| Author |
Message |
sonofthestar |
|
Post subject: Does Evil exist? Or is it lack of knowledge?
 Posted: Sep 29, 2007 - 12:56 AM
|
|
Joined: Jul 14, 2005
Posts: 358
Location: The United States of America
Status: Offline
|
|
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 |
|
|
Post subject: RE: Does Evil exist? Or is it lack of knowledge?
Posted: Sep 29, 2007 - 01:26 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 13, 2005
Posts: 333
Status: Offline
|
|
How very Christian.
0=2 dontcha know |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Sep 29, 2007 - 03:57 AM
|
|
Joined: Aug 28, 2007
Posts: 117
Location: TPA
|
|
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 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Sep 29, 2007 - 07:07 AM
|
|
Joined: Sep 26, 2007
Posts: 75
Location: New York
Status: Offline
|
|
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 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Sep 29, 2007 - 07:36 AM
|
|
Joined: Jun 21, 2006
Posts: 164
Status: Offline
|
|
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 |
_________________
I:30. This is the creation of the world, that the pain of division is as nothing, and the joy of dissolution all.
http://stores.lulu.com/ohem
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
nashimiron |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Sep 29, 2007 - 10:20 AM
|
|
Joined: Jul 14, 2005
Posts: 306
Location: Innsmouth
Status: Offline
|
|
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.  |
_________________
I fell off the Qliphothic tree and hit every branch on the way down...
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Azidonis |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Sep 29, 2007 - 10:22 AM
|
|
Joined: Jul 05, 2006
Posts: 383
Location: Ellensburg, WA
Status: Offline
|
|
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. 
Oops, guess I did go off on a tangent lol
93 93/93 |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Sep 29, 2007 - 01:25 PM
|
|
Joined: Aug 28, 2007
Posts: 117
Location: TPA
|
|
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 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Sep 29, 2007 - 01:34 PM
|
|
Joined: May 26, 2007
Posts: 206
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Status: Offline
|
|
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.. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Sep 29, 2007 - 02:28 PM
|
|
Joined: Aug 28, 2007
Posts: 117
Location: TPA
|
|
anpi wrote: › 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..
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 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Sep 29, 2007 - 05:12 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 01, 2006
Posts: 812
Status: Offline
|
|
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 |
_________________
.: http://iao131.cjb.net :.
-~: The Journal of Thelemic Studies :~-
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
anpi |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Sep 29, 2007 - 05:26 PM
|
|
Joined: May 26, 2007
Posts: 206
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Status: Offline
|
|
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 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Sep 29, 2007 - 05:44 PM
|
|
Joined: Sep 26, 2007
Posts: 75
Location: New York
Status: Offline
|
|
| 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. |
_________________
In her eyes the light of the whole night of heaven burned in majesty;
there were pride, and subtle joy, and the anguish of an infinite longing,
wrought to a single gem of inscrutable Will. But in that Will one read no
hope, not even desire.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Sep 29, 2007 - 07:12 PM
|
|
Joined: Aug 28, 2007
Posts: 117
Location: TPA
|
|
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?
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.
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 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Sep 29, 2007 - 07:33 PM
|
|
Joined: May 26, 2007
Posts: 206
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Status: Offline
|
|
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.  |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Sep 29, 2007 - 08:44 PM
|
|
Joined: Aug 28, 2007
Posts: 117
Location: TPA
|
|
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.
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 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Sep 29, 2007 - 08:57 PM
|
|
Joined: May 26, 2007
Posts: 206
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Status: Offline
|
|
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. 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/ |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Sep 29, 2007 - 09:43 PM
|
|
Joined: Aug 28, 2007
Posts: 117
Location: TPA
|
|
| [quote="anpi"] 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.
anpi wrote: › Thanks, but I'm not interested in that kind of post-modern philosophy or whatever it's called. 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.
Yep, you are right, Einstein was wrong, so was I. Now go and read Al III 42., and lets get back on topic! |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
anpi |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Sep 29, 2007 - 09:56 PM
|
|
Joined: May 26, 2007
Posts: 206
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Status: Offline
|
|
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 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Sep 30, 2007 - 02:48 AM
|
|
Joined: Apr 16, 2007
Posts: 332
Status: Offline
|
|
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! |
_________________
You are missing the point
There is only one verse, sung in infinite ways.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Martialis |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Sep 30, 2007 - 08:51 AM
|
|
Joined: Sep 26, 2007
Posts: 75
Location: New York
Status: Offline
|
|
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!!!!!!! |
_________________
In her eyes the light of the whole night of heaven burned in majesty;
there were pride, and subtle joy, and the anguish of an infinite longing,
wrought to a single gem of inscrutable Will. But in that Will one read no
hope, not even desire.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
lashtal |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Sep 30, 2007 - 10:23 AM
|
|
Site Admin
Joined: Sep 30, 2003
Posts: 3192
Status: Offline
|
|
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. |
_________________
Editor and Owner
LAShTAL.COM
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Sep 30, 2007 - 12:56 PM
|
|
Joined: Aug 28, 2007
Posts: 117
Location: TPA
|
|
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! |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 01, 2007 - 02:55 AM
|
|
Joined: Aug 28, 2007
Posts: 117
Location: TPA
|
|
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 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 01, 2007 - 03:26 AM
|
|
Joined: Sep 20, 2006
Posts: 29
Location: Hartford, WI
Status: Offline
|
|
/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 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 01, 2007 - 04:41 AM
|
|
Joined: Jul 14, 2005
Posts: 358
Location: The United States of America
Status: Offline
|
|
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. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 01, 2007 - 12:11 PM
|
|
Joined: Aug 28, 2007
Posts: 117
Location: TPA
|
|
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 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 02, 2007 - 06:24 PM
|
|
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
Posts: 172
Status: Offline
|
|
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?  |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Kalki93 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 02, 2007 - 09:17 PM
|
|
Joined: Sep 11, 2007
Posts: 33
Status: Offline
|
|
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 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 03, 2007 - 01:49 AM
|
|
Joined: Apr 16, 2007
Posts: 332
Status: Offline
|
|
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?
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. |
_________________
You are missing the point
There is only one verse, sung in infinite ways.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
in 1° 
: 
in 17° 
: Anno IVxviii 
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
