lacks Higher Intelligence they have no idea what I am talking about, even a centigrade of it.
Of course I'm Joking, I have a tendency to make fun of evangelists who do the same thing and they sicken me with their intolerance.
Like Lord Shiva who has swallowed way too much poison I say enough already with Intolerance!

Evil is reacting to the words of people who know better because they really do have the Greater Authority.
Sure there are Asses and a lot of them are running the world right now.
I can relate to anyone who thinks that Authority sucks.
That's because mostly idiots are ordaining things right now. No intelligence or even Higher Intelligence.
Why do you think other more Vastly Intelligent Beings are trying to Communicate with all of us right now at this very momen!?
Because we are Lost. That is obvious. We are wasting our time reading words and believing in the faults and fallacies of others.
I recommend reading this Harold Bloom book Genius, A Mosaic of One Hundred Exemplary Creative Minds. It's not an ultimate example but something to ponder.
I have not read all of it yet but it is based around the Qabala and I find it revealing about our modern way of thinking.
I could go on and on but I won't because I think that Evil can be Redundant if we do not learn from it.

93 and 108

Uni_Verse - Oct 03, 2007 - 01:49 AM
Post subject:

zain wrote: › Just had to challenge and clarify what Uni verse posted. Rape is Rape is Rape. There are no variations. There is no such thing "good" rape. There is only rape. In a Thelemic context, if there is no definite sexual consent or agreement then its not Thelemic in action or practice. There is nothing in Crowleys writng or Thelemic writng in general that suggests otherwise. Uni Verse can you just clarify your post to ensure there is no misunderstanding here? Question

It appears to me as if you clarified it yourself...
There is no such thing as an "evil" rape for , as you have said there is no "good" rape.

What I had been trying to point out is that the morality of a situation is dependent upon the view of the people involved. If doing action X pleases you, that is fine. But do not force another to do X, instead find someone else who finds pleasure in X.

So, rape, or the act of forcing oneself upon another sexually is not always a "bad" thing. Some women find it intensely arousing when a man forces himself on them DESPITE their complaints other wise. Although the woman has not verbally consented to the act, it is not something that conflicts with her Will.

As that Eugenics song so adequately states:
"Some people want to use you, others want to be used by you."

Each person is at their own state of spiritual development. The slave will be a slave because that is their choice.

asclepio - Oct 03, 2007 - 05:13 AM
Post subject:

93
Uni_Verse,
I think I understand what you're saying, which is pretty much what Aum and others have already explained, the forcing of the Will, or better yet it's denial is evil, black magick is evil, I just remembered the LiberAL where we are told that if the ritual is not done unto Nuit, then one must await for the wrathful judgement of Ra-Hoor-Khuit. That just makes a lot of sense (at least for me, I've been focusing on Nuit for a while now).

I liked Zain's post, and I found it amusing Embarassed

, and when you say this:

Quote: ›
There is no such thing as an "evil" rape for , as you have said there is no "good" rape.
What I had been trying to point out is that the morality of a situation is dependent upon the view of the people involved. If doing action X pleases you, that is fine. But do not force another to do X, instead find someone else who finds pleasure in X.

I think we're all on the same page on that one, it's just that when you say:

Quote: › So, rape, or the act of forcing oneself upon another sexually is not always a "bad" thing. Some women find it intensely arousing when a man forces himself on them DESPITE their complaints other wise. Although the woman has not verbally consented to the act, it is not something that conflicts with her Will.

I can't help but to giggle, no offense, but, in the future, you think it would be prudent not to rape anyone? Maybe I'm at a lost, but if it is consentual, like, for instance, when you know your partner so well that you know that "no" means "yes", and "harder" means "much much harder", it's not rape, nor is it forcing anotherone, BUT, if she/complaints afertwards, then either you misread the signals and she DID have a headache, or you raped her.

Giggle not in the bad sense, I think I know what you mean, it's just that reading about how sometimes it's OK to force anotherone sexually seems so strange. I've never seen that before.

I've you've had sex with someone and she claims that she was raped, it could be that a) she's insane and you made a mistake picking her, or b) you did force yourself, if that's the case I don't think it's healthy.

Quote: › Each person is at their own state of spiritual development. The slave will be a slave because that is their choice.

That doesn't mean we can rape them. If she or he is a slave and you have sex with them, it's your mistake, I know a king may choose his clothing, but it's not healthy to mingle with the weak in that way. Surround yourself with misery and that's where you'll end, if you like women who want to be forced and then claim they've been raped, you're not choosing the best women, they're not exlacty queens are they? And if she did like being forced despite stating the contrary, she has issues

Very interesting post Uni_Verse, yours usually are.

93/93

zain - Oct 03, 2007 - 08:33 AM
Post subject:

"Rape is not always a bad thing." : Uni Verse

Huh? What planet are you on Uni Verse?

Rape is always a bad thing. Uni Verse you need to withdraw that statement or i am getting the moderator involved in this thread. Any sexual act where there has been no explicit consent is by legal definiton Rape. No ifs or buts. And you are there saying that "its not always a bad thing". Are you condoning the rape of women Uni Verse? Are you suggesting that Lashtal members can get away with rape Uni Verse?

Like i said , nowhere in Crowleys writings or general Thelemic writing suggests what you are saying. You need to withdraw your statement Uni Verse.

lashtal - Oct 03, 2007 - 12:25 PM
Post subject:

Uni_Verse wrote: › Even a rape is not necessarily "evil," as there are some women who fantasize about it happening to them!

As a moderator, I'm in a difficult position with this one...

Your sentence is self-evidently such a crass, stupid thing for someone to have written, 'Uni_Verse', that I can't decide whether or not you're simply demonstrating your command of irony. Or, maybe you've slipped back to the 1970s.

Or, maybe it's just crass and stupid and unlikely to achieve anything but contempt from Members here and shock to casual visitors looking to learn something about Thelema and Crowley.

Until further notice, please submit future posts to me for approval: I'm withdrawing your authority to post without pre-moderation.

Erwin - Oct 03, 2007 - 12:35 PM
Post subject:

zain wrote: › Like i said , nowhere in Crowleys writings or general Thelemic writing suggests what you are saying. You need to withdraw your statement Uni Verse.

And that's twice more you've been completely and predictably wrong. From Crowley's new comment to AL I, 41:

"Physical constraint, up to a certain point, is not so seriously wrong; for it has its roots in the original sex-conflict which we see in animals, and has often the effect of exciting Love in his highest and noblest shape. Some of the most passionate and permanent attachments have begun with rape. Rome was actually founded thereon."

There's more, too:

"Similarly, murder of a faithless partner is ethically excusable, in a certain sense; for there may be some stars whose Nature is extreme violence"

There you go, Crowley saying that both rape and murder can be Thelemically "ethically excusable" in his most well-known commentary to the Book of the Law, the existence of which you apparently are not aware. Seems your fluffy "why-can't-we-all-just-get-along" understanding of Crowley and Thelema is not quite as strong as you appear to think it is.

So, are you now going to withdraw your statement, and exercise caution before making such ill-advised and ill-informed statements in the future, or are you going to pipe down and stop being such a drama queen?

nashimiron - Oct 03, 2007 - 12:57 PM
Post subject:

I think with this "rape is not always a bad thing", what is meant is that simulated rape in a safe environment with someone trusted is not bad because it is consensual and is just acting out a fantasy. But self destructive traits are strong in some peoples personality, usually due to them being damaged some way, and in women this is obviously going to come out as fantasizing about rape. There are also men who go out on Friday nights looking to pick fights with people they don't stand a chance against and they inevitably end up taking a beating.

But any act that forces someone into anything against their will, whether it be rape, marraige or smoking cigarettes is usually going to be evil. Then again, someone who is a bit of a push over and really needs to grow some balls before he can advance spriritually or otherwise might benefit from being forced to drink a bottle of whiskey and smoke a packet of fags so he can get over his withering fear of such things. So maybe that word relativity does deserve a place in the Thelemic dictionary.

As for Crowley condoning rape and murder - your not supposed to just passively accept everything he writes. Your supposed to be challenged by it and maybe even outraged by it. Taking statements like the one quoted above at face value is a recipe for disaster. I think the bit about Rome being founded on rape should be a clue that he's expecting some sort of response other than dumb acceptance.

Erwin - Oct 03, 2007 - 01:05 PM
Post subject:

nashimiron wrote: › As for Crowley condoning rape and murder - your not supposed to just passively accept everything he writes. Your supposed to be challenged by it and maybe even outraged by it.

As you say, it is indeed true that nobody is under any obligation to accept the Law of Thelema if the implications of doing so "outrage" their precious moral beliefs and "challenge" them beyond their capacity to accept the simple facts of nature.

nashimiron - Oct 03, 2007 - 01:44 PM
Post subject:

There are no simple facts of nature which suggest that human beings are inclined towards rape. Even in other species like cats where the mating activity looks unbelievably brutal the females are still consenting and allowing the males to mate with them and they fight off the males they don't fancy.

I had thought that maybe in cave man times the males would simply take the females they wanted and "rape" them, but when you consider our close relatives in the primate species even they don't seem to be all that bad. Although sometimes they are quite brutal the more refined types like the Bonobo monkeys show real tenderness towards some of their partners. And they use sex in so many ways as social interaction that for them it's already getting quite complicated.

And "murder of a faithless partner"? what about

"take your fill and will of love as ye will, when, where, and with whom ye will."

and

"O lover, if thou wilt, depart"

and Liber Oz rounds off with

"Man has the right to kill those who would thwart these rights."

- which suggests it would be more right to kill a partner who stops you from being unfaithful that to kill an unfaithful partner! Confused

If accepting the Law of Thelema doesn't outrage your moral beliefs and challenge your world view then it hasn't really sunk in. Liber AL should challenge you greatly, it's not supposed to be a walk in the park.

Erwin - Oct 03, 2007 - 02:14 PM
Post subject:

nashimiron wrote: › There are no simple facts of nature which suggest that human beings are inclined towards rape.

Neither do there need to be. It only takes one human being to be - genuinely - inclined towards rape, and there exists a Thelemic justification for doing it.

The "simple facts of nature" to which I was referring is the fact that moral qualities simply do not exist in it, outside of the imagination. You can come up with any number of arguments that rape or anything else is "generally unnatural", "unacceptable to society", "illegal" or such, but this doesn't get you any closer to being able to classify it as "wrong", or "bad", or "evil", which was one of Zain's "arguments". And because moral qualities do not objectively exist in nature, you're never going to get close to being able to do this without just making up a lot of silly shit.

The Law of Thelema requires action to be in accordance with only one thing - one's own true nature. The extent to which an act is "generally" natural to other people or species, or the extent to which it is sanctioned by society, is completely irrelevant, except insofar as the individual needs to take into account the way in which the likely consequences of his actions are liable to help or hinder the fulfillment of his will. If it truly was in his nature to rape, for instance, and he didn't give a hoot if he had to suffer a few years in jail in order to be able to do it, then such a course of action may be perfectly in compliance with the Law of Thelema. The fact that you or anybody else might not like it has no bearing on the matter.

nashimiron wrote: › I had thought that maybe in cave man times the males would simply take the females they wanted and "rape" them, but when you consider our close relatives in the primate species even they don't seem to be all that bad. Although sometimes they are quite brutal the more refined types like the Bonobo monkeys show real tenderness towards some of their partners. And they use sex in so many ways as social interaction that for them it's already getting quite complicated.

This is meaningless jibber-jabber. There are plenty of examples in nature when animals kill each other, same species or not. Unless you want to argue that rape is a more serious crime than murder, this line of inquiry isn't going to help your argument any.

nashimiron wrote: › And "murder of a faithless partner"? what about

"take your fill and will of love as ye will, when, where, and with whom ye will."

and

"O lover, if thou wilt, depart"

What about them? Both these quotes deal with the importance of doing one's own will regardless of the will of others. The first says "take your fill and will of love" in accordance with your own will, regardless of the social niceties that others might seek to impose on you. The second says "leave your lover once you're done" if you are ready to regardless of whether said lover really, really wants you to stay.

The context of the "murder of a faithless partner" quote was that of a star whose "Nature is extreme violence", that is, it his nature - and, accordingly, his will - to kill. The "faithless" part is illustrative, but not definitive; you could replace it with any other qualifier you liked, or none at all.

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law". This is given entirely in the second person. There is nothing in the Book of the Law which suggests conflicting with the will of another is in any way problematic; on the contrary, it goes out of its way to state the exact opposite in many places. Interfering with the will of another is sanctioned, but this is not because there is a conflict, it is because in order to "interfere" one has to turn away from one's own will for a while. "Conflict" and "interference" are not the same thing.

nashimiron wrote: › and Liber Oz rounds off with

"Man has the right to kill those who would thwart these rights."

But notably doesn't give man the ability to do so.

nashimiron wrote: › - which suggests it would be more right to kill a partner who stops you from being unfaithful that to kill an unfaithful partner! Confused

Unfortunately for your argument, Liber OZ can be used to justify anything if you interpret it like this. As an elementary example, Liber OZ appears to grant man the "right to love as he will", and the "right to kill those who would thwart these rights". Therefore, if an individual wishes to love another individual, and that individual resists, then your interpretation of Liber OZ gives him the right not only to rape her, but to kill her for resisting. Q.E.D.

Liber OZ does not "grant rights"; it lists the freedoms available to anyone who has the ability to enforce them and the willingness to discard their belief in absolute morality:

"this is the law of the strong: this is our law and the joy of the world." - AL II, 21

"There are much deeper considerations in which it appears that ‘Everything that is, is right’. They are set forth elsewhere; we can only summarise them here by saying that the survival of the fittest is their upshot." — Magick in Theory and Practice, Chapter I

nashimiron wrote: › If accepting the Law of Thelema doesn't outrage your moral beliefs and challenge your world view then it hasn't really sunk in.

Not everybody has highly structured moral beliefs to begin with. Beware of making the assumption that everybody else thinks like you, or that there's something "wrong" with them if they don't.

nashimiron wrote: › Liber AL should challenge you greatly, it's not supposed to be a walk in the park.

It's only a challenge until you understand and accept it. As long as the moral implications continue to challenge you, you haven't really grasped what it's about. Once you apprehend your moral beliefs as the self-imposed mental prison that they are, the Book will begin to make a lot more sense to you, many of the apparent contradictions in it will be resolved, and you'll start to grasp the real nature of the liberty it promises.

This subject is examined in more depth in my essay The Ethics of Thelema, if anybody is interested.

lashtal - Oct 03, 2007 - 02:30 PM
Post subject:

Thanks for a genuinely interesting and intellligent post, Erwin.

One slight concern: you state that "it his nature - and, accordingly, his will". It seems to me to be excessively simplistic to suggest one as a synonym of the other.

Erwin - Oct 03, 2007 - 02:54 PM
Post subject:

lashtal wrote: › Thanks for a genuinely interesting and intellligent post, Erwin.

You're welcome.

lashtal wrote: › One slight concern: you state that "it his nature - and, accordingly, his will". It seems to me to be excessively simplistic to suggest one as a synonym of the other.

This all depends on how simplistically you want to define both "nature" and "will".

An an illustrative example, it is the "nature" of a pole of a magnet to enjoy the company of its colleague on the other pole, and it is also its "nature" to despise the company of poles like itself. Its "will", which we can observe through its action, is therefore to move towards opposite poles, and to move away from similar poles.

In this sense, "will" and "nature" are simply two sides of the same coin; one is "active", the other "passive". "Will" is a tendency to action, and this tendency is defined entirely by the nature of the object doing the acting, since its interactions arise from its own nature in conjunction with the natures of the other things in its environment. Similarly, we can infer the nature of an object by observing how it interacts with other objects, just like we inferred that it was the nature of our magnetic pole to enjoy the company of its complement.

For those still not convinced, if it is not the nature of the individual that determines his will when interacting with his environment, I'd be interested to hear what else might be.

However, if you want to take a more simplistic view, for instance saying that it is "natural" for man to break wind, then you are perfectly correct in saying that this does not imply it is one's true will to fart incessantly at each and every opportunity.

If, on the other hand, you are thinking along the lines that the "will" is some kind of "higher purpose" that allows man to "transcend his animal urges", then I'm going to have to disagree with you. "Nature" in the way I employ the term includes all his characteristics, not just the ones that may be considered "animal". There is no a priori reason to consider some of those qualities to be "higher", "more noble", or "more meritous" than any of the others, for the precise reason I gave: moral qualities are imaginary. If it genuinely is the true will of a man to, for instance, "rise above" his animal urges and live a life of peaceful asceticism, then I'm saying it is part of his nature to do that, and that he's not "rising above" his nature at all. There may be conflicting qualities within the being of a man; his nature is reflected in the way he balances them.

zain - Oct 03, 2007 - 02:55 PM
Post subject:

An act of Rape is not a Thelemic act. It is an uncontrollable act/violation that lacks any willpower. A lack of control. A corruption. Erwin all you have done is again taken Crowleys words out of context (Again) to fit your distorted view on Thelema. And a sick view at that one. If we go by your unorthodox criteria then its ok for you to rape?

So i need to ask you has well Erwin are you saying the act of rape/sexual violation is ok? Putting aside you "unique" take on Thelema are you really saying that a woman welcomes rape?

Think carefully Erwin.

nashimiron - Oct 03, 2007 - 03:20 PM
Post subject:

Interpreting the True Will as being no more than the nature of the individual in his / her current incarnation is the fundamental mistake people outside of Thelema make when reading The Book of the Law. The Higher Self is nothing if it does not transcend the animal nature.

In the Herb Dangerous Crowley quotes Zoroaster:

"Invoke not the visible Image of the Soul of Nature.”
“Look not upon Nature, for her name is fatal.”

If the adept is led astray by taking nature at face value and mistaking a passing whim or even a deeply ingrained complex for the True Will, then that adpet will fail.

The whole process of discovering the True Will is about dissecting ones nature and seeing it as symptoms of the Will, but not the Will itself.

Erwin - Oct 03, 2007 - 03:32 PM
Post subject:

zain wrote: › An act of Rape is not a Thelemic act.

So you keep saying. The unfortunate fact for you, however, is that there are no acts which are absolutely "Thelemic" or "Unthelemic", no matter how much you want to believe there are. It all comes down to will, and will is individual.

zain wrote: › It is an uncontrollable act/violation that lacks any willpower. A lack of control. A corruption.

So you believe.

zain wrote: › Erwin all you have done is again taken Crowleys words out of context (Again)

Really? Then I'm sure you'll be able to provide us with the "correct" context, won't you, as opposed to just making baseless claims like this?

zain wrote: › to fit your distorted view on Thelema. And a sick view at that one. If we go by your unorthodox criteria then its ok for you to rape?

You're way out of your depth here, Zain. Your mind simply isn't able to comprehend what I'm saying. That's why you reject the parts of Crowley's writings - and the parts of the Book of the Law - that you don't personally find agreeable, and spend your time pretending that the mess of conflicting nonsense you're left with has anything to do with Thelema.

"ok" is a measure of social acceptability. In the current society we live in, it is not generally considered to be acceptable, which is the reason why it's illegal pretty much everywhere.

However, "social acceptability" is completely unconnected with the concept of absolute morality. Since moral qualities are imaginary, it is not objectively "wrong" to rape, and it is not objectively "right" to rape, either. Moral statements contain no truth value. At all. Your argument is fruitless and empty, as usual. You think the louder you shout, and the more emotive you try to make your statements, the more correct you are going to be. You are mistaken.

zain wrote: › So i need to ask you has well Erwin are you saying the act of rape/sexual violation is ok?

See above.

zain wrote: › Putting aside you "unique" take on Thelema are you really saying that a woman welcomes rape?

Whether or not the woman welcomes it is entirely irrelevant to whether it's "right" or "wrong", and it is entirely irrelevant to whether it could, in some situations, be in accordance with the Law of Thelema. You are confusing the issue again, because you really don't understand what the issue is, here. You just see the word "rape" and run screaming, frothing at the mouth and pawing at the air. This isn't a sensible way to approach such questions.

I'll restate, in case you missed it. It is entirely possible - although probably relatively rare - for an act of rape to be fully in compliance with the Law of Thelema, and that fact that the woman doesn't welcome it, or that it might conflict with her own will, is entirely irrelevant to this question. The only question relevant to the Law of Thelema is whether or not the act in question is in conformity with the will of the person carrying it out.

You can make a statement that it couldn't possibly really be someone's will to commit rape, if you wanted, but you'd be talking out of your ass if you did. Someone else's will is their business.

zain wrote: › Think carefully Erwin.

Suggest you take your own advice.

Aum418 - Oct 03, 2007 - 03:37 PM
Post subject:

lashtal wrote: › Thanks for a genuinely interesting and intellligent post, Erwin.

One slight concern: you state that "it his nature - and, accordingly, his will". It seems to me to be excessively simplistic to suggest one as a synonym of the other.

I disagree, Paul.

For example, Crowley writes in the intro to Liber AL: each such act must be 'under will,' chosen so as to fulfill and not to thwart the true nature of the being concerned." Here he is saying "under will" = "fulfilling... not thwarting... the true nature of the being concerned." This is one example of many.

Hi Erwin! :wave: Ye dareth emerge from yonder darkness?

65 & 210,
111-418

Erwin - Oct 03, 2007 - 03:40 PM
Post subject:

nashimiron wrote: › Interpreting the True Will as being no more than the nature of the individual in his / her current incarnation is the fundamental mistake people outside of Thelema make when reading The Book of the Law. The Higher Self is nothing if it does not transcend the animal nature.

Ironic, really, since the "Higher Self" is nothing. What you are describing is the fundamental mistake people inside of Thelema make. You are confusing the Golden Dawn and its predecessors with Thelema.

"that is why I have insisted rather heavily that the term 'Higher Self' implies 'a damnable heresy and a dangerous delusion.'" - Crowley, Magick Without Tears

"It is a lie, this folly against self." AL II, 22

"I am alone: there is no God where I am." AL II, 23

The concept of "Higher Self" is absent from the Book of the Law, and, like moral qualities, is entirely imaginary in its own right. Feel free to demonstrate otherwise, if you disagree.

the_real_simon_iff - Oct 03, 2007 - 03:41 PM
Post subject:

93!

Some people here seem to have finally found the solution how to determine WHAT the True Will is. All this babbling about some alleged Thelemite to whom murder is his True Will and such he is welcome to do so (but, wait, only if he is also willing to take the consequences) sounds really ridiculous to me. And women whose True Will is is to be raped sometimes? Come on. This just sounds like power fantasies to me: We are Thelemites - we are Gods - we can do anything - it is our Will! Who decides what the True Will is? How can we recognize a True Will murderer? Isn't that all a bit theoretical?

I think you both did not see what in my opinion is the most important part of the Crowley quote referring to murdering a faithless partner: "Similarly, murder of a faithless partner is ethically excusable, IN A CERTAIN SENSE; for there may be some stars whose Nature is extreme violence". I can see nothing in there that says something about the Will. I learned that "human nature" is not a fixed thing. It is altered by countless circumstances during the years. To think of someone of a certain nature, does not sound very much like free will to me. It sounds like surrendering to the circumstances. I think the True Will is something different. The way you use it, it sounds like fate.

You don't have to be a Thelemite to see that the concept of good and evil is just a concept, a convention, an imprinting, nothing more. Trying to understand these imprintings and maybe overcoming them and by that becoming maybe more than "ordinary human" and then finding your (or THE) True Will will eventually lead you to Joy, Love and Leaping Laughter (check your BOTL, Love and Joy can be found pretty often in there) - and if you are then still thinking about rape and murder, maybe you should start all over again (in a certain sense).

Please bear in mind that these are my opinions. I will probably find as much Crowley quotes to support them as you may find quotes against them. Murder and rape are brutal attacks against Stars (in a certain sense). Period. But they happen. Nothing Thelemic about it (in a certain sense). Lots of good Christians love to play the "rape game" once in a while.

Love=Law
Lutz

P.S. I have forgotten who is the exact "you" I am adressing in my post. But I think those "you's" will know...

Erwin - Oct 03, 2007 - 03:42 PM
Post subject:

Aum418 wrote: › Hi Erwin! :wave: Ye dareth emerge from yonder darkness?

I couldn't let "nowhere in Crowleys writings or general Thelemic writing suggests what you are saying" go unchallenged, and after waiting a while nobody else seemed knowledgable or brave enough to challenge it, so I've temporarily come out of Lashtal retirement.

Erwin - Oct 03, 2007 - 03:47 PM
Post subject:

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › I think you both did not see

I think you are mistaken, as you will see.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › what in my opinion is the most important part of the Crowley quote referring to murdering a faithless partner: "Similarly, murder of a faithless partner is ethically excusable, IN A CERTAIN SENSE; for there may be some stars whose Nature is extreme violence".

It has to be "in a certain sense" for two reasons. Firstly, it's only excusable in the sense that it is in conformity with will, which we can presume will be rare. Secondly, and more importantly, since "There are no 'standards of Right'. Ethics is balderdash. Each Star must go on its own orbit. To hell with 'moral principle'; there is no such thing" from the same document as that original quote came from, all things which are "ethically excusable" are only so "in a certain sense", since there are no fixed ethical principles against which to excuse them in the first place.

EDIT: Responding to this, too:

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › Who decides what the True Will is?

The individual in question.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › How can we recognize a True Will murderer?

Why would we want to? Whether or not the murder is in conformity with his true will is entirely irrelevant to anybody except for the individual himself. If it is the true will of others to try and punish him for it, then they are at liberty to do. There is nothing to suggest that the Law of Thelema does or should coincide with the temporal law of the society the individual finds himself in. Opposition to his actions, legal or otherwise, is just part of the circumstances he needs to navigate in order to fulfill his will.

Aum418 - Oct 03, 2007 - 04:09 PM
Post subject:

Erwin wrote: ›

Aum418 wrote: › Hi Erwin! :wave: Ye dareth emerge from yonder darkness?

Nothing like a challenge to bring the gladiators from their den.

nashimiron - Oct 03, 2007 - 04:13 PM
Post subject:

If you believe it is your True Will to carry out any act you should in any case be asking "to what end?". To do your Will you have to discover what it is. Your "nature" is as already said a changeable thing, True Will is not.

It's hard to imagine a definition of True Will that makes Will be determined by nature, as True Will is supposed to be something that originates before nature. Therefore as you get an idea of what your True Will is you realise there are parts of your nature that are in conflict with it and need to be reduced. Things such as laziness, tendency towards excess, whatever seems contrary to your Will. It is true though that you have to rise above morality to determine what parts of yourself are helpful in the Great work and which are not.

If it is someones will to commit murder, and they genuinely have only been born to commit murder then I guess they have to go out and murder. But it's hard to see that someones entire destiny, perhaps even through countless reincarnations will resolve itsef around them roaming the streets killing people.

the_real_simon_iff - Oct 03, 2007 - 04:16 PM
Post subject:

93, Erwin!

I don't feel I am mistaken. I did not say anything about a "moral principle". Anyway, even in the longer quote I can see nothing about the Will. Of course, in a certain sense, everything is "in a certain sense". That's what I am talking about. Why fabulate of some "True Will to murder"? Overcoming moral principles ("Let there be made no difference between any one thing and another") is not the antonym of "moral principles", which is simply "anti-moral principles". I am aware that there is a school of thought who thinks that this "shock therapy" is a good way to get rid of the "lust for results", but I don't like it and I think there are other ways. Anyway, to presume that there is someone whose True Will is to murder, makes it legitimate to presume thet there is someone whose True Will is to kill all Thelemites who found their True Will, or someone whose True Will is to murder all left-handed people or people of different races or whatever. Since this brings us into the realm theoretical, meaningless noise, why not concentrate on the real meaning of True Will. There must be more about it than "everything that is, is right", must it not? Especially since "right" is one of those damned "moral priciples"....

Love=Law
Lutz

Aum418 - Oct 03, 2007 - 04:37 PM
Post subject:

Quote: › There must be more about it than "everything that is, is right", must it not? Especially since "right" is one of those damned "moral priciples"....

I disagree on several points. This is not a moral "right" that hes talking about. On a certain plane, all acts are lawful and necessary but on the normal practical plane, we have the duty to perform acts of "love under will," which demands of us to find our true nature/will and fulfill it.

Erwin - Oct 03, 2007 - 05:05 PM
Post subject:

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › I don't feel I am mistaken. I did not say anything about a "moral principle".

You might not have said it, but you implied it.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › Why fabulate of some "True Will to murder"?

Because the question here is whether or not it could be Thelemic to rape or murder, and in Thelema such questions are answered with respect to the will. How else do you propose we answer them? Would you rather we just avoid the questions altogether?

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › I am aware that there is a school of thought who thinks that this "shock therapy" is a good way to get rid of the "lust for results", but I don't like it and I think there are other ways.

See, not everybody thinks this is "shock therapy". From my point of view, there is nothing remotely controversial in discussing these sorts of views, since the truth of them is so obvious. Not everybody is horrified or shocked at the thought of what many consider to be "immoral" acts.

These answers are real answers, they are not being made purely for effect. What I am describing are the facts of the matter according to the Book of the Law.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › Anyway, to presume that there is someone whose True Will is to murder, makes it legitimate to presume thet there is someone whose True Will is to kill all Thelemites who found their True Will, or someone whose True Will is to murder all left-handed people or people of different races or whatever.

It doesn't make it legitimate to "presume that there is someone whose True Will" is to do those things at all, but it does certainly make it legitimate to assume that such people may exist. And it is necessary to do so in order to understand the Law of Thelema operating at its extremes, and that is necessary to understand it at all, since it is only at the extremes that its nature becomes highly visible.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › Since this brings us into the realm theoretical, meaningless noise, why not concentrate on the real meaning of True Will.

An excellent and practical scheme, and one which I would wholeheartedly support. How about telling us what you think the real meaning of True Will is, so we can discuss it? I've already given my views in a previous thread, to which I can refer you if needed.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › There must be more about it than "everything that is, is right", must it not?

Not necessarily, but it certainly can be useful to adopt a working definition that goes beyond that. As I have said, the true will means different things on different planes, which is true of many other more mundane concepts too.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › Especially since "right" is one of those damned "moral priciples"....

This is just a defect of language. To say that "Everything that is, is right" is just another way of saying "there is no such thing as right or wrong".

zain - Oct 03, 2007 - 05:09 PM
Post subject:

Erwin Can you clarify so i am not misunderstanding you? Do you think its ok to rape? My issue is not a case of good or evil or whether or not "i reject" Crowleys writings. It is a case of you who seems to be suggesting that rape is a neutral act. This is a ludicrous propostion. It is a case of a person who cant control themselves and seeks to violate another human being for their own base gratification. This is so far removed from the principle of will on equal terms with divine love in the 93 formula of Agape/Telema. So under your terms Erwin, rape is an act of divnine love? Thats just plain sick. Ludicrous.

The principles of Thelema do not condone rape or unwanted violation. And for you to suggest that Erwin suggests you have problems. Taking Crowleys writng out of context to suggest rape is a form of Agape/love is just ludicrous.

So i again i ask you , do you condone rape Erwin?

Erwin - Oct 03, 2007 - 05:16 PM
Post subject:

nashimiron wrote: › If you believe it is your True Will to carry out any act you should in any case be asking "to what end?".

For the end of doing your will. Because you're the kind of individual who happens to be particularly suited to carrying out that kind of act, because that kind of act is natural to you. No other consideration is necessary. I refer you to AL I, 44.

nashimiron wrote: › To do your Will you have to discover what it is. Your "nature" is as already said a changeable thing, True Will is not.

Utter rot. If it is my true will to eat this cake, and I eat it, then clearly it can't be my true will to eat it anymore, since it's gone. The will changes all the time. Change, indeed, is its very nature.

nashimiron wrote: › It's hard to imagine a definition of True Will that makes Will be determined by nature, as True Will is supposed to be something that originates before nature.

"Originates before nature"? Where do you think the will comes from, then? Some "god" who's wholly apart from nature? Or somewhere else? It sounds like you are romanticising the concept, to me.

nashimiron wrote: › Therefore as you get an idea of what your True Will is you realise there are parts of your nature that are in conflict with it and need to be reduced. Things such as laziness, tendency towards excess, whatever seems contrary to your Will. It is true though that you have to rise above morality to determine what parts of yourself are helpful in the Great work and which are not.

There are certainly parts of the being that will not always work in harmony, and these conflicts of interest have to be managed by the self. What you describe as "laziness" might indeed seem "contrary to your Will", but then again, a marked reluctance to get up and do a particular thing might also be a sign that you're barking up the complete wrong tree, and that what you think is your true will is something else entirely. If the work you are trying to do seems unnatural or distasteful to you, there's a good chance that it isn't your will to do it. The will is something you do because that's what you thrive on doing, not something that you have to talk yourself into doing because you think you "should".

Figuring all this stuff out is what the "great work" is really about, and this is the prime reason why starting from an assumption that certain things are "virtuous" in themselves (like the commonly held assumption that one should by right just 'get on with the work' of yoga and ceremonial magick) can throw you off the track for years, perhaps permanently, because these assumptions will colour and distort your perceptions and prevent you from seeing clearly. The deeper question of "moral qualities" has far wider implications than simple questions of "good" and "evil".

nashimiron wrote: › If it is someones will to commit murder, and they genuinely have only been born to commit murder then I guess they have to go out and murder. But it's hard to see that someones entire destiny, perhaps even through countless reincarnations will resolve itsef around them roaming the streets killing people.

It doesn't have to be "only". Killing someone might take seconds in a life otherwise free from murder. The true will is not some single overarching goal to achieve, it's something that manifests on a moment-to-moment basis.

sonofthestar - Oct 03, 2007 - 05:31 PM
Post subject:

Do what thu wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

The Nazis had great academic and technological knowledge, and yet they were savages and brutes---without any sense of mans innate divinity and worth. They lacked “WISDOM”!
So although academic knowledge is the antidote to the so called “evils” of cancer, and other such things that trouble man,---Wisdom---(which I thoroughly equate with Thelema) is the coup de grace in dealing with such greater troubles as have been broached concerning what is and is not ethical---and what is or is not “Thelemic”.
Some men may be incapable of becoming anything other than savages and brutes, if that is their particular “true natures“---but on the whole I always thought that the method most grand was to rise above such states; Thelema providing the ultimately workable methods of bringing about the wisdom necessary to manifest the true will and nature of not only man the individual---but also that of “man the species” --which should not be anything less ---than acts and expressions of will of the most glorious kind , once that will is discovered and finally implementable. There are of course splendid acts of true will that on the surface seem quite the contrary to the majority---but the wisdom of the initiated adept should be quite adequate to discern if the fruits of another’s actions are glorious in their splendor (however seemingly cruel)---or acts of mindless brutality. On the whole, the actions of individuals expressing themselves once having discovered their true will is indeed something glorious--each according to capacities and talents--and the effort put into their perfecting of those capacities and talents.
The true will to me is the uttermost expression of one’s true nature/self and divine birthright---I cannot fathom it personally as having anything to do with some base and brutish actions---such as that of imposing anything at all suggestive of such brutalities, upon any particular woman, or women/ man, or men.

Love is the law, love under will.

Erwin - Oct 03, 2007 - 05:42 PM
Post subject:

zain wrote: › Erwin Can you clarify so i am not misunderstanding you?

I don't know if I can be any clearer than I already have, but I'll certainly give it a try, because I'm nice like that.

zain wrote: › Do you think its ok to rape?

We've been through this already. "OK" is a measure of social acceptability, and our current society does not view rape as being acceptable, so in that sense, it is not "ok to rape".

But, as I said, it is not objectively "wrong" to rape, and it is not necessarily "unthelemic", either, although in most cases it probably will be.

zain wrote: › My issue is not a case of good or evil or whether or not "i reject" Crowleys writings. It is a case of you who seems to be suggesting that rape is a neutral act.

Depends what you mean by "neutral". The act of rape, by itself, has no moral or ethical significance whatsoever, since moral qualities are purely imaginary. So, in that sense, you could say it is a "morally neutral" act since all acts are "morally neutral".

In the scheme of things, by any standard rape is a far less severe act than someone, for instance, cutting your arm off, or poking your eyes out, so let's keep things in perspective, here. People only make a big deal of it because even now, in 2007, society suffers from an absolutely incredible degree of morbid hysteria on the subject of sex. Particularly in the USA, the general consensus appears to be that society values a woman's chastity more than it values her life, as evidenced by the frequent attempts to make rape a capital offence and hence to provide the rapist with the perfect excuse to murder his victim - and, incidentally, the only witness - too. If that kind of view accords with your idea of "civilised society", that's your prerogative.

zain wrote: › This is a ludicrous propostion. It is a case of a person who cant control themselves and seeks to violate another human being for their own base gratification.

Maybe. That might be exactly what their will is. The fact that you disapprove of it, and that you think it's ludicrous, has no bearing on the question.

zain wrote: › This is so far removed from the principle of will on equal terms with divine love in the 93 formula of Agape/Telema. So under your terms Erwin, rape is an act of divnine love? Thats just plain sick. Ludicrous.

The probably you are suffering here, Zain, is that your understanding of Thelema is exceedingly poor, matched only by your pitiful powers of analysis and debate. You've demonstrated this here on many occasions with your many rambling, aimless, and outright weird posts.

Thelema has nothing to do with "divine love". Nothing at all. The word "agape" does not appear in the Book of the Law, and neither does the number 93. Love, in the Thelemic sense, is the expansion of the self through union in the form of experience. It has nothing to do with hippies, Jesus, or pretty little bunnies playing happily in fields of sunflowers.

zain wrote: › The principles of Thelema do not condone rape or unwanted violation.

If such things are in accordance with the will of the individual in question, then Thelema not only condones it, but demands it. You may not believe it's in accordance with their will, but as I told you, that's just idle speculation on your part. Worrying about their will is certainly not something that's in accordance with yours, I can tell you that much.

Of course, like I've said, nobody, including you, is under any obligation to accept the Law of Thelema. If it upsets you so much, just stop pretending to be a Thelemite, there's no shame in it.

zain wrote: › And for you to suggest that Erwin suggests you have problems.

Problems getting simple concepts through your thick skull, yes.

zain wrote: › Taking Crowleys writng out of context to suggest rape is a form of Agape/love is just ludicrous.

Your predictable failure to supply an alternative context is duly noted.

zain wrote: › So i again i ask you , do you condone rape Erwin?

For starters, you're not "asking me again", since you never asked me this the first time, but I'll indulge your curiosity despite your morass of inaccuracies.

I'll tell you again, since you appear to be having extreme problems grasping this. I do not "condone" any action, neither do I "condemn" any action, because I consider moral statements to have no truth value and moral qualities to have no real existence, so I have absolutely no basis for "condoning" or "condemning" anything.

If somebody wants to commit rape, that's their affair. It only becomes my business when it affects my will, and in that eventuality, I couldn't care two figs what the other guy wants or what his justifications are, since if it comes down to my will or his, mine is going to win one way or another. If he's not conflicting with my will, then as far as I'm concerned he can do what he likes, and good luck to him. If other people want to try and punish him for it, they can do what they like too. I would quite simply be uninterested in the entire affair, since it's of no concern to me.

Erwin - Oct 03, 2007 - 05:48 PM
Post subject:

sonofthestar@Gmail.com wrote: › The true will to me is the uttermost expression of one’s true nature/self and divine birthright---I cannot fathom it personally as having anything to do with some base and brutish actions---such as that of imposing anything at all suggestive of such brutalities, upon any particular woman, or women/ man, or men.

Maybe you can't fathom it, but to risk belaboring a point, whether you can or cannot fathom it is entirely beside the point, since it's not your decision. Each individual is responsible for their own will, and the only thing that matters is therefore whether he can "fathom it".

You cannot sensibly profess to be a Thelemite in one breath, and in the next breath say that you expect everybody else to share your values. You either accept the Law of Thelema, and everything that goes along with it, or you don't. Either way is fine with me.

zain - Oct 03, 2007 - 05:59 PM
Post subject:

Quote: › "it is not objectively wrong to rape". Erwin

Erwin you should withdraw that statement. What ever your "unique" take on Thelema is, that statement cant be defended or justified. Withdraw that statement. Secondly i dont think that rape victims or victims of sexual assault would share your view that "its not objectively wrong to rape". So are you saying that rape victims have benefited in a Thelemic manner from their horrible ordeal? Again there is no suggestion of this ludicrous postion in Thelema. Again your position seems to suggest a big problem if you equate Rape with Agape/divine love.

If you dont withdraw your statement, i will take this to the moderator. I do not condone or want to be associated with a person through a website who thinks that rape "is not objectively wrong". And just the fact that you can use something has horrible has the act of rape for "point scoring" is very crass and in bad taste.

Has a side note i include the Wiki entry on what constitutes "Rape" just so this nonsense can be put to some useful context.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/rape

Kalki93 - Oct 03, 2007 - 06:05 PM
Post subject:

Is this a discussion group or an argument group?
Magical personalities have way too many of their own views. What does rape have to do with anything? Is it even worth discussing. There have been much more profound things revealed in Thelemic Understanding. I see it more as a Modern Universal Understanding still it does not fall so far away from Yoga. Since when does Yoga have to do with Evil?
Who cares anyway, should'nt we be focusing on Better things?
I've known evil types all of my life, so what's new!?
Personally I think it is so overrated now to be evil.
In the aspect of Tiphareth we harmonize and resolve all of this and that is really what the Book of the Law is about, resolving our conflicts.
Even if it does say " I peck out the eyes of Jesus." it does'nt mean we hate Jesus, the Indian, Mohammed, etc.! It means to understand that Love Conquers All.
If we understand that we will know what evil is.
Is'nt that the real Challenge.
Did Aleister Crowley Hate or Love everyone and does it Matter so much? Has anyone here read Moonchild?
All is Brahman. We are not the Parabrahman, and that is God and that is the All-Attractive Supreme Person and that is not who we miscreants are only Partially are we.
We are all like the Antichrist at first until we learn to resolve our conflicts and that is the Challenge of Thelema.

Haribol
Bhakta Aaron nee Goth devoid of vast learning, Leaping Laughter to IO Pan and Hare Krsna Hare Krsna Krsna Ksrna Hare Hare Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare

the_real_simon_iff - Oct 03, 2007 - 06:09 PM
Post subject:

93, Erwin!

Believe it or not, "moral principles" in this case simply mean nothing to me. Nor am I the least horrified or shocked by murder. I just said there is a school of thought who likes to shock and think this helps. I disagree. I assure you, I am not talking about if killing someone is good or evil, though I think that the convention of condemning the act of murder is okay with me. Why that? Well, it is my believe that there is no such thing as a "True Will to murder". You say that the Will changes every moment and I can see there are moments where your Will to live would let you kill someone like in a self-defense act. Or when you are a soldier in war. But that is simply common sense and it has nothing specifically Thelemic about it.

Why do you think (or was it Aum418?) that all the systems Crowley worked with for his whole life (magickal systems) are worthless when it comes to the Book of the Law? The Higher Self, the HGA, yoga? Nothing about killing there. In my opinion it is not helpful to try to explain/describe Thelemic thinking by seeing how it works in extremes. Why should it? On the contrary, it is a mistake. It is very un-scientific as it can not be tested. To speak about theoretical extremes is to turn a conversation on Thelema into meaningless noise. You yourself speak of the defects of language, but you still want to take everything in the Book of the Law strictly literally. The book of the Law is not only for the Highest Adepts who have transcended everything, the Law is for all. Let's find a language that all can understand - at least in a public forum.

Unfortunately I cannot tell you what I think the True Will is, I guess I have not found it yet. But wasn't Crowley saying that it is highly important to find your True Will? Surely it manifests on a moment-to-moment basis, but the Will itself does not change, does it? It sounds to me you are still talking of Desire. So please, if you can, try to explain if there can be a "True Will to murder and rape"? When stars are colliding, do you think one star was on his right way and the other one not? Is this really only a survival-of-the-fittest-game? I don't think so, judging from the little experience I have in "Magick".

Love=law
Lutz

P.S. Probably the whole conversation is just about the defects of language. But isn't everything? In a certain sense?

Aum418 - Oct 03, 2007 - 06:10 PM
Post subject:

zain wrote: › Erwin you should withdraw that statement. What ever your "unique" take on Thelema is, that statement cant be defended or justified. Withdraw that statement.

You really dont get it do you.

Quote: › Secondly i dont think that rape victims or victims of sexual assault would share your view that "its not objectively wrong to rape".

Since when was this a consideration of "Thou hast no right but to do thy will. Do that, and no other shall say nay"?

Quote: › So are you saying that rape victims have benefited in a Thelemic manner from their horrible ordeal?

There is no notion of 'benefit for others' in Liber AL that I can find.

Quote: › Again there is no suggestion of this ludicrous postion in Thelema.

Actually theres tons of suggestions of this position in Liber AL and just about none to back up your statement.

Quote: › Again your position seems to suggest a big problem if you equate Rape with Agape/divine love.

You didnt even read Erwin's reply did you? Agape does not equal divine love.

Quote: › If you dont withdraw your statement, i will take this to the moderator.

The moderator has actually commented on this thread complimenting Erwin's post, so...

Quote: › I do not condone or want to be associated with a person through a website who thinks that rape "is not objectively wrong".

A person's opinions on the forum in no way reflect the opinions of the admins of LAShTAL.com. You should know that. The forums arent a place to, especially Thelemic forums, complain that a concept makes you uncomfortable.

Quote: › And just the fact that you can use something has horrible has the act of rape for "point scoring" is very crass and in bad taste.

"Horrible" is a value/moral judgment by yourself. It holds absolutely no objective validity nor does it hold any validity in Thelema/the Will. There is quite a lot of 'horribleness' in Liber AL if you choose to perceive it that way.

Quote: › Has a side note i include the Wiki entry on what constitutes "Rape" just so this nonsense can be put to some useful context.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/rape

Well THAT settled the argument... not.

65 & 210,
111-418

Erwin - Oct 03, 2007 - 06:12 PM
Post subject:

zain wrote: ›

Quote: › "it is not objectively wrong to rape". Erwin

Erwin you should withdraw that statement.

No.

zain wrote: › What ever your "unique" take on Thelema is, that statement cant be defended or justified.

I just did defend and justify it, in detail, multiple times. So you are mistaken. Again.

zain wrote: › Withdraw that statement.

No.

zain wrote: › Secondly i dont think that rape victims or victims of sexual assault would share your view that "its not objectively wrong to rape".

I don't care. I'm giving you facts. Whether or not people share my views is of no concern to me. It's not my fault if people don't like the truth.

zain wrote: › So are you saying that rape victims have benefited in a Thelemic manner from their horrible ordeal?

I don't recall saying anything about anything benefiting anyone. Neither does this have any relevance to the question. You're getting confused on an elementary level about the issue, again.

zain wrote: › Again your position seems to suggest a big problem if you equate Rape with Agape/divine love.

Which I don't, as I already explained to you. Apparently you didn't read it, but then again, my hopes weren't high.

zain wrote: › If you dont withdraw your statement,

Which I won't.

zain wrote: › i will take this to the moderator.

Go right on ahead there, sonny.

zain wrote: › I do not condone or want to be associated with a person through a website who thinks that rape "is not objectively wrong".

I suggest you stop replying to my posts, then. What, do you want me to hold your hand, too?

zain wrote: › And just the fact that you can use something has horrible has the act of rape for "point scoring" is very crass and in bad taste.

There you go inventing reality for yourself again.

Aum418 - Oct 03, 2007 - 06:18 PM
Post subject:

Quote: › Why do you think (or was it Aum418?) that all the systems Crowley worked with for his whole life (magickal systems) are worthless when it comes to the Book of the Law? The Higher Self, the HGA, yoga? Nothing about killing there.

I never said that but I find Liber AL much more important than imported spiritual systems.

Quote: › In my opinion it is not helpful to try to explain/describe Thelemic thinking by seeing how it works in extremes. Why should it?

This is how most philosophy works: extreme cases are used to show to the mind the big conflicts becuase in most situations the cases are somewhere in the middle. For example, to 'refute' utilitarianism one could give the extreme example of the Gladiator in the collisseum (I dont want to explain why this 'refutes' Mill's utilitarianism but its merely an example of an extreme circumstance that gives rise to questioning of the theory).

Quote: › On the contrary, it is a mistake. It is very un-scientific as it can not be tested.

It doenst have to be scientifically tested to have philosophical or theoretical validity, it is only empirically proved to be through such.

Quote: › To speak about theoretical extremes is to turn a conversation on Thelema into meaningless noise.

I disagree as above.

65 & 210,
111-418

Erwin - Oct 03, 2007 - 06:34 PM
Post subject:

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › Well, it is my believe that there is no such thing as a "True Will to murder".

Is this a belief you can substantiate, or a belief you have just elected to hold? If you believe there is a good reason why the true will could not include this under any circumstances, I'd be interested in hearing it.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › Why do you think (or was it Aum418?)

No, it was me.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › that all the systems Crowley worked with for his whole life (magickal systems) are worthless when it comes to the Book of the Law? The Higher Self, the HGA, yoga?

Well I just quoted Crowley for you saying the "Higher Self" was a delusion, so I'm not entirely sure what you were getting at here. Crowley developed his systems over a period of time, and he developed just like they did. He explained things in different ways and at different times, and gave varying degrees of emphasis to specific subjects.

For what it's worth, I consider Crowley's views to be identical with the ones I am giving here, and although I cannot demonstrate it to you all at once right here and right now, such a thing is in the works.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › Nothing about killing there.

You're missing the point. Crowley's "systems" were aimed at discovering and fulfilling the will, not on describing what each individual's will actually is, so it's not surprising that there is "nothing about killing there".

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › In my opinion it is not helpful to try to explain/describe Thelemic thinking by seeing how it works in extremes. Why should it?

For the reasons I gave. If the Law of Thelema doesn't work in extremes, then it doesn't work at all, and should be discarded. I could just as easily counter with the view that I don't think it's "helpful to try to explain/describe Thelemic thinking" in terms so woolly and generalised as to make it indistinguishable from any other kind of thinking, since in that case, we don't explain or describe anything at all.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › It is very un-scientific as it can not be tested.

The same goes for all discussions of this nature.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › To speak about theoretical extremes is to turn a conversation on Thelema into meaningless noise.

So you keep saying, but this just isn't the case. For one thing, these are not "theoretical extremes" - both murder and rape occur on a daily basis, all around the world. There's nothing theoretical about it. The whole concepts of will and love exist only in theoretical terms, and if we can't discuss them theoretically, we can't discuss them at all.

What I hear from you is "no, I don't think we should be discussing these things, no, not at all, I want you to stop". It sounds like you just want to avoid the issue, and if that's the case, that's your prerogative.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › You yourself speak of the defects of language, but you still want to take everything in the Book of the Law strictly literally. The book of the Law is not only for the Highest Adepts who have transcended everything, the Law is for all. Let's find a language that all can understand - at least in a public forum.

You are misunderstanding what I am doing here. I am describing Thelema with reference to what the Book of the Law actually says. I'm not arguing that such-and-such a thing must be real, because the Book of the Law says so. Thelema is defined by the Book of the Law, and since it is a book, if you don't take it "literally", then you don't take it at all.

As I keep saying, this is Thelema. Nobody is under any obligation to adhere to it.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › Unfortunately I cannot tell you what I think the True Will is, I guess I have not found it yet.

I've never found a pink cat shaped like an elephant, either, but I could tell you what one looks like. I can't play the violin, but I could point one out to you in an orchestra.

The will is neither mysterious nor strange.

In more practical terms, if you do not know what you think the True Will is, how do you know you haven't found it yet? You must have a theory of your own in one way or another, regardless of how reliable you consider that theory to be.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › But wasn't Crowley saying that it is highly important to find your True Will?

Certainly.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › Surely it manifests on a moment-to-moment basis, but the Will itself does not change, does it?

See, this is the problem we get. You say you cannot tell me what you think the true will is, but apparently you can tell me that "surely...the Will itself does not change", so you must have an idea. You can't have it both ways. I cannot discuss will with you very sensibly unless you tell me what you think it is.

But, to answer your question, the will is the "moment-to-moment" manifestation, so yes, it certainly does change. There is no overriding cosmic plan moving these manifestations around and putting them into order. The will is an abstraction.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › It sounds to me you are still talking of Desire.

Well, I'm not sure what else to tell you, other than that's not what I'm talking of at all.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › So please, if you can, try to explain if there can be a "True Will to murder and rape"?

Yes, there can be a true will to murder and/or rape.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › When stars are colliding, do you think one star was on his right way and the other one not?

No, both were.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › Is this really only a survival-of-the-fittest-game?

Ultimately, yes, although people dress it up with a lot of other stuff.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › I don't think so, judging from the little experience I have in "Magick".

Again, I don't really know what else to tell you, other than judging from the extensive experience I've had with "Magick", I think it is. And so did Crowley, if that kind of thing interests you.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › P.S. Probably the whole conversation is just about the defects of language. But isn't everything? In a certain sense?

"I have omitted to say that the whole subject of Magick is an example of Mythopoeia in that particular form called Disease of Language" - Crowley, Magick in Theory and Practice

lashtal - Oct 03, 2007 - 06:45 PM
Post subject:

Zain,

zain wrote: › Erwin you should withdraw that statement. What ever your "unique" take on Thelema is, that statement cant be defended or justified. Withdraw that statement.

This is one of the most interesting threads I've read here in a long time. It's a discussion that wouldn't be enhanced by the "withdrawal" of any of Erwin's observations.

zain wrote: › If you dont withdraw your statement, i will take this to the moderator.

As owner and editor of LAShTAL.COM I note your concerns but my determination is that those concerns are over-stated and that you may be willfully misinterpreting what has been said. I agreed with you in respect of the post by Uni_Verse and acted accordingly. The posts by Erwin and others do not fall into anything like the same category.

fraseth - Oct 03, 2007 - 06:53 PM
Post subject:

I do not promote rape, and I do not advocate violence on an everyday level, but are we discussing simple social standards here, or are we discussing the existence of evil on a transcendent level? Not everything that is -per definitionem- wrong by social standards, may be equally wrong on a philosophical, religious, or magical level. The understanding of this fact does not automatically lead into the consequence that we are now all allowed to go out and rape, kill and torture as we please.

Why even discuss social standards here? In the age of Auschwitz, Dafour, Iraq, Kosovo, and Ruwanda, whining about the the rights and wrongs of a hypothetical rape is pointless, as social standards may vary, and are being defined by those in power.

Those who promote high social standards, whatever that may be, are well advised to have a closer look at their own teachings. The churches' protagonists have never failed to raise their hands for a fascist greeting, or give the newest dictator and mass murderer a warm welcome within their own walls. Besides, the Christian Bible has more violence on one single page than Crowley's whole opus contains, and yet some call him evil and Satanic?

The Bible is does not pussyfoot around when it comes to rape, murder, child killing, war, etc., and does not waste one single thought about social standards in this aspect.

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father....
Deuteronomy 22:28-29

Also compare:

Judges 21:10-24, Numbers 31:7-18, Deuteronomy 20:10-14, Deuteronomy 22:23-24, Deuteronomy 21:10-14, Judges 5:30, Exodus 21:7-11, Zechariah 14:1-2

Another example:

Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down. Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord." Nathan answered David: "The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die." 2 Samuel 12:11-14

So can we define first if we discuss evil on a philosophical level in this thread, or if we talk about social standards? I gladly participate in the philosophical part, but see the other part as pointless.

I also think it is wrong to revoke Uni_Verses rights to post, as he did not promote rape, he only said that there are women who fantasize about rape. This is true, as I know from first hand experience, and I have no problem proving it, if there is need to. You may debate whether this is OK on a social level, or not, but you can't deny the fact, which is, on a philosophical level, redundant anyway.

asclepio - Oct 03, 2007 - 06:59 PM
Post subject:

93
Erwin, (or Aum, since you seem to understand well enough what Erwin says)
I don't like being too intrusive but I think I get what you're saying, although I'm still in the dark on a portion of it. Violence can be a part of a man's true will, in a strictly philosophical sense carrying out the true will IS extremely violent, nature is like that. It is on the part, not of rape or murder especifically that I have a doubt, but on this:
- Can one man's true will be the destruction of another man's true will?

I'm leaning on the yes. Napoleon for instance, the man conquers countries and commanded armies to their deaths, destroying the possibility of thousands of others, of executing their true will. A man's "destiny" CAN be to kill and conquer. The ideology of "we-can-all-get-along" simply can not exist on Thelema, on all levels, starting on the biological sense up to the social sense, one man's path may mean the denial for another person's opportunity to walk his path.

I'm not bringing morals into this. I agree that there is no objective way of saying rape is wrong, it is cultural, it may sound shocking but it's true. Of course, if I'm a policeman or a judge I would still send a rapist to jail, because it is my job, that is to say my responsability with society (again, it's cultural, not objective).

Here's what causes confusion, I believe, careful, I'm not saying this is a correct interpretation of thelema, but it exists:
According to cabalistic logic (as I understand it so far), there's a point of realization of "you are a God", but the other pillar states "so is everyone else", so the common interpretation, that which is causing confusion now, implies the following line of thought: "It is my will to own X, since there is not enough for anyone, I should split X in many parts because we are all equally gods"

In that same sense, rape would be wrong because since the other person, male or female, is a god, their will is divine, then we can not deny that will, we can not contradict it, or force it to do as I please (here we include raping).

That seems to be the interpretation that causes the confusion. The mistake there is that, on the one hand, "as brothers fight ye..." etc., etc., but also, if something is on your way, as an obstacle, a god must conquer it, even if that obstacle is another man's will.

I still respect the cultural laws, not because it is an objective imperative, but because I fancy them and, so far, I have not raped anyone nor I feel the will to do it.

I still feel my previous argument could stand, one should be careful of who he is friends with, if your sexual partner is a slave, I still feel that's a mistake, if you surround yourself with misery that's where you will end, can a god live in a dog?! Then why waste time on the slaves? The hell with them.

And my other argument also holds, or at least I believe it does, if a woman likes to claim that she has been raped, she has psycological issues. One thing is the rough stuff, but going around acusing people of being rapist is a very serious matter (in a cultural sense, in the sense of laws of society).

Maybe I'm biased to see thelema as highly aristocratic, and in that sense of separating clearly who you mingle with and why. That's how I was raised, so I'm not being entirely objective (as a matter of fact my upbringing goes deeper than that, to this day I can't stand misery, let alone human misery, I turn highly inhuman towards them... old families with old demons, but that's besides the point).

I hope you have the time to read my message, it would be nice to read your response, if you have time.
93/93

Aum418 - Oct 03, 2007 - 07:08 PM
Post subject:

asclepio wrote: › 93
Erwin, (or Aum, since you seem to understand well enough what Erwin says)
I don't like being too intrusive but I think I get what you're saying, although I'm still in the dark on a portion of it. Violence can be a part of a man's true will, in a strictly philosophical sense carrying out the true will IS extremely violent, nature is like that. It is on the part, not of rape or murder especifically that I have a doubt, but on this:
- Can one man's true will be the destruction of another man's true will?

I'm leaning on the yes. Napoleon for instance, the man conquers countries and commanded armies to their deaths, destroying the possibility of thousands of others, of executing their true will. A man's "destiny" CAN be to kill and conquer. The ideology of "we-can-all-get-along" simply can not exist on Thelema, on all levels, starting on the biological sense up to the social sense, one man's path may mean the denial for another person's opportunity to walk his path.

I'm not bringing morals into this. I agree that there is no objective way of saying rape is wrong, it is cultural, it may sound shocking but it's true. Of course, if I'm a policeman or a judge I would still send a rapist to jail, because it is my job, that is to say my responsability with society (again, it's cultural, not objective).

Here's what causes confusion, I believe, careful, I'm not saying this is a correct interpretation of thelema, but it exists:
According to cabalistic logic (as I understand it so far), there's a point of realization of "you are a God", but the other pillar states "so is everyone else", so the common interpretation, that which is causing confusion now, implies the following line of thought: "It is my will to own X, since there is not enough for anyone, I should split X in many parts because we are all equally gods"

In that same sense, rape would be wrong because since the other person, male or female, is a god, their will is divine, then we can not deny that will, we can not contradict it, or force it to do as I please (here we include raping).

That seems to be the interpretation that causes the confusion. The mistake there is that, on the one hand, "as brothers fight ye..." etc., etc., but also, if something is on your way, as an obstacle, a god must conquer it, even if that obstacle is another man's will.

I still respect the cultural laws, not because it is an objective imperative, but because I fancy them and, so far, I have not raped anyone nor I feel the will to do it.

I still feel my previous argument could stand, one should be careful of who he is friends with, if your sexual partner is a slave, I still feel that's a mistake, if you surround yourself with misery that's where you will end, can a god live in a dog?! Then why waste time on the slaves? The hell with them.

And my other argument also holds, or at least I believe it does, if a woman likes to claim that she has been raped, she has psycological issues. One thing is the rough stuff, but going around acusing people of being rapist is a very serious matter (in a cultural sense, in the sense of laws of society).

Maybe I'm biased to see thelema as highly aristocratic, and in that sense of separating clearly who you mingle with and why. That's how I was raised, so I'm not being entirely objective (as a matter of fact my upbringing goes deeper than that, to this day I can't stand misery, let alone human misery, I turn highly inhuman towards them... old families with old demons, but that's besides the point).

I hope you have the time to read my message, it would be nice to read your response, if you have time.
93/93

The problem, I think, is your use of the phrase "destruction of another's True Will." Everyone dies, therefore it is absurd to think it is not in the will of someone for their body to die. To think that death someone 'destroys the True Will' of anything I think is absurd - the True Will isnt thwarted, only totally misunderstood. Crowley wrote in the commentary to Liber AL that "he can no more be destroyed, or his true Will be thwarted, than Matter diminish or Energy disappear."

Further, we need to separate practical cultural rules with "absolute" ones such as "Do what thou wilt." It is the necessary duty of the policeman to carry out his place, i.e. arresting those who break the laws of that country. By living in a country, one agrees to those laws, although one may acknowledge they have no Absolute or universal validity (they indeed do have a relative & practical validity... or else society would not uphold them so vehemently).

65 & 210,
111-418

Erwin - Oct 03, 2007 - 07:20 PM
Post subject:

asclepio wrote: › Here's what causes confusion, I believe, careful, I'm not saying this is a correct interpretation of thelema, but it exists:
According to cabalistic logic (as I understand it so far), there's a point of realization of "you are a God", but the other pillar states "so is everyone else", so the common interpretation, that which is causing confusion now, implies the following line of thought: "It is my will to own X, since there is not enough for anyone, I should split X in many parts because we are all equally gods"

In that same sense, rape would be wrong because since the other person, male or female, is a god, their will is divine, then we can not deny that will, we can not contradict it, or force it to do as I please (here we include raping). That seems to be the interpretation that causes the confusion.

You have correctly identified the source of the confusion, as I describe in the essay I linked to (and which has now coincidentally appeared in Aum's journal). People assume that "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law" implies a requirement to let other people get on with their wills unhindered by you. It doesn't. This might shock people, including some who have been happily labouring under this misconception for years, but there you have it. Quite apart from the rest of the corrobarative evidence in the Book, the clue is in the phrase itself, particularly in the words "thou" and "whole".

To restate more clearly: the Law of Thelema contains no requirement to respect the will of another. The one and only requirement it contains is to do your own will.

Some will argue that following the will, by definition, prevents you from clashing, usually quoting Liber II, Duty, or Liber OZ (as somebody has done here already). These arguments are incorrect, as I also explain in my essay.

That's it. Those are the ethical implications of Thelema. Do your will, whatever it may be, and don't do anything else. This is, quite literally, all there is to it.

asclepio wrote: › The mistake there is that, on the one hand, "as brothers fight ye..." etc., etc., but also, if something is on your way, as an obstacle, a god must conquer it, even if that obstacle is another man's will.

More than that, the Book of the Law makes absolutely no sense at all if you insist on clinging to this notion of "refraining from conflict" having anything remotely to do with Thelema.

asclepio wrote: › I still respect the cultural laws, not because it is an objective imperative, but because I fancy them and, so far, I have not raped anyone nor I feel the will to do it.

To risk repeating myself, once more as I describe in my essay, discrediting the notion of absolute morality does not imply the disappearance of values. Just because I don't think murder is objectively wrong, it doesn't imply that I want to suddenly go out and start murdering people, or that I wouldn't be concerned if somebody tried to murder me, and it doesn't imply that I am being inconsistent in holding those values. Morals are quite simply a wholly unnecessary complication.

asclepio - Oct 03, 2007 - 07:25 PM
Post subject:

You're right Aum, "destruction" is not the right word, I meant using another person as a tool rather than an end in itself. That's the interpretation that causes confusion. And yes, I agree, like fraseth says, one thing is the cultural standard and another thing is the philosophical sense, like you say separate the practical cultural rules.

Aum418 - Oct 03, 2007 - 07:49 PM
Post subject:

You could read Erwin's response... or you could read the new and maginificent Journal of Thelemic Studies... :blush:

asclepio wrote: › You're right Aum, "destruction" is not the right word, I meant using another person as a tool rather than an end in itself. That's the interpretation that causes confusion. And yes, I agree, like fraseth says, one thing is the cultural standard and another thing is the philosophical sense, like you say separate the practical cultural rules.

All these things in the phenomenal universe are equaly aspects of the Khu. Crowley writes plainly, "To me, even another Khabs is only part of my Khu. Our own Khabs is our one sole Truth."

65 & 210,
111-418

lashtal - Oct 03, 2007 - 08:28 PM
Post subject:

fraseth wrote: › I also think it is wrong to revoke Uni_Verses rights to post

Fair enough.

fraseth wrote: › he did not promote rape

Didn't say he did.

the_real_simon_iff - Oct 03, 2007 - 10:10 PM
Post subject:

93, Erwin and Aum418!

First, I am at work and haven't read the essay yet, I will later. Thanks for your answers, I begin to see what you mean. Not only due to the language barrier, you obviously know a lot better to say what you want to say. But that's why I am here.

Erwin wrote: › If you believe there is a good reason why the true will could not include this under any circumstances, I'd be interested in hearing it.

What I find difficult to conceive, is, what are the circumstances? This sounds a lot like circumstances that might force anyone to kill somebody. Self Defense. War. etc. What do you think (I am asking for an opinion here) could make a Thelemite find it is his Will to murder? I understand that ultimately there is no Law beyond Do What Thou Wilt, but leaving the theoretical extremes for a moment, do you really think, there can be a Will to murder? To what end? What I am up to: If you are (theoretically) to judge a murderer, what would you do? Let him go, when he can prove it was his True Will? This would bring us back to an earlier question: How would you find out? If you can't find out (as you said) then how would you, the Thelemic Judge, handle him?

Erwin wrote: › For what it's worth, I consider Crowley's views to be identical with the ones I am giving here, and although I cannot demonstrate it to you all at once right here and right now, such a thing is in the works.

Well, maybe you are too sure here. He definetely wrote a lot of stuff, and as we all know he could be lovely, aggressive, wise, peaceful, racist, sentimental. But okay, you are sure, I am not.

Erwin wrote: › Crowley's "systems" were aimed at discovering and fulfilling the will, not on describing what each individual's will actually is, so it's not surprising that there is "nothing about killing there".

You are right, I was wrong (or articulated wrongly).

Erwin wrote: › For one thing, these are not "theoretical extremes" - both murder and rape occur on a daily basis, all around the world. There's nothing theoretical about it. The whole concepts of will and love exist only in theoretical terms, and if we can't discuss them theoretically, we can't discuss them at all.

But what has the daily violence to do with Thelema? These are not Thelemites who commit these things. Probably our biggest misunderstanding is that I believe that Thelemic philosophy could somehow "better" the planet, at least alter it to a different state. I know that I will be called a hippie or a New Age bunny again, but this just makes me yawn. In the same way I could say that you (and Crowley) are just megalomaniacs who want to be at the top of the food chain. But I don't think so. The prophet used a lot of philosophies that could be called hippie-ish or New Age also, and he was much more sure about this stuff than about the cryptic Book of the Law, on which he changed his mind a few times. And I keep changing my mind also a lot. I am not sure about anything and I feel there is more to Thelema than the survival of the fittest. Please keep in mind that the fittest is not necessarily the strongest.

Erwin wrote: › What I hear from you is "no, I don't think we should be discussing these things, no, not at all, I want you to stop". It sounds like you just want to avoid the issue, and if that's the case, that's your prerogative.

Please, don't stop. You are hearing me wrongly. This has to be discussed and I love to learn. I really do. On the other hand you have to accept the fact that there are little megalomaniacs on this planet who simply love this "do what thou wilt" concept. Crowley always faught for the right understanding of that sentence and I hope that this and other threads throw light on the mysteries of Thelema.

Erwin wrote: › Thelema is defined by the Book of the Law, and since it is a book, if you don't take it "literally", then you don't take it at all.

This is nonsense. Every book (especially this one) is open for interpretation. If you simply say "I am sure I know what Crowley meant" you are simply saying "Crowley was absolutely right" and this is simple faith, not understanding.

Erwin wrote: › The will is neither mysterious nor strange.

To me it is. There are a lot of paradoxes that open up and so far not all of them are solved.

Erwin wrote: › There is no overriding cosmic plan moving these manifestations around and putting them into order. The will is an abstraction.

Of what? The tendency to be at the top of the food chain? I think there is a kind of cosmic plan. No bearded old man of course, but principles that can be understood through Thelemic Magick. What's wrong with a cosmic plan? Am I a bunny again now?

Erwin wrote: › Yes, there can be a true will to murder and/or rape.

I shall take it like that? Just because you say so in a single sentence? I do not. I think all reasons to murder or rape are signes of absence of the True Will. I really would like to know where there is no reason to murder/rape besides the True Will of the murderer/rapist.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › When stars are colliding, do you think one star was on his right way and the other one not?

Erwin wrote: › No, both were.

So there is also a True Will to be murdered or raped? Again, this sound like a fatalistic/predetermined world view. Is Thelema just a vehicle to help someone accept his fate?

Erwin wrote: › Again, I don't really know what else to tell you, other than judging from the extensive experience I've had with "Magick", I think it is. And so did Crowley, if that kind of thing interests you.

You know what Crowley thought? Or you know that he was right all time? If everybody can pick what he wants from him, why is what you picked more true?

Crowley wrote: › "I have omitted to say that the whole subject of Magick is an example of Mythopoeia in that particular form called Disease of Language" - Crowley, Magick in Theory and Practice

I was talking about the Will, not Magick. Is there a Thelema without Magick? There is a Will without Magick, I think you agree. Or does Thelema also suffers from the Disease of Language? Then why stick to the Book literally?

Once again, thanks for your time (and also Aum418's). Be assured that this is not about "I could not accept Thelema if it excuses killings and rapings!" I am not shocked or disgusted by what you say. Murder and Rape exist and will probably exist forever. This is human. But shouldn't Thelema make us overcome this "ordinary human existence"?

Love=Law
Lutz

lashtal - Oct 03, 2007 - 10:29 PM
Post subject:

Aleister Crowley, [Magical and Philosophical Commentaries on The Book Of The Law]:

It should be abundantly clear from the foregoing remarks that each individual has an absolute and indefeasible right to use his sexual vehicle in accordance with its own proper character, and that he is responsible only to himself. But he should not injure himself and his right aforesaid; acts invasive of another individual's equal rights are implicitly self-aggressions. A thief can hardly complain on theoretical grounds if he is himself robbed. Such acts as rape, and the assault or seduction of infants, may therefore be justly regarded as offences against the Law of Liberty, and repressed in the interests of that Law. It is also excluded from 'as ye will' to compromise the liberty of another person indirectly, as by taking advantage of the ignorance or good faith of another person to expose that person to the constraint of sickness, poverty, social detriment, or childbearing, unless with the well-informed and uninfluenced free will of that person.

Aum418 - Oct 03, 2007 - 10:33 PM
Post subject:

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › 93, Erwin and Aum418!

What I find difficult to conceive, is, what are the circumstances? This sounds a lot like circumstances that might force anyone to kill somebody. Self Defense. War. etc. What do you think (I am asking for an opinion here) could make a Thelemite find it is his Will to murder?

The circumstances are not absolute - the only absolute is for each individual to do their will. Universalities will only restrict the full function of the will therefore there is no law beyond do what thou wilt and the word of sin is restriction.

Quote: › I understand that ultimately there is no Law beyond Do What Thou Wilt, but leaving the theoretical extremes for a moment, do you really think, there can be a Will to murder? To what end?

Ever looked at nature? The 'nature' of nature (sorry) is for life to feed on life. Plants destroy and usurp one another, animals kill plants, animals kill animals, protozoa kill animals, animals kill etc etc etc...

Quote: › What I am up to: If you are (theoretically) to judge a murderer, what would you do? Let him go, when he can prove it was his True Will?

No. You are confusing a justice system with teh absolute laws of nature & Thelema. If you are to theoretically judge a murderer, you would do it either on Thelemic or social lines. If you are judging on THelemic lines, the only factor is whether he was doign his will and frankly, you cant judge accurately whether he was or not. The other more practical side is to judge on social lines - if you are in America, you will judge on the lines of hte american criminal justice system, etc.

Quote: › This would bring us back to an earlier question: How would you find out? If you can't find out (as you said) then how would you, the Thelemic Judge, handle him?

The idea of a Thelemic Judge is so silly that I actually laughed out loud when reading that. I sicnerely hope nothing even remotely similar ever comes about.

Quote: › But what has the daily violence to do with Thelema?

Absolutely everything. Everyone is violent to a degree - our society specializes in sublimated violence, especially through words instead of physical violence.

Quote: › These are not Thelemites who commit these things.

It matters your definition of Thelemites - if it is people who have heard of Crowley's thelema, then probably no its not (although there were some self-proclaimed Thelemites who molested people, etc.) but if we define Thelemites as those trying to live in accordance with their true natures/will, it may very well be that there are some who commit violence. The path is full of dangers and liable to great imbalance - I think most people know this. I think people also know that we exteriorize our internal conflicts often as well, so someone with more internal conflict will be more externally violent.

Quote: ›
I shall take it like that? Just because you say so in a single sentence? I do not. I think all reasons to murder or rape are signes of absence of the True Will. I really would like to know where there is no reason to murder/rape besides the True Will of the murderer/rapist.

You think all animals that murder each other are not performign their wills? You think that galaxies that collide with otehrs are not performing their will? If you were a galaxy yourself, perhaps you would feel the same moral outrage and think 'it should be this way.' If we think of ourselves as merely finite bodies, then murder is surely a tragedy and a cataclysm but in Liebr AL we are told to give a greater feast for death than for life & to thrill with both the joy of life & death. Death is one more accretion to our experience, as Crowley said. From this point of view, murder is even liberating. Hence the Buddhist saying if you see Buddha on the road, kill him.

Quote: ›

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › When stars are colliding, do you think one star was on his right way and the other one not?

Erwin wrote: › No, both were.

So there is also a True Will to be murdered or raped? Again, this sound like a fatalistic/predetermined world view. Is Thelema just a vehicle to help someone accept his fate?

The world is fatalistic & pre-determined but we cannot deny the strong appearance of free will that we are bound to act within. It is our duty within the realm of apparent free will to commit acts of "love under will" as opposed to 'not under will,' that is perform acts that manifest our true nature and dont thwart it. 'In the end,' or 'in an absolute sense' you could say all is pre-determined or 'all is right' as Crowley says in ch.1 of MWT. Crowley writes in Liber Aleph that the solution of the philosophical puzzle of fate & free will is that it was your true Self that set in motion the universe.

I was talking about the Will, not Magick. Is there a Thelema without Magick?[/quote]

No, because acts of "love under will" are by definition acts of Magick (causing Change in conformity with Will... its almost literally another way to say that).

Quote: › There is a Will without Magick, I think you agree.

This statement is almost meaningless to me. The Will as manifested through a person is always goign to include Magick because "every intentional act is a magickal act" and the method of the Thelemite is "love under will."

Quote: › Or does Thelema also suffers from the Disease of Language? Then why stick to the Book literally?

All words do so Liber Al and all things inherently do - hence the need for poetry, metaphor, symbolic language, etc. to help go beyond rational confines. I think Liber AL is unique in that it points out the failings of the mind (reason in particular in AL II:28-32) but also recognizes theres a place for the mind. The words of Liber AL are a finger pointing to the moon in many ways: dont confuse the map for the territory, or the pointing finger for the moon in this case. Just as a painter can by the trick of color make a 2-dimensional representation of a 3-dimensional 'truth,' by using words we point to something that transcends words. The book is literal in many places and obviously metaphorical/symbolic in other places.

Quote: › Once again, thanks for your time (and also Aum418's). Be assured that this is not about "I could not accept Thelema if it excuses killings and rapings!" I am not shocked or disgusted by what you say. Murder and Rape exist and will probably exist forever. This is human. But shouldn't Thelema make us overcome this "ordinary human existence"?

Love=Law
Lutz

65 & 210,
111-418

Erwin - Oct 03, 2007 - 10:47 PM
Post subject:

lashtal wrote: › Aleister Crowley, [Magical and Philosophical Commentaries on The Book Of The Law]:

It should be abundantly clear from the foregoing remarks that each individual has an absolute and indefeasible right to use his sexual vehicle in accordance with its own proper character, and that he is responsible only to himself. But he should not injure himself and his right aforesaid; acts invasive of another individual's equal rights are implicitly self-aggressions. A thief can hardly complain on theoretical grounds if he is himself robbed. Such acts as rape, and the assault or seduction of infants, may therefore be justly regarded as offences against the Law of Liberty, and repressed in the interests of that Law. It is also excluded from 'as ye will' to compromise the liberty of another person indirectly, as by taking advantage of the ignorance or good faith of another person to expose that person to the constraint of sickness, poverty, social detriment, or childbearing, unless with the well-informed and uninfluenced free will of that person.

Yeah, I was wondering when somebody was going to bring that up. There's also this from Magick in Theory and Practice:

"Men of "criminal nature" are simply at issue with their true Wills. The murderer has the Will-to-live; and his will to murder is a false will at variance with his true Will, since he risks death at the hands of Society by obeying his criminal impulse."

Naturally, this second one is far easier to discount - the mountaineer risks death at the hands of the mountain, but that doesn't mean he's at issue with his true will if he goes mountaineering. Don't forget there was a school of thought that ascribed "criminality" to genetics in them days back then.

In your quote, we're talking about two separate things: "may therefore be justly regarded as offences against the Law of Liberty, and repressed in the interests of that Law". The issue here is repression. What Crowley is doing here is attempting to build a system of temporal law that it as least as closely aligned with the Law of Thelema as is possible. Naturally, fully aligning it is not possible, since the whole purpose of temporal law is to restrict the will of others, so finding a system of temporal law that always permits all individuals to fulfill their wills is naturally impossible. This distinction is clear by the fact that he says "against the Law of Liberty" rather than "against the Law of Thelema".

As I've implied, just as murder may not be against the Law of Thelema, so might restricting it not be. It is reasonable to assume that the vast majority of wills do not require getting murdered for their fulfillment, therefore it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that cooperation in the matter of creating sanctions for murder to lessen that likelihood could also be in accordance with the Law. If that results in a repression of the will of the murderer, too bad for him.

As I said, we're talking two different things. The Law of Thelema applies strictly to individuals. What Crowley is talking about in this quote relates to societies. He is envisaging a society as liberal as is workable, but even this cannot be governed solely by the Law of Thelema. The best the Law can do in such situations is to bring a society closer to that ideal. In all cases, the individual will still be at liberty to transgress those temporal laws if he so chooses, but by so doing he won't be able to claim protection from them.

The study of what a "Thelemic society" would look like is an interesting one, and fraught with difficulty. It matters little - social regulation is essentially a matter of compromise at the best of times, so this is no special case.

MichaelStaley - Oct 03, 2007 - 11:11 PM
Post subject:

lashtal wrote: › Thanks for a genuinely interesting and intellligent post, Erwin.

I would not put it quite like that. Erwin is an example of someone who is so cerebral and so addicted to sophistry that they have lost all common sense.
Anyone who can argue a position that rape might be OK, because of something Crowley said, is simply in need of medication.

lashtal - Oct 03, 2007 - 11:15 PM
Post subject:

Erwin,

Erwin wrote: › What Crowley is talking about in this quote relates to societies. He is envisaging a society as liberal as is workable, but even this cannot be governed solely by the Law of Thelema.

Well, he isn't really. He's actually referring to AL I:51 ("four gates to one palace") and suggests that "the palace is the 'Holy House' or Universe of the Initiate of the New Law."

The "Universe of the Initiate" is not a paraphrase of "liberal society". Crowley reinforces this in the same paragraph when he says: "The question then arises as to whether the initiate is able to stand firmly in this Place of Exaltation".

I still wonder whether the root of much of your thinking - and that of your impressively enthusiastic admirer, Aum418 - revolves around your apparent enthusiasm to conflate 'True Will' with 'Nature'. Or are you suggesting that if an act is in someone's Nature (based on nurture, genetics or whatever) then it's by definition a reflection of his True Will? If so, then we are at variance!

Erwin - Oct 03, 2007 - 11:15 PM
Post subject:

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › What I find difficult to conceive, is, what are the circumstances? This sounds a lot like circumstances that might force anyone to kill somebody. Self Defense. War. etc. What do you think (I am asking for an opinion here) could make a Thelemite find it is his Will to murder? I understand that ultimately there is no Law beyond Do What Thou Wilt, but leaving the theoretical extremes for a moment, do you really think, there can be a Will to murder? To what end?

In its simplest terms, I can imagine the existence of a person who really, truly, genuinely, just love killing. Really loves it. Loves it so much, that the experience to him is worth risking imprisonment or execution for. So as "to what end?", purely for the joy of killing, the same end that it would be anyone's will to do anything else.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › What I am up to: If you are (theoretically) to judge a murderer, what would you do? Let him go, when he can prove it was his True Will? This would bring us back to an earlier question: How would you find out? If you can't find out (as you said) then how would you, the Thelemic Judge, handle him?

OK, you are talking about something totally different, here. The Law of Thelema cannot be used to judge others, simply because the question of the murderer's true will is irrelevant to the question of whether it is "just" for someone to punish him for it. If it is not somebody's will to punish him, then they shouldn't do it. If it is, then they should. The will of the murderer simply doesn't come into this equation.

You can't base a system of social or temporal law on the Law of Thelema; it just doesn't work. The Law is for individuals, and law is for societies.

Now, you can approximate to varying degrees of proximity to the Law of Thelema, which essentially comes down to making laws as liberal as is possible whilst protecting the individual citizens from serious and tangible harm. But it's not the same thing.

In short, you're trying to apply the Law of Thelema to something it is not suited for. That's probably why you're finding what I say confusing.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › But what has the daily violence to do with Thelema?

Everything, to the individuals involved.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › These are not Thelemites who commit these things.

That's a rather broad generalisation.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › Probably our biggest misunderstanding is that I believe that Thelemic philosophy could somehow "better" the planet, at least alter it to a different state. I know that I will be called a hippie or a New Age bunny again, but this just makes me yawn.

OK. That's your prerogative. I disagree with you. I don't see the concept of "bettering the planet" anywhere in Thelema.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › In the same way I could say that you (and Crowley) are just megalomaniacs who want to be at the top of the food chain. But I don't think so. The prophet used a lot of philosophies that could be called hippie-ish or New Age also, and he was much more sure about this stuff than about the cryptic Book of the Law, on which he changed his mind a few times. And I keep changing my mind also a lot. I am not sure about anything and I feel there is more to Thelema than the survival of the fittest.

Well, there is obviously "more" to it than just survival of the fittest. But survival of the fittest is ultimately the governing principle.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › Please keep in mind that the fittest is not necessarily the strongest.

Certainly not. A bunch of weaklings can group together and end up "stronger" than the most vociferous bully. That's ultimately why people form societies in the first place.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › On the other hand you have to accept the fact that there are little megalomaniacs on this planet who simply love this "do what thou wilt" concept.

I do understand it. I just don't particularly care about it, so long as they leave me alone.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › This is nonsense. Every book (especially this one) is open for interpretation. If you simply say "I am sure I know what Crowley meant" you are simply saying "Crowley was absolutely right" and this is simple faith, not understanding.

I never say "I am sure I know what Crowley meant". I'm sure I know what I mean. And, in a number of areas, I'm pretty darned close to being sure I know what Crowley meant on a number of subjects.

Anyway, to return to the point, every book is open to interpretation, but that interpretation should be of what the book literally means. For instance, I can say that "Be thou Hadit" from AL I, 6 is an injunction to the reader, whilst someone else can say that it is an injunction purely to Crowley. There's really nothing that can be said to resolve such a dispute. But in both those cases, we are arguing about what that phrase literally means. That's what I meant.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › To me it is. There are a lot of paradoxes that open up and so far not all of them are solved.

It might seem strange and mysterious to you, but only in the way that Greek seems strange and mysterious until you learn how to read it. I can assure you that in itself, it is in fact not.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › Of what? The tendency to be at the top of the food chain?

The tendency to action.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › I think there is a kind of cosmic plan. No bearded old man of course, but principles that can be understood through Thelemic Magick. What's wrong with a cosmic plan? Am I a bunny again now?

Yes, I'm afraid so. If you have any evidence for this kind of cosmic plan, I'd love to see it.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › I shall take it like that? Just because you say so in a single sentence? I do not.

Well, you asked me to explain if such a thing could exist, which I did. If you want me to explain how it could exist, then do so. However, I believe I already answered this at the top of this post.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › I think all reasons to murder or rape are signes of absence of the True Will.

OK, and once again, I would really like to know why you think this is true.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › I really would like to know where there is no reason to murder/rape besides the True Will of the murderer/rapist.

Because no other reason is needed.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › So there is also a True Will to be murdered or raped?

No, their true wills brought them both to the point of conflict. In cases of murder and rape between "stars", we have to assume that one of the wills was simply defeated, thwarted, stopped, beaten, by the other.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › Again, this sound like a fatalistic/predetermined world view. Is Thelema just a vehicle to help someone accept his fate?

No, but in a certain sense it can provide such a function.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › You know what Crowley thought? Or you know that he was right all time?

I consider that I can infer with a very high degree of likelihood what he thought on this issue.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › If everybody can pick what he wants from him, why is what you picked more true?

I'm not "picking what want". From a long study of almost the entire corpus of Crowley's written works, I consider there to be an extremely high degree of consistency between his works, and that most of these apparent "contradictions" or "blinds" that people complain of are just that, [i]apparent.

As I said though, I am unable to demonstrate this at the current time.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › I was talking about the Will, not Magick. Is there a Thelema without Magick?

No, since magick is the science and art of causing change to occur in conformity with will.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › There is a Will without Magick, I think you agree.

Theoretically, I suppose.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › Or does Thelema also suffers from the Disease of Language?

Everything verbal does.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › Then why stick to the Book literally?

If you have an earache, do you hack your ear off and throw it away? Just because something is difficult, and fraught with predictable problems, doesn't mean it's pointless to try. The purpose of sticking to the Book literally is to try and figure out what the Book actually means, regardless of the problems inherent in language, since the Book defines Thelema. As I keep saying, that doesn't mean you have to accept the Law if you don't like what comes out of the other side of that analysis.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › But shouldn't Thelema make us overcome this "ordinary human existence"?

Why? "Ordinary human existence" is great.

the_real_simon_iff - Oct 03, 2007 - 11:18 PM
Post subject:

93, Aum418!

Thanks for the answers. Before I go home a few words on your answers:

I can always see a good reason why nature feeds on life. Why should someone feed on life of another human? Thelemic cannibals? This is not a real answer. I was asking for an example that is specifically Thelemic and can only be explained with the True Will.

So one simply won't deal with a murderer in a Thelemic society? This sounds not like a good advertising for the Law. I know it is funny, but all this theorizing makes me dizzy (or is it the work?). Maybe there won't be murder when someone finds his True Will? To me this sounds a lot less wishy-washy then "IF it IS his Will!"

Hence my saying: IF you see a Thelemite whose True Will it is to be murdered and your True Will is to murder - than go ahead - kill him! Lots of IFs in there - as well as in the Buddhist saying...

You are absolutely right on Magick and Will - I forgot!

What I say is that I suspect that what you and Erwin transcend from the Book of the Law, MIGHT not be the correct representation of what Aiwass and Crowley said. Ever thought of that possibility? I don't think I confuse the map with the territory - it is you who wants to make out of something that might be said metaphorically or symbolically a Thelemic dogma.

And as Paul pointed out: Crowley also had very pragmatic views on the matter. That's what I am looking for: can an action that is against the Law of Liberty be in accordance with the True Will? If so, then the True Will as you define it sounds a little wishy-washy to me - at this point in my career of Thelemic understanding at least.

Love=Law
Lutz

Erwin - Oct 03, 2007 - 11:18 PM
Post subject:

MichaelStaley wrote: › Anyone who can argue a position that rape might be OK, because of something Crowley said, is simply in need of medication.

I suggest you actually read the posts you are criticising, Michael. You won't come across as being so unobservant and juvenile, that way.

Personally, I think anybody who believes the Book of the Law is a handbook for contacting aliens from outer space is probably in need of medication, but I don't feel the need to cry about it.

Erwin - Oct 03, 2007 - 11:34 PM
Post subject:

lashtal wrote: › Well, he isn't really. He's actually referring to AL I:51 ("four gates to one palace") and suggests that "the palace is the 'Holy House' or Universe of the Initiate of the New Law."

The "Universe of the Initiate" is not a paraphrase of "liberal society". Crowley reinforces this in the same paragraph when he says: "The question then arises as to whether the initiate is able to stand firmly in this Place of Exaltation".

That's as may be, but regardless of what verse he's commenting on, I think it's plain from his words that, at that particular time and in that particular place, he's talking about society. "A thief can hardly complain" "repressed in the interests of that Law". He's clearly referring to matters of social restriction, otherwise the thief wouldn't need to complain, and nothing would need to be repressed.

lashtal wrote: › I still wonder whether the root of much of your thinking - and that of your impressively enthusiastic admirer, Aum418 - revolves around your apparent enthusiasm to conflate 'True Will' with 'Nature'. Or are you suggesting that if an act is in someone's Nature (based on nurture, genetics or whatever) then it's by definition a reflection of his True Will? If so, then we are at variance!

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. What's more, I'm doing so by definition, so if we are at variance, then we only vary in how we define "nature", "will" or both, which is a failure of communication, not a disagreement in substance. To me, nature is what a star is, and will is what it does; the two define each other.

I say the will has to come from somewhere, and that it comes from the nature of the individual, wherever that nature may arise from of what form that nature may take, and I make it that way by definition. If you take issue with my phrasing of this, and you accept that the will has to come from somewhere, then by default you must be suggesting the will comes from somewhere else. To illustrate, I'll put the same question to you that I did to Nashimiron: if will doesn't arise from the nature of the individual, where does it arise from?

I'm not forming conclusions based on definitions, here; I'm defining based on observation. My definitions are not the "root of my thinking" therefore, but the fruit of it.

lashtal - Oct 03, 2007 - 11:35 PM
Post subject:

Erwin wrote: › I suggest you actually read the posts you are criticising, Michael. You won't come across as being so unobservant and juvenile, that way.

Erwin, to be fair, you did start the post referred-to in a rather crass way that invites this sort of observation...

It only takes one human being to be - genuinely - inclined towards rape, and there exists a Thelemic justification for doing it...

The Law of Thelema requires action to be in accordance with only one thing - one's own true nature.

I considered your post overall to be intelligent and interesting but wasn't persuaded or impressed by these paragraphs. The first, because such a "justification" certainly bears no similarity to Thelema as I understand the term - albeit after only thirty years of consideration - and was, I hope, included only for effect and to make an impression. The second, for the reasons I outline above, where you introduce your use of Nature as a synonym of True Will.

Erwin - Oct 03, 2007 - 11:40 PM
Post subject:

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › What I say is that I suspect that what you and Erwin transcend from the Book of the Law, MIGHT not be the correct representation of what Aiwass and Crowley said. Ever thought of that possibility?

I cannot speak for Aum418, but I certainly have thought of this possibility, and if anyone is able to present a convincing alternative representation, I'd be glad to accept it. So far though, in 107 years, nobody has been able to do that. And they never will if people stop "theorizing", as you put it. Until they do, I'm going to assume that mine is right on account of the overwhelming internal consistency with which it explains the Book of the Law, and on account of the degree to which it accords with the known facts of nature.

the_real_simon_iff - Oct 03, 2007 - 11:42 PM
Post subject:

Erwin wrote: › In its simplest terms, I can imagine the existence of a person who really, truly, genuinely, just love killing. Really loves it. Loves it so much, that the experience to him is worth risking imprisonment or execution for. So as "to what end?", purely for the joy of killing, the same end that it would be anyone's will to do anything else.

93!

It is easy to imagine such a person. It is just my conviction that this guy is so far away from his True Will that it stinks. This sounds like a plain and stupid desire to me. And this is the thing: if this person is really only doing his Will and you find no circumstances in his life why he does so, then you might have a genuine True Will murderer. But I bet you will never find him: In reality he needs attention, he wants to feel power, he has serious psychotic issues, nothing can stimulate him any longer. I am not convinced that there is anything purely Thelemic about it. We both are talking about theoretical possibilities we cannot know: you say there might exist a pure and uninfluenced True Will for murder, I say if you follow your True Will you won't will to murder anyone (self-defense and such aside). I think my theory is not less valid than yours and I don't see that Crowley would agree with you.

Love=Law
Lutz

lashtal - Oct 03, 2007 - 11:43 PM
Post subject:

Erwin wrote: › That's as may be, but regardless of what verse he's commenting on, I think it's plain from his words that...

That's a disappointing line to read in one of your posts. "Regardless of what he was talking about, this is what I think he was saying", in effect.

Quote: › To me, nature is what a star is, and will is what it does; the two define each other.

And, by extension, what someone does defines what they are? There is no higher aspect? Doing and Being are two sides of the same equation?

Quote: › I say the will has to come from somewhere, and that it comes from the nature of the individual

Augoeides? The Holy Guardian Angel? Higher Self? The will is entirely dependent upon nurture and genetic predisposition?

Quote: › if will doesn't arise from the nature of the individual, where does it arise from?

Ah, that's above your grade! (Just joking...)

Quote: › My definitions are not the "root of my thinking" therefore, but the fruit of it.

Good for you. Wink

Erwin - Oct 03, 2007 - 11:58 PM
Post subject:

lashtal wrote: › Erwin, to be fair, you did start the post referred-to in a rather crass way that invites this sort of observation...

Regardless, I stressed at least twice in my posts to Zain that the idea of "rape being OK" is something wholly unconnected with what I am saying. Secondly, nowhere did I ever remotely suggest that any of my conclusions are drawn just "because of something Crowley said". All my points are developed fully, on their own merits. Michael's insinuation is therefore wholly without merit and not based on fact.

lashtal wrote: › It only takes one human being to be - genuinely - inclined towards rape, and there exists a Thelemic justification for doing it...

The Law of Thelema requires action to be in accordance with only one thing - one's own true nature.

I considered your post overall to be intelligent and interesting but wasn't persuaded or impressed by these paragraphs. The first, because such a "justification" certainly bears no similarity to Thelema as I understand the term - albeit after only thirty years of consideration - and was, I hope, included only for effect and to make an impression.

Your hope is unfounded, then. While I may occasionally phrase things in a certain way for "effect", I never alter the substance of what I say for this reason.

The first statement can be paraphrased as: if we accept that all an act requires to be justified under the Law of Thelema is that it be in accordance with will, and if we accept that, on occasion, that it could genuinely be the will of an individual to commit rape, then we are forced to conclude that rape can, in certain circumstances, be justified Thelemically, and that it would only take one person so constituted for this to be true.

It is a simple statement of logic, it's not rhetoric. The only grounds for disagreement that make any sense at all are to dispute one or both of the first two clauses, which is what the subsequent discussion has revolved around.

Again, to risk belabouring an already belaboured point, "Thelemic justification" has no bearing on legality, social acceptability, morality, or anything else of that nature. If that's what the Law of Thelema says, then thats what the Law of Thelema says. Nobody has to agree with it or go along with it just because it's in the Book of the Law.

I certainly recognise that the concept of "non-clashing" is indeed widely held amongst many Thelemites, and has been for a long time. I just think it's a widely held misconception, and is not supported by the Book of the Law, for the reasons I've been giving. If people aren't persuaded by those reasons, that's OK, I have neither the ability nor the inclination to force people to agree with me. As to whether people are "impressed" by them, I assume it is relatively easy to infer my position with regards to that.

lashtal wrote: › The second, for the reasons I outline above, where you introduce your use of Nature as a synonym of True Will.

I wouldn't say "synonym", but almost functionally equivalent for practical purposes, certainly. As I mentioned in my other post to you, I equate these by definition, and my reasoning is not derived from this definition, so this should not be a source of substantive dispute. "Nature", as I use it, stands for something definite; we could replace this with another term for that definite something you find more reasonable and eliminate that area of dispute, and find out if there actually is any substantive disagreement on this point.

lashtal - Oct 04, 2007 - 12:06 AM
Post subject:

Erwin wrote: › The first statement can be paraphrased as: if we accept that all an act requires to be justified under the Law of Thelema is that it be in accordance with will, and if we accept that, on occasion, that it could genuinely be the will of an individual to commit rape, then we are forced to conclude that rape can, in certain circumstances, be justified Thelemically, and that it would only take one person so constituted for this to be true.

Ah, but you wouldn't sell many newspapers with that headline, I imagine. Hence my assumption that your phrasing was chosen for impact.

Quote: › "Nature", as I use it, stands for something definite; we could replace this with another term for that definite something you find more reasonable and eliminate that area of dispute, and find out if there actually is any substantive disagreement on this point.

Okay... Tell you what, why don't we use the word "Will" when we mean "Will". I can see why you prefer to use the word 'Nature' but it's not what AL uses, not once, and with good reason.

Erwin - Oct 04, 2007 - 12:13 AM
Post subject:

lashtal wrote: ›

Erwin wrote: › That's as may be, but regardless of what verse he's commenting on, I think it's plain from his words that...

That's a disappointing line to read in one of your posts. "Regardless of what he was talking about, this is what I think he was saying", in effect.

That's not what it says at all. That comment to AL I, 51 is pages and pages long. It covers all sorts of ideas unrelated to that particular verse. Much of the new comment is a collection of Crowley's ideas for which the verse in question is only a starting point.

What he was saying is what he was saying. I was commenting on his comment, but you were coming back quoting the actual verse as your evidence, and a different part of the comment. I'm just saying that these are two separate things, and that you can't claim he isn't talking about society on the grounds that he isn't talking about society somewhere else in the same section.

lashtal wrote: › And, by extension, what someone does defines what they are? There is no higher aspect? Doing and Being are two sides of the same equation?

Precisely. I assert that this idea of "higher aspect" is metaphorical at best, and entirely imaginary at worst.

lashtal wrote: › Augoeides? The Holy Guardian Angel? Higher Self?

See above. I believe I've already dealt with the subject of the Holy Guardian Angel in another thread on this site, and I don't there's anything "higher" about it. In a nutshell, KCHGA is nothing but the ability of the individual to perceive his true nature without the interference of his conscious or subconscious self.

"This being so, the Adept will be free to concentrate his deepest self, that art of him which unconsciously orders his true Will, upon the realization of his Holy Guardian Angel. The absence of his bodily, mental and astral consciousness is indeed cardinal to success, for it is their usurpation of his attention which has made him deaf to his Soul, and his preoccupation with their affairs that has prevented him from perceiving that Soul." - Liber Samekh

"the theory implied in these words [knowledge and conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel] is so patently absurd that only simpletons would waste much time in analyzing it. It would be accepted as a convention, and no one would incur the grave danger of building a philosophical system on it" - Magick in Theory and Practice

lashtal wrote: › The will is entirely dependent upon nurture and genetic predisposition?

It's dependent entirely upon the nature of the individual and the nature of the environment he finds himself in. If you want to divide that up into "nurture" (including all experience) and "genetic predisposition" (including everything else), then yes, I assert that it is.

Erwin - Oct 04, 2007 - 12:18 AM
Post subject:

lashtal wrote: › Ah, but you wouldn't sell many newspapers with that headline, I imagine. Hence my assumption that your phrasing was chosen for impact.

It was chosen for the sake of saying the same thing in fewer words. If people misinterpreted it, oh well, I explained it at enough length for them to get it.

lashtal wrote: › Okay... Tell you what, why don't we use the word "Will" when we mean "Will". I can see why you prefer to use the word 'Nature' but it's not what AL uses, not once, and with good reason.

Well, the fact that it's not in AL is not reason not to employ a term; the same goes from "true will", "holy guardian angel", "magick" and a whole bunch of other ones, for instance. But, if you substitute "will" for "nature" in my posts you probably won't go far wrong.

Aum418 - Oct 04, 2007 - 12:38 AM
Post subject:

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › 93, Aum418!

Thanks for the answers. Before I go home a few words on your answers:

I can always see a good reason why nature feeds on life. Why should someone feed on life of another human? Thelemic cannibals?

It would be idiotic to think of it this way. I am saying that death and murder are part of the fabric of nature. We feed on life in that we are constantly consuming plants & animals and drawing resources from other people, etc. This isnt bad at all in my view - its the way things are.

Quote: › This is not a real answer. I was asking for an example that is specifically Thelemic and can only be explained with the True Will.

Yes it is. True will is just the individual manifestation of Will which there is no restrictions on. Self defense is Thelemic insofar as you are considering it within a thelemic framework. To not include daily happenings because they arent mentioned in Liber AL specifically is pointless - murder in the form of self-defense or war are not 'unThelemic' - in fact Liber AL has quite a bit to say in favor of war.

Quote: › So one simply won't deal with a murderer in a Thelemic society?

No, I talked about a theoretical Thelemic judge, not a society, and I also talked abotu the REAL society we live in. 'Thelemic society,' as of this moment, is a fictional abstraction.

Quote: › This sounds not like a good advertising for the Law. I know it is funny, but all this theorizing makes me dizzy (or is it the work?). Maybe there won't be murder when someone finds his True Will? To me this sounds a lot less wishy-washy then "IF it IS his Will!"

I dont think so... I think its perfectly logical to see, say 10 thelemites theoretically getting together and owning a theoretical 'country.' They could all say it is our wills to enact a law that punishes murder (because you feel this will help everyone enact their wills better, naturally) and if you want to come live in this country, you obey the laws.

Quote: › Hence my saying: IF you see a Thelemite whose True Will it is to be murdered and your True Will is to murder - than go ahead - kill him! Lots of IFs in there - as well as in the Buddhist saying...

You are consistent on trying to judge whether someone is doing their True Will or not, but there is no way you can know or judge accurately. Kings can and will appear as beggars.

Quote: ›
What I say is that I suspect that what you and Erwin transcend from the Book of the Law, MIGHT not be the correct representation of what Aiwass and Crowley said. Ever thought of that possibility?

NO! IM ALWAYS RIGHT! WAAAH. Actually, yes, its quite possible I might be wrong on some poitns.

Quote: › I don't think I confuse the map with the territory - it is you who wants to make out of something that might be said metaphorically or symbolically a Thelemic dogma.

What? What are you talking about? The only Thelemic dogma I want is "Do what thou wilt," which is really an anti-dogma dogma, or an 'amgod'.

Quote: › And as Paul pointed out: Crowley also had very pragmatic views on the matter. That's what I am looking for: can an action that is against the Law of Liberty be in accordance with the True Will?

What is this nebulous Law of Liberty you speak of: everyone can do everything they want and frollick in flowery fields? The Law of Liberty IS Do what thou wilt in my view at least. There are infinite possible situations where the ceasing of the operations of another's body would be the appropriate or natural response. One Zen master once ripped a cat in two, and he was acting from his Zen nature (and he was also illustrating a point). Further, many Bodhisattvas and such are seen in Buddhism as 'vengeful,' or rather 'wrathful' - doing one's will or being illuminated or whatever does not mean you immediately become non-violent and passive.

Quote: › If so, then the True Will as you define it sounds a little wishy-washy to me - at this point in my career of Thelemic understanding at least.

How does not accepting murder & rape as unacceptable become viewed as wishy-washy? Last time I checked, that was the opposite of wishy-washy.

65 & 210,
111-418

Aum418 - Oct 04, 2007 - 01:04 AM
Post subject:

lashtal wrote: › But he should not injure himself and his right aforesaid; acts invasive of another individual's equal rights are implicitly self-aggressions

I think this is the important part - the implicit self-aggression and therefore division is what is the 'Error' of duality.

Quote: › I still wonder whether the root of much of your thinking - and that of your impressively enthusiastic admirer, Aum418 - revolves around your apparent enthusiasm to conflate 'True Will' with 'Nature'.

Because I agree with his positions makes me his admirer? I do admire his vehemence, for one thing.

Quote: › Or are you suggesting that if an act is in someone's Nature (based on nurture, genetics or whatever) then it's by definition a reflection of his True Will? If so, then we are at variance!

True nature, beyond the superimposed superego. You have this notion that (a) all our nature comes from nature & nurture and not frmo ourselves and (b) that the true will comes from outside, the H.G.A. or Higher Self or whatever. I think both of these are misconceptions.

From a theoretical standpoint, almost eveyrthing can be derived if you look into genetics, or if you look into environment - there is an explanation for everything, but this isnt the point. The point is that there is still a 'point of consciousness/self' which retains its inherent nature even though it is clouded over by the superego (notions of right/wrong, etc imposed by society) and other repressions. Crowley himself writes:

"We are not to regard ourselves as base beings, without whose sphere is Light or "God". Our minds and bodies are veils of the Light within. The uninitiate is a "Dark Star", and the Great Work for him is to make his veils transparent by 'purifying' them. This 'purification' is really 'simplification'; it is not that the veil is dirty, but that the complexity of its folds makes it opaque. The Great Work therefore consists principally in the solution of complexes. Everything in itself is perfect, but when things are muddled, they become 'evil'."

He is saying the sphere of Light/God is within, but it is covered by complex folds, and therefore the Great Work 'consists principally in the solution of complexes.' This is not a 'striving outward' or 'upward' to an abstract HGA or "Higher Self" (it should be noted, the former he calls childish and stupid and not to build philosophical system on it, and the latter which he calls a damnable heresy) as you mention in a later post, but a dissolution of the complexes & repressions (superego, etc as I mentioned about) to find that innate nature within oneself.

You are also very reticent to equate True Will with True Nature btu I think it is the natural conclusion (sorry for the pun). Above the Great Work itself is equated with coming to terms with our true nature. In what is probably the clearest example of the equating of true anture with true will, Crowley comments on AL II:31:

"One must fulfil one's true Nature, one must do one's Will."

I dont know how much clearer one can be. I quoted somewhere else this from the Intro to Liber AL itself (part III of the intro):

"Each action or motion is an act of love... each such act must be 'under will,' chosen so as to fulfill and not to thwart the true nature of the being concerned."

Here he equates acting 'under will' or "love under will" to "fulfilling and not thwarting the true nature of the being concerned."

This is the third example of true will being equated with true nature. He also mentions in the comment to AL I:29 that "In other words, life is an attempt to realize one's own nature in one's own soul." When defining the theorems and such of Magick he writes:

9) A Man who is doing his True Will has the inertia of the Universe to assist him. (Illustration: The first principle of success in evolution is that the individual should be true to his own nature, and at the same time adapt himself to his environment.)"

Here is yet another example of the same idea, saying one should be true to his own nature when explaining how a man 'who is doing his true will has the inertia of hte universe.'

As the final quotes, I quote from Liber Aleph, first from "Mandatum ad filium sum:"

" For this is the first and last of all, that thou bid every Man do What he will, in accord with his own true Nature. Therefore also blast thou that Lie that Man is of a fallen and evil Nature. For the Word of Sin is Restriction, the Doubt of his own Godhead, the Suppression of, which is the Blasphemy against, his own Holy Spirit. Saith not "The Book of the Law" that "...It is a lie, this folly against self. ..."? Therefore to every Man, in every Circumstance, say thou: Do what thou wilt; and teach him, if he yet waver, how to discover his true Nature, earnestly and with Ardour, even as I have striven to each thee --- yea, and more also!"

...now from "De natura hujus epistolae:"

"But also, because this Word is the Formula of the Aeon, that is the Law of its Changes or Phenomena, the Equation that expresseth its Energy and its Motion, it shall serve every Man in his Measure as a Text-Book or Comment upon the Theorick and Praxis of Magick. By it may he discover his true Nature, and its Will, and apply his Force and his Intelligence to the right Fulfilment thereof. "

Here he equates Will to the dynamic action of the true Nature. Crowley takes this notion as an assumption when he writes in Liber II:

"Thou must (1) Find out what is thy Will. (2) Do that Will with a) one-pointedness, (b) detachment, (c) peace. Then, and then only, art thou in harmony with the Movement of Things, thy will part of, and therefore equal to, the Will of God. And since the will is but the dynamic aspect of the self, and since two different selves could not possess identical wills; then, if thy will be God's will, Thou art That."

And finally he writes in "De conformitate magi:"

"The Magus, even as the Poet is the Expression of the true Will of his Fellows, and his Success is his Proof, as it is written in The Book of the Law. For his Work is to free Men from the Fetters of a false or a superannuated Will, revealing unto them, in Measure attuned to their Needs, their true Natures."

Is this more of a sufficient response? Is it really we who are "conflating" True Will with True Nature or is it you who is conflating "True Will" with something else?

65 & 210,
111-418

lashtal - Oct 04, 2007 - 01:33 AM
Post subject:

Aum418,

Aum418 wrote: › Because I agree with his positions makes me his admirer? I do admire his vehemence, for one thing.

Good for you!

Quote: › You have this notion that (a) all our nature comes from nature & nurture and not frmo ourselves and (b) that the true will comes from outside

You're wrong on both assumptions regarding my "notions".

Quote: › He is saying the spehre of Light/God is within, but it is covered by complex folds, and therefore teh Great Work 'consists principally in the solution of complexes.' This is not a 'striving outward' or 'upward' to an abstract HGA or "Higher Self" (it should be noted, the former he calls childish and stupid and not to build philosophical heresy and the latter which he calls a damnable heresy) as you mention in a later post

I'm more than capable of interpreting Crowley all by myself, thank you, and please don't ascribe to me points of view that I have not expressed.

Quote: › You are also very reticent to equate True Will with True Nature btu I think it is the natural conclusion...

And in so doing you substitute True Nature for "nature" - quite discreetly, it must be said!

Erwin has made some interesting points along the way but I'm finding your attempts to emulate his style a little predictable and laboured. If I might be permitted to offer one simple piece of advice: don't assume that the people you communicate with haven't read the same source documents you consult. The_real_simon_iff, for example, is really rather well read and I've been known to open a book or two... Oh, and a word search is no substitute for actually understanding. Sorry, I lied: that was two bits of advice.

Aum418 - Oct 04, 2007 - 01:50 AM
Post subject:

lashtal wrote: › Aum418,

Aum418 wrote: › Because I agree with his positions makes me his admirer? I do admire his vehemence, for one thing.

Good for you!

Quote: › You have this notion that (a) all our nature comes from nature & nurture and not frmo ourselves and (b) that the true will comes from outside

You're wrong on both assumptions regarding my "notions".

You mention nature & nurture twice, therefore I assumed you held it in high importance. I say the true will coems fmor the outside as one assumption because you say firstly in reponse to one of Erwin's posts that this interpretaiton is a "conflation" and also you ask something along the lines of 'is it not the Higher Self? HGA?...' which is also what I was directly responding to. These responses led me to believe you think its something 'outside' or 'higher' than yourself, which I tried to address. These assumptions were drawn for your own words, perhaps your words didnt reflect your actual beliefs though. Your exact words are thus:

" still wonder whether the root of much of your thinking - and that of your impressively enthusiastic admirer, Aum418 - revolves around your apparent enthusiasm to conflate 'True Will' with 'Nature'. Or are you suggesting that if an act is in someone's Nature (based on nurture, genetics or whatever) then it's by definition a reflection of his True Will? "

You say we 'conflate True Will with Nature,' but I have shown that apparently Crowley 'conflates' the two as well. You then say 'someone's Nature (based on nurture, genetics or whatever)' which is you explaining how you view Nature: based on nurture and genetics (nature), nature & nurture, just like I said. I do not understand why you insist on saying I am wrong about these assumptions.

Quote: › I'm more than capable of interpreting Crowley all by myself, thank you, and please don't ascribe to me points of view that I have not expressed.

My words here were less of an interpretation than a rearranging of the quote to explain myself - also, you called 'true nature=true will' a conflation, and in response to Erwin saying where else coudl it come frmo, you responded as with something like "Higher Self? HGA?" as mentioned above. You have expressed these opinions in your previous posts.

Quote: ›

Quote: › You are also very reticent to equate True Will with True Nature btu I think it is the natural conclusion...

You say not to foist opinions onto you that are not your own and now you are superimposing intentions and such onto me wehre they dont exist. Im not emulating any kind of 'style,' Im responding to you honestly. To call my style 'predictable and laboured' is jsut a (not so) passive aggressive attack, really.

Quote: › If I might be permitted to offer one simple piece of advice: don't assume that the people you communicate with haven't read the same source documents you consult. The_real_simon_iff, for example, is really rather well read and I've been known to open a book or two... Oh, and a word search is no substitute for actually understanding. Sorry, I lied: that was two bits of advice.

The point isnt that you havent read them - I never assumed you havent read the source material (I dare you to point to any part in a post that even remotely suggests this), btu I qouted about 8 textual examples to support my view and youve neither concisely stated your own view let alone supported it textually or otherwise.

How can you still deny there is an obvious connection - at least for Crowley - between true nature and true will?

65 & 210,
111-418

Azidonis - Oct 04, 2007 - 01:50 AM
Post subject:

93,

Please let me make a few simple statements, without getting too involved in this...

What types of people would we be able to agree actually Knows their Wills? Is it going to be the common average human being, a stock broker, what? I usually tend to think that there are generally two types of people who actually do Know their Wills: that is Adepts and Newborns... newborn babies too, like infants and such that aren't yet corrupted by the entrapments of the Maya.

That said, 666 remarked in some spot (which I'll leave to the quote mongers, but most probably in The Scrutinies of Simon Iff) that a man committing murder for the hell of it is simply at odds with his own "will to live". Thinking in this light, is it really going to be a balanced, secure, and healthy human being who commits such murders? Is it going to be a balanced, secured, and healthy human being who commits rape?

If your answer to that question is yes, please consider the Tree of Life, and the middle pillar. The 'balance' in this equation being of course in Tiphareth. Thus, if an aspirant attains to his K&C and the Angel tells him to go rape four women as it will be beneficial, then by all means I'll agree. Otherwise, the Law is being entirely twisted here. The common American citizen (scratch that, common individual in this world as it is, period) does NOT know his True Will, and therefore cannot do it effectively, and will not do it consistently. In fact, it's quite the opposite. How many of you are actually on a Path of True Initiation? How much of your "animal selves" have you already had to give up and destroy?

Of course the other side of this arguement is that somewhere out in the wilderness there is some enlightened human animal who's Will is to assault the right to sexual freedom of another.

Give me a f^&*ing break.

93 93/93

Erwin - Oct 04, 2007 - 01:56 AM
Post subject:

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › It is easy to imagine such a person. It is just my conviction that this guy is so far away from his True Will that it stinks. This sounds like a plain and stupid desire to me.

Once more, why? What grounds do you have for this conviction? Do you have any insight or analysis into why such a thing could never be in accordance with the will except for a statement along the lines of "I just don't believe it"? Until this is addressed, I'm afraid your position amounts purely to speculation, and we'll just be going round in circles with it.

Remember, the purpose of discussing this hypothetical murderer in the first place is to examine how the Law would manifest in such a situation, because in making such examinations we can increase our understanding of it. The fact that such an occurrence may be extremely rare, or even not in fact existant, is irrelevant; as long as the possibility is there, then the analysis is valid in that respect. The focus is not on the murderer himself, here, and discussion about his hypothetical qualities is ultimately fruitless.

Erwin - Oct 04, 2007 - 01:57 AM
Post subject:

lashtal wrote: › Sorry, I lied: that was two bits of advice.

No-one expects the Spanish Inquisition!

Aum418 - Oct 04, 2007 - 02:01 AM
Post subject:

Azidonis wrote: › 93,

Please let me make a few simple statements, without getting too involved in this...

What types of people would we be able to agree actually Knows their Wills? Is it going to be the common average human being, a stock broker, what? I usually tend to think that there are generally two types of people who actually do Know their Wills: that is Adepts and Newborns... newborn babies too, like infants and such that aren't yet corrupted by the entrapments of the Maya.

I have to agree with you except I can think of tons of individuals throughout history who I think performed their true will (or at least struggled greatly to do so).

Quote: › That said, 666 remarked in some spot (which I'll leave to the quote mongers, but most probably in The Scrutinies of Simon Iff) that a man committing murder for the hell of it is simply at odds with his own "will to live".

In some quote quoted above he says the same thing but he says only because jailing him is more inconvenient. Therefore one can imagine being in a land without jails and social systems where the murder will not infringe on his will-to-live so much because there are no prisons to confine him/her.

Quote: › Thinking in this light, is it really going to be a balanced, secure, and healthy human being who commits such murders? Is it going to be a balanced, secured, and healthy human being who commits rape?

For the former, one can think of infinite situations where people become "beside themselves" or a "demon gets into them" or something - even in simple mob mentality, people lose their general rational processes to a violent collective. There are consequently many occassions when normally rational & 'balanced' people can be led to do strange things. Also, there are 'crimes of passion' which are even recognized in this legal society as lesser crimes (as opposed to pre-meditated and such).

Quote: › If your answer to that question is yes, please consider the Tree of Life, and the middle pillar. The 'balance' in this equation being of course in Tiphareth. Thus, if an aspirant attains to his K&C and the Angel tells him to go rape four women as it will be beneficial, then by all means I'll agree.

If we think of an Angel being a voice in your head, sure. If its formulated in words, its a thought, and Liber AL has quite a bit to say about the mind, reason, thought, etc. and its infringement on the Will (AL II:28-32 or thereabouts)

Quote: › Otherwise, the Law is being entirely twisted here. The common American citizen (scratch that, common individual in this world as it is, period) does NOT know his True Will, and therefore cannot do it effectively, and will not do it consistently.

Right, so?

Quote: › In fact, it's quite the opposite. How many of you are actually on a Path of True Initiation? How much of your "animal selves" have you already had to give up and destroy?

Since when did Thelema ever depend on 'giving up our "animal selves"'? It actually says, enjoy all things of sense & rapture and fear not that any god will deny you this, etc. Its more about sublimating it into control of the will, I would say.

Quote: › Of course the other side of this arguement is that somewhere out in the wilderness there is some enlightened human animal who's Will is to assault the right to sexual freedom of another.

Give me a f^&*ing break.

There is the obvious factor that people who are on 'the path of true initaition' (which i think is a silly term but Ill go with it) that if they are 'doing it right' they will come into greater psychological and sometimes even physical health (hopefully, success is your proof anyways) I honestly think that if more people searched into their true natures and dissolved away teh complexities that obscure this, that violence in general including murder & rape will generally drop. The fact is that I see no universal justification against it even though I think that people doing their will might naturally be way less inclined towards violence in general (I think this arises from understanding that maintaining ones independence also depends on maintaining healthy interdependence with society/the universe as a whole, which is why Crowley calls murder rape stealing etc acts of implicit self-aggression... a more interdependent attitude at this juncture would actually enhance independence).

65 & 210,
111-418

lashtal - Oct 04, 2007 - 02:06 AM
Post subject:

I'll keep this brief: it must be terribly dull for the casual observer.

Aum418 wrote: › Perhaps your words didnt reflect your actual beliefs though.

Crikey, this kind of thing really does upset you, doesn't it? Sorry, make you "vehement". My words don't reflect your assumptions - that would be a better summary.

Quote: › Im not emulating any kind of 'style,'

Okay...

Quote: › How can you still deny there is an obvious connection - at least for Crowley - between true nature and true will?

There is, indeed, for Crowley, an obvious connection between True Will and something else that he tends to label True Nature.

Azidonis wrote: › Of course the other side of this arguement is that somewhere out in the wilderness there is some enlightened human animal who's Will is to assault the right to sexual freedom of another. Give me a f^&*ing break.

Nicely said, Az! Defending the "Thelemic justification" to rape - whatever that really means - seems a disappointing step down from Crowley's anticipation of an aeon of Life, Light, Love and Liberty.

lashtal - Oct 04, 2007 - 02:07 AM
Post subject:

Erwin wrote: ›

lashtal wrote: › Sorry, I lied: that was two bits of advice.

No-one expects the Spanish Inquisition!

Amongst my chief weapons are...

Erwin - Oct 04, 2007 - 02:09 AM
Post subject:

Azidonis wrote: › What types of people would we be able to agree actually Knows their Wills?

None. I've rarely heard such an outrageous and downright stupid idea as the notion of people getting together in a committee to make a decree on what type of person does or does not "know their wills".

Azidonis wrote: › Is it going to be the common average human being,

There's another kind?

Azidonis wrote: › a stock broker, what?

So stock brokers are incapable of knowing their wills, now? Gee, somebody had better tell them.

Azidonis wrote: › I usually tend to think that there are generally two types of people who actually do Know their Wills: that is Adepts and Newborns...

A newborn baby knows its will? Despite the fact that it doesn't even know not to crap itself all day long?

I've heard it all now. Rest of entry snipped for obvious reasons.

lashtal - Oct 04, 2007 - 02:19 AM
Post subject:

Aum418 wrote: › Since when did Thelema ever depend on 'giving up our "animal selves"'?

Please, sir; me, sir!

AL II:70 - Be not animal; refine thy rapture!

Aum418 - Oct 04, 2007 - 02:20 AM
Post subject:

lashtal wrote: › I'll keep this brief: it must be terribly dull for the casual observer.

Aum418 wrote: › Perhaps your words didnt reflect your actual beliefs though.

Crikey, this kind of thing really does upset you, doesn't it? Sorry, make you "vehement". My words don't reflect your assumptions - that would be a better summary.

Paul, you plainly stated that the idea of True Will = True Nature was a "conflation" - your own words not my own. You plainly stated your conception of Nature is of nature & nurture. You plainly stated that your answer to "what else other than true nature shoudl the will come from" was "Higher Self? HGA?..." How can you continue to insist they are assumptions when you plainly state them in your own posts? You dont clarify what you actually meant but merely say "thats not what I said."

Quote: ›

Quote: › How can you still deny there is an obvious connection - at least for Crowley - between true nature and true will?

There is, indeed, for Crowley, an obvious connection between True Will and something else that he tends to label True Nature.

So you admit that Crowley 'conflated' the two ideas as well?

Quote: ›
Defending the "Thelemic justification" to rape - whatever that really means - seems a disappointing step down from Crowley's anticipation of an aeon of Life, Light, Love and Liberty.

Just becuase you dont find it likable doesnt mean its a sad sign for the aeon or whatever... I think talking about rape is important and to avoid it will just make it taboo. My final opinion is that it is usually entirely impractical to commit either murder or rape and to do such is naturally to deny the fact that our independence relies on maintaing our interdependence; also, I think its honestly possible that people who do come to terms with their true nature and do their wills will naturally tend toward less vioelnce and therefore less murder & rape. I think on a practical level, there is little need to murder, especially now in the age of mass production of food, shelter, etc. and such but I see no universal justification for saying ANY action is un-Thelemic. Crowley says in "The Method of Thelema," ""Do what thou wilt does not mean Do as you please, although it implies this degree of emancipation, that it is no longer possible to say a priori that a given action is "wrong." Each man has the right – and an absolute right – to accomplish his True Will." I am saying there is no universal or a priori reason to deem murder or rape 'un-Thelemic,' but Ill simultaneously admit its normally extremely impractical to do either of these.

I am willing to agree to disagree, but you honestly never support your point (I am not trying to attack you, merely stating a fact). You merely say 'you are mistaken' but never explain exactly how, and I really want to know your side of the argument so I can understand it. I think you should admit that if you disagree with 'true will is analogous to true nature' you are at least at odds with Crowley's view of it (which doesnt necessarily make it un-Thelemic or any of that nonsense...)

65 & 210,
111-418

Aum418 - Oct 04, 2007 - 02:28 AM
Post subject:

lashtal wrote: ›

Aum418 wrote: › Since when did Thelema ever depend on 'giving up our "animal selves"'?

Please, sir; me, sir!

AL II:70 - Be not animal; refine thy rapture!

Yes, but this must be taken in conjunction with what I said before about enjoying things of sense & rapture. I think animal nature often implies the indulgence in 'animalistic' things like intoxication, sex, n such. I agree that rapture should be refined for as humans we are able to cause change in conformity with will to a very large degree (at least relative to other animals and plants and such), and we are therefore able to refine our behavior to become more effective. Therefore if we equate something animal with something unrefined then I am fine with that definition. If we equate animal nature with 'the indulgence in worldly things' which is what I usually think of, as the lower or evil nature that needs to be repressed in favor of the light of reason, or something like that ... then I cant agree, and I thought that hte latter is what was implied in his statement. In a word, I dont think instinct should be suppressed as 'animal or lower nature,' but, like I said, it shoudl be 'sublimated into control of the Will,' or rather it should be 'refined' and brought into higher effectiveness or refinement. A tree grows tall by virtue of its roots deep into the underground.

65 & 210,
111-418

Erwin - Oct 04, 2007 - 02:29 AM
Post subject:

lashtal wrote: ›

Aum418 wrote: › Since when did Thelema ever depend on 'giving up our "animal selves"'?

Please, sir; me, sir!

AL II:70 - Be not animal; refine thy rapture!

Please, sir, I've got one to trump that!

AL I, 15: Now ye shall know that the chosen priest & apostle of infinite space is the prince-priest the Beast

lashtal - Oct 04, 2007 - 02:34 AM
Post subject:

Aum418,

Aum418 wrote: › you plainly stated that the idea of True Will = True Nature was a "conflation" - your own words not my own.

Not true. My words were: "to conflate 'True Will' with 'Nature'." 'Nature' ... not 'True Nature'. It's important within the context of what was being suggested.

Quote: › You plainly stated that your answer to "what else other than true nature shoudl the will come from" was "Higher Self? HGA?..."

You might find that the question marks help there: I was suggesting other possibilities, beyond those that were proposed.

Quote: › Just becuase you dont find it likable doesnt mean its a sad sign for the aeon or whatever... I think talking about rape is important and to avoid it will just make it taboo.

Heaven forbid that rape should ever become taboo!

Quote: › it is usually entirely impractical to commit either murder or rape

"Impractical"?

Quote: › on a practical level, there is little need to murder

"Little need"?

Quote: › I am saying there is no universal or a priori reason to deem murder or rape 'un-Thelemic,' but Ill simultaneously admit its normally extremely impractical to do either of these.

Well, that's a comfort!

It had to happen eventually: after 10 years running LAShTAL.COM I find myself utterly speechless!

Aum418 - Oct 04, 2007 - 02:39 AM
Post subject:

lashtal wrote: › Aum418,

Aum418 wrote: › you plainly stated that the idea of True Will = True Nature was a "conflation" - your own words not my own.

Not true. My words were: "to conflate 'True Will' with 'Nature'." 'Nature' ... not 'True Nature'. It's important within the context of what was being suggested.

I see... so you didnt intend to mean "true Nature" by capitalizing "Nature"?

Quote: ›

Quote: › You plainly stated that your answer to "what else other than true nature shoudl the will come from" was "Higher Self? HGA?..."

You might find that the question marks help there: I was suggesting other possibilities, beyond those that were proposed.

I see. I naturally thought these were all names for the same thing as Crowley says such in Temple of Solomon the King. What IS your actual opinion?

Quote: ›

Quote: › Just becuase you dont find it likable doesnt mean its a sad sign for the aeon or whatever... I think talking about rape is important and to avoid it will just make it taboo.

Heaven forbid that rape should ever become taboo!

Are you implying rape should be taboo?

Quote: ›

Quote: › it is usually entirely impractical to commit either murder or rape

"Impractical"?

Yup. As in it causes oneself to have less potential spheres of action, etc. and can obviously lead to internal punishment i.e. guilt in cases where people either feel regret for having done such or have deeply embedded moral notions from their upbringing.

Quote: ›

Quote: › on a practical level, there is little need to murder

"Little need"?

Yes.

Quote: ›

Quote: › I am saying there is no universal or a priori reason to deem murder or rape 'un-Thelemic,' but Ill simultaneously admit its normally extremely impractical to do either of these.

Well, that's a comfort!

It had to happen eventually: after 10 years running LAShTAL.COM I find myself utterly speechless!

Im flattered to be present at such a momentous occasion.

65 & 210,
111-418

lashtal - Oct 04, 2007 - 02:53 AM
Post subject:

Aum418 wrote: › you didnt intend to mean "true Nature" by capitalizing "Nature"?

I intended to mean exactly what I said.

Quote: › What IS your actual opinion?

Precisely that: my opinion.

Quote: › Are you implying rape should be taboo?

That's just got to be ironic or maybe some sort of trick question! Be sure to let us know, though, when you've word-searched your Crowley directory for "rape" to find quotes to demonstrate that Crowley and you don't mean what it appears to the rest of us that you mean.

Quote: › Im flattered to be present at such a momentous occasion.

Ouch...

Azidonis - Oct 04, 2007 - 03:23 AM
Post subject:

93,

How about this Erwin, since you seemed to unintelligably reply. (By the way Aum, thanks for the response.)

This is an example only:

Let's say it is my Will to rape. Not only that, it is my Will to rape you. Not only that, it is my Will to decisively break into your house, rape you (complete with fisting of course), and then murder a few of your closest living family members. Then I leave your house.

So... Now I've invaded your own personal space, invaded you, and murdered your family. Honestly, how would that make you feel? How would that make you react? If you never found me and had no idea who I was... what would you spend the rest of your life doing? Would you say that the incident would've completely fucked you over in some way? Would you look at your dead wife and kids, soak up the blood coming out of your anus, and just continue on with your life as if nothing happened? Would you even want to tell the police? Would you make some stupid idea in your head about how it must've been YOUR Will to get anally raped and fisted, and it must've been your wife and children's will to become brutally murdered? Would you reason with yourself that now your wife and children can't fulfill their intentions for having the incarnation they did, or would you reason with yourself that it must've been "their time to go" and that their Will had already been somehow fulfilled and they were no longer needed? Would you...[insert rationalization here]?

Ahem. Seriously. Think about this. Stop being a fucking war-monger and really think about it. You can't let people have free whim, as that's all it would be. It's absolute bullshit to sit and assert that it may be another human's Will to 100% ruin another human! "Every man and every woman is a star." With your mode of thinking, you might as well have an intergalactic star war, and let all of the stars collide and blow up this whole damned cosmos, because that's what you are talking about here. You can be the one to go try and convince the world that all of the murders and rapists could have possibly been doing their Wills. While you're at it, go convince them that it was Jeffrey Dahmer's (sp) True Will to eat all those fucking people, and it was those people's True Wills to be dissolved into his stomach. Better, go start your own cannibal-rapist colony for cryin' out loud. It's insane!

Every man and woman has the right to do his or her Will. This includes the right to not have to suffer a murderer or a rapist to live. If you honestly think it's not so, call the parents of the football player who was inexplicably shot and killed in Memphis, TN over this past week, and tell those parents that you don't know who the murder was or why the event occured, but you can assure them that it could very well have been the murderer's True Will to kill their son in cold blood, and by True Will you are going to have to explain to the American southern family that you mean "God's Will".

With this nonsense every atrocity on this planet can be justified as "possibly someone's True Will". That's utter bullshit.

The Aeon of the Crowned and Conquering Child is about getting rid of this sort of thing. Mankind has been growing and evolving for thousands of years. It has gone through many different forms of growth. In each stage of growth, there have been abnormalities and abominations. As the Introduction to Liber AL would say, "abortive births" of humanity. There are many people who work to advance the human race in various ways. There are many who do nothing at all for this cause. Then there are some, that run around feeding off of other's misery like a rabid animal. These people are the reason jails were created. They have no respect for other people's dignity, health, welfare, and well being. As such, it was deemed that they must have no respect for their own. The inner conflict manifested in the outer. So instead of having the karma of killing these people and ridding the world of their sorry asses, we decided to begin locking them up for vaious periods of time. Some stay a short while, some stay all their lives. Some abominations of humanity are commited to death (which should be done more often, by the way). This is the way things are. Think of living in a city in which the masses all live in tandem, much like this one. As everyone is living and gorwing and evolving quite nicely, some animal in human form comes and creates a huge disturbance. People begin to lock their doors at night, and become afraid to let their kids play after dark. Next, another animal in human form breaks into a house and rapes a young boy...

I have to stop. What you are positiing it absolute nonsense. It is the real Beast who deals with such abominations properly, thereby re-establishing equilibrium. The wolf and the shepherd are both contributors to the well-being of the herd. The shepard keeps the sheep close by, and the wolf makes sure they stay close by. Then the wolf, having established the safety of the heard, is free to go exploring the outer boundaries.

Think of it in another way... the movie 300. I have absolutely nothing against any human being's biological make-up, and that is not the discussion. Think of the Spartan soldiers doing their Wills, against all odds. Then a man comes up, who proves himself unworthy (not because of his physical features directly, but because he couldn't protect him and his brethren from kneck to knee). He was then turned away, as he didn't make the cut. Instead of being allowed to run with the wolves, he was told to go back and hang iwth the sheep. Instead... he "blackened" himself in the eyes of the Spartans, by betraying them for Xerxes. He went out, found a large group of huge hungry animals, and let them right around the wolves (through a passageway only privileged to the locals who knew the land), and then only did the wolves fall. Of course, this only pissed off the rest of the pack, but the point should be solid and clear. If it isn't, then perhaps this post should be re-read.

93 93/93

fraseth - Oct 04, 2007 - 03:31 AM
Post subject:

Aum418 wrote: › ... if you disagree with 'true will is analogous to true nature' you are at least at odds with Crowley's view of it. 65 & 210,
111-418

Can (true)* will be analogous to (true)* nature?

Nature is a form of existence or non existence. For each thing there must be a reason for its existence (if it exists) and for its nonexistence (if it doesn’t). This reason must be either contained in, or be outside of the nature of the thing.

Example: The very nature of a square circle indicates the reason why it doesn’t exist, namely because it involves a contradiction; and the very nature of a thing explains why it does exist, because its nature involves existence.

Will is a motion of the mind. It is the ability to mentally accept or deny an idea, which is an act. Will has a nature because it exists, but will and nature are not equivalent. If they were, all existing objects would have a will.

*I do see a difference between will and true will, but I do not see a difference between nature and true nature. There is no "false" nature, unless "non-exisitence" is defined as such.

Erwin - Oct 04, 2007 - 03:41 AM
Post subject:

Azidonis wrote: › How about this Erwin, since you seemed to unintelligably reply.

Uninwhat reply?

Azidonis wrote: › Let's say it is my Will to rape. Not only that, it is my Will to rape you. Not only that, it is my Will to decisively break into your house, rape you (complete with fisting of course), and then murder a few of your closest living family members. Then I leave your house.

So... Now I've invaded your own personal space, invaded you, and murdered your family. Honestly, how would that make you feel? How would that make you react?

It doesn't matter a scrap of yesterday's newspaper how it would make me feel, or how I would react. My personal reactions have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the "rightness", "wrongness" or "justifiability" of this hypothetical act or of any other. As I explained. Multiple times. Stop thinking the universe is under some kind of obligation to behave in the way you'd like it to.

Four pages of posts to this thread, and you've single-handedly managed to completely miss the point of all of them. Nice job.

Erwin - Oct 04, 2007 - 03:49 AM
Post subject:

fraseth wrote: › Will has a nature because it exists, but will and nature are not equivalent. If they were, all existing objects would have a will.

Which, arguably, they do. We can observe the will of a magnet pole to seek out its opposite colleagues and to avoid its similar colleagues, and this will arises purely from the nature of these poles and their proximity to each other, which is part of the nature of their respective environments.

There's no a priori reason to view the will of a human as being conceptually any different to this; it's just more complex, and to render sensible any discussion of will as something that can be thwarted, we have to exclude certain components of the total individual either from our definition of his "nature" or from our definition of his "self", which amounts to the same thing.

fraseth wrote: › Will is a motion of the mind

And the most significant component we have to exclude is the mind.

Martialis - Oct 04, 2007 - 04:12 AM
Post subject:

Ack!!!!! Beware the Centres of Pestilence!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Azidonis - Oct 04, 2007 - 04:14 AM
Post subject:

Erwin wrote: › It doesn't matter a scrap of yesterday's newspaper how it would make me feel, or how I would react. My personal reactions have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the "rightness", "wrongness" or "justifiability" of this hypothetical act or of any other. As I explained. Multiple times. Stop thinking the universe is under some kind of obligation to behave in the way you'd like it to.

Four pages of posts to this thread, and you've single-handedly managed to completely miss the point of all of them. Nice job.

93,

So you are seriously saying that it your reactions to the event would have no bearing on the way things are, yet as everyone constantly creates their own reality, the reality that would be created if such an event occured would probably put you in my position, and not in the position that you are taking now, correct? In that case, you are a hypocrite.

I didn't miss any of them. I simply got tired of reading the nonsense that kept pouring out onto the page. It's true, people are going to be the way they are. However, that doesn't mean that people aren't possibly fucked up in the head as well. As such, there is really no way to tell if someone is doing his or her Will or not. However, toblatently interfere with another doing his Will is in direct conflict with the idea of "Every man and every woman is a star." Therefore, I posit you are not only a hypocrite, but just plain wrong.

As I wrote the long enduring explanation in my previous post, it became clear to me that stating any of it was really pointless if it was intended soley for you. Thus, I hope other readers can glean something from the post, as the person it was meant for just didn't get it, and wouldn't.

Good day.

93 93/93

Aum418 - Oct 04, 2007 - 04:51 AM
Post subject:

Azidonis wrote: › 93,

How about this Erwin, since you seemed to unintelligably reply. (By the way Aum, thanks for the response.)

Sure.

Quote: › This is an example only:

Let's say it is my Will to rape. Not only that, it is my Will to rape you. Not only that, it is my Will to decisively break into your house, rape you (complete with fisting of course), and then murder a few of your closest living family members. Then I leave your house.

So... Now I've invaded your own personal space, invaded you, and murdered your family. Honestly, how would that make you feel?

I would most likely be angry.

Quote: › How would that make you react?

If it was in my power, I would most likely kill you that is if you are trying to injure me or people in my family etc.

[quot]eIf you never found me and had no idea who I was... what would you spend the rest of your life doing?[/quote]
Dwelling on the past, making revenge my life, so that when I kill you I feel no purpose... or so the movies would make me think.

Quote: › Would you say that the incident would've completely fucked you over in some way?

Wouldnt you say this happens daily and has for all history? Just because you dont like it doesnt mean its not gonna stop.

Quote: › Ahem. Seriously. Think about this. Stop being a fucking war-monger and really think about it. You can't let people have free whim, as that's all it would be.

This is obviously what you think, but the thing is people DO have free whim, but there are artificial judicial consequences like jail or therapy or community service or parole or whatever.

Quote: › It's absolute bullshit to sit and assert that it may be another human's Will to 100% ruin another human! "Every man and every woman is a star."

It also says "If he be a King, thou canst not hurt him." If there is an immortal element, theres no point squabbling over the impermanent body or vestment of a star.

Quote: › With your mode of thinking, you might as well have an intergalactic star war, and let all of the stars collide and blow up this whole damned cosmos, because that's what you are talking about here.

The big bang was quite violent wasnt it? Dont stars collide? I think you have an idea of 'the world as I think it should be' and it conflicts with 'the world as it is.' The truth of the matter is that there is murder in all spheres of nature, and stars DO collide and explode violently, and people do have these tragic things happen to them.

Quote: › You can be the one to go try and convince the world that all of the murders and rapists could have possibly been doing their Wills. While you're at it, go convince them that it was Jeffrey Dahmer's (sp) True Will to eat all those fucking people, and it was those people's True Wills to be dissolved into his stomach. Better, go start your own cannibal-rapist colony for cryin' out loud. It's insane!

If you take the whole 'were Dark Stars, our Khabs light is pure within us and the Great work is the solution of complexes and repressions' then no, I would say these fellows were extremely neurotic and imbalanced individuals, acting from fragmented consciouses and clinically insane.

Quote: › Every man and woman has the right to do his or her Will. This includes the right to not have to suffer a murderer or a rapist to live.

If oyu look at reality, this isnt true. People are murderd and raped and thats a fact.

Quote: › If you honestly think it's not so, call the parents of the football player who was inexplicably shot and killed in Memphis, TN over this past week, and tell those parents that you don't know who the murder was or why the event occured, but you can assure them that it could very well have been the murderer's True Will to kill their son in cold blood, and by True Will you are going to have to explain to the American southern family that you mean "God's Will".

And? I could also say it was Gods Will to torture Job incessantly and Job perservered, I could also say it was Gods Will to slay jesus on the cross in a bloody scene, I could say it was Gods Will for innumerable biblical stories that involve someone dying. Either way, I woudlnt want to be explaining much to the stereotypical American southern family which you appear to be portraying.

Quote: › With this nonsense every atrocity on this planet can be justified as "possibly someone's True Will". That's utter bullshit.

I think we agree on points but you dont see how Im coming at it. I think practical laws like we have against murder are totally worthwhile but to confuse them for absolute moral laws is ridiculous. In a universal and absolute sense, yea none of that matters, but in the normal conditioned relative/subjective sense, murder is obviously something you would wnat to generally prevent. I think that at hte present time, we need these laws. I also think that if someone undertakes the Great WOrk and tries to find their true nature and execute their true will, they will dissolve the repressions, complexes, neuroses, etc. if they are successful and will naturally be less inclined towards senseless violence. Even so I gave exampes before of zen buddhsits being violent and Buddhist bodhisattvas being wrathful because its simply hteir nature.

We have to realize, in nature there are both opposites present. Nature (macrocosm) is both benevolent/merciful and also wrathful/cruel. This is also true with our own psyches/selves (microcosm) in that we contain elements of benevolves and wrathfulness, as anyone familiar with the Qabalistic Tree of Life.

Quote: › The Aeon of the Crowned and Conquering Child is about getting rid of this sort of thing.

I agree! But by banning it under law and making it harshly punishable? Is that what its about? Or is it about bringing people to understand and manifest their true natures and naturally be in that state of harmonious independene & interdependence.

Lets remember, Rabelais wrote:
"Do What Thou Wilt;
because men that are free, well-born, well-bred, and conversant in honest companies, have naturally an instinct and spur that prompteth them unto virtuous actions, and withdraws them from vice, which is called honour."

The idea is that they will 'have naturally an instinct and spur that prompteth them unto virtuous actions...' etc.

Quote: ›
Mankind has been growing and evolving for thousands of years. It has gone through many different forms of growth. In each stage of growth, there have been abnormalities and abominations. As the Introduction to Liber AL would say, "abortive births" of humanity. There are many people who work to advance the human race in various ways. There are many who do nothing at all for this cause. Then there are some, that run around feeding off of other's misery like a rabid animal. These people are the reason jails were created. They have no respect for other people's dignity, health, welfare, and well being. As such, it was deemed that they must have no respect for their own. The inner conflict manifested in the outer. So instead of having the karma of killing these people and ridding the world of their sorry asses, we decided to begin locking them up for vaious periods of time. Some stay a short while, some stay all their lives. Some abominations of humanity are commited to death (which should be done more often, by the way).

So you think its okay to murder people who do something bad enough? Isnt that a bit of a contradiction?

65 & 210,
111-418

Azidonis - Oct 04, 2007 - 05:45 AM
Post subject:

93 Aum,

Aum418 wrote: › If it was in my power, I would most likely kill you that is if you are trying to injure me or people in my family etc.

I agree.

Quote: › Dwelling on the past, making revenge my life, so that when I kill you I feel no purpose... or so the movies would make me think.

lol, So it seems. It's probably one of those situations where one doesn't really know how one would react until being in that situation.

Quote: › Wouldnt you say this happens daily and has for all history? Just because you dont like it doesnt mean its not gonna stop.

This is where my statement needs to be clarified. I don't think it will stop. I think the world is heavily over-populated and in some way the murderous idiots represent the wild card of chance... that doesn't mean it is their Will to be such though.

Quote: › This is obviously what you think, but the thing is people DO have free whim, but there are artificial judicial consequences like jail or therapy or community service or parole or whatever.

Again, I should've clarified myself. While people do have free whim, this free whim should not be mistaken for free will which is what I was contesting. I do not believe that cases of rape and such can be rightfully attributed to being part of a person's True Will and are instead a morbid manifestation of something horrible within.

Quote: › It also says "If he be a King, thou canst not hurt him." If there is an immortal element, theres no point squabbling over the impermanent body or vestment of a star.

If you be a King, and I give you an anal fisting and etc., it would hurt you Smile

Indeed, it would hurt your mortality, but not your immortality. However, it may indeed hurt a mortality enough to have a severe effect on one's perception of his immortality.

Quote: › The big bang was quite violent wasnt it? Dont stars collide? I think you have an idea of 'the world as I think it should be' and it conflicts with 'the world as it is.' The truth of the matter is that there is murder in all spheres of nature, and stars DO collide and explode violently, and people do have these tragic things happen to them.

The world as it is is what I was trying to say LOL It was my perception that the justification of rape as possibly part of one's Will is absurd, though I can see how one may think that "unite by thine art..." However, in reality it's impractical, and is an abomination of the species. All I was saying is that, if we are going to begin excusing cases of rape and such as True Will, then we might as well have another Big Bang.

Quote: › If you take the whole 'were Dark Stars, our Khabs light is pure within us and the Great work is the solution of complexes and repressions' then no, I would say these fellows were extremely neurotic and imbalanced individuals, acting from fragmented consciouses and clinically insane.

Alright then, we agree on something. Smile

Quote: › If you look at reality, this isnt true. People are murderd and raped and thats a fact.

It is indeed a fact, but that doesn't change some things. For instance, in Texas you can shoot a trespasser and drag him into your house, without being convicted or murder. Thus is one way a "king" may rightfully defend his "castle". You're right, it happens constantly, rape and murder. However, I still don't think it can be any way attributed to one's True Will, and is rather a disfunction in the mind of the assailant which makes him play the villian, and in some cases, simple chance (ie. in the ways peple can be murdered, etc. purposefully or by chance).

Quote: ›
And? I could also say it was Gods Will to torture Job incessantly and Job perservered, I could also say it was Gods Will to slay jesus on the cross in a bloody scene, I could say it was Gods Will for innumerable biblical stories that involve someone dying. Either way, I woudlnt want to be explaining much to the stereotypical American southern family which you appear to be portraying.

I'm not portraying them. I'm simply saying that it is an example of the common reality, and to excuse rape and murder as one's True Will is well... insane.

Quote: ›
I think we agree on points but you dont see how Im coming at it. I think practical laws like we have against murder are totally worthwhile but to confuse them for absolute moral laws is ridiculous. In a universal and absolute sense, yea none of that matters, but in the normal conditioned relative/subjective sense, murder is obviously something you would wnat to generally prevent. I think that at hte present time, we need these laws. I also think that if someone undertakes the Great WOrk and tries to find their true nature and execute their true will, they will dissolve the repressions, complexes, neuroses, etc. if they are successful and will naturally be less inclined towards senseless violence. Even so I gave exampes before of zen buddhsits being violent and Buddhist bodhisattvas being wrathful because its simply hteir nature.

I'm not sure how 'being cast into the sphere of Geburah' would make someone become extremely violent. Perhaps it's where my experience draws the line, but it would seem that a true attainment would make one balanced within and without, and not consumed by bloodlust.

In the case of one not undertaking the Great Work though, there seems to be a ratio of people that do 'flip out' for one reason or another. I do maintain that it is not them acting out their Wills though.

I dunno... maybe it could be a man's Will to be "wrathful". I don't think that would necessarily commit him to rape, robbery, or murder though.

Quote: ›
We have to realize, in nature there are both opposites present. Nature (macrocosm) is both benevolent/merciful and also wrathful/cruel. This is also true with our own psyches/selves (microcosm) in that we contain elements of benevolves and wrathfulness, as anyone familiar with the Qabalistic Tree of Life.

True. It's been my view that the "wrathful/cruel" parts are lower on the Tree though, and increasingly more "benevolent/merciful" as one goes from the "rough to the fine", hopefully getting rid of all those opposites in the process.

Quote: ›
I agree! But by banning it under law and making it harshly punishable? Is that what its about? Or is it about bringing people to understand and manifest their true natures and naturally be in that state of harmonious independene & interdependence.

I agree that it's about helping people understand. I still do not agree that part of helping them to understand is entertaining the idea that maybe the pedophile is doing his True Will.

Quote: ›
Lets remember, Rabelais wrote:
"Do What Thou Wilt;
because men that are free, well-born, well-bred, and conversant in honest companies, have naturally an instinct and spur that prompteth them unto virtuous actions, and withdraws them from vice, which is called honour."

The idea is that they will 'have naturally an instinct and spur that prompteth them unto virtuous actions...' etc.

I agree. In the same light, rape is not a virtuous action.

Quote: ›
So you think its okay to murder people who do something bad enough? Isnt that a bit of a contradiction?

Murder of any sort is still murder. However, the distinction I was trying to make is murdering the 'abominations' in an effort to get them out of our gene pool. And under no case would it be right or lawful. At the same time, I would not say that it is my True Will to do so. That's all I've really been trying to maintain this entire time is that I don't personally believe it can be someone's True will to be a pedophile, or rapist, or serial killer, etc. In this I can reference your own quoting of Rebelias.

93 93/93

Aum418 - Oct 04, 2007 - 06:45 AM
Post subject:

Azidonis wrote: › If you be a King, and I give you an anal fisting and etc., it would hurt you Smile

A priceless quotation.

Quote: › All I was saying is that, if we are going to begin excusing cases of rape and such as True Will, then we might as well have another Big Bang.

What would you gain by saying its 'not' True Will? Would you create some Thelemic law to ban it? Or just recognize it as 'bad' like you alreadyt do? The point is that we cannot say whether anything is a priori part of true will, to make exceptions is to fall into the pit. There is no law beyond do what thou wilt, and thou hast no right but to do it, at least according to Liber AL. Anyone who has studied even a little western philosophy will learn that morals are totally arbitrary and relative, though they serve a social/cultural practical purpose obviously (althoug they may not have any validity in the scheme of Murder is Absolutely Wrong, etc.)

Quote: ›

Alright then, we agree on something. Smile

Joy!

Quote: ›

Quote: › If you look at reality, this isnt true. People are murderd and raped and thats a fact.

I can say that honestly, I think you are right for the majority of cases, but I see no reason to say that rape & murder are always, a priori, "wrong" or "un-Thelemic." I wouldnt deny that most of these are driven by totally ridiculous ideas and desires that a normal healthy psyche wouldnt even consider, but again there are many situations that show me that absolutes (i.e. murder is absolutely bad) only serve to constrain in general.

Quote: ›
to excuse rape and murder as one's True Will is well... insane.

I totally disagree and Im surprised by teh amount of emotion reaction this question has brought up in people. Its not insane at all. Think of self-defense. Theres one situation of murder I doubt you think is insane. You yourself brought up the idea of war and shooting the enemy. Is that insane? Also think of the person who finds their wife in bed with another man and stabs them to death in a fit of passion. This could really happen to just about anyone. For example, Look at this woman with absolutely NO criminal record who shot her husband in a fit of passion just because she found pornography... Also think of the mob mentality when normal people cause total havoc, push and shove, yell and scream profanities, and bludgeon people to death - mob mentality is a well studied phenomena.

I'm not sure how 'being cast into the sphere of Geburah' would make someone become extremely violent. Perhaps it's where my experience draws the line, but it would seem that a true attainment would make one balanced within and without, and not consumed by bloodlust. [/quote]
Balanaced doesnt mean one withdraws frmo the conflict of life. One mind may be more inclined to communicating in abrasive ways while another likes flowery language, for example - the true nature shines through this psyche and someone might perceive it from afar as being 'wrathful' or 'crazy' or 'asshole,' but Im sure a lot of Zen monks were called assholes (im sure the masters were by many).

Quote: › In the case of one not undertaking the Great Work though, there seems to be a ratio of people that do 'flip out' for one reason or another. I do maintain that it is not them acting out their Wills though.

I think if you repress the instinctual natural self enough it will burst out, often in neurotic symptoms. The best way, I think, is the way of Thelema and assimilating experience by "love under will." Both the mystical and magical paths offer very practical and active ways to solve psychic complexes (but one is also very liable to develop them as well in these practices!)

Quote: › I dunno... maybe it could be a man's Will to be "wrathful". I don't think that would necessarily commit him to rape, robbery, or murder though.

Not necessarily, nor not not necessarily. Im just playing... the point is you can say "it seems high unlikely that 95% of people would ever even consider this" but thats the point, theres no point in saying most people would probably do htis so lets make it a rule, those 5% who do not act like the other 95% also have the right to carry out their wills.

Quote: ›

Qabalistically they are horizontal and find this much more balanced. Thinker 'good' as 'better' than 'evil' makes one fall into that trap of duality over and over and over. Whatever is successful though, to each his own.

Quote: ›

I agree that it's about helping people understand. I still do not agree that part of helping them to understand is entertaining the idea that maybe the pedophile is doing his True Will.

Older males have sexual relationships with younger males actually has a strange and long and complex history. But thats an entirely other subject.

Quote: ›

I agree. In the same light, rape is not a virtuous action.

Again, the point is that, yes, naturally people will start to (theoretically) gravitate away from violence, rape, etc. but there is no justification for calling any action Absolutely Wrong. Thats my point.

Quote: ›

Quote: ›
So you think its okay to murder people who do something bad enough? Isnt that a bit of a contradiction?

Murder of any sort is still murder. However, the distinction I was trying to make is murdering the 'abominations' in an effort to get them out of our gene pool.

Cant you just see you are the judge who happens to have more power/society behind him? If he happened to have more power he would wipe you out because he thought oyu were equally 'abominable.'

Quote: › And under no case would it be right or lawful. At the same time, I would not say that it is my True Will to do so. That's all I've really been trying to maintain this entire time is that I don't personally believe it can be someone's True will to be a pedophile, or rapist, or serial killer, etc. In this I can reference your own quoting of Rebelias.

I think that nature also always has variation, and thats the beauty of it too. Not all people will be identical if they investigate their true nature. Crowley once said someting like think of a world full of arahans... extremely boring place! Finding one's truen ature brings beauty & strength in your own unique way. The idiosyncracies arent faults or anything of the sort, but what help manifest our natures in various ways.

I think theres also a plane to be considered that "all that happens is right" from the deterministic or absolute point of view, in which "Nero was necessary" no matter whether we could go back in tiem and kill him at birth or not to save people he persecuted. If a thing happens, if it is successful in manifesting then that itself is its own proof: success is your proof. But practicallly this point of view is virtually useless.

65 & 210,
111-418

nashimiron - Oct 04, 2007 - 09:27 AM
Post subject:

A few considerations.

The Book states "Do what thou Wilt shall be the whole of the Law".

This is not a static statement of current fact, but one suggesting change ("shall be") meaning "thou" must make it so. Also, the use of "thou" suggests it is being communicated from one "person" to another, as few people refer to themselves as "thou". So implicit in the statement is the communication of the statement.

If you wish to communicate "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law" to someone, murdering them is probably not a good way of doing so.

If the Law of Thelema was "Do what i will is the whole of the law" then the last 4 pages of this debate would have had some validity. So arguing over whether the will of me over-rules the will of thou is irrelevant to Thelema, except for those who are having difficulty getting to grips with it's basics.

How can you live by "Do what thou wilt" if a person you are interacting with (the "thou" in any given circumstance) is being prevented from doing their will by you?

fraseth - Oct 04, 2007 - 11:44 AM
Post subject:

Erwin wrote: ›

fraseth wrote: › Will has a nature because it exists, but will and nature are not equivalent. If they were, all existing objects would have a will.

fraseth wrote: › Will is a motion of the mind

And the most significant component we have to exclude is the mind.

The magnet's assumed "will" is a quality. A quality is a characteristic of a thing which can not be changed intentionally by the thing itself, because, at a given time, it lies within the nature of the thing.

The mind can be excluded from nature because if can lie within the nature of a thing to not have a will. Mind and will can not be seperated though. They depend on each other, some even say they are equivalent.

Erwin - Oct 04, 2007 - 12:09 PM
Post subject:

Azidonis wrote: › So you are seriously saying that it your reactions to the event would have no bearing on the way things are,

Correct. My reactions to reality don't change reality. That's why it's called "reality".

Azidonis wrote: › yet as everyone constantly creates their own reality,

What utter and puerile schoolboy nonsense. Everyone might constantly create a imaginative personal representation of what they perceive reality to be, but this is a long, long way from that representation actually being reality. It is indeed this mistaking of your imaginative personal representation of reality for reality itself which is the core problem the study of magick is intended to address.

Azidonis wrote: › I didn't miss any of them. I simply got tired of reading the nonsense that kept pouring out onto the page.

OK, so you're criticising posts you haven't read? As long as we all know that's what you're doing.

Erwin - Oct 04, 2007 - 12:18 PM
Post subject:

nashimiron wrote: › This is not a static statement of current fact, but one suggesting change ("shall be") meaning "thou" must make it so.

I essentially agree with this in that it applies to one's actions on a "go forward" basis. Such language is common in temporal law, also.

nashimiron wrote: › Also, the use of "thou" suggests it is being communicated from one "person" to another, as few people refer to themselves as "thou". So implicit in the statement is the communication of the statement.

Yes, the communication of the statement from the author of the Book of the Law to its reader. It's not a communication from the reader of the Book of the Law to everybody else in the universe.

nashimiron wrote: › If you wish to communicate "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law" to someone, murdering them is probably not a good way of doing so.

Irrelevant, since in the kinds of cases we are discussing it's unlikely that making such a communication will be inherent in the actor's will.

nashimiron wrote: › If the Law of Thelema was "Do what i will is the whole of the law" then the last 4 pages of this debate would have had some validity. So arguing over whether the will of me over-rules the will of thou is irrelevant to Thelema, except for those who are having difficulty getting to grips with it's basics.

You are confused.

nashimiron wrote: › How can you live by "Do what thou wilt" if a person you are interacting with (the "thou" in any given circumstance) is being prevented from doing their will by you?

Because you are the "thou" in any given circumstance, not the other person. You are attributing "thou" to the wrong party, here. Evidently so, since if "thou" is to be attributed to someone else, then you are under no obligation to abide by "Do what thou wilt" in the first place, since that injunction would obviously be directed at someone else. This is elementary.

You are thinking yourself into confusion, here.

Azidonis - Oct 04, 2007 - 12:24 PM
Post subject:

93 Aum,
[quote="Aum418"]

Quote: ›
What would you gain by saying its 'not' True Will? Would you create some Thelemic law to ban it? Or just recognize it as 'bad' like you alreadyt do? The point is that we cannot say whether anything is a priori part of true will, to make exceptions is to fall into the pit. There is no law beyond do what thou wilt, and thou hast no right but to do it, at least according to Liber AL. Anyone who has studied even a little western philosophy will learn that morals are totally arbitrary and relative, though they serve a social/cultural practical purpose obviously (althoug they may not have any validity in the scheme of Murder is Absolutely Wrong, etc.)

On the Outer, people need boundaries. In society people need boundaries. This is because they sometimes just don't know what's good (or bad) for them. I agree, every event and every type of person making that event is totally necessary, in some way. But I still don't believe that a serial rapist could have found his "way to god". I'm not condemning them or saying they are wrong or bad, it just seems like an imbalance somewhere, to constantly find people to take over sexually against their wills.

Quote: ›
I can say that honestly, I think you are right for the majority of cases, but I see no reason to say that rape & murder are always, a priori, "wrong" or "un-Thelemic." I wouldnt deny that most of these are driven by totally ridiculous ideas and desires that a normal healthy psyche wouldnt even consider, but again there are many situations that show me that absolutes (i.e. murder is absolutely bad) only serve to constrain in general.

I agree with this. I did think we were talking about cases of "bad murder" and "bad rape" (as opposed to "good murder" and "good rape"? Smile

, which is why I took the initial stance I did. Its definitely clear that peace and love both imply war, as is part of nature. In that light, it's bound to happen whether society excuses it or not. In most cases, perhaps the murder is justified. There are those cases that aren't too, so to say that murder 'could' be a part of one's Will is in a way justified, but not in all cases. The danger in this is the thin line in between, which is something I do not see our current (or near future) society being able to walk. Hence my stance that it shouldn't be considered too openly as possibly being part of one's True Will. What if that decisiosn was left to... who? As there really is no way to know when a person is doing hir Will, it's something to be left unto the higher planes. Where society is concerned, I'm not sure how they would go about making murder acceptable in some cases and unacceptable in others. It would take quite a tough measuring stick!

As for rape... I'm still not clear on that, but perhaps violate is the operative word.

Quote: ›
I totally disagree and Im surprised by teh amount of emotion reaction this question has brought up in people. Its not insane at all. Think of self-defense. Theres one situation of murder I doubt you think is insane. You yourself brought up the idea of war and shooting the enemy. Is that insane? Also think of the person who finds their wife in bed with another man and stabs them to death in a fit of passion. This could really happen to just about anyone. For example, Look at this woman with absolutely NO criminal record who shot her husband in a fit of passion just because she found pornography... Also think of the mob mentality when normal people cause total havoc, push and shove, yell and scream profanities, and bludgeon people to death - mob mentality is a well studied phenomena.

War is essential in some cases, though not always agreeable. If I ever find my wife in bed with another man, I'm going to look at him and tell him he just saved me the effort of figuring the shit out anyway lol Then I'd priobably beat the hell out of him and get a divorce.

The woman who shot her husband is a really crazy example. I haven't looked at the site, as I'm not sure if the information is censored or not (using the ship's comp), but one owuld initially think that such issues as pornography would be resolved before the marriage began.

Mob mentality in that case is just a bunch of people with a common cause who are really pissed off about the same thing. How angry does one have to be before their vision becomes blurry and they lose sight of things, such as Will? Then, how many of them in the same mob are just there to follow the others?

Quote: ›
Balanaced doesnt mean one withdraws frmo the conflict of life. One mind may be more inclined to communicating in abrasive ways while another likes flowery language, for example - the true nature shines through this psyche and someone might perceive it from afar as being 'wrathful' or 'crazy' or 'asshole,' but Im sure a lot of Zen monks were called assholes (im sure the masters were by many).

Well I can't too much disagree with that, as I've been called an asshole from time to time, and will probably be that way until my end of days, thought I am neither completely balanced, a Zen monk, or a master. Smile

I think there are certain arenas for this though, and such behaviour isn't necessarily beneficial in all cases. That said, are they really actions becoming of a master?

Quote: ›
I think if you repress the instinctual natural self enough it will burst out, often in neurotic symptoms. The best way, I think, is the way of Thelema and assimilating experience by "love under will." Both the mystical and magical paths offer very practical and active ways to solve psychic complexes (but one is also very liable to develop them as well in these practices!)

I wonder what the % chance is that one would be on the path and develop a clinical neurosis and enjoyment for rape, and still attain.

Quote: ›
Not necessarily, nor not not necessarily. Im just playing... the point is you can say "it seems high unlikely that 95% of people would ever even consider this" but thats the point, theres no point in saying most people would probably do htis so lets make it a rule, those 5% who do not act like the other 95% also have the right to carry out their wills.

The ratio may be a bit higher, like 98: 2 or something. Regardless of that, we seem to agree that murder does occur. Sometimes it is necessary, sometimes it isn't. Sometimes it very well may be part of one's Will, and sometimes it won't. There is no way to judge a man's Will, and that's how things are. Society's view of murder is designed to protect the masses (98%), and thus it's a very tough arguement to bring to parliment.

I still don't think this same thing applies to rape, or pedophilia (as an example). I feel that some things are morally wrong and also are a direct violation of the (what would be) otherwise unhindered Will of the victim. I honestly still don't see how it owuld be part of the mutual Will... in the chance case that one got extremely lucky, and the 2% found each other somehow, then I may be able to stretch my mind to believe it. But with society again geared towards protecting the 98%, its obvious that we are debating a very fine line of something that most people won't encounter all their lives. (Pardon the inclusive statement.)

Quote: ›
Qabalistically they are horizontal and find this much more balanced. Thinker 'good' as 'better' than 'evil' makes one fall into that trap of duality over and over and over. Whatever is successful though, to each his own.

I was talking about something else. Mainly, the gross muddled matter of the mind at the beginning, becoming less violent and more calm and clear over time. The point in it was that the gross muddled matter is possibly the root cause for 98% of the cases of rape, as we've been discussing.

Quote: ›
Again, the point is that, yes, naturally people will start to (theoretically) gravitate away from violence, rape, etc. but there is no justification for calling any action Absolutely Wrong. Thats my point.

I'll agree with you then, in some way. In the chance case that 2% of the cases of rape in the world *could* be possibly an act of mutual will, however small the chance is. So there is a glimmer of hope for the rapist! If we agree that out of 98% of the cases are commited by people with clinically fucked up heads, and then there is a 2% chance in which the rape is a mutual act, and within that mutual act by the 2% of rape assailants and victims, there is still the question of whether that mutual act is indeed just desire or indeed the Will of god. That is an extremely low ratio, and probably a very rare case. In either case, if we agree that there is a chance, then there could very well be a chance, however unlikely.

I'm sure society's take on it would be a different story though, and I would not want to be the one to defend the rapist in court (which if it ended up being mutual and further, Willed by both, then it probably wouldn't get reported anyway).

Quote: ›
Cant you just see you are the judge who happens to have more power/society behind him? If he happened to have more power he would wipe you out because he thought oyu were equally 'abominable.'

Yea, I see it and have seen it. It's just my personal opinion though... going to take a whole different debate to crack that egg.

Quote: ›
I think that nature also always has variation, and thats the beauty of it too. Not all people will be identical if they investigate their true nature. Crowley once said someting like think of a world full of arahans... extremely boring place! Finding one's truen ature brings beauty & strength in your own unique way. The idiosyncracies arent faults or anything of the sort, but what help manifest our natures in various ways.

I agree. It is said in Liber Aleph, "variation is the key to evolution".

Quote: ›
I think theres also a plane to be considered that "all that happens is right" from the deterministic or absolute point of view, in which "Nero was necessary" no matter whether we could go back in tiem and kill him at birth or not to save people he persecuted. If a thing happens, if it is successful in manifesting then that itself is its own proof: success is your proof. But practicallly this point of view is virtually useless.

Hrm... Again on the thin line. Something manifesting only means that the conditions were properly met in order for it to manifest. Right and wrong is a label placed on it by human beings, commonly denoting favorable or unfavorable to the individual and to society.

So was he right? Not necessarily. Was it necessary? Who knows. It did manifest, and that manifestation is only proof that the conditions were proper in order for it to occur. I can't immediately see where Will is a huge factor. I mean, the cosmos is rolling along, and shits out a Nero or a Hitler, they run and do their thing and eventually get destroyed, leaving their mark, but there's really no way to say that the lump of shit was indeed waste, or a beneficial germ planted just to stir things up.

What a wonderful discussion!

93 93/93

Erwin - Oct 04, 2007 - 12:25 PM
Post subject:

fraseth wrote: › The magnet's assumed "will" is a quality.

Actions are not qualities, they are the results of them.

fraseth wrote: › A quality is a characteristic of a thing which can not be changed intentionally by the thing itself, because, at a given time, it lies within the nature of the thing.

This is an odd thing to say. I possess ten toes, for instance, a characteristic which I can change intentionally any time I like, although I am unlikely to do so. Is my ten-toed-ness therefore not a quality? Does it not lie within my nature that I am ten-toed?

fraseth wrote: › The mind can be excluded from nature because if can lie within the nature of a thing to not have a will. Mind and will can not be seperated though. They depend on each other, some even say they are equivalent.

I certainly wouldn't say that. It is the mind that gets in the way of the will. That's why so many magical practices are aimed at suppressing its influence. If the will was just the mind, you could just think any old tripe, and it would automatically be your will. This is neither a useful nor a sensible definition. Furthermore, the equating of will with mind makes no allowance for unconscious actions or tendencies, so in any case would at best be incomplete.

fraseth - Oct 04, 2007 - 12:50 PM
Post subject:

Erwin wrote: › Actions are not qualities, they are the results of them.

Actions are the results of will, qualities lie within nature. They are not necessarily results of qualities.

Being magnetic is not a will driven action, it is a quality, like being red, or black (ie the quality of absorbing all light), which lies within the nature of a thing itself. The magnet can not say, "I intentionally change my polarisation this morning", or "I stop being magnetic tomorrow night".

Erwin wrote: › This is an odd thing to say. I possess ten toes, for instance, a characteristic which I can change intentionally any time I like, although I am unlikely to do so. Is my ten-toed-ness therefore not a quality? Does it not lie within my nature that I am ten-toed?

You are confusing the terms "thing" and "will" here. If you were a brainless rock, a marble statue for instance, you indeed could not change your ten-toedness. It could change, but it would require someone else's act. If I came along and would chop one of your toes off, your characteristics would seize to be ten-toed, and, at that time, you would start to be nine-toed.

Since you are not a brainless rock, I assume, you can change your ten-toedness but it would require a will-driven and probably painful act. So don't do it.

Erwin wrote: ›

I certainly wouldn't say that. It is the mind that gets in the way of the will. That's why so many magical practices are aimed at suppressing its influence. If the will was just the mind, you could just think any old tripe, and it would automatically be your will. This is neither a useful nor a sensible definition. Furthermore, the equating of will with mind makes no allowance for unconscious actions or tendencies, so in any case would at best be incomplete.

Kant & Spinoza may disagree.

Azidonis - Oct 04, 2007 - 01:06 PM
Post subject:

93 Erwin,

Azidonis wrote: › So you are seriously saying that it your reactions to the event would have no bearing on the way things are,

Erwin wrote: ›
Correct. My reactions to reality don't change reality. That's why it's called "reality".

I agree.

Azidonis wrote: › yet as everyone constantly creates their own reality,

Erwin wrote: ›
What utter and puerile schoolboy nonsense. Everyone might constantly create a imaginative personal representation of what they perceive reality to be, but this is a long, long way from that representation actually being reality. It is indeed this mistaking of your imaginative personal representation of reality for reality itself which is the core problem the study of magick is intended to address.

The point within my assertion is that (as with the more recent post) out of the 2% of rape victims and assailaints who we agreed may have found each other fulfilling, and the further small percentage of those people who's Wills it might actually be, none of those people fit into "my reality" or, the reality I choose to live in. Of course, the reality of the world is such, but the personal reality of "my world" does not include this small percentage. Therefore it's not necessarily "schoolboy nonsense" as I doubt I'll have to entertain and deal with feelings of rape and such in order to attain (with the exception maybe of this thread).

Another simple example is that my uncle enjoys hunting deer and other game. I don't. Therefore, while it is part of "reality" that people do indeed hunt deer and kill them for sport, it is really not a part of "my reality" I don't suppose, unless I choose to eat the lovely deer steak.

Azidonis wrote: › I didn't miss any of them. I simply got tired of reading the nonsense that kept pouring out onto the page.

Erwin wrote: ›
OK, so you're criticising posts you haven't read? As long as we all know that's what you're doing.

Actually, I did stop reading the posts. I got to the point where Uni_Verse got his ability to post freely suspended and reinstated, zain continued to threaten to tell the moderators on everyone instead of deriving an intelligent rebuttal, the_real_simon_iff, yourself, nashimiron, sonofthestar, Aum, and Paul were continuing the debate, and somewhere along the bottom of the third page, I decided to interject and display the view of society, as it seemed to be missing from the thread. This led to a much further discussion of the thin line in which such acts commonly denoted as "criminal" could quite possibly be one's Will, no matter how small the chance.

93 93/93

Erwin - Oct 04, 2007 - 01:10 PM
Post subject:

fraseth wrote: › Being magnetic is not a will driven action, it is a quality, like being red, or black (ie the quality of absorbing all light), which lies within the nature of a thing itself.

You're getting confused. It's not the "being magnetic" that's the action, its the motion that the magneticism results in that is the action. The nature of the magnet causes it to act in a certain way; in other words, the will of the magnet arises from its nature.

fraseth wrote: › The magnet can not say, "I intentionally change my polarisation this morning", or "I stop being magnetic tomorrow night".

And?

fraseth wrote: › You are confusing the terms "thing" and "will" here.

No I'm not. I didn't use the words "thing" or "will" once in that excerpt. Are you sure you're reading the right posts?

fraseth wrote: › If you were a brainless rock, a marble statue for instance, you indeed could not change your ten-toedness. It could change, but it would require someone else's act. If I came along and would chop one of your toes off, your characteristics would seize to be ten-toed, and, at that time, you would start to be nine-toed.

Since you are not a brainless rock, I assume, you can change your ten-toedness but it would require a will-driven and probably painful act. So don't do it.

So is my ten-toed-ness a characteristic and a quality, or is it not? You appear to be saying it is, above, which would seem to be a change in your position.

fraseth wrote: › Kant & Spinoza may disagree.

Good for Kant & Spinoza.

As I said, will results from nature and is a manifestation of it. In the case of conscious individuals, the mind can and does interfere with that manifestation. Even were the conscious mind to become perfectly aligned with the will, the mind is still only the executor of the will; the will doesn't arise from it. The mind belongs to the individual, and is his tool. It is obvious that it is inherent to the nature of that individual that he has a mind in the first place, but the individual's will doesn't arise from that mind, any more than it arises from his thumbs.

fraseth - Oct 04, 2007 - 01:18 PM
Post subject:

Erwin wrote: › You're getting confused. It's not the "being magnetic" that's the action, its the motion that the magneticism results in that is the action.

That would be the reaction, not the action.

Erwin wrote: › So is my ten-toed-ness a characteristic and a quality, or is it not? You appear to be saying it is, above, which would seem to be a change in your position.

I clearly said it is, and do not see any indicators for a change in position in any of my posts.

Erwin - Oct 04, 2007 - 01:26 PM
Post subject:

Azidonis wrote: › I agree.

OK. What are you arguing with me for, then?

Azidonis wrote: › The point within my assertion is that (as with the more recent post) out of the 2% of rape victims and assailaints who we agreed may have found each other fulfilling,

I don't recall "agreeing" anything like that.

Azidonis wrote: › and the further small percentage of those people who's Wills it might actually be, none of those people fit into "my reality" or, the reality I choose to live in.

They certainly do fit into the reality you choose to live in, since that reality is the same as everyone else's reality. It might not fit into the what you choose to accept that reality is, but that's another issue altogether.

Azidonis wrote: › Of course, the reality of the world is such,

Precisely.

Azidonis wrote: › but the personal reality of "my world" does not include this small percentage.

I'd appreciate it if you'd stop using the word "reality" to describe something that it not reality. It will only lead to confusion. You can use "my world" if you like, since it's an appropriate and time-honoured tradition to restrict the boundaries of your "world" to the things you are aware of.

Azidonis wrote: › Therefore it's not necessarily "schoolboy nonsense" as I doubt I'll have to entertain and deal with feelings of rape and such in order to attain (with the exception maybe of this thread).

You may not have to deal with the "feelings of rape and such" in order to attain, but for that attainment to represent anything meaningful you'll certainly have to come to grips with the nature of reality along the lines I've been describing, I can tell you that. Apprehending reality (and I mean the real kind, not your own personal kind) is central to attainment.

But besides that, it is simply not the path of wisdom to deny the existence of possibilities purely on the grounds that they upset you on an emotional level, neither is it wisdom to insist that Thelema or anything else must be this way or that simply because that's how you'd prefer it. This is the problem you get when you try to "create your own reality", you actually end up just creating a big old imaginary universe for yourself that panders to your own personal feelings and prejudices. And if it's attainment you're after, that's the polar opposite of what you should be doing, since living in an imaginary world is going to stop your progress dead.

Once you get over the initial shock of having to discard some of your most cherished and comforting notions, you'll find that the real universe is actually far, far grander and more sublime than anything your imagination could ever come up with. The real universe is big; the universe in your mind is tiny. The existence of acts that you personally find deplorable contribute to the perfection of the real universe, they don't detract from it.

lashtal - Oct 04, 2007 - 01:30 PM
Post subject:

Erwin wrote: › Once you get over the initial shock of having to discard some of your most cherished and comforting notions, you'll find that...

Just a quick note of moderation, Erwin: you really don't have to be quite so patronising or condescending to other members of the site that you engage with in conversation through these forums. It doesn't make you look either big or clever... Given the snippets of personal detail that Azidonis has chosen to reveal, I suspect he's experienced enough discarding of comforting notions.

Please do not respond to this note of moderation within the thread.

Erwin - Oct 04, 2007 - 01:33 PM
Post subject:

fraseth wrote: › That would be the reaction, not the action.

A reaction is a response to another action. Whichever way you want to define the term, "magneticism" is not an action.

Erwin wrote: › I clearly said it is, and do not see any indicators for a change in position in any of my posts.

OK, well explain this to me, then:

Fraseth: A quality is a characteristic of a thing which can not be changed intentionally by the thing itself.

Fraseth: you can change your ten-toedness but it would require a will-driven and probably painful act

Fraseth: I clearly said [your ten-toed-ness] is [a quality]

So, a "quality" is a characteristic that cannot be changed intentionally, and I can change my ten-toed-ness intentionally, yet my ten-toed-ness is still a quality? Are you seriously trying to tell me you don't see a problem with your logic, there?

Erwin - Oct 04, 2007 - 01:56 PM
Post subject:

lashtal wrote: ›

Erwin wrote: › Once you get over the initial shock of having to discard some of your most cherished and comforting notions, you'll find that...

Just a quick note of moderation, Erwin: you really don't have to be quite so patronising or condescending to other members of the site that you engage with in conversation through these forums. It doesn't make you look either big or clever... Given the snippets of personal detail that Azidonis has chosen, I suspect he's experienced enough discarding of comforting notions.

I disagree. "Discarding...cherished and comforting notions" is a critical part of development, and it is neither "patronising" nor "condescending" to point that out. This individual has shown a marked inability to deal with the issues we've been discussing in an objective manner, which suggests that discarding some cherished and comforting notions may be in order, here. It's a useful, pertinent and relevant observation.

lashtal wrote: › Please do not respond to this note of moderation within the thread.

Sorry, but if you're going to post "notes of moderation" within the thread, then I'm going to respond to them within the thread, and you should have both the common courtesy and the personal integrity to accept that.

As I've told you before, if you don't like what I post to your site, you only have to ask me to stop, and I'll be perfectly happy to respect your wishes with regards to your own creation. To remove the possibility of any misunderstanding in this respect, my posts are entirely as I choose to make them; you are obviously at liberty to decide whether you want them here or not at all, but both the content and the manner of presentation are wholly my own business, and are beyond the scope of your moderation.

fraseth - Oct 04, 2007 - 02:01 PM
Post subject:

Erwin wrote: ›
OK, well explain this to me, then:

Fraseth: A quality is a characteristic of a thing which can not be changed intentionally by the thing itself.

So, a "quality" is a characteristic that cannot be changed intentionally, and I can change my ten-toed-ness intentionally, yet my ten-toed-ness is still a quality? Are you seriously trying to tell me you don't see a problem with your logic, there?

I am seriously telling you I don't see a problem with my logic, yes. I do see one with your's though. Actually, not with your logic in itself, rather with with mixing up terms.

We are still at the very first post where I said you probably misunderstand or misinterpret the term "thing".

I never said a quality can not be changed in general, I only said the quality of a thing without a mind cannot be changed by said thing at a given time by itself. The difference lies within the definition of "thing", which I see, let's say, as a statue, and you see as yourself, introducing your own ten-toedness.

Since you are not a thing (I assume that), you can intentionally change your toe-count, which requires will > action > reaction.

Things can not do that.

(The only exception seems to be my spouse's computer, which, at times, seems to develop it's own mind, and does evil, will driven things by itself).

Erwin - Oct 04, 2007 - 02:09 PM
Post subject:

fraseth wrote: › I am seriously telling you I don't see a problem with my logic, yes.

OK. Then it is fruitless to continue this discussion.

fraseth - Oct 04, 2007 - 02:18 PM
Post subject:

Erwin wrote: ›

OK. Then it is fruitless to continue this discussion.

Come on man, don't get upset now. We are all learning here, I know I do.

MichaelStaley - Oct 04, 2007 - 02:29 PM
Post subject:

Erwin wrote: › What utter and puerile schoolboy nonsense.

You've filled this thread with little else.

Azidonis wrote: › I didn't miss any of them. I simply got tired of reading the nonsense that kept pouring out onto the page.

I doubt if you're alone.

lashtal wrote: › Just a quick note of moderation, Erwin: you really don't have to be quite so patronising or condescending to other members of the site that you engage with in conversation through these forums.

No, he doesn’t have to; but he does so enjoy it.

Erwin - Oct 04, 2007 - 02:43 PM
Post subject:

fraseth wrote: › Come on man, don't get upset now. We are all learning here, I know I do.

I'm not getting upset. If your reasoning is devoid of logic, then it's quite literally impossible to have a sensible discussion of the issues, and therefore fruitless to try.

Erwin - Oct 04, 2007 - 02:47 PM
Post subject:

MichaelStaley wrote: ›

Erwin wrote: › What utter and puerile schoolboy nonsense.

You've filled this thread with little else.

As opposed to this "valuable contribution" of yours, I suppose? Do feel free to offer an opposing analysis at any time, if a reasoned discussion of Thelema is within your ability, which I doubt.

the_real_simon_iff - Oct 04, 2007 - 04:13 PM
Post subject:

Erwin wrote: › If your reasoning is devoid of logic, then it's quite literally impossible to have a sensible discussion of the issues, and therefore fruitless to try.

93, Erwin!

Well, obviously you have another concept of a "sensible discussion". I can follow fraseth's logic pretty easily, I also can follow most of what you are saying, and what others are saying also. But you seem to know what the reasoning of others actually IS, you seem to know what reality IS and what the Will IS, and THAT is making discussion impossible, or difficult at least. Of course it is your right to think whatever you want, but it borders on "lecturing" which becomes pretty boring over the time. Well, that said, I am still of the opinion that for someone who has found his True Will and follows its, it is impossible to commit murder or rape. I can find nothing in your arguments that says otherwise (apart from the theoretical "True Will Murderer" whom I keep in the same box with "Can God create a rock that is so heavy that he himself can't lift it?"). "All events are equally lawful - and every one necessary, [...] in theory; but in practice, only one act is lawful for each one of us at any given moment. Therefore Duty consists in determining to experience the right event from one moment of consciousness to another." says the prophet and later on, after making us consider the faulties of politics, the disturbings of societies, and the daily atrocities: "We are children. How this new Aeon of Horus will develop, how the Child will grow up, these are for us to determine..." To me this sounds pretty much like a "bettering" of the planet, I would conclude that the condition of our planet and our society (that have not so much changed in those years) were not very much to Crowley's liking. And again: "Do what thou WILT shall be the whole of the Law". There is nothing in there that says that the Will embraces every possible thing on earth and elsewhere. "Each action or motion is an act of love [...]; each act must be 'under will', chosen so as to fulfil and not to thwart the true nature of the being concerned." You seem to imply that it is in some people's true nature to be murderd or raped, I can find nothing in Crowley's writing that says so. "The technical methods of achieving this are to be studied in 'Magick'." From the admittedly little I know of Magick, it is impossible for me to comprehend that a highly advanced Thelemite might be somehow led to murder or rape. I can see no proof for the theory that two stars who are colliding on their orbits, are both following their True Will. You are simply interpreting certain lines of the BOTL, these interpretations might not be right. There is no moral principle involved, I don't think that it is an evil thing to murder or rape (but that is because I don't think in those categories, murder or rape are obviously terrible), but I think that the True Will, once found and followed, won't lead anyone to murder or rape (this does not abolish murder or rape on this planet, since the True Will of course also can be lost again). There are many quotations that can "prove" my point, it depends on the interpretations of those quotes. Again, your efforts of "proving" your point so far resulted only in "admittedly, it is not very probable, but IF it is someone's Will to murder or rape... because DWTWSBTWOTL and so on and on... Would it be such a great loss to you, if the True Will does not embrace everything that is possible?

Hopefully you still care to convince me that you are right...

Love=Law
Lutz

Aum418 - Oct 04, 2007 - 04:21 PM
Post subject:

MichaelStaley wrote: ›

Erwin wrote: › What utter and puerile schoolboy nonsense.

You've filled this thread with little else.

Azidonis wrote: › I didn't miss any of them. I simply got tired of reading the nonsense that kept pouring out onto the page.

I doubt if you're alone.

No, he doesn’t have to; but he does so enjoy it.

Do you only come in to post vitriolic criticism and offer absolutely nothing constructive? Youve done it twice in this thread...

65 & 210,
111-418

Erwin - Oct 04, 2007 - 05:11 PM
Post subject:

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › Well, obviously you have another concept of a "sensible discussion".

Evidently. My concept of it is sensible, for starters.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › I can follow fraseth's logic pretty easily,

Really? Then do go back to the three statements of his I highlighted, and explain them to me. If you cannot or do not do this, then I will consider you to be wilfully misrepresenting the facts.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › I also can follow most of what you are saying, and what others are saying also. But you seem to know what the reasoning of others actually IS,

Call me old fashioned if you want, but I begin by assuming that the reasoning of others is reflected in what they write, especially when I ask them to confirm my understanding of their reasoning is correct, and they reply "yes". Of course, they could be writing complete gobbldigook and only pretending to reason, and telling great big lies about my understanding of it, but I have a tendency to give people the benefit of the doubt and assume in the first instance that this is not what they are doing. Maybe that confidence is misplaced.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › you seem to know what reality IS

I have a fair idea.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › and what the Will IS,

Yes.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › and THAT is making discussion impossible, or difficult at least.

So you think discussing the will would be made a lot easier by everyone having absolutely no idea what they are talking about, then?

If so, I believe I have correctly identified the source of the difficulty you are having understanding my posts.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › Of course it is your right to think whatever you want, but it borders on "lecturing" which becomes pretty boring over the time.

Suggest you don't respond to my posts then, if you find them boring.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › Well, that said, I am still of the opinion that for someone who has found his True Will and follows its, it is impossible to commit murder or rape.

So you keep saying, and I keep asking you to back this opinion up, and you persistently refuse to do so. Why is this?

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › I can find nothing in your arguments that says otherwise (apart from the theoretical "True Will Murderer" whom I keep in the same box with "Can God create a rock that is so heavy that he himself can't lift it?").

With absolutely no justification.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › "All events are equally lawful - and every one necessary, [...] in theory; but in practice, only one act is lawful for each one of us at any given moment. Therefore Duty consists in determining to experience the right event from one moment of consciousness to another." says the prophet and later on, after making us consider the faulties of politics, the disturbings of societies, and the daily atrocities: "We are children. How this new Aeon of Horus will develop, how the Child will grow up, these are for us to determine..." To me this sounds pretty much like a "bettering" of the planet, I would conclude that the condition of our planet and our society (that have not so much changed in those years) were not very much to Crowley's liking.

Yay for Crowley.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › And again: "Do what thou WILT shall be the whole of the Law". There is nothing in there that says that the Will embraces every possible thing on earth and elsewhere. "Each action or motion is an act of love [...]; each act must be 'under will', chosen so as to fulfil and not to thwart the true nature of the being concerned." You seem to imply that it is in some people's true nature to be murderd or raped,

No, I don't. Feel free to quote where I "seem to imply" this, if you like.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › I can find nothing in Crowley's writing that says so.

Me either.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › From the admittedly little I know of Magick, it is impossible for me to comprehend that a highly advanced Thelemite might be somehow led to murder or rape.

Try harder, then.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › I can see no proof for the theory that two stars who are colliding on their orbits, are both following their True Will.

"Proof"? I think you're getting confused, again. "Proof" is not a useful concept to this kind of discussion.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › You are simply interpreting certain lines of the BOTL, these interpretations might not be right. There is no moral principle involved, I don't think that it is an evil thing to murder or rape (but that is because I don't think in those categories, murder or rape are obviously terrible), but I think that the True Will, once found and followed, won't lead anyone to murder or rape (this does not abolish murder or rape on this planet, since the True Will of course also can be lost again).

So you keep saying, and still you continually refuse to say why or to even acknowledge that you've been asked to.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › There are many quotations that can "prove" my point, it depends on the interpretations of those quotes.

So let's see some of them.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › Again, your efforts of "proving" your point so far resulted only in "admittedly, it is not very probable, but IF it is someone's Will to murder or rape... because DWTWSBTWOTL and so on and on... Would it be such a great loss to you, if the True Will does not embrace everything that is possible?

I don't know what you are talking about. Whether or not something would be a "great loss to me" is completely unconnected with truth. You've gone off on a tangent again.

I don't think I'm getting through to you. You're just saying the same things over and over again, and refusing at every turn to justify or explain any of them. Traditionally, in a debate, one party advances statements, the other challenges them, and the original party backs them up. You are advancing statements, I am challenging them, and you're just repeating them over and over again. Until you start actually engaging in the issues you are talking about, I don't see a lot of point in continuing.

MichaelStaley - Oct 04, 2007 - 05:19 PM
Post subject:

Aum418 wrote: › Do you only come in to post vitriolic criticism and offer absolutely nothing constructive? Youve done it twice in this thread...

There was nothing vitriolic - that's a colour you have brought to my remarks. Mocking, yes; I'll enter a guilty plea to that, with pleasure.

"Constructive"????????????

Shocked

Do you seriously think there's anything remotely constructive about Erwin's perorations in this thread? It's all empty, posturing rhetoric, reminiscent of a cock crowing on its dungheap. It might pass muster in the Little Rock debating society for precocious little boys, but that's about it.

the_real_simon_iff - Oct 04, 2007 - 06:50 PM
Post subject:

93!

Erwin wrote: › Evidently. My concept of it is sensible, for starters.

So not only you have a concept for a sensible discussion, but even a sensible concept for a sensible discussion?

Erwin wrote: › Then do go back to the three statements of his I highlighted, and explain them to me. If you cannot or do not do this, then I will consider you to be wilfully misrepresenting the facts.

Why should I? He pointed it out pretty well what he meant. It is just two posts after your post.

Erwin wrote: › I have a fair idea.

Well, normally you talk about what IS, and not what fair idea of it you have.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › and what the Will IS,

Erwin wrote: › Yes.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › and THAT is making discussion impossible, or difficult at least.

Erwin wrote: › So you think discussing the will would be made a lot easier by everyone having absolutely no idea what they are talking about, then?

I did not say this. But a discussion to me means that both sides are open to accept the fact that the other side could be right. Don't see anything of that on your part. But that's only what I think a discussion is, you don't have to agree.

Erwin wrote: › If so, I believe I have correctly identified the source of the difficulty you are having understanding my posts.

No, you did not.

Erwin wrote: › Suggest you don't respond to my posts then, if you find them boring.

How about trying to be less boring? Or do you mean, I should not respond to your posts if I don't agree?

Erwin wrote: › So you keep saying, and I keep asking you to back this opinion up, and you persistently refuse to do so. Why is this?

Well, the quotes I used do back up my opinion, I think. But of course you say no more about this except "Yay for Crowley". That's really impressing reasoning.

Erwin wrote: › No, I don't. Feel free to quote where I "seem to imply" this, if you like.

Okay, here it comes:

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › When stars are colliding, do you think one star was on his right way and the other one not?

Erwin wrote: › No, both were.

1. Every man and every woman is a star.
2. Stars collide
3. Let's call this collision "rape" or "murder".
4. I say, then at least one must have been following the "wrong orbit", or not following their True Will.
5. You say, no, both were following their "right orbit".So, the murderer/rapist and the victim were both following their True Will.
6. There is a "True Will" to get raped/be murdered.

Or do you want to say that only the victim is not following its True Will. Then Hooray! Become a Thelemite, find your True Will and you won't be raped/murdered.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › From the admittedly little I know of Magick, it is impossible for me to comprehend that a highly advanced Thelemite might be somehow led to murder or rape.

Erwin wrote: › Try harder, then.

So hard to reach finally your opinion?

Erwin wrote: › "Proof"? I think you're getting confused, again. "Proof" is not a useful concept to this kind of discussion.

You are constantly asking me to back up my opinion. Isn't it hairsplitting that you did not use the word "proof"?

Erwin wrote: › So you keep saying, and still you continually refuse to say why or to even acknowledge that you've been asked to.

You did it again.

Erwin wrote: › So let's see some of them.

Feel free to re-read my post and the "quotes of the prophet" (sound of rolling thunder!!!)

Erwin wrote: › I don't know what you are talking about. Whether or not something would be a "great loss to me" is completely unconnected with truth. You've gone off on a tangent again.

It was just a guess, a question. Derived from the eagerness with which you defend your positions and constantly not even try to understand other positions. As you I have to judge a person from what I read from him/her. That's what I deducted. Of course you deduct that I am still caught in my bunny world of moral and social conventions.

Erwin wrote: › I don't think I'm getting through to you. You're just saying the same things over and over again, and refusing at every turn to justify or explain any of them. Traditionally, in a debate, one party advances statements, the other challenges them, and the original party backs them up. You are advancing statements, I am challenging them, and you're just repeating them over and over again. Until you start actually engaging in the issues you are talking about, I don't see a lot of point in continuing.

Then stop it. I don't care. I am here to learn, are you only here to teach? You probably think that because you compressed your thoughts in an essay means: It's in the essay - it is right! You are simply also saying the same things over and over again and refusing to see that your explanations or justifyings may not be the last word. That's all...

He that is righteous shall be righteous still, he that is filthy shall be filthy still...

Love=Law
Lutz

Erwin - Oct 04, 2007 - 07:54 PM
Post subject:

the_real_simon_iff wrote: ›

Erwin wrote: › No, I don't. Feel free to quote where I "seem to imply" this, if you like.

Okay, here it comes:

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › When stars are colliding, do you think one star was on his right way and the other one not?

Erwin wrote: › No, both were.

OK. I'll try to get this into your head one final time. I've already explained this to you, so you are misrepresenting the facts again, here. If you still don't get it, then I'm done with your tiresome weaselling.

Your statement number 6 does not follow from your statement number 5. Both were "following their right orbit", and "both were following their true will", up until the point of collision. At the point of collision, the weaker of the two wills is defeated by the stronger of the two wills. The rape/murder victim has been prevented from carrying out their will by the rapist/murderer.

This is not a difficult concept to grasp. Consult AL II, 59 and AL III, 59.

Kalki93 - Oct 04, 2007 - 08:02 PM
Post subject:

This is all just so much nonsense.

MichaelStaley - Oct 04, 2007 - 08:44 PM
Post subject:

Kalki93 wrote: › This is all just so much nonsense.

I think that most of us - apart from Erwin and Aum418 - feel the same way.

Paul, I think that this thread - never a particularly savoury one - has passed its sell-by date, and is perhaps best put out of its misery.

Michael.

lashtal - Oct 04, 2007 - 08:52 PM
Post subject:

MichaelStaley wrote: › I think that this thread - never a particularly savoury one - has passed its sell-by date, and is perhaps best put out of its misery.

I agree and I regret not having locked it much sooner.