lashtal.com
Thelema - Thelemic values: a new view of morality
IAO131 - Nov 15, 2007 - 09:52 PM
Post subject: Thelemic values: a new view of morality
Also: (PDF Version)
- Ye olde morality -
Nearly every human alive has heard of the Ten Commandments that Moses brought down from Mount Sinai - the ten "thou shalt not"s. This system of ethics as set forth literally in stone by God and delivered through Moses is practically the perfect symbol of what I propose to call "old morality." Old morality consists essentially in the belief that there is an absolute law of conduct, often rewarded with promises of heaven or some kind of pleasure and punished with verdicts of various types of suffering, even eternal suffering in a firey "Hell." This notion of absolute morality is most apparent in the Jewish religion, with its ten commandments (Judaism actually has 613 commandments in total), but it also appears in both Christianity and Islam (the "five pillars of Islam"). Both of these religions are characterized by their insistence on sin and the punishment of hell following sinful actions. These types of absolute morality are also apparent in many forms of Buddhism where they have "sila," which consists usually of five "thou shalt not"s. In some forms of yoga, there are what is called "yama" and "niyama" which are essentially five "thou shalt"s and five "thou shalt not"s.
Now, this old morality being by definition founded on a notion of "absolute moral conduct," is also necessarily quite inflexible. Not only did Moses invoke God as the source and authority of his commandments, but they were set in two gigantic tablets of stone.
In the course of history, one might say that these commandments, Jewish and otherwise, were necessary for that particular time. It can be agreed that many of these guidelines were (and still can be) effective if employed in the right circumstances, in the right cultures. For example, "keeping kosher," a practice in Judaism, might be a highly effective way of being healthy in a certain part of a world, in a certain time-period. The fact is that these old moralities, as discussed above, emphasize the absoluteness of their rules and are therefore inflexible in their adaptation to individual circumstances. Nietzsche described this old morality, cognate with the Freudian "superego," as "the great dragon" that plagues each person in their development,
"What is the great dragon which the spirit is no longer inclined to call Lord and God? "Thou-shalt," is the great dragon called. But the spirit of the lion saith, "I will."
"Thou-shalt," lieth in its path, sparkling with gold--a scale-covered
beast; and on every scale glittereth golden, "Thou shalt!"
The values of a thousand years glitter on those scales, and thus speaketh
the mightiest of all dragons: "All the values of things--glitter on me.
All values have already been created, and all created values--do I
represent. Verily, there shall be no 'I will' any more. Thus speaketh the
dragon."[1]
This dragon is contrasted with the lion, a symbol of a certain stage of the "metamorphosis of one's spirit, which corresponds with the discarding of this old morality.
- Discarding of old morality -
"Anthropologists, archæologists, physicists and other men of science, risking thumbscrews, stake, infamy and ostracism, have torn the spider-snare of superstition to shreds and broken in pieces the monstrous idol of Morality, the murderous Moloch which has made mankind its meat throughout history... Moral philosophy, psychology, sociology, anthropology, mental pathology, physiology, and many another of the children of Wisdom, of whom she is justified, well know that the laws of Ethics are a chaos of confused conventions, based at best on customs convenient in certain conditions, more often on the craft or caprice of the biggest, the most savage, heartless, cunning and blood-thirsty brutes of the pack, to secure their power or pander to their pleasure in cruelty."
-Aleister Crowley, Liber V vel Reguli
The 18th and 19th centuries signaled the slow demise of the conventional views of an Absolute Law of morals. This is epitomized in Nietzsche's proclamation that "God is dead." The essential realization that had crept in was that moral judgment of things is entirely relative. Amazingly, Einstein announced the relativity of space-time itself less than half a century later. Nietzsche also summarized this relativization of morals in one aphorism: "There is no such thing as moral phenomena, but only a moral interpretation of phenomena."[2] In this, we come to see that morality as we know it lies entirely in our particular interpretation of phenomena, it does not reside in the phenomena themselves.
Thelema was surely the first religious philosophy to adopt - or rather incorporate - this new notion of amorality. This idea is more fully expanded in the chapter "The notion of sin abolished" in the "Psychological Commentary to Liber AL vel Legis" as well as in the essay "The Ethics of Thelema" by Erwin Hessle that appeared in the first issue of the Journal of Thelemic Studies.
It is proclaimed famously in Liber AL vel Legis, the central text of Thelema,
"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law."
"There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt."[3]
The will being unique to "every man and every woman," their different Laws are essentially not going to be identical. This most definitely states that each person is to do their own Will and not follow out the various laws and mandates of others. Naturally, moral sanctions imposed from without are discarded. The discarding of old morality during the last two centuries is also reflected into the microcosm of each human individual. Each man and woman must go through the various stages of human development, and a large part of this development is one's continually changing approach to values. In the process of all of our lives, we have each adopted values and many of us, especially during adolescence, begin to question our adopted values that we took initially to be true.
This questioning of values is what Nietzsche discussed in his classic Thus Spoke Zarathustra. He declared there were three metamorphoses of the spirit, the first of which is the camel that essentially takes on the values of the society it was born into. Next, through necessity, the lion emerges, symbolic of the discarding of introjected values. On this symbolic lion of the spirit Nietzsche writes,
"My brethren, wherefore is there need of the lion in the spirit? Why sufficeth not the beast of burden [the camel], which renounceth and is reverent?
To create new values--that, even the lion cannot yet accomplish: but to create itself freedom for new creating--that can the might of the lion do.
To create itself freedom, and give a holy Nay even unto duty: for that, my brethren, there is need of the lion.
To assume the right to new values--that is the most formidable assumption for a load-bearing and reverent spirit. Verily, unto such a spirit it is preying, and the work of a beast of prey.
As its holiest, it once loved "Thou-shalt": now is it forced to find
illusion and arbitrariness even in the holiest things, that it may capture
freedom from its love: the lion is needed for this capture."[4]
The prime characteristic of this lion-like attitude is "to create itself freedom" by rejecting the "Thou-shalts" of values imposed from without. Modernly, the old morality is represented to the modern individual in the form of "society" or "the State," which are imposed from without. This lion symbol Nietzsche speaks of is essentially the breaking free of old perspectives of value. These include any imposed values acquired throughout one's development in modern society, especially those of old morality.
In the field of psychology, Carl Ransom Rogers - an influential psychologist who founded the client-centered form of therapy and was president of the American Psychological Association - delineated the progress of our approach to values throughout our individual development. To understand the transition to what Rogers terms a "psychologically mature" outlook on values we must first understand completely his model of the development of values. In an essay he published called "Toward a Modern Approach to Values," he first of all distinguishes between "operative values" which refers to "the tendency of any living beings to show preference, in their acitons, for one kind of object or objective rather than another," which, "need not involve any cognitive or conceptual thinking,"[5] and what he calls "conceived values," which are "the preference of the individual for a symbolized object," where, "usually in such a preference there is anticipation or foresight of the outcome of behavior directed toward such a symbolized object."[6] For operative values, Rogers gives the example of a worm navigating a maze by choosing the directions through it; for conceived values, he gives the example of the value-statement "honesty is the best policy." With this subtle distinction in values we may return to the subject of becoming a psychologically mature adult.
Carl Rogers suggested that there are three distinct perspectives or stages of value: the infant, the psyschologically immature, and the psychologically mature adult. The infant's view of values is inborn - it has "at the outset, a clear approach to values. He prefers some things and experiences, and rejects others. We can infer from studying his behavior that he prefers those experiences which maintain, enhance, or actualize his organism, and rejects those which do not serve this end."[7] This infant stage of values is entirely composed of operative values, for conceived values require symbolic thought of which infants are not even capable. The fact that is asserted is that infants are inborn with a sense of valuing things, which corresponds to what Rogers calls elsewhere the "actualizing tendency," which is that tendency of all humans (not just infants) to inherently move towards "those experiences which maintain, enhance, or actualize his organism," as previously mentioned. Rogers continues, explaining that the infant's approach to values "is first of all a flexible, changing, valuing process, not a fixed system... What is going on seems best described as an organismic valuing process, in which each element, each moment of what he is experiencing is somehow weighed, and selected or rejected, depending on whether, at this moment, it tends to actualize the organism or not. This complicated weighing of experience is clearly an organismic, not a conscious or symbolic function. These are operative, not coneived values."[8] The last aspect of the infant's approach to values is that "the source or locus of the evaluating process is clearly within himself. Unlike many of us, he knows what he likes and dislikes, and the origin of these value choices lies strictly within himself. He is the center of the valuing process, the evidence for his choices being supplied by his own senses."[9]Essentially, the infant's approach to values is what Rogers terms the "organismic valuing process," wherein each phenomenon is weighed and rejected depending on its potential for actualizing the individual in question, and the source of the evaluating process is clearly within the individual.
One would think that this soundly based and highly efficient valuing process would not be worth giving up. The fact is that all of us exchange this apparent effective valuing process for a more "rigid, uncertain, inefficient approach to values which chatacterizes most of us adults."[10] The reason for this, Rogers posits, is essentially the need for love from others, especially the parents. "The infant needs love, wants it, tends to behave in ways which will bring a repetition of this wanted experience. But this brings complications."[11] Each child is scolded for doing things the parent sees as unacceptable and rewarded for things viewed as unacceptable. These various value judgments become adopted by the infant as if they were his own, which is called the "introjection of values." Rogers explains, "He has deserted the wisdom of his organism, giving up the locus of evaluation, and is trying to behave in terms of values set by another, in order to hold love."[12] It this new stage, when the infant begins to start introjecting values from outside as if they were his own, which corresponds with Nietzsche's notion of the camel. The camel is that which delights in bearing heavy loads, in this case the burden of introjected values. On this Nietzsche writes,
"What is heavy? so asketh the load-bearing spirit; then kneeleth it down like the camel, and wanteth to be well laden.
What is the heaviest thing, ye heroes? asketh the load-bearing spirit, that I may take it upon me and rejoice in my strength... All these heaviest things the load-bearing spirit taketh upon itself."[13]
These introjected values in the individual corresponds as a microcosm to the old morality, discussed earlier, that has appeared in the course of human history. Rogers writes that "because these [introjected] concepts are not based on his own valuing, they tend to be fixed and rigid, rather than fluid and changing." Like introjected value concepts, the old morality is inherently fixed and rigid. Our lives as children, through when we are adolescents, up until we become adults, we are constantly introjecting values from around us. Rogers notes that, "in this fantastically complex culture of today, the patterns we introject as desirable or undesirable come fom a variety of sources and are often highly contradictory in their meanings."[14] This assimilation into society with its values creates this "highly contradictory" feeling within each person. Most adults are at this stage of tension between their various conceived values that they have introjected, and more importantly Rogers describes the "wide and unrecognized descrepancy between the evidence supplied by his own experience and these conceived values."[15] This is because his experience no longer dictates his values as they did as an infant when his locus of evaluation was still within himself. Now, this source of evaluation lies outside of himself in most matters because of these fixed introjected values that he has adopted. One consequence of these introjected values being fixed is that "he must hold [these conceptions] in a rigid and unchanging fashion. The alternative would be a collapse of his values."[16] Carl Rogers believed that this picture of the individual, that of one with a large discrepancy between their experience and their introjected, conceived values, "is the picture of most of us. On this fundamental discrepancy Rogers wrote,
"By taking over the conceptions of others as our own we lose contact with the potential wisdom of our own functioning, and lose confidence in ourselves. Since these value constructs are often sharply at variance with what is going on in our own experiencing, we have in a very basic way divorced ourselves from ourselves, and this accounts for much of modern strain and insecurity. This fundamental discrepancy between the individual's concepts and what he is actually experiencing, between the intellectual structure of his values and the valuing process going on unrecognized within him - this is a part of the fundamental estrangement of modern man from himself."[17]
It is at this point in development, where there is a fundamental discrepancy and dissonance in ourselves, that Nietzsche's lion is needed "create itself freedom" by discarding the old values of "the great dragon" of "Thou shalt not"s. Before, as a camel, the individual takes on and introjects the values of his society at large, moving the his source of evaluation from a fluid center within himself to a fixed set of values outside of himself. This process is most likely necessary for all humans to go through, even though it has "divorced ourselves from ourselves." It is at this point that the lion is needed, which is essentially symbolic of the discarding of old values. This lion in its rejecting of introjected values is a symbol of the transition from this psychologically immature outlook of values to becoming what Rogers called a psychologically mature adult. Rogers said that "some individuals are fortunate in... developing further in the direction of psychological maturity."[18] Being a therapist he naturally recommends the therapeutic climate for this further development but also admitted that this development can also happen in life where various conditions are similar to therapy.
- The birth of a new system of values -
If we discard our own introjected values, what do we have left? This is what the two previously mentioned essays (the chapter in Psychological Commentary to Liber AL and Hessle's "Ethics of Thelema") on Thelemic morals have neglected. Once the lion has found the old set of values ineffective and useless, what takes the place of this new void? Is "Do what thou wilt" simply just a call to complete anarchy?
As we begin to discard these introjected values, we come again to an approach to values that is similar to the infant's perspective treated earlier. In this sense, "it is fluid, flexible, based on this particular moment, and the degree to which this moment is experienced as enchancing and actualizing. Values are not held rigidly, but are continually changing."[19] This return to a fluid and flexible approach to values can only happen when we relinquish our attachment to various conceived values that have been introjected. The experience of our organism, which is constantly changing, becomes more important to the evaluation process than the thought structure of our values. Also in similarity with the infant's perspective, this new mature approach establishes, "the locus of evaluation... firmly within the person. It is his own experience which provides the value information or feedback. This does not mean that he is not open to all the evidence he can obtain from other sources. But it means that this is taken for what it is - outside evidence - and is not as significant as his own reactions."[20] Further, "there is also involved in this valuing process a letting oneself down into the immediacy of what one is experiencing, endeavoring to sense and to clarify all its complex meanings" just like in infancy. Essentially, one returns largely to the infant's point-of-view insofar as one's values are more fluid & flexible, the locus of evaluation is re-established within oneself, experiential evidence trumps outside evidence, and a sort of letting go to be "in the moment."
Amazingly, as Carl Rogers says this new psychologically mature look has much in common with the infant's perspective, Nietzsche designates the stage after the discarding of values by the lion as that of the child. He writes,
"But tell me, my brethren, what the child can do, which even the lion could not do? Why hath the preying lion still to become a child?
Innocence is the child, and forgetfulness, a new beginning, a game, a self-rolling wheel, a first movement, a holy Yea.
Aye, for the game of creating, my brethren, there is needed a holy Yea unto life: ITS OWN will, willeth now the spirit; HIS OWN world winneth the world's outcast." [21]
The child is 'innocence' because he does not reference his own actions against the values of others (whereby one feels guilt, shame, etc. for not complying) but of his own, he is 'forgetfulness' because his values is not a fixed system but a fluid, ever-changing process, and he is 'a new beginning' and 'a first movement' because his values are always renewed in each moment, each calling a new judgment from his being. The child is 'a game' because he does not take the following of introjected values so seriously anymore - in fact, finds those following them quite ignorant (Rogers writes that, "[the infant] would laugh at our concern over values, if he could understand it"[22]), he is 'a self-rolling wheel' because his locus of evaluation has been relocated to within himself, and he is 'a holy Yea' because in this bringing of valuing into the locus of oneself naturally brings one into being more accepting of experience in general. This image of the mature child appears in an injunction by Christ to "become as little children" (Matthew 18:3), and also Blavatsky's injunction, "The Pupil must regain the child-state he has lost,"[23] and finally Nietzsche's own injunction "Maturity in a man: that means having found once again that seriousness which man had as a child, in play.”[24]
Rogers emphasizes that similar to the infant, "the psychologically mature adult trusts and uses the wisdom of his organism, with the difference that he is able to do so knowingly. He realizes that if he can trust all of himself, his feelings and his intuitions may be wiser than his mind, that as a total person he can be more sensitive and accurate than his thoughts alone."[25] As emphasized in a chapter from the Psychological Commentary on Liber AL, reason cannot adequately be the guide of the Will. Rogers offers this "organismic valuing process" as a solution to not only what may guide our actions when we discard reason as the sole arbiter, but also it fills the vacuum created by our questioning and discarding of values. The "child" of Nietzsche who creates his own values is one who has adopted this psychologically mature "organismic valuing process." Like Rogers, we assert that "there is an organismic base for an organized valuing process within the human individual... It is part of the functioning life process of any healthy organism. It is the capacity for receiving feedback information which enables the organism continually to adjust its behavior and reacitons so as to achieve the maximum possible self-enhancement."[26] This natural inclination is with us since birth and consequently covered over with our adopted of various conceived values in our need for love and esteem. Now as we being to question and discard our various conceived values that have been imposed from without, we are re-adopting many facets of this natural organismic valuing process yet with the psychological maturity and insight of the adult.
Finally, some often question whether relocating our valuing process within ourselves will result in widespread anarchy. Carl Rogers assures that although this process of organismic valuing is entirely individual, the values that are created share a large degree of commonality across humanity. He asserted that "where individuals are valued, where there is greater freedom to feel and to be, certain value directions seem to emerge. These are not chaotic directions but instead have a surprising commonality... this commonality does not seem to be due to the influences of any one culture... I like to think that this commonality of value directions is due to the fact that we all belong to the same species... As a species there may be certain elements of experience which tend to make for inner development and which would be chosen by all individuals if they were genuinely free to choose."[27] In fact, Carl Rogers was able to identify various common themes, or "value directions," that arise when individuals are accepted and left free to choose their own values: "They tend to move away from facades... pretense, defensiveness, putting up a front," "they tend to move away from 'oughts,'" "they tend to move awya from meeting hte expectations of others," "being real is positively valued," "self-direction is positively valued," "one's self, one's own feelings, come to be positively valued," "being a process [as opposed to being fixed] is positively valued," "perhaps more than all else, the client comes to value an openness to all of his inner and outer experience," "sensitivity to others and acceptance of others is positively valued," and "finally, deep relationships are positively valued."[28]
Although these may be general trends of "value directions," in Thelema it is recognized quite firmly that "There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt." Instead of dogmatically imitating these apparently common stances on values, we may recognize that the very fact of a commonality of value directions among all humans who are relatively free and esteemed shows us that this process of understanding values that we all go through does not end in complete anarchy as some criticize. Essentially, "a new kind of emergent universality of value directions becomes possible when individuals move in the direction of psychological maturity, or more accurately, move in the direction of becoming open to their experiencing."[29]
- Summary -
The essential endeavor of this essay is to understand values in a Thelemic context. First, the historical appearance and dissolution of old morality, symbolized both as Moses' stone tablets of the Laws and the "great dragon" of Nietzsche, was defined as a system with a fixed and absolute rule of conduct. It was discussed how our approach to values changes continually throughout our individual development, and Carl Rogers' model for understanding values was adopted as a framework to understand this more deeply.
According to Carl Rogers, there are three distinct stages of development where we have different approaches to what we value. Initially, we all begin in the infant stage with an inborn organismic valuing process. This process is based on what will actualize the infant the most in the moment (called by Rogers "the actualizing tendency"), and consequently it is a constantly changing process in contrast to fixed, unchangeable principles. Slowly, largely through the desire for love and esteem from others, we relinquish this locus of values from within ourselves to various introjected values that are imposed from without. This stage of "introjecting values" from our parents and society as a whole was shown to correspond with Nietzsche's notion of the camel which "bears the burden" of its society's values.
This introjection of values creates a dissonance in ourselves because of the gap between our experience and the thought-structure of conceived values that we have introjected. This is what Rogers distinguishes as the "psychologically immature" approach to values. It is at this point that we begin to question our values, and many of them are seen to be irrelevant, arbitrary, and useless. These imposed values were seen to correspond both to Freud's superego and Nietzsche's "great dragon," which assails each individual. When we begin to question our values and discard them, we become Nietzsche's "lion" who creates freedom by giving "a holy Nay even unto duty"[31] and the many conceived values that we have introjected.
It is by the questioning and discarding of values that it is possible to move beyond psychologically immaturity into the final stage which Carl Rogers calls the "psychologically mature adult." In this final approach to values, we once again bring our locus of evaluation within ourselves, relying on experiential evidence. We "become as little children" also insofar as we start to become more open to all kinds of experience when we relinquish attachment to our old, static, conceived values; also, we regain a more intimate immersion in the moment, although now as adults we have accumulated the wisdom of many years of experience. It is an interesting paradox that both in Carl Rogers' model of the developmental approach to values and Nietzsche's understanding of the "metamorphoses of the spirit," that the most mature manifestation retains markedly the relation to the "Child" or "infant." It is a delicate balance to strike between the knowledge of adult experience and the innocent candor of the child-like attitude, but it certainly can and has been done.
Since we relocate our valuing process to within ourselves, it becomes entirely individual and relative. Some may argue that this approach to values, as many have often argued against the Thelemic maxim "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law," leads to complete anarchy. This situation of relying on the individual "organismic valuing process" may appear to be anarchy to one still situated in their fixed approach to values, consiting almost entirely of introjected values from the duration of one's life, but it is much different in practice. Carl Rogers assures that, amazingly, universal "value directions" emerge when people across all cultures are allowed freedom to develop fully psychologically. The very fact that universal value directions emerge may show that although there is much more diversity, there is certainly still a certain commonality of values that arises.
With this knowledge, we may all arise as lions to question, re-examine, and discard our old notions of values. In this discarding we make way for the child within us, who brings forth his or her individual approach to values - that particular person's Will. This "child"-approach is really only the "organismic valuing process" that we have had inherently within us since our birth; it has only become clouded over by the complex of introjected conceived values. Just as the blazing sunlight is diffused and darkened by the clouds, every individual's Will is obscured by this process of introjecting values. Any star who wishes to burn as brilliantly as possible would surely wish to disperse these clouds. That is, any man or woman who truly wishes to actualize their full potential can and must engage in this process of the re-examination of values.
"Instead of universal values 'out there,' or a universal value system imposed by some group - philosophers, rulers, or priests - we have the possibility of universal human value directions emerging from the experiencing of the human organism. Evidence from therapy indicates that both personal and social values emerge as natural, and experienced, when the individual is close to his own organismic valuing process. The suggestion is that though modern man no longer trusts religion or science or philosophy ore any system of beliefs to give him his values, he may find an organismic valuing base within himself which, if he can learn again to be in touch with it, will prove to be an organized, adaptive, and social approach to the perplexing value issues which face all of us."[32]
~ ~ ~
- References -
[1] Nietzsche, Friedrich. (1883). Thus Spoke Zarathustra trans. by Thomas Common, ch.1
[2] Nietzsche, Friedrich. (1886). Beyond Good and Evil, Aphorism 108
[3] Crowley, Aleister. (1904). Liber AL vel Legis, I:40 and III:60
[4] Nietzsche, Friedrich. (1883). Thus Spoke Zarathustra trans. by Thomas Common, ch.1
[5] Rogers, Carl R.. (1964). "Toward a Modern Approach to Values: The Valuing Process in the Mature Person" from Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol.68, No.2, pg. 160-167
[6] Ibid
[7] Ibid
[8] Ibid
[9] Ibid
[10] Ibid
[11] Ibid
[12] Ibid
[13] Nietzsche, Friedrich. (1883). Thus Spoke Zarathustra trans. by Thomas Common, ch.1
[14] Rogers, Carl R.. (1964) "Toward a Modern Approach to Values: The Valuing Process in the Mature Person"
[15] Ibid
[16] Ibid
[17] Ibid
[18] Ibid
[19] Ibid
[20] Ibid
[21] Nietzsche, Friedrich. (1883). Thus Spoke Zarathustra trans. by Thomas Common, ch.1
[22] Rogers, Carl R.. (1964) "Toward a Modern Approach to Values: The Valuing Process in the Mature Person"
[23] Blavatsky, H.P. (1889) "The Voice of Silence," I:70
[24] Nietzsche, Friedrich. (1886). Beyond Good and Evil, Aphorism 94
[25] Rogers, Carl R.. (1964) "Toward a Modern Approach to Values: The Valuing Process in the Mature Person"
[26] Ibid
[27] Ibid
[28] Ibid
[29] Ibid
[30] Ibid
[31] Nietzsche, Friedrich. (1883). Thus Spoke Zarathustra trans. by Thomas Common, ch.1
[32] Rogers, Carl R.. (1964) "Toward a Modern Approach to Values: The Valuing Process in the Mature Person"
(PDF Version)
65 & 210,
111-418
JimmyD - Nov 17, 2007 - 01:00 PM
Post subject: RE: Thelemic values: a new view of morality
93
In the name and service of Hexakosioihexekontahexamania, I hereby raise this post to the top, so that Atu XIX may shine its rays down upon this forum.
Hail unto thee etc.
As for the text: I still havent read and digested it all, its letters are legio.
The formula of VIAOV springs to mind, though.
93 93/93
lashtal - Nov 17, 2007 - 01:27 PM
Post subject: Re: RE: Thelemic values: a new view of morality
JimmyD wrote: › In the name and service of Hexakosioihexekontahexamania, I hereby raise this post to the top, so that Atu XIX may shine its rays down upon this forum. Hail unto thee etc.
Don't you think this joke is beginning to wear a little thin now?
Writing on the forums in order to "raise this post to the top" is rather less than helpful.
Please submit future posts to me or ianrons for pre-moderation.
JimmyD - Nov 17, 2007 - 02:13 PM
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Thelemic values: a new view of morality
93
Then I bid you farewell.
93 93/93
lashtal - Nov 17, 2007 - 03:56 PM
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Thelemic values: a new view of morality
Bye bye.
Now back to IAO131's interesting post...
IAO131 - Nov 17, 2007 - 04:26 PM
Post subject: Re: RE: Thelemic values: a new view of morality
JimmyD wrote: › 93
In the name and service of Hexakosioihexekontahexamania, I hereby raise this post to the top, so that Atu XIX may shine its rays down upon this forum.
Hail unto thee etc.
As for the text: I still havent read and digested it all, its letters are legio.
The formula of VIAOV springs to mind, though.
93 93/93
Uh... thanks. I would rather you dropped the meme and actually commented on the essay, but... OK!
65 & 210,
IAO131
rzk - Nov 17, 2007 - 05:44 PM
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Thelemic values: a new view of morality
If Will is Tao, then Will is anarchy, speaking with Lao Tzu.
Horemakhet - Nov 17, 2007 - 11:54 PM
Post subject:
Too bad that our resident Comedian did not know when enough is enough. I do not want to take away too much attention from the original poster, but I am a HUMANIST these days, and I feel bad for the lad. In his mind, all of his jokes were real zingers. He is emulating his Hero´s, and Crowley is in the top 2.
Horemakhet - Nov 18, 2007 - 12:06 AM
Post subject:
IAO131: I apologize for taking the attention away from your Essay. I will read it, and post you. Thank You.
IAO131 - Nov 18, 2007 - 12:38 AM
Post subject:
rzk wrote: › If Will is Tao, then Will is anarchy, speaking with Lao Tzu.
Really? First of all, who is claiming "Will is Tao"?
Secondly, isnt the Tao described as beyond dualities just about everywhere? Dont you think it would be just as much past the duality of order/chaos? Do you have one sliver of evidence to even remotely suggest that Lao Tzu saw teh Tao as 'anarchy'?
Im not sure why I even bothered replying to this as it has nearly nothing to do with the essay.
65 & 210,
IAO131
Horemakhet wrote: › Too bad that our resident Comedian did not know when enough is enough. I do not want to take away too much attention from the original poster, but I am a HUMANIST these days, and I feel bad for the lad. In his mind, all of his jokes were real zingers. He is emulating his Hero´s, and Crowley is in the top 2.
I personally never found funny, but I still found it harsh... then again, my account (aum418) was deleted for questioning why ianrons banned another fellow because he disagreed with him... so I really have nothing to say on the subject. As for distracting away from the subject... its fine - everyone does it here anyways.
65 & 210,
IAO131
rzk - Nov 20, 2007 - 12:44 AM
Post subject:
Well, I am not really interested in morality at all, except if I might find some part of my feelings and thoughts that has not yet been purged from it, so I am not really interested in entering that discussion.
The only thing I wanted to do is to is to comment on what you were saying on will and anarchy. I noticed I made an error in writing Lao-Tzu instead of what I meant to write: Zhuangzi.
So here we go. I find there is a striking resemblance between the Thelemic idea of Will and the Zhuangzi view on Tao, being a transcendent principle beyond reason that needs no governing. It just goes.
In this light, Will can indeed be thought of as "simple anarchy".
I don't see why you brought up a discussion on the words chaos and order. What would they add to the discussion. Depending on what we mean with at least chaos, it can definately be without dualities.
IAO131 - Nov 20, 2007 - 01:11 AM
Post subject:
rzk wrote: › Well, I am not really interested in morality at all, except if I might find some part of my feelings and thoughts that has not yet been purged from it, so I am not really interested in entering that discussion.
The only thing I wanted to do is to is to comment on what you were saying on will and anarchy. I noticed I made an error in writing Lao-Tzu instead of what I meant to write: Zhuangzi.
OK.
Quote: › So here we go. I find there is a striking resemblance between the Thelemic idea of Will and the Zhuangzi view on Tao, being a transcendent principle beyond reason that needs no governing. It just goes.
Sure, I can accept that.
Quote: › In this light, Will can indeed be thought of as "simple anarchy".
Don't you see how the phrase "simple anarchy" implies the opposite/complementary phrase "complex order"? The very second chapter of Tao Teh Ching deals with this. If you dont mean simple as opposed to complex and you dont mean anarchy as opposed to order, then what is the point of using these words and what exactly do you mean?
Quote: › I don't see why you brought up a discussion on the words chaos and order. What would they add to the discussion. Depending on what we mean with at least chaos, it can definately be without dualities.
One common definition of anarchy is "confusion; chaos; disorder." That's why. Isnt hte very first chapter of the Tao Teh Ching all about how it is unspeakable/ineffable?
65 & 210,
IAO131
rzk - Nov 20, 2007 - 02:22 PM
Post subject:
First of all. I understand you if you want to discuss this in another thread or not at all, since it might be taking the light off your article - and that is not what I want really.
"Don't you see how the phrase "simple anarchy" implies the opposite/complementary phrase "complex order"? The very second chapter of Tao Teh Ching deals with this. If you dont mean simple as opposed to complex and you dont mean anarchy as opposed to order, then what is the point of using these words and what exactly do you mean?"
Ah, yeah, well. I simply dislike that way of using the word anarchy. In Europe it implies something different. Using the words of Mikhail Bakunin: Anarchy is Order. In an esoteric context we see that historical anarchists like Zhuangzi preached that we are not to be governed or restricted in any way. In this context, order is duality, anarchy is not, since it is a term that signifies the breaking off of the bondage of government, restriction, thoughts and everything that hinders us from doing Tao.
"One common definition of anarchy is "confusion; chaos; disorder." That's why. Isnt hte very first chapter of the Tao Teh Ching all about how it is unspeakable/ineffable?"
Anarchy is unspeakable:
"Satan, the eternal rebel, the first freethinker and the emancipator of worlds. He makes man ashamed of his bestial ignorance and obedience; he emancipates him, stamps upon his brow the seal of liberty and humanity, in urging him to disobey and eat of the fruit of knowledge."
// Mikhail Bakunin
JimmyD - Nov 20, 2007 - 05:05 PM
Post subject:
93
Since Im not whacked yet, Ill voice my support for the theories of Bakunin, though politics are a monstrosity which this Aeon will hopefully see the end of.
Life is flexible, even matter is flexible. Restrict it, constrict it, try to stagnate it: Boom! From Chesed to Geburah, thus Tiphareth. Life Wills to Live,(duh?) not passively, but ever expanding, and it will not obey any conceivable regulations, nor succumb to any moral standards or codes of behaviour.Try to choke it, and you will get your hand ripped to pieces by its convulsions.
As it is said: What is against the Tao soon ceases to exist.
Or put in another manner: You have no right but to do your will, do that, and no other shall say nay.
Anarchy as conceived by anarchist philosophers, denotes a society in which all flows naturally without the neurotic interventions of the strangulating hand of powermongers, elected or otherwise.
But how can this be done? Certainly not by the communist notions of an organized popular revolution, for such things are mere spasms, a symptom of the disease to be remedied. This has been the great pitfall of the anarchist movement for nearly 3 centuries, the belief in violent overthrow of existing institutions, an Idea undoubtably inherited from the other socialistic movements of the 1. International in europe at the time of its birth. So how?
How about spiritual development? Illumination.(what where Weiser Hauptmans founding principles for the Illuminati anyway?)
How about Thelema?
How about "a society in which all flows naturally" in accordance with its True Will?
Thelema may not be anarchic, but Anarchism might be Thelemic, something which would go a long way to explain its complete failure as a political and popular movement, as a revolutionary Ideal.
If everybody did their True Will at any given moment, wouldnt this be the realization of the Anarchist Ideal of Society?
93 93/93
IAO131 - Nov 20, 2007 - 07:00 PM
Post subject:
JimmyD wrote: › 93
Since Im not whacked yet, Ill voice my support for the theories of Bakunin, though politics are a monstrosity which this Aeon will hopefully see the end of.
Life is flexible, even matter is flexible. Restrict it, constrict it, try to stagnate it: Boom! From Chesed to Geburah, thus Tiphareth. Life Wills to Live,(duh?) not passively, but ever expanding, and it will not obey any conceivable regulations, nor succumb to any moral standards or codes of behaviour.Try to choke it, and you will get your hand ripped to pieces by its convulsions.
As it is said: What is against the Tao soon ceases to exist.
Or put in another manner: You have no right but to do your will, do that, and no other shall say nay.
Anarchy as conceived by anarchist philosophers, denotes a society in which all flows naturally without the neurotic interventions of the strangulating hand of powermongers, elected or otherwise.
But how can this be done? Certainly not by the communist notions of an organized popular revolution, for such things are mere spasms, a symptom of the disease to be remedied. This has been the great pitfall of the anarchist movement for nearly 3 centuries, the belief in violent overthrow of existing institutions, an Idea undoubtably inherited from the other socialistic movements of the 1. International in europe at the time of its birth. So how?
How about spiritual development? Illumination.(what where Weiser Hauptmans founding principles for the Illuminati anyway?)
How about Thelema?
How about "a society in which all flows naturally" in accordance with its True Will?
Thelema may not be anarchic, but Anarchism might be Thelemic, something which would go a long way to explain its complete failure as a political and popular movement, as a revolutionary Ideal.
93 93/93
Well spoken.
Quote: ›
If everybody did their True Will at any given moment, wouldnt this be the realization of the Anarchist Ideal of Society?
In the sense of no overbearing power dictating your conduct, yes. I was more averse to the sense that if we were all doing our 'true Wills,' it would be complete anarchy (in the sense of no order whatsoever). The end of the essay (in the first post of this thread) deals with 'the commonality of value directions' of people who are left free to create their own values - the point being that people still retain some commonality even if left to be completely individual (I would say the truly healthy individual realizes his individuality relies in part on/balances his interdependence with others, and his interdependence relies/balanaces in part his independence).
65 & 210,
IAO131
rzk - Nov 20, 2007 - 11:23 PM
Post subject:
JimmyD wrote: › Since Im not whacked yet, Ill voice my support for the theories of Bakunin, though politics are a monstrosity which this Aeon will hopefully see the end of.
Agreed!
2:28. Now a curse upon Because and his kin!
2:29. May Because be accursed for ever!
2:30. If Will stops and cries Why, invoking Because, then Will stops & does nought.
2:31. If Power asks why, then is Power weakness.
2:32. Also reason is a lie; for there is a factor infinite & unknown; & all their words are skew-wise.
2:33. Enough of Because! Be he damned for a dog!
2:34. But ye, o my people, rise up & awake!
JimmyD wrote: › But how can this be done? Certainly not by the communist notions of an organized popular revolution, for such things are mere spasms, a symptom of the disease to be remedied.
The communist idea is not the idea of a popular revolution, but a revolution by powermongers that is supposed to control the masses. The anarchic revolution is something else. It is collective when the goal is the complete annihilation of restriction, and it is individual when the goal is living as free as possible in nowadays society. Both of these are the lesser holy war (the greater holy war being the great work) in Malkuth.
There is nothing non-thelemite about violence, war and rebellion:
3:3. Now let it be first understood that I am a god of War and of Vengeance. I shall deal hardly with them.
3:42. The ordeals thou shalt oversee thyself, save only the blind ones. Refuse none, but thou shalt know & destroy the traitors. I am Ra-Hoor-Khuit; and I am powerful to protect my servant. Success is thy proof: argue not; convert not; talk not over much! Them that seek to entrap thee, to overthrow thee, them attack without pity or quarter; & destroy them utterly. Swift as a trodden serpent turn and strike! Be thou yet deadlier than he! Drag down their souls to awful torment: laugh at their fear: spit upon them!
JimmyD wrote: › If everybody did their True Will at any given moment, wouldnt this be the realization of the Anarchist Ideal of Society?
Again, agreed!
Liber 2:
Take this carefully; it seems to imply a theory that if every man and every woman did his and her will--the true will--there would be no clashing. ``Every man and every woman is a star,'' and each star moves in an appointed path without interference. There is plenty of room for all; it is only disorder that creates confusion.
So..
"Anarchy is Order."
Uni_Verse - Nov 21, 2007 - 04:56 PM
Post subject:
The distinction, that I see, is "Thelemic values" are predominantly concerned with the individual. While the Old Aeon ideals posses more of a group dynamic.
What is most important is that you accept morality on your own terms rather than because someone told you to.
There is nothing wrong with the Ten Commandments. Sure, it is a list of "Thou shalt not(s)" but that does not mean they should be tossed aside for the sake of sticking it to authority.
If you forget things such as "Thou shalt not lie" - then what is the point of interacting with other people? There will be no basis for communication because all attempts will be essentially useless. What is even worse is telling a lie to yourself.
To forget to "honor thy mother and father" is to forget where you came from, both in the physical and spiritual sense.
To "covet thy neighbors goods" is in itself to forget your own individuality. As you are worrying about what someone else has and not what could be.
EDIT ( hit submit by accident):
What I see as one of the most important facets of Thelema is that nothing is thrown away. Instead, it is transcended. It is still there, inside of you : just in another form.
IAO131 - Nov 22, 2007 - 04:11 AM
Post subject:
Uni_Verse wrote: ›
If you forget things such as "Thou shalt not lie" - then what is the point of interacting with other people? There will be no basis for communication because all attempts will be essentially useless. What is even worse is telling a lie to yourself.
People lie all the time, often to make others feel better - its called a white lie. Lying is not inherently bad. All speech is a sort of lie in a way (especially if you are talking about anything remotely mystical)
Quote: › To forget to "honor thy mother and father" is to forget where you came from, both in the physical and spiritual sense.
Actually it is to remove oneself to the strongest attachments one has.
Quote: › To "covet thy neighbors goods" is in itself to forget your own individuality. As you are worrying about what someone else has and not what could be.
This is one I can agree with - by coveting another's goods, you forsake the right of yourself to be protected against such actions. Also, why would one need another's goods? The chances for this are slim... but I still cant admit its absolutely 'wrong.'
Quote: › EDIT ( hit submit by accident):
What I see as one of the most important facets of Thelema is that nothing is thrown away. Instead, it is transcended. It is still there, inside of you : just in another form.
Perhaps. I throw my garbage away, and I poop out my feces, too.
65 & 210,
IAO131
Uni_Verse - Nov 22, 2007 - 06:11 AM
Post subject:
IAO131 wrote: › People lie all the time, often to make others feel better - its called a white lie. Lying is not inherently bad. All speech is a sort of lie in a way (especially if you are talking about anything remotely mystical)
I would not say speech is a lie, it is a misunderstanding. You ask me something and I try to respond. What comes out of that interaction is limited by experience.
Though, I ask : If you perceive the ball to be red, why say it is blue?
Seems to me like you are slavishly indulging the desire of people to feel good.
IAO131 wrote: ›
Actually it is to remove oneself to the strongest attachments one has.
Yes, I agree. Remove, but not forget. For you have not allowed yourself to be limited by such considerations.
IAO131 wrote: ›
Perhaps. I throw my garbage away, and I poop out my feces, too.
To my understanding, nothing really gets thrown away in the universe.
(I had to hold myself back on that one)
IAO131 - Nov 22, 2007 - 03:11 PM
Post subject:
Quote: › Though, I ask : If you perceive the ball to be red, why say it is blue?
Seems to me like you are slavishly indulging the desire of people to feel good.
Not only is it equally logical to call an object red or blue (for example, one could say the ball is everything BUT red, you fool!) but this has nothing to do with 'slavishly indulging the desire of people to feel good...' I have NO idea where you picked that one up
Quote: ›
Yes, I agree. Remove, but not forget. For you have not allowed yourself to be limited by such considerations.
Not forgetting is a limitation and an attachment, unless you can 'remember' and feel just as little connection to your parents as you do to the shoes you threw out last week.
Quote: ›
To my understanding, nothing really gets thrown away in the universe.
(I had to hold myself back on that one)
This answer makes no sense. First you say 'dont covet your neighbors goods' and then you claim to be speaking from the perspective of the universe. The universe has no neighbors to covet. Of course 'nothing gets thrown away in the universe' but we were talking from an individual standpoint (if we werent 'neighbor' becomes a meaningless term), and from that standpoint we DO throw things away.
65 & 210,
IAO131
Uni_Verse - Nov 22, 2007 - 05:00 PM
Post subject:
IAO131 wrote: ›
Not only is it equally logical to call an object red or blue (for example, one could say the ball is everything BUT red, you fool!) but this has nothing to do with 'slavishly indulging the desire of people to feel good...' I have NO idea where you picked that one up
The "logicality" of the perception was not in question. I may not be at this computer , typing this post, but that is how I perceive the progression of events. But if I think the object I am using is a computer, I should call it a computer. Otherwise, to call it LaLa or something else at random would only add confusion.
You said: "People lie all the time, often to make others feel better"
Which, in my opinion, is sycophantic behavior. As the people are telling a lie just to make others feel better (in turning making them feel better).
IAO131 wrote: ›
Not forgetting is a limitation and an attachment, unless you can 'remember' and feel just as little connection to your parents as you do to the shoes you threw out last week.
It would appear as if you are implying that remembering something requires attachment. The comment was also not just about biological parantage, but the "form and spirit" of everything.
IAO131 wrote: ›
This answer makes no sense. First you say 'dont covet your neighbors goods' and then you claim to be speaking from the perspective of the universe. The universe has no neighbors to covet. Of course 'nothing gets thrown away in the universe' but we were talking from an individual standpoint (if we werent 'neighbor' becomes a meaningless term), and from that standpoint we DO throw things away.
The comment had nothing to do with coveting neighbors goods (your comment to that was never even mentioned).
Your poop, your garbage can be used to fertilize other things.
Therefore, it is never really "thrown away"
IAO131 - Nov 22, 2007 - 06:47 PM
Post subject:
93 Uni_Verse,
Quote: ›
You said: "People lie all the time, often to make others feel better"
Which, in my opinion, is sycophantic behavior. As the people are telling a lie just to make others feel better (in turning making them feel better).
Let us agree to disagree then. I think lying and deception is perfectly healthy behavior, to an extent (self-deception is actually a common defense mechanism, often to make us not realize our complete worthlessness or something similar).
Quote: ›
It would appear as if you are implying that remembering something requires attachment. The comment was also not just about biological parantage, but the "form and spirit" of everything.
Did you bother reading the rest of that line ("unless you can 'remember' and feel just as little connection to your parents as you do to the shoes you threw out last week.")? Im saying unless you can remember your parents with the amount of detachment you remember your feces from yesterday, there is attachment.
Quote: › The comment had nothing to do with coveting neighbors goods (your comment to that was never even mentioned).
Your poop, your garbage can be used to fertilize other things.
Therefore, it is never really "thrown away"
OK, and my point is that this sentiment makes no sense unless you are coterminous with the universe. If you are calling blue things blue, we should call individuals individuals and recognize that ot hte perception fo hte individual, things indeed are thrown away. Now if we talk about hte universe as a whole, nothing is thrown away. This isnt a new or even mystical idea: Its the first law of thermodynamics.
Uni_Verse - Nov 23, 2007 - 03:46 PM
Post subject:
IAO131 wrote: ›
Did you bother reading the rest of that line ("unless you can 'remember' and feel just as little connection to your parents as you do to the shoes you threw out last week.")? Im saying unless you can remember your parents with the amount of detachment you remember your feces from yesterday, there is attachment.
Yes, I did. I was clarifying, as I had been unsure if you were being sarcastic and saying it was not possible.
IAO131 wrote: ›
(self-deception is actually a common defense mechanism, often to make us not realize our complete worthlessness or something similar)
Personally, I believe the idea that we are completely worthless is a self-deception. But that divulges from the 'topic.'
Though,the reward of the Aeon being Abrahadabra ("I create as I speak"), just to clarify a bit: I think that the intent should be to properly convey ones thoughts, even if the "words ring untrue."
IAO131 - Nov 23, 2007 - 04:35 PM
Post subject:
Quote: ›
IAO131 wrote: ›
(self-deception is actually a common defense mechanism, often to make us not realize our complete worthlessness or something similar)
Personally, I believe the idea that we are completely worthless is a self-deception. But that divulges from the 'topic.'
My fault - it was an over-exaggeration. I was talking about people who come to realize their minuteness in relation to their class, their society, humanity at large, the milky way, etc. but someone can easily switch this inversely and feel the king of cells & atoms! Often one is not balanced by the other and a person can have a set of values characteristic of the crushed, weak person ("all things are hostile" "I can never succeed" "I am a nothing") or the opposite megalomaniac ("all things are my toys" "i am the king of the universe" "i am greater than anyone or anything else"). Like most other things, a balance, a Middle Path is best struck - although the pyramid is much stronger and can reach much higher if the base is larger (and extends into both the deepest depths and the greatest heights). It has been said that 'conflict breeds stronger harmonies'
Quote: › Though,the reward of the Aeon being Abrahadabra ("I create as I speak"), just to clarify a bit: I think that the intent should be to properly convey ones thoughts, even if the "words ring untrue."
Surely, although I would change the traditional translation to be more all-encompassing: "I create as I Go." Thanks for the comments.
65 & 210,
IAO131
gurugeorge - Nov 24, 2007 - 01:21 AM
Post subject:
Another classic thread, some great discussion here. Some ramblings triggered by the above:
I think the anarchy thing is a bit of a red herring in some ways, but in other ways it's a sensible query. I mean, we don't really want a world full of feral chavs do we?
But then on the other hand, we have to trust that chavs free of absolute morality will sort themselves out and reinvent the wheel of sensible behaviour if left to their own devices. If they don't, and they start cluttering up your way, you can always kill them. (<--joke)
There's a lot in what Rogers says that's analogous to the old idea of "natural law". In the Hellenistic and Graeco-Roman world, you had all these different cultures that had hitherto been relatively isolated, suddenly confronting each other and mixing up. Jurists of the day tried to figure out some commonalities, and they came up with (more or less) the rules of a liberal civilisation. Mainly, this consists in the concept of several property, which is basically the incredibly simple rule that if something isn't being controlled by anybody, then whoever takes control of it can keep control of it until they voluntarily give up that control, unless they do harm. This is a network of mutual obligations to refrain from interfering with each others' control of stuff. This is "law" in the human sense, law that works with a concept of human agency that is sufficiently abstract to ride above the actual differences we all have (people have different capacities, some are better at some things than others, etc.). It's a way of seeing everybody as equal that is actually true (precisely because it's at such a high level of abstraction).
The thing about this kind of law is that it doesn't need a government to oversee it or run it - it's a kind of freedom that's the mother of order (as some old individualist anarchists styled it), it doesn't already require order to work, it produces order. It's based on the idea of mutual negotiation between people (the negotiation being based on what counts as "harm"), and it can be "overseen" by anything from voluntary co-operatives to hired, private security firms. It's really the foundation of anarchy in the "nice" sense, and it subsumes capitalism, socialism, and any other "ism" that people could think of to work together voluntarily within. (Again, because it's based on a sufficiently high level of generality that abstracts away all particular differences, and sees us all as bare self-steering agents whose life consists in controlling and transforming stuff.)
Another way of looking at it is this: there is such a thing as "human nature", that is to say, while we all have our variations, we are similar enough in our construction (the construction of our bodies, our brains), that there will be certain kinds of order that are inimical to our development, and certain kinds that are friendly to our development. If there was a society that had as a rule "kill everybody you meet", that society wouldn't last long. That's at one extreme. At the other extreme, a society that followed "turn the other cheek" rigorously wouldn't last long either.
The key, paradoxically, is in not being rigorous, not being absolutist; in being firm yet flexible. Sometimes it's right to kill, sometimes it's right to heal, there's no one way that's right for everybody all the time.
The thing is to be alert to the total situation. The better the grasp one has of the total situation, the larger one's sense of "self", the more the "right" solution will precipitate in the mind. As AC Graham, a Sinologist said, the key to Daoist morality, the one imperative, the only "ought", is to make the effort to have as broad an overview of the total situation as you can, then the "right" next move will make itself apparent. And I think Thelemic morality is pretty close to Daoist morality in this sense (as AC says somewhere, I paraphrase, your Thelemic duty is to have as vast a view of the universe, and as great a grasp of the situation as possible).
It's this that makes the difference from having a "table of rules" that you just look up to tell you what to do next. Once this is understood, you can still have tables of rules, but they are understood as conveniences, representing typical situations in the context of our typical common structure.
IAO131 - Nov 24, 2007 - 01:32 AM
Post subject:
gurugeorge wrote: › Another way of looking at it is this: there is such a thing as "human nature", that is to say, while we all have our variations, we are similar enough in our construction (the construction of our bodies, our brains), that there will be certain kinds of order that are inimical to our development, and certain kinds that are friendly to our development.
Correct - this is why Jung named this aspect of the psyche the collective unconscious, beause it was common to all of humanity (not because we all tap into one source as MANY New Age folk have said and thereby bastardized Jung's work). This also is shown empirically through many studies which is why Rogers asserts that even if we give people free reign to adopt their own values, there emerges a commonality of value directions even across cultures.
Quote: › The key, paradoxically, is in not being rigorous, not being absolutist; in being firm yet flexible. Sometimes it's right to kill, sometimes it's right to heal, there's no one way that's right for everybody all the time.
Word.
Quote: › The thing is to be alert to the total situation. The better the grasp one has of the total situation, the larger one's sense of "self", the more the "right" solution will precipitate in the mind.
Exactly - the more facts we have at our disposal (including most importantly our various experiences), the better decision we can make. This is the process of individuation of Jung & the Great Work as a whole essentially - Crowley wrote that, "the Great Work is the raising of the whole man in perfect balance to the power of Infinity."
Quote: › As AC Graham, a Sinologist said, the key to Daoist morality, the one imperative, the only "ought", is to make the effort to have as broad an overview of the total situation as you can, then the "right" next move will make itself apparent.
An interesting perspective. This seems to be mirrored in Crowley's essay On Thelema.
Quote: › And I think Thelemic morality is pretty close to Daoist morality in this sense (as AC says somewhere, I paraphrase, your Thelemic duty is to have as vast a view of the universe, and as great a grasp of the situation as possible).
I believe that is the document "Duty:"
"Explore the Nature and Powers of your own Being. This includes everything which is, or can be for you: and you must accept everything exactly as it is in itself, as one of the factors which go to make up your True Self. This True Self thus ultimately includes all things soever: its discovery is Initiation (the travelling inwards) and as its Nature is to move continually, it must be understood not as static, but as dynamic, not as a Noun but as a Verb."
Quote: › It's this that makes the difference from having a "table of rules" that you just look up to tell you what to do next. Once this is understood, you can still have tables of rules, but they are understood as conveniences, representing typical situations in the context of our typical common structure.
Exactly, we revert to a valuing process which is inherently dynamic instead of a fixed system of conceived values - this is Rogers' "organismic valuing process" described in the essay in the first post of this thread.
Thanks for your comments.
65 & 210,
IAO131
WillisNightwood - Jan 04, 2008 - 04:17 PM
Post subject:
Nice article well written. I actually had just written something of my own that was similar vain of discussing morality and values. Just a snippet to share:
"I now see that their Christian moral values have only one purpose, to make me a slave and take away my freedom and liberty, because they are desperately afraid of a free man. What then are my highest values? There is no longer good and evil, there is only harmful and helpful to me. All true values come out of love, love of self, reverence for self, absolute freedom of self. Or as Crowley would say, "Love is the Law, Love under Will" All false values come from fear, the need for approval, and the preservation of the group over the individual. In all matters it must be asked, what am I to gain from this? Will it make me weak or will it make me strong? Selfishness is a virtue, it is the recognition that oneself is the measure of all things."
Moral have evolved to the point where you can no longer have just blanket statements that "Thou shalt X, and thou shalt not Y" X and Y only have context in reference to the self and the situation to which is is applied.
the_real_simon_iff - Jan 04, 2008 - 06:12 PM
Post subject:
WillisNightwood wrote: › Moral have evolved to the point where you can no longer have just blanket statements that "Thou shalt X, and thou shalt not Y" X and Y only have context in reference to the self and the situation to which is is applied.
93!
It seems to me that the really big issue is not about promoting any new morality (there is no old one anyhow, but there are already lots of them around) but about promoting a new (for us Westerners) concept of the "Self" - and AC really managed to put this into words so wonderfully - as a noun not as a verb. If this is accomplished a Thelemic religion or philosophy will arise naturally. Or maybe not. The "table of rules" George wrote about won't probably change too much, everybody who looks closer at them will see that they are and have been always conveniences. All this discussion about old and new morality always sounds so "anti" to me, I think we need a bit more of a "pro"...
Love=Law
Lutz
asclepio - Jan 06, 2008 - 11:36 PM
Post subject:
93
IAO131,
Very interesting topic and a great article. I've already read it somewhere on the internet and it had me wondering ever since, it's great to have a chance to talk about it in this forum.
By the way, you should write a book about these topics, you obviously handle yourself very well with the pen and have a great talent at being clear in what you have to say. Congratulations.
On the matter at hand there are things that I find troublesome (at least for me), that perhaps you (or anyone) could help me out with.
The first problem I have:
Part of the argument is, or at least seems to be, that if we let everyone be free and value as they please there will be a certain commonality, certain direction that they all share, even beyond their particular differences. I sense a problem in this because it could be potentially dangerous, or potentially "old aeon", allow me to elaborate:
I think it was Gurugeorge who brought up the idea of "natural law" of the greeks, it certainly seems to be an argument that either depends on a natural law, or that proves the existence of a natural law.
Natural law can be viewed in two different ways:
1.- As a pattern of behaivor, like when we study many different children playing and we can guess some pattern in the way they play or interact. This pattern is as a coincidence, for instance, for the last two weeks it has being raining every saturday, it is a pattern, it doesn't rain BECAUSE it's saturday, it's a coincidence and nothing more.
Why make the point of viewing patterns as different as reasons?, because if a pattern is an underlying reason, an underlying sense we'll eventually confront the nightmare known as metaphysics, the dangerous idea known as "providence", an underlying sense that we call "natural law" will eventually lead to "absolute truth". This leads us to the second different way:
2.- As "Providence", in my opinion the most important lesson to be learned from the aeon of osiris is the idea of providence, that is the idea that there is an absolute, a-historical or eternal, sense of the world, that the cosmos not only makes sense, but it has one sense. Philosophy tried for centuries to obtain an objective approach to the "true" sense of things.
If there is an underlying meaning to all phenomenon, to history itself, and that meaning or sense is one, wether we call it "natural law" "providence" or whatever is irelevant, if the "truth" of things (of entities, beings, "essence", "human nature", "history", etc.) is one and underlying (substance! as Aristotle would say) then we're stuck in the old aeon. It would be, in the trues sense of the expression, a metaphysical truth.
Just my 2 cents, and my paranoia, but I trully felt that it was worth writing about it.
Thelema doesn't need universal a-temporal truths, do what thou wilt is a law, is it then a natural law?, is it a metaphysical truth?, is it, as Hegelian philosophy would imagine, part of the evolution of the spirit? Yes and no on all acounts, on the one part, do what thou wilt... seems like "natural" (and there is nothing more metaphysical that the assumption of what nature means, for if we declare the meaning and sense of nature we erect the totem of metaphysical truth, it would be the only absolute truth), and it is also a law, and laws always seem to be "true". But, in the case of thelema this law is "saved" from the claws of the old aen by the statement itself that reads "do what THOU WILT", what "thou", and that means there is a limit-less number of "thous" out there, each "true" in their own way, from their own perspective, and that perspective is unique, the fact that is particular, unique and can not be entirely reproduced means there couldn't be an underlying sense (a substance, again) of all stars, each star moves the way it moves (that is to say values the way it values) because of the position of all the other stars, gravity and all that.
Also, my other issue, or deep-seeded paranoia, is on the idea expressed by gurugeorge:
Quote: › The thing is to be alert to the total situation. The better the grasp one has of the total situation, the larger one's sense of "self", the more the "right" solution will precipitate in the mind.
This grasp one "has", or "obtains", is an interpretation, since there is no universal truth, no substance, no underlying sense or meaning (not to be confused with nihilism, but there is a difference between the existence of meaning and the existence of only one meaning), this grasp, or even this "total situation" is always an interpretation, and as such is influenced by culture and history. The seemingly "anarchic" or "un-controlled" creation of values that share a pattern, do so because of culture and history, zeitgeist is a force to be reconned with, it's not chaotic, it couldn't be, it always corresponds to the feeling of the time, to the culture.
This is important, I think, because we could make the mistake, or fall into the temptation of believing that what we consider nature to be, or what we consider "humanity" or "values", or "history" to be, because nature is one thing, or because nature means one thing, or has only one meaning or sense, this is the birth of metaphysics. Rather, what we consider nature to be, or what we consider anything to be is influenced by our environment. I bring this up because of the following potentially risky chain of thoughts:
The creative or free impulse of creating new values has reached a point where we share a commonality, and it means therefore that human nature is such that it will evolve to X or Y direction, we being a step of that ladder, or a link of that chain, and eventually human nature will reach it's peak which is X or Y, and so therefore we MUST do X or Y for the sake of human evolution.
This chain of thought, tempting as it may be, offers us the possibility of knowing what "human nature" means and where it is going, but also, it leads us to a point where our lives must be subjected to X or Y ideal of what that nature is. Truth of the matter is that there is no human nature, no definitive answer, no one-sense or one only meaning of the expression "human nature". No matter how we dress it up, with what adjectives, if we follow that chain of thought to it's final destination we will inevitably fall on the trap of the aeon of osiris.
Well, that's it for me, I hope my reply isn't too long or too boring, just a couple of things I deemed worthy to point out. Keep writing and good luck!
93 93/93
IAO131 - Mar 04, 2008 - 09:41 PM
Post subject:
asclepio wrote: › 93
IAO131,
Very interesting topic and a great article.
93 asclepio, thank you for the interest and the kind words.
Quote: › On the matter at hand there are things that I find troublesome (at least for me), that perhaps you (or anyone) could help me out with.
The first problem I have:
Sure...
Quote: › Part of the argument is, or at least seems to be, that if we let everyone be free and value as they please there will be a certain commonality, certain direction that they all share, even beyond their particular differences.
That is not the argument. I would say the argument is this:
"With this knowledge, we may all arise as lions to question, re-examine, and discard our old notions of values. In this discarding we make way for the child within us, who brings forth his or her individual approach to values - that particular person's Will. This "child"-approach is really only the "organismic valuing process" that we have had inherently within us since our birth; it has only become clouded over by the complex of introjected conceived values."
The commonality is really just a note of interest, and also consolation to those who initially are skeptical about complete anarchy. There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt.
Quote: › Thelema doesn't need universal a-temporal truths, do what thou wilt is a law, is it then a natural law?, is it a metaphysical truth?
It is admittedly a Law, a word to describe Nature, for this Aeon. It both that and a word to describe the center of a philosophy, of a praxis or way of life. "These laws are not forces external to things btu represent the harmony of movement immanent in them. That is why the celestial bodies do not deviate from their orbits and why all events in nature occur with fixed regularity" (I Ching XVI).
Quote: › Also, my other issue, or deep-seeded paranoia, is on the idea expressed by gurugeorge:
"The thing is to be alert to the total situation. The better the grasp one has of the total situation, the larger one's sense of "self", the more the "right" solution will precipitate in the mind. "
This grasp one "has", or "obtains", is an interpretation, since there is no universal truth, no substance, no underlying sense or meaning (not to be confused with nihilism, but there is a difference between the existence of meaning and the existence of only one meaning), this grasp, or even this "total situation" is always an interpretation, and as such is influenced by culture and history. The seemingly "anarchic" or "un-controlled" creation of values that share a pattern, do so because of culture and history, zeitgeist is a force to be reconned with, it's not chaotic, it couldn't be, it always corresponds to the feeling of the time, to the culture.
I happen to agree, although the thought may be somewhat overwhelming. People should consider: In "Do what thou wilt"... who exactly is "thou"? ('Know thyself', or 'Become who you are' )
Quote: › Rather, what we consider nature to be, or what we consider anything to be is influenced by our environment. I bring this up because of the following potentially risky chain of thoughts
I have to say that, yes, this is a marginal epistemic point. Our meanings are somewhat arbitrary and certainly change throughout time based on culture, necessity, etc. but we can agree that meanings have a relatively solid agreed-upon meaning at any one time among a people of one language... this magick is found in the talisman called a 'dictionary.'
Quote: ›
The creative or free impulse of creating new values has reached a point where we share a commonality, and it means therefore that human nature is such that it will evolve to X or Y direction
Not necessarily. "Evolution demands exceptional individuals, fitter to their environment than their fellows. Species prosper by imitating efficient eccentrics. Mediocrity, self-styled morality, protects the unfit, but prevents progress, discourages adaptability, and assures the ruin of the race.—“On the Education of Children,” from The Revival of Magick
Quote: › we being a step of that ladder, or a link of that chain, and eventually human nature will reach it's peak which is X or Y, and so therefore we MUST do X or Y for the sake of human evolution.
The word of Sin is Restriction, this includes forcing labels onto human nature, which really means 'what does it mean to be human?'
Quote: › Truth of the matter is that there is no human nature, no definitive answer, no one-sense or one only meaning of the expression "human nature".
I don't exactly agree that 'there is no human nature,' but rather that the mere act of defining it inherently confines it. Humans are not limited by the language clothing their thoughts labeling ideas about their limits... often our possibilities are thought to have come to an end (consider physics in the 19th century... Lord Kelvin said all that was left was finer measurements). The best formula, and the formula of the Child, is continual Growth.
Quote: › No matter how we dress it up, with what adjectives, if we follow that chain of thought to it's final destination we will inevitably fall on the trap of the aeon of osiris.
Agreed. "The word of Sin is Restriction... I am the Snake that giveth Knowledge & Delight and bright glory, and stir the hearts of men with drunkenness. To worship me take wine and strange drugs whereof I will tell my prophet, & be drunk thereof! They shall not harm ye at all. It is a lie, this folly against self. The exposure of innocence is a lie. Be strong, o man! lust, enjoy all things of sense and rapture: fear not that any God shall deny thee for this." (AL I:41; II:22)
Quote: › Well, that's it for me, I hope my reply isn't too long or too boring, just a couple of things I deemed worthy to point out. Keep writing and good luck!
Thanks for taking the time to write your thoughts.
IAO131
h2h - Mar 05, 2008 - 12:43 AM
Post subject:
IAO131 wrote: › I happen to agree, although the thought may be somewhat overwhelming. People should consider: In "Do what thou wilt"... who exactly is "thou"? ('Know thyself', or 'Become who you are' )
Glad you brought up the excellent point above. Why is the Law not "Do What I Wilt" and who is that "Thou"?
IAO131 wrote: › The word of Sin is Restriction, this includes forcing labels onto human nature, which really means 'what does it mean to be human?"
Then you have sinned heavily against me in that Cairo Working thread, brother 
IAO131 - Mar 05, 2008 - 02:55 AM
Post subject:
h2h wrote: ›
Glad you brought up the excellent point above. Why is the Law not "Do What I Wilt" and who is that "Thou"?
Yea... its you. The point wasnt 'who is that talking about anyhow?' but rather 'what is the self?'
Quote: ›
Then you have sinned
heavily against me in that Cairo Working thread, brother
Really? I don't remember setting down an absolute definition of human nature there... Theres a difference between working with the evidence to exclude implausible explanation and restriction of the nature of what humans are.
IAO131
mournblade - Aug 14, 2008 - 07:02 AM
Post subject:
This thread interests me a great deal, and I want to weigh in on it. My view of what the Liber AL is getting at, is as I said in the sticky at the top of this forum, "You are not just free, you are absolutely free." Now, what a lot of people see when they see that particular interpretation of "Do what thou wilt," is "release your id and run amok on the Earth." My feeling is that a man or woman should indeed be, and on some natural level is, free to release their id and run amok, but that people who are highly successful are first, free to some degree of the more narrow taboos of their culture, and second, able to limit their passions to a degree that allows them to overcome both internal psychic forces and the human world's prejudice against difference in its members.
Now, we arrive at a teaching called "Don't have lust for results." When I first encountered that Thelemic teaching, I considered that real hokey, but I've been thinking about it recently, and I came up with an interpretation that pleases me, which I'll offer here. "Any act of will has effects that we as beings are blind to, and some of those effects defy the deepest intents of our actions." In other words, to avoid lust for results is to avoid the idea that our will, however powerful, can have control over everything.
Here I am, an autistic, and as a person I have to make choices that keep me in independent living and keep me out of jail or from being killed if I'm to continue my own work, but I'll tell you, other than rational self-interest, I'm a complete anarchist. What a man or a woman does is only my concern when it affects my own rational self-interest, and that includes the people in my life that I value. Otherwise, the world may go its own way.
The idea of remaining flexible in response has a real importance to me as well. First, maintaining a flexible response leads to better choices. Second, an inflexible mindset has a narrow consciousness. Third, those with a narrow consciousness may have less fear, but they are not only less functional, but they have no respect for anyone else and those other's point of view, and that to me is not just ignorance, but a sort of tyranny.
Great thread.