| From the Galleries |
2096 pictures in 33 albums
Personalities
Alostrael
Last Updated Picture:
Sutekh Ammon Deith
|
|
| Statistics |
Site visits since 30 September 2003:
34,057,765
Yesterday's visits:
29,260
Registrations:
Today: 5
Yesterday: 3
Overall: 7032
Newest Members:
|
|
| Random Quote |
|
Now then the father of all issued as a mighty Wheel; the Sphinx, and the dog-headed god, and Typhon, were bound on his circumference.
-- Aleister Crowley
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Erwin |
|
Post subject:
 Posted: Oct 04, 2007 - 12:18 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2007
Posts: 735
Status: Offline
|
|
lashtal wrote: › Ah, but you wouldn't sell many newspapers with that headline, I imagine. Hence my assumption that your phrasing was chosen for impact.
It was chosen for the sake of saying the same thing in fewer words. If people misinterpreted it, oh well, I explained it at enough length for them to get it.
lashtal wrote: › Okay... Tell you what, why don't we use the word "Will" when we mean "Will". I can see why you prefer to use the word 'Nature' but it's not what AL uses, not once, and with good reason.
Well, the fact that it's not in AL is not reason not to employ a term; the same goes from "true will", "holy guardian angel", "magick" and a whole bunch of other ones, for instance. But, if you substitute "will" for "nature" in my posts you probably won't go far wrong. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
Aum418 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 04, 2007 - 12:38 AM
|
|
Joined: Oct 01, 2006
Posts: 812
Status: Offline
|
|
the_real_simon_iff wrote: › 93, Aum418!
Thanks for the answers. Before I go home a few words on your answers:
I can always see a good reason why nature feeds on life. Why should someone feed on life of another human? Thelemic cannibals?
It would be idiotic to think of it this way. I am saying that death and murder are part of the fabric of nature. We feed on life in that we are constantly consuming plants & animals and drawing resources from other people, etc. This isnt bad at all in my view - its the way things are.
Quote: › This is not a real answer. I was asking for an example that is specifically Thelemic and can only be explained with the True Will.
Yes it is. True will is just the individual manifestation of Will which there is no restrictions on. Self defense is Thelemic insofar as you are considering it within a thelemic framework. To not include daily happenings because they arent mentioned in Liber AL specifically is pointless - murder in the form of self-defense or war are not 'unThelemic' - in fact Liber AL has quite a bit to say in favor of war.
Quote: › So one simply won't deal with a murderer in a Thelemic society?
No, I talked about a theoretical Thelemic judge, not a society, and I also talked abotu the REAL society we live in. 'Thelemic society,' as of this moment, is a fictional abstraction.
Quote: › This sounds not like a good advertising for the Law. I know it is funny, but all this theorizing makes me dizzy (or is it the work?). Maybe there won't be murder when someone finds his True Will? To me this sounds a lot less wishy-washy then "IF it IS his Will!"
I dont think so... I think its perfectly logical to see, say 10 thelemites theoretically getting together and owning a theoretical 'country.' They could all say it is our wills to enact a law that punishes murder (because you feel this will help everyone enact their wills better, naturally) and if you want to come live in this country, you obey the laws.
Quote: › Hence my saying: IF you see a Thelemite whose True Will it is to be murdered and your True Will is to murder - than go ahead - kill him! Lots of IFs in there - as well as in the Buddhist saying...
You are consistent on trying to judge whether someone is doing their True Will or not, but there is no way you can know or judge accurately. Kings can and will appear as beggars.
Quote: ›
What I say is that I suspect that what you and Erwin transcend from the Book of the Law, MIGHT not be the correct representation of what Aiwass and Crowley said. Ever thought of that possibility?
NO! IM ALWAYS RIGHT! WAAAH. Actually, yes, its quite possible I might be wrong on some poitns.
Quote: › I don't think I confuse the map with the territory - it is you who wants to make out of something that might be said metaphorically or symbolically a Thelemic dogma.
What? What are you talking about? The only Thelemic dogma I want is "Do what thou wilt," which is really an anti-dogma dogma, or an 'amgod'.
Quote: › And as Paul pointed out: Crowley also had very pragmatic views on the matter. That's what I am looking for: can an action that is against the Law of Liberty be in accordance with the True Will?
What is this nebulous Law of Liberty you speak of: everyone can do everything they want and frollick in flowery fields? The Law of Liberty IS Do what thou wilt in my view at least. There are infinite possible situations where the ceasing of the operations of another's body would be the appropriate or natural response. One Zen master once ripped a cat in two, and he was acting from his Zen nature (and he was also illustrating a point). Further, many Bodhisattvas and such are seen in Buddhism as 'vengeful,' or rather 'wrathful' - doing one's will or being illuminated or whatever does not mean you immediately become non-violent and passive.
Quote: › If so, then the True Will as you define it sounds a little wishy-washy to me - at this point in my career of Thelemic understanding at least.
How does not accepting murder & rape as unacceptable become viewed as wishy-washy? Last time I checked, that was the opposite of wishy-washy.
65 & 210,
111-418 |
_________________
.: http://iao131.cjb.net :.
-~: The Journal of Thelemic Studies :~-
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Aum418 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 04, 2007 - 01:04 AM
|
|
Joined: Oct 01, 2006
Posts: 812
Status: Offline
|
|
lashtal wrote: › But he should not injure himself and his right aforesaid; acts invasive of another individual's equal rights are implicitly self-aggressions
I think this is the important part - the implicit self-aggression and therefore division is what is the 'Error' of duality.
Quote: › I still wonder whether the root of much of your thinking - and that of your impressively enthusiastic admirer, Aum418 - revolves around your apparent enthusiasm to conflate 'True Will' with 'Nature'.
Because I agree with his positions makes me his admirer? I do admire his vehemence, for one thing.
Quote: › Or are you suggesting that if an act is in someone's Nature (based on nurture, genetics or whatever) then it's by definition a reflection of his True Will? If so, then we are at variance!
True nature, beyond the superimposed superego. You have this notion that (a) all our nature comes from nature & nurture and not frmo ourselves and (b) that the true will comes from outside, the H.G.A. or Higher Self or whatever. I think both of these are misconceptions.
From a theoretical standpoint, almost eveyrthing can be derived if you look into genetics, or if you look into environment - there is an explanation for everything, but this isnt the point. The point is that there is still a 'point of consciousness/self' which retains its inherent nature even though it is clouded over by the superego (notions of right/wrong, etc imposed by society) and other repressions. Crowley himself writes:
"We are not to regard ourselves as base beings, without whose sphere is Light or "God". Our minds and bodies are veils of the Light within. The uninitiate is a "Dark Star", and the Great Work for him is to make his veils transparent by 'purifying' them. This 'purification' is really 'simplification'; it is not that the veil is dirty, but that the complexity of its folds makes it opaque. The Great Work therefore consists principally in the solution of complexes. Everything in itself is perfect, but when things are muddled, they become 'evil'."
He is saying the sphere of Light/God is within, but it is covered by complex folds, and therefore the Great Work 'consists principally in the solution of complexes.' This is not a 'striving outward' or 'upward' to an abstract HGA or "Higher Self" (it should be noted, the former he calls childish and stupid and not to build philosophical system on it, and the latter which he calls a damnable heresy) as you mention in a later post, but a dissolution of the complexes & repressions (superego, etc as I mentioned about) to find that innate nature within oneself.
You are also very reticent to equate True Will with True Nature btu I think it is the natural conclusion (sorry for the pun). Above the Great Work itself is equated with coming to terms with our true nature. In what is probably the clearest example of the equating of true anture with true will, Crowley comments on AL II:31:
"One must fulfil one's true Nature, one must do one's Will."
I dont know how much clearer one can be. I quoted somewhere else this from the Intro to Liber AL itself (part III of the intro):
"Each action or motion is an act of love... each such act must be 'under will,' chosen so as to fulfill and not to thwart the true nature of the being concerned."
Here he equates acting 'under will' or "love under will" to "fulfilling and not thwarting the true nature of the being concerned."
This is the third example of true will being equated with true nature. He also mentions in the comment to AL I:29 that "In other words, life is an attempt to realize one's own nature in one's own soul." When defining the theorems and such of Magick he writes:
9) A Man who is doing his True Will has the inertia of the Universe to assist him. (Illustration: The first principle of success in evolution is that the individual should be true to his own nature, and at the same time adapt himself to his environment.)"
Here is yet another example of the same idea, saying one should be true to his own nature when explaining how a man 'who is doing his true will has the inertia of hte universe.'
As the final quotes, I quote from Liber Aleph, first from "Mandatum ad filium sum:"
" For this is the first and last of all, that thou bid every Man do What he will, in accord with his own true Nature. Therefore also blast thou that Lie that Man is of a fallen and evil Nature. For the Word of Sin is Restriction, the Doubt of his own Godhead, the Suppression of, which is the Blasphemy against, his own Holy Spirit. Saith not "The Book of the Law" that "...It is a lie, this folly against self. ..."? Therefore to every Man, in every Circumstance, say thou: Do what thou wilt; and teach him, if he yet waver, how to discover his true Nature, earnestly and with Ardour, even as I have striven to each thee --- yea, and more also!"
...now from "De natura hujus epistolae:"
"But also, because this Word is the Formula of the Aeon, that is the Law of its Changes or Phenomena, the Equation that expresseth its Energy and its Motion, it shall serve every Man in his Measure as a Text-Book or Comment upon the Theorick and Praxis of Magick. By it may he discover his true Nature, and its Will, and apply his Force and his Intelligence to the right Fulfilment thereof. "
Here he equates Will to the dynamic action of the true Nature. Crowley takes this notion as an assumption when he writes in Liber II:
"Thou must (1) Find out what is thy Will. (2) Do that Will with a) one-pointedness, (b) detachment, (c) peace. Then, and then only, art thou in harmony with the Movement of Things, thy will part of, and therefore equal to, the Will of God. And since the will is but the dynamic aspect of the self, and since two different selves could not possess identical wills; then, if thy will be God's will, Thou art That."
And finally he writes in "De conformitate magi:"
"The Magus, even as the Poet is the Expression of the true Will of his Fellows, and his Success is his Proof, as it is written in The Book of the Law. For his Work is to free Men from the Fetters of a false or a superannuated Will, revealing unto them, in Measure attuned to their Needs, their true Natures."
Is this more of a sufficient response? Is it really we who are "conflating" True Will with True Nature or is it you who is conflating "True Will" with something else?
65 & 210,
111-418 |
_________________
.: http://iao131.cjb.net :.
-~: The Journal of Thelemic Studies :~-
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
lashtal |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 04, 2007 - 01:33 AM
|
|
Site Admin
Joined: Sep 30, 2003
Posts: 3192
Status: Offline
|
|
Aum418,
Aum418 wrote: › Because I agree with his positions makes me his admirer? I do admire his vehemence, for one thing. Good for you!
Quote: › You have this notion that (a) all our nature comes from nature & nurture and not frmo ourselves and (b) that the true will comes from outside You're wrong on both assumptions regarding my "notions".
Quote: › He is saying the spehre of Light/God is within, but it is covered by complex folds, and therefore teh Great Work 'consists principally in the solution of complexes.' This is not a 'striving outward' or 'upward' to an abstract HGA or "Higher Self" (it should be noted, the former he calls childish and stupid and not to build philosophical heresy and the latter which he calls a damnable heresy) as you mention in a later post I'm more than capable of interpreting Crowley all by myself, thank you, and please don't ascribe to me points of view that I have not expressed.
Quote: › You are also very reticent to equate True Will with True Nature btu I think it is the natural conclusion... And in so doing you substitute True Nature for "nature" - quite discreetly, it must be said!
Erwin has made some interesting points along the way but I'm finding your attempts to emulate his style a little predictable and laboured. If I might be permitted to offer one simple piece of advice: don't assume that the people you communicate with haven't read the same source documents you consult. The_real_simon_iff, for example, is really rather well read and I've been known to open a book or two... Oh, and a word search is no substitute for actually understanding. Sorry, I lied: that was two bits of advice. |
_________________
Editor and Owner
LAShTAL.COM
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Aum418 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 04, 2007 - 01:50 AM
|
|
Joined: Oct 01, 2006
Posts: 812
Status: Offline
|
|
lashtal wrote: › Aum418,
Aum418 wrote: › Because I agree with his positions makes me his admirer? I do admire his vehemence, for one thing. Good for you!
Quote: › You have this notion that (a) all our nature comes from nature & nurture and not frmo ourselves and (b) that the true will comes from outside You're wrong on both assumptions regarding my "notions".
You mention nature & nurture twice, therefore I assumed you held it in high importance. I say the true will coems fmor the outside as one assumption because you say firstly in reponse to one of Erwin's posts that this interpretaiton is a "conflation" and also you ask something along the lines of 'is it not the Higher Self? HGA?...' which is also what I was directly responding to. These responses led me to believe you think its something 'outside' or 'higher' than yourself, which I tried to address. These assumptions were drawn for your own words, perhaps your words didnt reflect your actual beliefs though. Your exact words are thus:
" still wonder whether the root of much of your thinking - and that of your impressively enthusiastic admirer, Aum418 - revolves around your apparent enthusiasm to conflate 'True Will' with 'Nature'. Or are you suggesting that if an act is in someone's Nature (based on nurture, genetics or whatever) then it's by definition a reflection of his True Will? "
You say we 'conflate True Will with Nature,' but I have shown that apparently Crowley 'conflates' the two as well. You then say 'someone's Nature (based on nurture, genetics or whatever)' which is you explaining how you view Nature: based on nurture and genetics (nature), nature & nurture, just like I said. I do not understand why you insist on saying I am wrong about these assumptions.
Quote: › I'm more than capable of interpreting Crowley all by myself, thank you, and please don't ascribe to me points of view that I have not expressed.
My words here were less of an interpretation than a rearranging of the quote to explain myself - also, you called 'true nature=true will' a conflation, and in response to Erwin saying where else coudl it come frmo, you responded as with something like "Higher Self? HGA?" as mentioned above. You have expressed these opinions in your previous posts.
Quote: › Quote: › You are also very reticent to equate True Will with True Nature btu I think it is the natural conclusion... And in so doing you substitute True Nature for "nature" - quite discreetly, it must be said!
Erwin has made some interesting points along the way but I'm finding your attempts to emulate his style a little predictable and laboured.
You say not to foist opinions onto you that are not your own and now you are superimposing intentions and such onto me wehre they dont exist. Im not emulating any kind of 'style,' Im responding to you honestly. To call my style 'predictable and laboured' is jsut a (not so) passive aggressive attack, really.
Quote: › If I might be permitted to offer one simple piece of advice: don't assume that the people you communicate with haven't read the same source documents you consult. The_real_simon_iff, for example, is really rather well read and I've been known to open a book or two... Oh, and a word search is no substitute for actually understanding. Sorry, I lied: that was two bits of advice.
The point isnt that you havent read them - I never assumed you havent read the source material (I dare you to point to any part in a post that even remotely suggests this), btu I qouted about 8 textual examples to support my view and youve neither concisely stated your own view let alone supported it textually or otherwise.
How can you still deny there is an obvious connection - at least for Crowley - between true nature and true will?
65 & 210,
111-418 |
_________________
.: http://iao131.cjb.net :.
-~: The Journal of Thelemic Studies :~-
Last edited by Aum418 on Oct 04, 2007 - 01:52 AM; edited 1 time in total
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Azidonis |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 04, 2007 - 01:50 AM
|
|
Joined: Jul 05, 2006
Posts: 383
Location: Ellensburg, WA
Status: Offline
|
|
93,
Please let me make a few simple statements, without getting too involved in this...
What types of people would we be able to agree actually Knows their Wills? Is it going to be the common average human being, a stock broker, what? I usually tend to think that there are generally two types of people who actually do Know their Wills: that is Adepts and Newborns... newborn babies too, like infants and such that aren't yet corrupted by the entrapments of the Maya.
That said, 666 remarked in some spot (which I'll leave to the quote mongers, but most probably in The Scrutinies of Simon Iff) that a man committing murder for the hell of it is simply at odds with his own "will to live". Thinking in this light, is it really going to be a balanced, secure, and healthy human being who commits such murders? Is it going to be a balanced, secured, and healthy human being who commits rape?
If your answer to that question is yes, please consider the Tree of Life, and the middle pillar. The 'balance' in this equation being of course in Tiphareth. Thus, if an aspirant attains to his K&C and the Angel tells him to go rape four women as it will be beneficial, then by all means I'll agree. Otherwise, the Law is being entirely twisted here. The common American citizen (scratch that, common individual in this world as it is, period) does NOT know his True Will, and therefore cannot do it effectively, and will not do it consistently. In fact, it's quite the opposite. How many of you are actually on a Path of True Initiation? How much of your "animal selves" have you already had to give up and destroy?
Of course the other side of this arguement is that somewhere out in the wilderness there is some enlightened human animal who's Will is to assault the right to sexual freedom of another.
Give me a f^&*ing break.
93 93/93 |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Erwin |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 04, 2007 - 01:56 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2007
Posts: 735
Status: Offline
|
|
the_real_simon_iff wrote: › It is easy to imagine such a person. It is just my conviction that this guy is so far away from his True Will that it stinks. This sounds like a plain and stupid desire to me.
Once more, why? What grounds do you have for this conviction? Do you have any insight or analysis into why such a thing could never be in accordance with the will except for a statement along the lines of "I just don't believe it"? Until this is addressed, I'm afraid your position amounts purely to speculation, and we'll just be going round in circles with it.
Remember, the purpose of discussing this hypothetical murderer in the first place is to examine how the Law would manifest in such a situation, because in making such examinations we can increase our understanding of it. The fact that such an occurrence may be extremely rare, or even not in fact existant, is irrelevant; as long as the possibility is there, then the analysis is valid in that respect. The focus is not on the murderer himself, here, and discussion about his hypothetical qualities is ultimately fruitless. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Erwin |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 04, 2007 - 01:57 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2007
Posts: 735
Status: Offline
|
|
lashtal wrote: › Sorry, I lied: that was two bits of advice.
No-one expects the Spanish Inquisition! |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Aum418 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 04, 2007 - 02:01 AM
|
|
Joined: Oct 01, 2006
Posts: 812
Status: Offline
|
|
Azidonis wrote: › 93,
Please let me make a few simple statements, without getting too involved in this...
What types of people would we be able to agree actually Knows their Wills? Is it going to be the common average human being, a stock broker, what? I usually tend to think that there are generally two types of people who actually do Know their Wills: that is Adepts and Newborns... newborn babies too, like infants and such that aren't yet corrupted by the entrapments of the Maya.
I have to agree with you except I can think of tons of individuals throughout history who I think performed their true will (or at least struggled greatly to do so).
Quote: › That said, 666 remarked in some spot (which I'll leave to the quote mongers, but most probably in The Scrutinies of Simon Iff) that a man committing murder for the hell of it is simply at odds with his own "will to live".
In some quote quoted above he says the same thing but he says only because jailing him is more inconvenient. Therefore one can imagine being in a land without jails and social systems where the murder will not infringe on his will-to-live so much because there are no prisons to confine him/her.
Quote: › Thinking in this light, is it really going to be a balanced, secure, and healthy human being who commits such murders? Is it going to be a balanced, secured, and healthy human being who commits rape?
For the former, one can think of infinite situations where people become "beside themselves" or a "demon gets into them" or something - even in simple mob mentality, people lose their general rational processes to a violent collective. There are consequently many occassions when normally rational & 'balanced' people can be led to do strange things. Also, there are 'crimes of passion' which are even recognized in this legal society as lesser crimes (as opposed to pre-meditated and such).
Quote: › If your answer to that question is yes, please consider the Tree of Life, and the middle pillar. The 'balance' in this equation being of course in Tiphareth. Thus, if an aspirant attains to his K&C and the Angel tells him to go rape four women as it will be beneficial, then by all means I'll agree.
If we think of an Angel being a voice in your head, sure. If its formulated in words, its a thought, and Liber AL has quite a bit to say about the mind, reason, thought, etc. and its infringement on the Will (AL II:28-32 or thereabouts)
Quote: › Otherwise, the Law is being entirely twisted here. The common American citizen (scratch that, common individual in this world as it is, period) does NOT know his True Will, and therefore cannot do it effectively, and will not do it consistently.
Right, so?
Quote: › In fact, it's quite the opposite. How many of you are actually on a Path of True Initiation? How much of your "animal selves" have you already had to give up and destroy?
Since when did Thelema ever depend on 'giving up our "animal selves"'? It actually says, enjoy all things of sense & rapture and fear not that any god will deny you this, etc. Its more about sublimating it into control of the will, I would say.
Quote: › Of course the other side of this arguement is that somewhere out in the wilderness there is some enlightened human animal who's Will is to assault the right to sexual freedom of another.
Give me a f^&*ing break.
There is the obvious factor that people who are on 'the path of true initaition' (which i think is a silly term but Ill go with it) that if they are 'doing it right' they will come into greater psychological and sometimes even physical health (hopefully, success is your proof anyways) I honestly think that if more people searched into their true natures and dissolved away teh complexities that obscure this, that violence in general including murder & rape will generally drop. The fact is that I see no universal justification against it even though I think that people doing their will might naturally be way less inclined towards violence in general (I think this arises from understanding that maintaining ones independence also depends on maintaining healthy interdependence with society/the universe as a whole, which is why Crowley calls murder rape stealing etc acts of implicit self-aggression... a more interdependent attitude at this juncture would actually enhance independence).
65 & 210,
111-418 |
_________________
.: http://iao131.cjb.net :.
-~: The Journal of Thelemic Studies :~-
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
lashtal |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 04, 2007 - 02:06 AM
|
|
Site Admin
Joined: Sep 30, 2003
Posts: 3192
Status: Offline
|
|
I'll keep this brief: it must be terribly dull for the casual observer.
Aum418 wrote: › Perhaps your words didnt reflect your actual beliefs though. Crikey, this kind of thing really does upset you, doesn't it? Sorry, make you "vehement". My words don't reflect your assumptions - that would be a better summary.
Quote: › Im not emulating any kind of 'style,'
Okay...
Quote: › How can you still deny there is an obvious connection - at least for Crowley - between true nature and true will?
There is, indeed, for Crowley, an obvious connection between True Will and something else that he tends to label True Nature.
Azidonis wrote: › Of course the other side of this arguement is that somewhere out in the wilderness there is some enlightened human animal who's Will is to assault the right to sexual freedom of another. Give me a f^&*ing break.
Nicely said, Az! Defending the "Thelemic justification" to rape - whatever that really means - seems a disappointing step down from Crowley's anticipation of an aeon of Life, Light, Love and Liberty. |
_________________
Editor and Owner
LAShTAL.COM
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
lashtal |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 04, 2007 - 02:07 AM
|
|
Site Admin
Joined: Sep 30, 2003
Posts: 3192
Status: Offline
|
|
Erwin wrote: › lashtal wrote: › Sorry, I lied: that was two bits of advice.
No-one expects the Spanish Inquisition!
Amongst my chief weapons are... |
_________________
Editor and Owner
LAShTAL.COM
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Erwin |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 04, 2007 - 02:09 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2007
Posts: 735
Status: Offline
|
|
Azidonis wrote: › What types of people would we be able to agree actually Knows their Wills?
None. I've rarely heard such an outrageous and downright stupid idea as the notion of people getting together in a committee to make a decree on what type of person does or does not "know their wills".
Azidonis wrote: › Is it going to be the common average human being,
There's another kind?
Azidonis wrote: › a stock broker, what?
So stock brokers are incapable of knowing their wills, now? Gee, somebody had better tell them.
Azidonis wrote: › I usually tend to think that there are generally two types of people who actually do Know their Wills: that is Adepts and Newborns...
A newborn baby knows its will? Despite the fact that it doesn't even know not to crap itself all day long?
I've heard it all now. Rest of entry snipped for obvious reasons. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
lashtal |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 04, 2007 - 02:19 AM
|
|
Site Admin
Joined: Sep 30, 2003
Posts: 3192
Status: Offline
|
|
Aum418 wrote: › Since when did Thelema ever depend on 'giving up our "animal selves"'?
Please, sir; me, sir!
AL II:70 - Be not animal; refine thy rapture! |
_________________
Editor and Owner
LAShTAL.COM
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Aum418 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 04, 2007 - 02:20 AM
|
|
Joined: Oct 01, 2006
Posts: 812
Status: Offline
|
|
lashtal wrote: › I'll keep this brief: it must be terribly dull for the casual observer.
Aum418 wrote: › Perhaps your words didnt reflect your actual beliefs though. Crikey, this kind of thing really does upset you, doesn't it? Sorry, make you "vehement". My words don't reflect your assumptions - that would be a better summary.
Paul, you plainly stated that the idea of True Will = True Nature was a "conflation" - your own words not my own. You plainly stated your conception of Nature is of nature & nurture. You plainly stated that your answer to "what else other than true nature shoudl the will come from" was "Higher Self? HGA?..." How can you continue to insist they are assumptions when you plainly state them in your own posts? You dont clarify what you actually meant but merely say "thats not what I said."
Quote: › Quote: › How can you still deny there is an obvious connection - at least for Crowley - between true nature and true will?
There is, indeed, for Crowley, an obvious connection between True Will and something else that he tends to label True Nature.
So you admit that Crowley 'conflated' the two ideas as well?
Quote: ›
Defending the "Thelemic justification" to rape - whatever that really means - seems a disappointing step down from Crowley's anticipation of an aeon of Life, Light, Love and Liberty.
Just becuase you dont find it likable doesnt mean its a sad sign for the aeon or whatever... I think talking about rape is important and to avoid it will just make it taboo. My final opinion is that it is usually entirely impractical to commit either murder or rape and to do such is naturally to deny the fact that our independence relies on maintaing our interdependence; also, I think its honestly possible that people who do come to terms with their true nature and do their wills will naturally tend toward less vioelnce and therefore less murder & rape. I think on a practical level, there is little need to murder, especially now in the age of mass production of food, shelter, etc. and such but I see no universal justification for saying ANY action is un-Thelemic. Crowley says in "The Method of Thelema," ""Do what thou wilt does not mean Do as you please, although it implies this degree of emancipation, that it is no longer possible to say a priori that a given action is "wrong." Each man has the right – and an absolute right – to accomplish his True Will." I am saying there is no universal or a priori reason to deem murder or rape 'un-Thelemic,' but Ill simultaneously admit its normally extremely impractical to do either of these.
I am willing to agree to disagree, but you honestly never support your point (I am not trying to attack you, merely stating a fact). You merely say 'you are mistaken' but never explain exactly how, and I really want to know your side of the argument so I can understand it. I think you should admit that if you disagree with 'true will is analogous to true nature' you are at least at odds with Crowley's view of it (which doesnt necessarily make it un-Thelemic or any of that nonsense...)
65 & 210,
111-418 |
_________________
.: http://iao131.cjb.net :.
-~: The Journal of Thelemic Studies :~-
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Aum418 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 04, 2007 - 02:28 AM
|
|
Joined: Oct 01, 2006
Posts: 812
Status: Offline
|
|
lashtal wrote: › Aum418 wrote: › Since when did Thelema ever depend on 'giving up our "animal selves"'?
Please, sir; me, sir!
AL II:70 - Be not animal; refine thy rapture!
Yes, but this must be taken in conjunction with what I said before about enjoying things of sense & rapture. I think animal nature often implies the indulgence in 'animalistic' things like intoxication, sex, n such. I agree that rapture should be refined for as humans we are able to cause change in conformity with will to a very large degree (at least relative to other animals and plants and such), and we are therefore able to refine our behavior to become more effective. Therefore if we equate something animal with something unrefined then I am fine with that definition. If we equate animal nature with 'the indulgence in worldly things' which is what I usually think of, as the lower or evil nature that needs to be repressed in favor of the light of reason, or something like that ... then I cant agree, and I thought that hte latter is what was implied in his statement. In a word, I dont think instinct should be suppressed as 'animal or lower nature,' but, like I said, it shoudl be 'sublimated into control of the Will,' or rather it should be 'refined' and brought into higher effectiveness or refinement. A tree grows tall by virtue of its roots deep into the underground.
65 & 210,
111-418 |
_________________
.: http://iao131.cjb.net :.
-~: The Journal of Thelemic Studies :~-
Last edited by Aum418 on Oct 04, 2007 - 02:30 AM; edited 1 time in total
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Erwin |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 04, 2007 - 02:29 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2007
Posts: 735
Status: Offline
|
|
lashtal wrote: › Aum418 wrote: › Since when did Thelema ever depend on 'giving up our "animal selves"'?
Please, sir; me, sir!
AL II:70 - Be not animal; refine thy rapture!
Please, sir, I've got one to trump that!
AL I, 15: Now ye shall know that the chosen priest & apostle of infinite space is the prince-priest the Beast |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
lashtal |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 04, 2007 - 02:34 AM
|
|
Site Admin
Joined: Sep 30, 2003
Posts: 3192
Status: Offline
|
|
Aum418,
Aum418 wrote: › you plainly stated that the idea of True Will = True Nature was a "conflation" - your own words not my own.
Not true. My words were: "to conflate 'True Will' with 'Nature'." 'Nature' ... not 'True Nature'. It's important within the context of what was being suggested.
Quote: › You plainly stated that your answer to "what else other than true nature shoudl the will come from" was "Higher Self? HGA?..." You might find that the question marks help there: I was suggesting other possibilities, beyond those that were proposed.
Quote: › Just becuase you dont find it likable doesnt mean its a sad sign for the aeon or whatever... I think talking about rape is important and to avoid it will just make it taboo.
Heaven forbid that rape should ever become taboo!
Quote: › it is usually entirely impractical to commit either murder or rape
"Impractical"?
Quote: › on a practical level, there is little need to murder
"Little need"?
Quote: › I am saying there is no universal or a priori reason to deem murder or rape 'un-Thelemic,' but Ill simultaneously admit its normally extremely impractical to do either of these.
Well, that's a comfort!
It had to happen eventually: after 10 years running LAShTAL.COM I find myself utterly speechless! |
_________________
Editor and Owner
LAShTAL.COM
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Aum418 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 04, 2007 - 02:39 AM
|
|
Joined: Oct 01, 2006
Posts: 812
Status: Offline
|
|
lashtal wrote: › Aum418,
Aum418 wrote: › you plainly stated that the idea of True Will = True Nature was a "conflation" - your own words not my own.
Not true. My words were: "to conflate 'True Will' with 'Nature'." 'Nature' ... not 'True Nature'. It's important within the context of what was being suggested.
I see... so you didnt intend to mean "true Nature" by capitalizing "Nature"?
Quote: › Quote: › You plainly stated that your answer to "what else other than true nature shoudl the will come from" was "Higher Self? HGA?..."
You might find that the question marks help there: I was suggesting other possibilities, beyond those that were proposed.
I see. I naturally thought these were all names for the same thing as Crowley says such in Temple of Solomon the King. What IS your actual opinion?
Quote: › Quote: › Just becuase you dont find it likable doesnt mean its a sad sign for the aeon or whatever... I think talking about rape is important and to avoid it will just make it taboo.
Heaven forbid that rape should ever become taboo!
Are you implying rape should be taboo?
Quote: › Quote: › it is usually entirely impractical to commit either murder or rape
"Impractical"?
Yup. As in it causes oneself to have less potential spheres of action, etc. and can obviously lead to internal punishment i.e. guilt in cases where people either feel regret for having done such or have deeply embedded moral notions from their upbringing.
Quote: › Quote: › on a practical level, there is little need to murder
"Little need"?
Yes.
Quote: › Quote: › I am saying there is no universal or a priori reason to deem murder or rape 'un-Thelemic,' but Ill simultaneously admit its normally extremely impractical to do either of these.
Well, that's a comfort!
It had to happen eventually: after 10 years running LAShTAL.COM I find myself utterly speechless!
Im flattered to be present at such a momentous occasion.
65 & 210,
111-418 |
_________________
.: http://iao131.cjb.net :.
-~: The Journal of Thelemic Studies :~-
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
lashtal |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 04, 2007 - 02:53 AM
|
|
Site Admin
Joined: Sep 30, 2003
Posts: 3192
Status: Offline
|
|
Aum418 wrote: › you didnt intend to mean "true Nature" by capitalizing "Nature"? I intended to mean exactly what I said.
Quote: › What IS your actual opinion? Precisely that: my opinion.
Quote: › Are you implying rape should be taboo?
That's just got to be ironic or maybe some sort of trick question! Be sure to let us know, though, when you've word-searched your Crowley directory for "rape" to find quotes to demonstrate that Crowley and you don't mean what it appears to the rest of us that you mean.
Quote: › Im flattered to be present at such a momentous occasion.
Ouch... |
_________________
Editor and Owner
LAShTAL.COM
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Azidonis |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 04, 2007 - 03:23 AM
|
|
Joined: Jul 05, 2006
Posts: 383
Location: Ellensburg, WA
Status: Offline
|
|
93,
How about this Erwin, since you seemed to unintelligably reply. (By the way Aum, thanks for the response.)
This is an example only:
Let's say it is my Will to rape. Not only that, it is my Will to rape you. Not only that, it is my Will to decisively break into your house, rape you (complete with fisting of course), and then murder a few of your closest living family members. Then I leave your house.
So... Now I've invaded your own personal space, invaded you, and murdered your family. Honestly, how would that make you feel? How would that make you react? If you never found me and had no idea who I was... what would you spend the rest of your life doing? Would you say that the incident would've completely fucked you over in some way? Would you look at your dead wife and kids, soak up the blood coming out of your anus, and just continue on with your life as if nothing happened? Would you even want to tell the police? Would you make some stupid idea in your head about how it must've been YOUR Will to get anally raped and fisted, and it must've been your wife and children's will to become brutally murdered? Would you reason with yourself that now your wife and children can't fulfill their intentions for having the incarnation they did, or would you reason with yourself that it must've been "their time to go" and that their Will had already been somehow fulfilled and they were no longer needed? Would you...[insert rationalization here]?
Ahem. Seriously. Think about this. Stop being a fucking war-monger and really think about it. You can't let people have free whim, as that's all it would be. It's absolute bullshit to sit and assert that it may be another human's Will to 100% ruin another human! "Every man and every woman is a star." With your mode of thinking, you might as well have an intergalactic star war, and let all of the stars collide and blow up this whole damned cosmos, because that's what you are talking about here. You can be the one to go try and convince the world that all of the murders and rapists could have possibly been doing their Wills. While you're at it, go convince them that it was Jeffrey Dahmer's (sp) True Will to eat all those fucking people, and it was those people's True Wills to be dissolved into his stomach. Better, go start your own cannibal-rapist colony for cryin' out loud. It's insane!
Every man and woman has the right to do his or her Will. This includes the right to not have to suffer a murderer or a rapist to live. If you honestly think it's not so, call the parents of the football player who was inexplicably shot and killed in Memphis, TN over this past week, and tell those parents that you don't know who the murder was or why the event occured, but you can assure them that it could very well have been the murderer's True Will to kill their son in cold blood, and by True Will you are going to have to explain to the American southern family that you mean "God's Will".
With this nonsense every atrocity on this planet can be justified as "possibly someone's True Will". That's utter bullshit.
The Aeon of the Crowned and Conquering Child is about getting rid of this sort of thing. Mankind has been growing and evolving for thousands of years. It has gone through many different forms of growth. In each stage of growth, there have been abnormalities and abominations. As the Introduction to Liber AL would say, "abortive births" of humanity. There are many people who work to advance the human race in various ways. There are many who do nothing at all for this cause. Then there are some, that run around feeding off of other's misery like a rabid animal. These people are the reason jails were created. They have no respect for other people's dignity, health, welfare, and well being. As such, it was deemed that they must have no respect for their own. The inner conflict manifested in the outer. So instead of having the karma of killing these people and ridding the world of their sorry asses, we decided to begin locking them up for vaious periods of time. Some stay a short while, some stay all their lives. Some abominations of humanity are commited to death (which should be done more often, by the way). This is the way things are. Think of living in a city in which the masses all live in tandem, much like this one. As everyone is living and gorwing and evolving quite nicely, some animal in human form comes and creates a huge disturbance. People begin to lock their doors at night, and become afraid to let their kids play after dark. Next, another animal in human form breaks into a house and rapes a young boy...
I have to stop. What you are positiing it absolute nonsense. It is the real Beast who deals with such abominations properly, thereby re-establishing equilibrium. The wolf and the shepherd are both contributors to the well-being of the herd. The shepard keeps the sheep close by, and the wolf makes sure they stay close by. Then the wolf, having established the safety of the heard, is free to go exploring the outer boundaries.
Think of it in another way... the movie 300. I have absolutely nothing against any human being's biological make-up, and that is not the discussion. Think of the Spartan soldiers doing their Wills, against all odds. Then a man comes up, who proves himself unworthy (not because of his physical features directly, but because he couldn't protect him and his brethren from kneck to knee). He was then turned away, as he didn't make the cut. Instead of being allowed to run with the wolves, he was told to go back and hang iwth the sheep. Instead... he "blackened" himself in the eyes of the Spartans, by betraying them for Xerxes. He went out, found a large group of huge hungry animals, and let them right around the wolves (through a passageway only privileged to the locals who knew the land), and then only did the wolves fall. Of course, this only pissed off the rest of the pack, but the point should be solid and clear. If it isn't, then perhaps this post should be re-read.
93 93/93 |
Last edited by Azidonis on Oct 04, 2007 - 03:31 AM; edited 1 time in total
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 04, 2007 - 03:31 AM
|
|
Joined: Aug 28, 2007
Posts: 117
Location: TPA
|
|
Aum418 wrote: › ... if you disagree with 'true will is analogous to true nature' you are at least at odds with Crowley's view of it. 65 & 210,
111-418
Can (true)* will be analogous to (true)* nature?
Nature is a form of existence or non existence. For each thing there must be a reason for its existence (if it exists) and for its nonexistence (if it doesn’t). This reason must be either contained in, or be outside of the nature of the thing.
Example: The very nature of a square circle indicates the reason why it doesn’t exist, namely because it involves a contradiction; and the very nature of a thing explains why it does exist, because its nature involves existence.
Will is a motion of the mind. It is the ability to mentally accept or deny an idea, which is an act. Will has a nature because it exists, but will and nature are not equivalent. If they were, all existing objects would have a will.
*I do see a difference between will and true will, but I do not see a difference between nature and true nature. There is no "false" nature, unless "non-exisitence" is defined as such. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Erwin |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 04, 2007 - 03:41 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2007
Posts: 735
Status: Offline
|
|
Azidonis wrote: › How about this Erwin, since you seemed to unintelligably reply.
Uninwhat reply?
Azidonis wrote: › Let's say it is my Will to rape. Not only that, it is my Will to rape you. Not only that, it is my Will to decisively break into your house, rape you (complete with fisting of course), and then murder a few of your closest living family members. Then I leave your house.
So... Now I've invaded your own personal space, invaded you, and murdered your family. Honestly, how would that make you feel? How would that make you react?
It doesn't matter a scrap of yesterday's newspaper how it would make me feel, or how I would react. My personal reactions have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the "rightness", "wrongness" or "justifiability" of this hypothetical act or of any other. As I explained. Multiple times. Stop thinking the universe is under some kind of obligation to behave in the way you'd like it to.
Four pages of posts to this thread, and you've single-handedly managed to completely miss the point of all of them. Nice job. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Erwin |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 04, 2007 - 03:49 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2007
Posts: 735
Status: Offline
|
|
fraseth wrote: › Will has a nature because it exists, but will and nature are not equivalent. If they were, all existing objects would have a will.
Which, arguably, they do. We can observe the will of a magnet pole to seek out its opposite colleagues and to avoid its similar colleagues, and this will arises purely from the nature of these poles and their proximity to each other, which is part of the nature of their respective environments.
There's no a priori reason to view the will of a human as being conceptually any different to this; it's just more complex, and to render sensible any discussion of will as something that can be thwarted, we have to exclude certain components of the total individual either from our definition of his "nature" or from our definition of his "self", which amounts to the same thing.
fraseth wrote: › Will is a motion of the mind
And the most significant component we have to exclude is the mind. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Martialis |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 04, 2007 - 04:12 AM
|
|
Joined: Sep 26, 2007
Posts: 75
Location: New York
Status: Offline
|
|
| Ack!!!!! Beware the Centres of Pestilence!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
_________________
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.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Azidonis |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 04, 2007 - 04:14 AM
|
|
Joined: Jul 05, 2006
Posts: 383
Location: Ellensburg, WA
Status: Offline
|
|
Erwin wrote: › It doesn't matter a scrap of yesterday's newspaper how it would make me feel, or how I would react. My personal reactions have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the "rightness", "wrongness" or "justifiability" of this hypothetical act or of any other. As I explained. Multiple times. Stop thinking the universe is under some kind of obligation to behave in the way you'd like it to.
Four pages of posts to this thread, and you've single-handedly managed to completely miss the point of all of them. Nice job.
93,
So you are seriously saying that it your reactions to the event would have no bearing on the way things are, yet as everyone constantly creates their own reality, the reality that would be created if such an event occured would probably put you in my position, and not in the position that you are taking now, correct? In that case, you are a hypocrite.
I didn't miss any of them. I simply got tired of reading the nonsense that kept pouring out onto the page. It's true, people are going to be the way they are. However, that doesn't mean that people aren't possibly fucked up in the head as well. As such, there is really no way to tell if someone is doing his or her Will or not. However, toblatently interfere with another doing his Will is in direct conflict with the idea of "Every man and every woman is a star." Therefore, I posit you are not only a hypocrite, but just plain wrong.
As I wrote the long enduring explanation in my previous post, it became clear to me that stating any of it was really pointless if it was intended soley for you. Thus, I hope other readers can glean something from the post, as the person it was meant for just didn't get it, and wouldn't.
Good day.
93 93/93 |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Aum418 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 04, 2007 - 04:51 AM
|
|
Joined: Oct 01, 2006
Posts: 812
Status: Offline
|
|
Azidonis wrote: › 93,
How about this Erwin, since you seemed to unintelligably reply. (By the way Aum, thanks for the response.)
Sure.
Quote: › This is an example only:
Let's say it is my Will to rape. Not only that, it is my Will to rape you. Not only that, it is my Will to decisively break into your house, rape you (complete with fisting of course), and then murder a few of your closest living family members. Then I leave your house.
So... Now I've invaded your own personal space, invaded you, and murdered your family. Honestly, how would that make you feel?
I would most likely be angry.
Quote: › How would that make you react?
If it was in my power, I would most likely kill you that is if you are trying to injure me or people in my family etc.
[quot]eIf you never found me and had no idea who I was... what would you spend the rest of your life doing?[/quote]
Dwelling on the past, making revenge my life, so that when I kill you I feel no purpose... or so the movies would make me think.
Quote: › Would you say that the incident would've completely fucked you over in some way?
Wouldnt you say this happens daily and has for all history? Just because you dont like it doesnt mean its not gonna stop.
Quote: › Ahem. Seriously. Think about this. Stop being a fucking war-monger and really think about it. You can't let people have free whim, as that's all it would be.
This is obviously what you think, but the thing is people DO have free whim, but there are artificial judicial consequences like jail or therapy or community service or parole or whatever.
Quote: › It's absolute bullshit to sit and assert that it may be another human's Will to 100% ruin another human! "Every man and every woman is a star."
It also says "If he be a King, thou canst not hurt him." If there is an immortal element, theres no point squabbling over the impermanent body or vestment of a star.
Quote: › With your mode of thinking, you might as well have an intergalactic star war, and let all of the stars collide and blow up this whole damned cosmos, because that's what you are talking about here.
The big bang was quite violent wasnt it? Dont stars collide? I think you have an idea of 'the world as I think it should be' and it conflicts with 'the world as it is.' The truth of the matter is that there is murder in all spheres of nature, and stars DO collide and explode violently, and people do have these tragic things happen to them.
Quote: › You can be the one to go try and convince the world that all of the murders and rapists could have possibly been doing their Wills. While you're at it, go convince them that it was Jeffrey Dahmer's (sp) True Will to eat all those fucking people, and it was those people's True Wills to be dissolved into his stomach. Better, go start your own cannibal-rapist colony for cryin' out loud. It's insane!
If you take the whole 'were Dark Stars, our Khabs light is pure within us and the Great work is the solution of complexes and repressions' then no, I would say these fellows were extremely neurotic and imbalanced individuals, acting from fragmented consciouses and clinically insane.
Quote: › Every man and woman has the right to do his or her Will. This includes the right to not have to suffer a murderer or a rapist to live.
If oyu look at reality, this isnt true. People are murderd and raped and thats a fact.
Quote: › If you honestly think it's not so, call the parents of the football player who was inexplicably shot and killed in Memphis, TN over this past week, and tell those parents that you don't know who the murder was or why the event occured, but you can assure them that it could very well have been the murderer's True Will to kill their son in cold blood, and by True Will you are going to have to explain to the American southern family that you mean "God's Will".
And? I could also say it was Gods Will to torture Job incessantly and Job perservered, I could also say it was Gods Will to slay jesus on the cross in a bloody scene, I could say it was Gods Will for innumerable biblical stories that involve someone dying. Either way, I woudlnt want to be explaining much to the stereotypical American southern family which you appear to be portraying.
Quote: › With this nonsense every atrocity on this planet can be justified as "possibly someone's True Will". That's utter bullshit.
I think we agree on points but you dont see how Im coming at it. I think practical laws like we have against murder are totally worthwhile but to confuse them for absolute moral laws is ridiculous. In a universal and absolute sense, yea none of that matters, but in the normal conditioned relative/subjective sense, murder is obviously something you would wnat to generally prevent. I think that at hte present time, we need these laws. I also think that if someone undertakes the Great WOrk and tries to find their true nature and execute their true will, they will dissolve the repressions, complexes, neuroses, etc. if they are successful and will naturally be less inclined towards senseless violence. Even so I gave exampes before of zen buddhsits being violent and Buddhist bodhisattvas being wrathful because its simply hteir nature.
We have to realize, in nature there are both opposites present. Nature (macrocosm) is both benevolent/merciful and also wrathful/cruel. This is also true with our own psyches/selves (microcosm) in that we contain elements of benevolves and wrathfulness, as anyone familiar with the Qabalistic Tree of Life.
Quote: › The Aeon of the Crowned and Conquering Child is about getting rid of this sort of thing.
I agree! But by banning it under law and making it harshly punishable? Is that what its about? Or is it about bringing people to understand and manifest their true natures and naturally be in that state of harmonious independene & interdependence.
Lets remember, Rabelais wrote:
"Do What Thou Wilt;
because men that are free, well-born, well-bred, and conversant in honest companies, have naturally an instinct and spur that prompteth them unto virtuous actions, and withdraws them from vice, which is called honour."
The idea is that they will 'have naturally an instinct and spur that prompteth them unto virtuous actions...' etc.
Quote: ›
Mankind has been growing and evolving for thousands of years. It has gone through many different forms of growth. In each stage of growth, there have been abnormalities and abominations. As the Introduction to Liber AL would say, "abortive births" of humanity. There are many people who work to advance the human race in various ways. There are many who do nothing at all for this cause. Then there are some, that run around feeding off of other's misery like a rabid animal. These people are the reason jails were created. They have no respect for other people's dignity, health, welfare, and well being. As such, it was deemed that they must have no respect for their own. The inner conflict manifested in the outer. So instead of having the karma of killing these people and ridding the world of their sorry asses, we decided to begin locking them up for vaious periods of time. Some stay a short while, some stay all their lives. Some abominations of humanity are commited to death (which should be done more often, by the way).
So you think its okay to murder people who do something bad enough? Isnt that a bit of a contradiction?
65 & 210,
111-418 |
_________________
.: http://iao131.cjb.net :.
-~: The Journal of Thelemic Studies :~-
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Azidonis |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 04, 2007 - 05:45 AM
|
|
Joined: Jul 05, 2006
Posts: 383
Location: Ellensburg, WA
Status: Offline
|
|
93 Aum,
Aum418 wrote: › If it was in my power, I would most likely kill you that is if you are trying to injure me or people in my family etc.
I agree.
Quote: › Dwelling on the past, making revenge my life, so that when I kill you I feel no purpose... or so the movies would make me think.
lol, So it seems. It's probably one of those situations where one doesn't really know how one would react until being in that situation.
Quote: › Wouldnt you say this happens daily and has for all history? Just because you dont like it doesnt mean its not gonna stop.
This is where my statement needs to be clarified. I don't think it will stop. I think the world is heavily over-populated and in some way the murderous idiots represent the wild card of chance... that doesn't mean it is their Will to be such though.
Quote: › This is obviously what you think, but the thing is people DO have free whim, but there are artificial judicial consequences like jail or therapy or community service or parole or whatever.
Again, I should've clarified myself. While people do have free whim, this free whim should not be mistaken for free will which is what I was contesting. I do not believe that cases of rape and such can be rightfully attributed to being part of a person's True Will and are instead a morbid manifestation of something horrible within.
Quote: › It also says "If he be a King, thou canst not hurt him." If there is an immortal element, theres no point squabbling over the impermanent body or vestment of a star.
If you be a King, and I give you an anal fisting and etc., it would hurt you  Indeed, it would hurt your mortality, but not your immortality. However, it may indeed hurt a mortality enough to have a severe effect on one's perception of his immortality.
Quote: › The big bang was quite violent wasnt it? Dont stars collide? I think you have an idea of 'the world as I think it should be' and it conflicts with 'the world as it is.' The truth of the matter is that there is murder in all spheres of nature, and stars DO collide and explode violently, and people do have these tragic things happen to them.
The world as it is is what I was trying to say LOL It was my perception that the justification of rape as possibly part of one's Will is absurd, though I can see how one may think that "unite by thine art..." However, in reality it's impractical, and is an abomination of the species. All I was saying is that, if we are going to begin excusing cases of rape and such as True Will, then we might as well have another Big Bang.
Quote: › If you take the whole 'were Dark Stars, our Khabs light is pure within us and the Great work is the solution of complexes and repressions' then no, I would say these fellows were extremely neurotic and imbalanced individuals, acting from fragmented consciouses and clinically insane.
Alright then, we agree on something.
Quote: › If you look at reality, this isnt true. People are murderd and raped and thats a fact.
It is indeed a fact, but that doesn't change some things. For instance, in Texas you can shoot a trespasser and drag him into your house, without being convicted or murder. Thus is one way a "king" may rightfully defend his "castle". You're right, it happens constantly, rape and murder. However, I still don't think it can be any way attributed to one's True Will, and is rather a disfunction in the mind of the assailant which makes him play the villian, and in some cases, simple chance (ie. in the ways peple can be murdered, etc. purposefully or by chance).
Quote: ›
And? I could also say it was Gods Will to torture Job incessantly and Job perservered, I could also say it was Gods Will to slay jesus on the cross in a bloody scene, I could say it was Gods Will for innumerable biblical stories that involve someone dying. Either way, I woudlnt want to be explaining much to the stereotypical American southern family which you appear to be portraying.
I'm not portraying them. I'm simply saying that it is an example of the common reality, and to excuse rape and murder as one's True Will is well... insane.
Quote: ›
I think we agree on points but you dont see how Im coming at it. I think practical laws like we have against murder are totally worthwhile but to confuse them for absolute moral laws is ridiculous. In a universal and absolute sense, yea none of that matters, but in the normal conditioned relative/subjective sense, murder is obviously something you would wnat to generally prevent. I think that at hte present time, we need these laws. I also think that if someone undertakes the Great WOrk and tries to find their true nature and execute their true will, they will dissolve the repressions, complexes, neuroses, etc. if they are successful and will naturally be less inclined towards senseless violence. Even so I gave exampes before of zen buddhsits being violent and Buddhist bodhisattvas being wrathful because its simply hteir nature.
I'm not sure how 'being cast into the sphere of Geburah' would make someone become extremely violent. Perhaps it's where my experience draws the line, but it would seem that a true attainment would make one balanced within and without, and not consumed by bloodlust.
In the case of one not undertaking the Great Work though, there seems to be a ratio of people that do 'flip out' for one reason or another. I do maintain that it is not them acting out their Wills though.
I dunno... maybe it could be a man's Will to be "wrathful". I don't think that would necessarily commit him to rape, robbery, or murder though.
Quote: ›
We have to realize, in nature there are both opposites present. Nature (macrocosm) is both benevolent/merciful and also wrathful/cruel. This is also true with our own psyches/selves (microcosm) in that we contain elements of benevolves and wrathfulness, as anyone familiar with the Qabalistic Tree of Life.
True. It's been my view that the "wrathful/cruel" parts are lower on the Tree though, and increasingly more "benevolent/merciful" as one goes from the "rough to the fine", hopefully getting rid of all those opposites in the process.
Quote: ›
I agree! But by banning it under law and making it harshly punishable? Is that what its about? Or is it about bringing people to understand and manifest their true natures and naturally be in that state of harmonious independene & interdependence.
I agree that it's about helping people understand. I still do not agree that part of helping them to understand is entertaining the idea that maybe the pedophile is doing his True Will.
Quote: ›
Lets remember, Rabelais wrote:
"Do What Thou Wilt;
because men that are free, well-born, well-bred, and conversant in honest companies, have naturally an instinct and spur that prompteth them unto virtuous actions, and withdraws them from vice, which is called honour."
The idea is that they will 'have naturally an instinct and spur that prompteth them unto virtuous actions...' etc.
I agree. In the same light, rape is not a virtuous action.
Quote: ›
So you think its okay to murder people who do something bad enough? Isnt that a bit of a contradiction?
Murder of any sort is still murder. However, the distinction I was trying to make is murdering the 'abominations' in an effort to get them out of our gene pool. And under no case would it be right or lawful. At the same time, I would not say that it is my True Will to do so. That's all I've really been trying to maintain this entire time is that I don't personally believe it can be someone's True will to be a pedophile, or rapist, or serial killer, etc. In this I can reference your own quoting of Rebelias.
93 93/93 |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Aum418 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 04, 2007 - 06:45 AM
|
|
Joined: Oct 01, 2006
Posts: 812
Status: Offline
|
|
Azidonis wrote: › If you be a King, and I give you an anal fisting and etc., it would hurt you
A priceless quotation.
Quote: › All I was saying is that, if we are going to begin excusing cases of rape and such as True Will, then we might as well have another Big Bang.
What would you gain by saying its 'not' True Will? Would you create some Thelemic law to ban it? Or just recognize it as 'bad' like you alreadyt do? The point is that we cannot say whether anything is a priori part of true will, to make exceptions is to fall into the pit. There is no law beyond do what thou wilt, and thou hast no right but to do it, at least according to Liber AL. Anyone who has studied even a little western philosophy will learn that morals are totally arbitrary and relative, though they serve a social/cultural practical purpose obviously (althoug they may not have any validity in the scheme of Murder is Absolutely Wrong, etc.)
Quote: › Quote: › If you take the whole 'were Dark Stars, our Khabs light is pure within us and the Great work is the solution of complexes and repressions' then no, I would say these fellows were extremely neurotic and imbalanced individuals, acting from fragmented consciouses and clinically insane.
Alright then, we agree on something.
Joy!
Quote: › Quote: › If you look at reality, this isnt true. People are murderd and raped and thats a fact.
It is indeed a fact, but that doesn't change some things. For instance, in Texas you can shoot a trespasser and drag him into your house, without being convicted or murder. Thus is one way a "king" may rightfully defend his "castle". You're right, it happens constantly, rape and murder. However, I still don't think it can be any way attributed to one's True Will, and is rather a disfunction in the mind of the assailant which makes him play the villian, and in some cases, simple chance (ie. in the ways peple can be murdered, etc. purposefully or by chance).
I can say that honestly, I think you are right for the majority of cases, but I see no reason to say that rape & murder are always, a priori, "wrong" or "un-Thelemic." I wouldnt deny that most of these are driven by totally ridiculous ideas and desires that a normal healthy psyche wouldnt even consider, but again there are many situations that show me that absolutes (i.e. murder is absolutely bad) only serve to constrain in general.
Quote: ›
to excuse rape and murder as one's True Will is well... insane.
I totally disagree and Im surprised by teh amount of emotion reaction this question has brought up in people. Its not insane at all. Think of self-defense. Theres one situation of murder I doubt you think is insane. You yourself brought up the idea of war and shooting the enemy. Is that insane? Also think of the person who finds their wife in bed with another man and stabs them to death in a fit of passion. This could really happen to just about anyone. For example, Look at this woman with absolutely NO criminal record who shot her husband in a fit of passion just because she found pornography... Also think of the mob mentality when normal people cause total havoc, push and shove, yell and scream profanities, and bludgeon people to death - mob mentality is a well studied phenomena.
Quote: ›
I think we agree on points but you dont see how Im coming at it. I think practical laws like we have against murder are totally worthwhile but to confuse them for absolute moral laws is ridiculous. In a universal and absolute sense, yea none of that matters, but in the normal conditioned relative/subjective sense, murder is obviously something you would wnat to generally prevent. I think that at hte present time, we need these laws. I also think that if someone undertakes the Great WOrk and tries to find their true nature and execute their true will, they will dissolve the repressions, complexes, neuroses, etc. if they are successful and will naturally be less inclined towards senseless violence. Even so I gave exampes before of zen buddhsits being violent and Buddhist bodhisattvas being wrathful because its simply hteir nature.
I'm not sure how 'being cast into the sphere of Geburah' would make someone become extremely violent. Perhaps it's where my experience draws the line, but it would seem that a true attainment would make one balanced within and without, and not consumed by bloodlust. [/quote]
Balanaced doesnt mean one withdraws frmo the conflict of life. One mind may be more inclined to communicating in abrasive ways while another likes flowery language, for example - the true nature shines through this psyche and someone might perceive it from afar as being 'wrathful' or 'crazy' or 'asshole,' but Im sure a lot of Zen monks were called assholes (im sure the masters were by many).
Quote: › In the case of one not undertaking the Great Work though, there seems to be a ratio of people that do 'flip out' for one reason or another. I do maintain that it is not them acting out their Wills though.
I think if you repress the instinctual natural self enough it will burst out, often in neurotic symptoms. The best way, I think, is the way of Thelema and assimilating experience by "love under will." Both the mystical and magical paths offer very practical and active ways to solve psychic complexes (but one is also very liable to develop them as well in these practices!)
Quote: › I dunno... maybe it could be a man's Will to be "wrathful". I don't think that would necessarily commit him to rape, robbery, or murder though.
Not necessarily, nor not not necessarily. Im just playing... the point is you can say "it seems high unlikely that 95% of people would ever even consider this" but thats the point, theres no point in saying most people would probably do htis so lets make it a rule, those 5% who do not act like the other 95% also have the right to carry out their wills.
Quote: › Quote: ›
We have to realize, in nature there are both opposites present. Nature (macrocosm) is both benevolent/merciful and also wrathful/cruel. This is also true with our own psyches/selves (microcosm) in that we contain elements of benevolves and wrathfulness, as anyone familiar with the Qabalistic Tree of Life.
True. It's been my view that the "wrathful/cruel" parts are lower on the Tree though, and increasingly more "benevolent/merciful" as one goes from the "rough to the fine", hopefully getting rid of all those opposites in the process.
Qabalistically they are horizontal and find this much more balanced. Thinker 'good' as 'better' than 'evil' makes one fall into that trap of duality over and over and over. Whatever is successful though, to each his own.
Quote: › Quote: ›
I agree! But by banning it under law and making it harshly punishable? Is that what its about? Or is it about bringing people to understand and manifest their true natures and naturally be in that state of harmonious independene & interdependence.
I agree that it's about helping people understand. I still do not agree that part of helping them to understand is entertaining the idea that maybe the pedophile is doing his True Will.
Older males have sexual relationships with younger males actually has a strange and long and complex history. But thats an entirely other subject.
Quote: › Quote: ›
Lets remember, Rabelais wrote:
"Do What Thou Wilt;
because men that are free, well-born, well-bred, and conversant in honest companies, have naturally an instinct and spur that prompteth them unto virtuous actions, and withdraws them from vice, which is called honour."
The idea is that they will 'have naturally an instinct and spur that prompteth them unto virtuous actions...' etc.
I agree. In the same light, rape is not a virtuous action.
Again, the point is that, yes, naturally people will start to (theoretically) gravitate away from violence, rape, etc. but there is no justification for calling any action Absolutely Wrong. Thats my point.
Quote: › Quote: ›
So you think its okay to murder people who do something bad enough? Isnt that a bit of a contradiction?
Murder of any sort is still murder. However, the distinction I was trying to make is murdering the 'abominations' in an effort to get them out of our gene pool.
Cant you just see you are the judge who happens to have more power/society behind him? If he happened to have more power he would wipe you out because he thought oyu were equally 'abominable.'
Quote: › And under no case would it be right or lawful. At the same time, I would not say that it is my True Will to do so. That's all I've really been trying to maintain this entire time is that I don't personally believe it can be someone's True will to be a pedophile, or rapist, or serial killer, etc. In this I can reference your own quoting of Rebelias.
I think that nature also always has variation, and thats the beauty of it too. Not all people will be identical if they investigate their true nature. Crowley once said someting like think of a world full of arahans... extremely boring place! Finding one's truen ature brings beauty & strength in your own unique way. The idiosyncracies arent faults or anything of the sort, but what help manifest our natures in various ways.
I think theres also a plane to be considered that "all that happens is right" from the deterministic or absolute point of view, in which "Nero was necessary" no matter whether we could go back in tiem and kill him at birth or not to save people he persecuted. If a thing happens, if it is successful in manifesting then that itself is its own proof: success is your proof. But practicallly this point of view is virtually useless.
65 & 210,
111-418 |
_________________
.: http://iao131.cjb.net :.
-~: The Journal of Thelemic Studies :~-
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
nashimiron |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 04, 2007 - 09:27 AM
|
|
Joined: Jul 14, 2005
Posts: 306
Location: Innsmouth
Status: Offline
|
|
A few considerations.
The Book states "Do what thou Wilt shall be the whole of the Law".
This is not a static statement of current fact, but one suggesting change ("shall be") meaning "thou" must make it so. Also, the use of "thou" suggests it is being communicated from one "person" to another, as few people refer to themselves as "thou". So implicit in the statement is the communication of the statement.
If you wish to communicate "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law" to someone, murdering them is probably not a good way of doing so.
If the Law of Thelema was "Do what i will is the whole of the law" then the last 4 pages of this debate would have had some validity. So arguing over whether the will of me over-rules the will of thou is irrelevant to Thelema, except for those who are having difficulty getting to grips with it's basics.
How can you live by "Do what thou wilt" if a person you are interacting with (the "thou" in any given circumstance) is being prevented from doing their will by you? |
_________________
I fell off the Qliphothic tree and hit every branch on the way down...
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 04, 2007 - 11:44 AM
|
|
Joined: Aug 28, 2007
Posts: 117
Location: TPA
|
|
Erwin wrote: › fraseth wrote: › Will has a nature because it exists, but will and nature are not equivalent. If they were, all existing objects would have a will.
Which, arguably, they do. We can observe the will of a magnet pole to seek out its opposite colleagues and to avoid its similar colleagues, and this will arises purely from the nature of these poles and their proximity to each other, which is part of the nature of their respective environments.
There's no a priori reason to view the will of a human as being conceptually any different to this; it's just more complex, and to render sensible any discussion of will as something that can be thwarted, we have to exclude certain components of the total individual either from our definition of his "nature" or from our definition of his "self", which amounts to the same thing.
fraseth wrote: › Will is a motion of the mind
And the most significant component we have to exclude is the mind.
The magnet's assumed "will" is a quality. A quality is a characteristic of a thing which can not be changed intentionally by the thing itself, because, at a given time, it lies within the nature of the thing.
The mind can be excluded from nature because if can lie within the nature of a thing to not have a will. Mind and will can not be seperated though. They depend on each other, some even say they are equivalent. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
in 1° 
: 
in 9° 
: Anno IVxviii 
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
