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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

zain wrote: ›

Erwin you should withdraw that statement.

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

zain wrote: › Withdraw that statement.

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

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

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

zain wrote: › If you dont withdraw your statement,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › Nothing about killing there.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

fraseth wrote: › he did not promote rape

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Erwin wrote: › No, both were.

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

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

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › 93, Erwin and Aum418!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote: ›


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

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

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

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

Love=Law
Lutz

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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