| From the Galleries |
1703 pictures in 26 albums
Personalities
Karl Germer
Last Updated Picture:
'Chinese Dragons' Automatic Drawing by Chris Anthony Wills
|
|
| Statistics |
Site visits since 30 September 2003:
21,498,059
Yesterday's visits:
27,865
Registrations:
Today: 1
Yesterday: 4
Overall: 5407
Newest Members:
|
|
| Review Submissions |
Attention authors, publishers and retailers! Are you trying to market a newly-released Thelemic product? This site is viewed daily up to 20,000 times by some of the most influential Thelemites. If you'd like to bring your product to their attention, contact us now to arrange for a review to be placed on lashtal.com.
|
|
| Random Quote |
|
As knowledge is the outcome of ignorance, so is also virtue the outcome of vice.
-- J F C Fuller: The Star In The West
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Walterfive |
|
Post subject:
 Posted: Jul 29, 2008 - 01:49 PM
|
|
Joined: Jun 08, 2005
Posts: 207
Location: 13th Floor Elevator, Enron Hubbard Bldg. Houston, Texxas
Status: Offline
|
|
Camlion wrote: › Perhaps this the fault of too much carelessness in trying to blend Thelema with the philosophies of the East? Anyone?
I don't know... I think Buddah would have made a good Thelemite, but I'm not at all certain Crowley would have made a good Buddhist...
You blame the Chaotes and the Wiccans, Ervin? Certainly the Wiccans and New Agers are guilty of pretty fuzzy thinking, but I blame the Socialist Democrats. We are not all equal. As Neitchze spoke of, there are mensch and there are uber-mensch. Dumbing down our society does the lower end of the bell-curve no favors. Stopping social Darwinism in its tracks only muddies up the gene-pool. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
the_real_simon_iff |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jul 29, 2008 - 02:06 PM
|
|
Joined: Nov 07, 2003
Posts: 643
Location: Munick / Germany
Status: Offline
|
|
93, DD!
It is probably my fault if you felt like I was talking about you, because that is far from what I wanted. Actually I thought more of the posts of Flagsofscarlet and some remarks by zain himself that did not really deal with the initial question but reverberated with a kind of paranoid undertone of "evil OTO" agenda, which is something I find extremely annoying, without being a member of that group or feeling the need to defend it.
But then again, on re-reading my posts with my limited knowledge of the English language, I really cannot see why you might think I would consider bringing the OTO into a discussion is bad or stupid. Of course it is not, okay?
I thought LittleAlickGrewUp's "charter" remark was intended as a joke, not more.
Love=Law
Lutz
Oh, now I see, you probably meant this:
the_real_simon_iff wrote: › you invited a few posters to do that by bringing the OTO into a discussion where it never was and where it does not belong to at the moment. This distracted from the initial thread and resulted in a few pretty stupid posts
"bringing the OTO into the discussion" was targeted at zain, because he did not really answered your post about your experience in the order, but, as others also have shown, I think he tends to construct mock arguments around his obvious dislike for the "Caliphate"; the (in my view) stupid posts were from Flagsofscarlet ("this gang are only going to bully you"). |
_________________
"The Resistance to Change is intellectual Death, Insanity [...] the first clause in the Oath of the Black Brothers. The Law of Thelema is the Essence of Life, because of its perfect elasticity."
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Walterfive |
|
|
Post subject: Re: Spreading the Thelemic Word?
Posted: Jul 29, 2008 - 03:00 PM
|
|
Joined: Jun 08, 2005
Posts: 207
Location: 13th Floor Elevator, Enron Hubbard Bldg. Houston, Texxas
Status: Offline
|
|
piscean93 wrote: ›
Camlion, I agree with a lot of your views in this thread, and I would like to compliment at least part of your stance. It is my humble opinion that, to live the law, and put it into practice, thereby leading by example, is one of the best ways to spread the word. At least this is what I live by. 
Careful that Flagsofscarlet doesn't flame you for that!  I suggested this in another thread last week and got *this* rash of shit:
Flagsofscarlet wrote: › Yes, to lead by example, just what the old catholic priests preached in my childhood. I wonder why americans turn everything into a religion? Let's see what Crowley wrote on the subject of Thelema as a new religion: " Call it a new religion, then, if it so please your Gracious Majesty; but I confess that I fail to see what you will have gained by so doing, and I feel bound to add that you might easily cause a great deal of misunderstanding, and work a rather stupid kind of mischief. The word does not occur in The Book of the Law.
Some of our otherwise Thelemically-inclined bretheren really seem to get bent out of shape when other Thelemites start talking about "leading by example", "self-responsibility," or "self-discipline." It really seems to press some buttons with quite a few of them... perhaps that's one of the differences between Caliphate Thelemites and some (but hardly all) of the other sorts-- we're handed the concepts of being free wo/men and self-discipline as a given at the 0 Degree, and are expected to work on them from our inception within the confines of the O.T.O.'s hierarchal structure. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
zain |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jul 29, 2008 - 03:14 PM
|
|
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
Posts: 155
Status: Offline
|
|
Here are the points i think have not been addressed by this thread:
1: Not one person or organisation (in various forms) has the authority to say what Thelema is or isnt. In that context how can "spreading the word" of a subjective experience that is Thelema be coherent? (also consider some of the more "dramatic" posters on this thread. Do you think they would be capable of "spreading the word" in such a subjective field considering their own limitations?)
2: Even if "spreading the word" was possible the material available would be contradictory to a layperson and seeker. Even if it was a persons "will" to "spread the word" of Thelema, their will would not be enough to explain the various ideas, concepts, variations that exist in Thelema. Can someone prove me right or wrong on this point?
3: The writing that Crowley gave us, doesnt advocate a widespread evangelising of Thelema. Most of the writing used so far doesnt justify selling Thelema on to a unaware public.
4: Collectively there is no agreement amongst Thelemites out there on how to present Thelema to the public. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
the_real_simon_iff |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jul 29, 2008 - 03:40 PM
|
|
Joined: Nov 07, 2003
Posts: 643
Location: Munick / Germany
Status: Offline
|
|
93, zain!
I think all these points have been addressed over and over...
1. I think your main concern seems to be that anyone "spreading the word" must have the ability to "spread the one and final and true word" on Thelema. Of course this is not possible. But nobody here advocates that, so why do you keep referring to it? Do you think that "if you do not know all about a subject then shut up (or put up a decent website)" is any more coherent? Do you really believe so much in authority? Do you really have any authority to restrict people from saying "I love AC because he drank cat's blood"?
2. Yes, you are right, nobody is able to know "all" about Thelema - or about the weather, his/her neighbour and even her/himself. But considering every "layperson" or "seeker" as too stupid/lazy/whatever to grasp contradictory opinions on a subject is pretty arrogant, as well as contradictory in the first place to the meaning of being a "seeker".
3. Crowley tried every possible trick (or at least considered every possible trick) to advocate Thelema, so what are you talking about?
4. You are so right again, but this is so irrelevant to "spreading the word". Do you really want a "final authority" i.e. a Pope for Thelema? Or do you really want to have no information transfer at all, so that no "wrong" information can be transferred? Aside from the good book and websites, of course.
Love=Law
Lutz |
_________________
"The Resistance to Change is intellectual Death, Insanity [...] the first clause in the Oath of the Black Brothers. The Law of Thelema is the Essence of Life, because of its perfect elasticity."
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Aleisterion |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jul 29, 2008 - 03:45 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 20, 2003
Posts: 158
Location: Alabama
Status: Offline
|
|
"The writing that Crowley gave us, doesnt advocate a widespread evangelising of Thelema."
Khabs Am Pekht...some relevant excerpts:
"Now, O my son, thou knowest that it is Our will to establish this Work, accomplishing fully that which We are commanded in The Book of the Law, "Help me, O warrior lord of Thebes, in my unveiling before the children of men!"—and it is Thy will, manifesting as thou hast done in the Sphere of Malkuth the material world, to do this same thing in an even more immediate and practical way than would naturally appeal to one whose manifestation is in the Heaven of Jupiter. So therefore We now answer Thy filial petition that asketh good counsel of Us as to the means to be taken to extend the Law of Thelema throughout the whole world.
"Direct therefore now most closely thine attention to The Book of the Law itself. In It we find an absolute rule of life, and clear instruction in every emergency that may befall. What then are Its own directions for the fructification of That Ineffable Seed? Note, pray thee, the confidence with which we may proceed. 'They shall gather my children into their fold; they shall bring the glory of the stars into the hearts of men.' They 'shall'; there is no doubt. Therefore doubt not, but strike with all thy strength. Note also, pray thee, this word: 'The Law is for all.' Do not therefore 'select suitable persons' in thy worldly wisdom; preach openly the Law to all men. In Our experience We have found that the most unlikely means have produced the best results; and indeed it is almost the definition of a true Magical Formula that the means should be unsuited, rationally speaking, to the end proposed. Note, pray thee, that We are bound to teach."
"Note, pray thee, the instruction in CCXX I:41-n-44, 51, 61, 63 on which We have enlarged in Our tract The Law of Liberty, and in private letters to thee and to others. The open preaching of this Law, and the practice of these precepts, will arouse discussion and animosity, and thus place thee upon a rostrum whence thou mayst speak unto the people."
"We may aid men to strike off their own fetters; but those who prefer slavery must be allowed to do so. 'The slaves shall serve.' The excellence of the Law must be showed by its results upon those who accept it. When men see us as the hermits of Hadit described in CCXX II:24, they will determine to emulate our joy."
"All children and young people, although they may not be able to understand the more exalted heavens of our horoscope, may always be taught to rule their lives in accordance with the Law. No efforts should be spared to bring them to this emancipation. The misery caused to children by the operation of the law of the slave-gods was, one may say, the primum mobile of Our first aspiration to overthrow the Old Law."
"By all manner of means shall all strive constantly to increase the power and freedom of the Headquarters of the O.T.O.; for thereby will come efficiency in the promulgation of the Law."
Seems clear to me. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Camlion |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jul 29, 2008 - 03:48 PM
|
|
Joined: Apr 23, 2004
Posts: 535
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Status: Offline
|
|
Walterfive wrote: › Camlion wrote: › Perhaps this the fault of too much carelessness in trying to blend Thelema with the philosophies of the East? Anyone?
I don't know... I think Buddah would have made a good Thelemite, but I'm not at all certain Crowley would have made a good Buddhist...
You blame the Chaotes and the Wiccans, Ervin? Certainly the Wiccans and New Agers are guilty of pretty fuzzy thinking, but I blame the Socialist Democrats. We are not all equal. As Neitchze spoke of, there are mensch and there are uber-mensch. Dumbing down our society does the lower end of the bell-curve no favors. Stopping social Darwinism in its tracks only muddies up the gene-pool.
Good point, Walter, we are not 'all equal.' As with the analogy to Stars, which astronomy teaches us vary so greatly in their characteristics. With each of us being unique, and no two being the same, comparisons of that sort are not valid or beneficial.
As for my question regarding "the philosophies of the East," I was trying to do a post-mortem on the dead horse that has been flogged in this thread. The corpse is still twitching, however, so more on that later from me, perhaps. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Erwin |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jul 29, 2008 - 04:12 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2007
Posts: 314
Status: Offline
|
|
zain wrote: › 1: Not one person or organisation (in various forms) has the authority to say what Thelema is or isnt.
Neither do they need any authority to do it. You start off complaining about attempts to promulgate the Law "repeating the mistakes of the old religions" or some such nonsense, and then you try to claim that in order to speak about it someone must have "authority" from someone, as if you'd like there to be some Thelemic "pope" as Lutz said. You bring up these "mistakes of the old religions" and then go right ahead and start committing them yourself. Once again, your position is just one gigantic mass of confusion and contradiction.
If anybody wants to say what Thelema is or isn't, their own authority on the matter is sufficient, and if you don't like it, then tough. Naturally, if they want their position to be viewed by others as "authoritative" then they're going to have to justify it with reference to the Thelemic texts and convince a bunch of people that they're right.
There's no magical sky fairy handing out "authority" to say what anything else is or isn't, either. For that matter, there's no magical sky fairy giving you authority to say that nobody has authority to say what Thelema is or isn't, but that doesn't seem to stop you from doing it, does it?
zain wrote: › In that context how can "spreading the word" of a subjective experience that is Thelema be coherent? (also consider some of the more "dramatic" posters on this thread. Do you think they would be capable of "spreading the word" in such a subjective field considering their own limitations?)
How many times do you have to be told? Thelema is not a "subjective experience", it is a body of ideas about the nature and conduct of the self. There's plenty of objective things that can be said about it. For instance, anybody who claims that Thelema posits the existence of any laws beyond "Do what thou wilt" can be demonstrated to be objectively incorrect very easily indeed. There may currently be room for interpretation as to what "Do what thou wilt" actually means, but whatever it does mean, it is an objective fact that Thelema posits no law beyond it. The only "authority" that anybody needs in order to present this as an authoritative view is the ability to read and write.
There's a very big difference between an idea being "subjective" and you just being to clueless to understand it.
zain wrote: › Even if "spreading the word" was possible the material available would be contradictory to a layperson and seeker. Even if it was a persons "will" to "spread the word" of Thelema, their will would not be enough to explain the various ideas, concepts, variations that exist in Thelema. Can someone prove me right or wrong on this point?
Nobody needs to prove you right or wrong. You are the one making the objective claim (without "authority", I might add) that Thelema is "contradictory", and if you want this claim to be taken seriously then the onus is on you to demonstrate it. So far, your attempts to do this have been limited to two quotes from what you mistakenly referred to as "The Book of the Law" - one of them was from the Comment - and I showed you why there was no contradiction there at all. So, if you want anyone to do anything other than to laugh at this claim, you've got some work to do substantiating it, because so far your "argument" just consists of you repeatedly bleating that it's true without any evidence.
zain wrote: › The writing that Crowley gave us, doesnt advocate a widespread evangelising of Thelema. Most of the writing used so far doesnt justify selling Thelema on to a unaware public.
Again, so what? Nobody here is saying that anybody should go out and "sell Thelema" - you are saying that they shouldn't. If you want to be taken seriously, then you have to demonstrate where the Thelemic texts say this should not be done. Nobody is under any obligation to show anywhere that says it should be, because nobody is arguing that. Until you provide evidence to the contrary, nobody needs any "justification" for doing it, either.
zain wrote: › Collectively there is no agreement amongst Thelemites out there on how to present Thelema to the public.
And there never will be if people like you succeed in prohibiting the discussion of the matter and the dissemination of information and reasoned argument.
There's no agreement amongst humanity as to how to present the evolution vs creationism "debate" to the public, either, so should we just close down both science and religion because of this? Would that make it easier for you to pretend that you know anything?
You are once again demonstrated to be an extremely confused and very foolish individual.
Erwin |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
sonofthestar@Gmail.com |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jul 29, 2008 - 04:32 PM
|
|
Joined: Jul 14, 2005
Posts: 280
Location: The United States of America
Status: Offline
|
|
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
Zain,
if I were going to give very simple answers to the four questions you put forth, it would go something like this:
The answer to the "who has authority to speak about Thelema" question.
Anyone has the right to speak about Thelema! The fact that they exist as a person gives them the absolute right to say anything they please about it.
Even the most virulent enemy of Thelema has the right to speak as they will.
And it is the right of those listening or reading to decide for themselves, if what is presented is valid or not.
It is always a personal, autonomous decision that is made by both parties; the presenter---and the recipient.
Some presentations of Thelema will be inaccurate, whilst others will not.
It is for the "intelligent" mind to discern what rings true, and what is poppycock.
This is a natural function of human mentality: the process of discernment.
No one can prevent an idiot from being confused, by withholding knowledge from them--less they misinterpret, and misunderstand it; --that would be an horrible wrong perpetrated against the idiot!
Even if an idiot chooses to go with an interpretation of Thelema that is only a parody of Thelema--presented by another idiot, it is the right of said idiot to make that choice.
Ultimately, everyone here has the "authority" to speak about Thelema, and "spread it"--if it is their will to do so. Meaning, Yours truly! - Erwin! - Camlion!- Walterfive!- Universe! etc,- etc,----and of course you Zain!
And everyone who reads/listens to what we have the authority to present---has the authority to accept or reject it!
Love is the law, love under will. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Erwin |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jul 29, 2008 - 04:39 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2007
Posts: 314
Status: Offline
|
|
Walterfive wrote: › You blame the Chaotes and the Wiccans, Ervin? Certainly the Wiccans and New Agers are guilty of pretty fuzzy thinking, but I blame the Socialist Democrats. We are not all equal. As Neitchze spoke of, there are mensch and there are uber-mensch. Dumbing down our society does the lower end of the bell-curve no favors. Stopping social Darwinism in its tracks only muddies up the gene-pool.
As Camlion correctly points out, the fact that "we are not all equal" doesn't mean that we're unequal. Whilst we can say that one person is better at something than someone else, it's meaningless to suggest that one person can be just "better" than another, just as it's meaningless to suggest that sausages are better than galvanised nails. AL I, 3-4 doesn't imply that everyone is equal, but that comparisons of this kind simply cannot be drawn.
The purpose of trying to order people along a bell curve in terms of "uberness" is to make the person doing it feel better about themselves; it doesn't reflect any facts out there, regardless of what Nietzche might have said once. Nobody who draws up a bell curve for this purpose ever puts themselves on the left hand side, so one is left wondering how the mean got to where it is purported to be. "Uber-mensch" are only really ever "people like me", regardless of who is making the case.
As far as "social darwinism" goes, evolution quite demonstrably doesn't weed out the idle and the stupid, otherwise there wouldn't be so many of them about. If lemmings and amoeba can survive and transmit their genes, then so can humans with equivalent brain-power, and there are plenty of examples of other parasites surviving quite happily in their environments. In one sense, being able to survive despite being an idle parasite is an evolutionary success, not an evolutionary failure, since it represents a great achievement in efficiency. Of course, nobody who considers themselves to be a priori higher up the "evolutionary scale" will see things in this way.
Erwin |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Camlion |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jul 29, 2008 - 05:04 PM
|
|
Joined: Apr 23, 2004
Posts: 535
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Status: Offline
|
|
Good post, Aleisterion. However, this last bit is Zain's real concern, I think.
Aleisterion wrote: ›
"By all manner of means shall all strive constantly to increase the power and freedom of the Headquarters of the O.T.O.; for thereby will come efficiency in the promulgation of the Law."
It is important to understand that, at the time of Crowley's death, he placed all of his hopes for the future promulgation of the Law of Thelema in OTO. OTO was all that there was at that time, and there was very little of that. How could he have done otherwise? How could he have known that today, in addition to the fine organization that OTO has become, there would also be so many other fine Thelemic organizations, as well as so many more unaffiliated independent Thelemites? He could not have known this with any degree of certainty, if at all. He could not have counted on so rapid and diverse a growth in Thelema and Thelemites. So, he placed all of his eggs in the OTO basket, and died.
Today, OTO has its mandate, clearly, from Crowley. This mandate is very specialized, so to speak, in accordance with Crowley's intent. This intent is also very clear, but there happens to have been a greater development in Thelema than Crowley contemplated, extending beyond the scope and concern of OTO. I believe that Crowley would have welcomed this growth, although it was more than he dared hope for during his life. Certainly, some of it may have made him pull his little remaining hair out, but this is certainly also true of some of what has gone on within OTO.
Crowley is dead, although his legacy lives on. Today, the promulgation of the Law of Thelema is the right and responsibility of each of those Thelemites whose Will it is to engage in it. Fears of dominance or interference by OTO in this area are unjustified and often paranoid. True, we cannot use their name or publish without permission those writings which Crowley entrusted to OTO's stewardship, but, beyond such infringements, OTO poses no obstacle to the free and open interpretation and promulgation of our common Law of Thelema.
The above is my own opinion, as always. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Aleisterion |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jul 29, 2008 - 06:17 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 20, 2003
Posts: 158
Location: Alabama
Status: Offline
|
|
| We're in agreement Camlion. In fact, in the same epistle from which I quoted, Crowley referred to the O.T.O. thus: "This Order is but the first of the great religious bodies to accept this Law officially..." so he did anticipate the eventuality of other fine Thelemic institutions. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
DD |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jul 29, 2008 - 09:42 PM
|
|
Joined: Nov 13, 2007
Posts: 17
Location: Eugene, Oregon, U.S.
Status: Offline
|
|
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
zain if you feel your answers haven't been addressed on this list, then I suggest you learn how to read or perhaps look at the right forum for answers.
4: Collectively there is no agreement amongst Thelemites out there on how to present Thelema to the public.
zain Doesn't your statement here actually provide you with an answer to your questions? That everybody has their own opinion about spreading Thelema, meaning that your view is just as valid as everybody elses. Though you seem to be the only one pushing your view on other people.
In case you missed it the first time:
4: Collectively there is no agreement amongst Thelemites out there on how to present Thelema to the public.
zain If you are able to understand your own writing, then you would see that it is O.K. to agree to disagree and move on. That is unless you are ejoying the attention by baiting this group of people with your supposed limitted view?
With Love and Laughter,
DD
P.S. the_real_simon_iff thanks for the response.
Love is that law, love under will |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
gurugeorge |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jul 29, 2008 - 11:53 PM
|
|
Joined: Apr 13, 2004
Posts: 208
Location: London, UK
Status: Offline
|
|
zain wrote: ›
3: The writing that Crowley gave us, doesnt advocate a widespread evangelising of Thelema. Most of the writing used so far doesnt justify selling Thelema on to a unaware public.
Ooh that's a bit of a strong and rather wrong statement in 3) there methinks. Crowley spent a lot of time trying to evangelise Thelema, and obviously thought it should be evangelised - he was just inept at it.
I think the trouble is that while he has created some foundational materials for a new and wonderful and intellectually satisfying religion, the forms he tried to pour this new wine into are bottles that are too old.
The "secret society" structure that served mysticism and magick well through several hundred years of underground half-life and overground persecution have no attraction any more for the kinds of people out there who are now interested in and hungering for a new, wholesome, intellectually and morally satisfying religion. The OTO structure is not the sort of thing that can carry the weight of a world religion.
The true forms Thelema will take have yet to be discovered - and I think it will always be forms plural rather than form singular.
But there's the rub - they won't be discovered unless Thelema is put out there in whatever grisly old-fashioned form it currently possesses, by its current supporters, barmy as we all are. There still has to be some sustained activity to just get stuff by Crowley and fans and commentators out there. And so long as people aren't presenting their take as authoritative, there's no problem about them presenting their subjective views of it. Some seeds will fall on fertile ground, and they needn't vocally acknowledge Crowley's influence, or call what they're doing Thelema at all. (You can already see some of that in, for example, the tremendous influence Timothy Leary had - he openly acknowledged Crowley's influence on him, but that didn't "register" on the public, nor did it need to. Or again, think of the absolutely crucial bottleneck influence Jack Parsons had on science fiction during the 40s, in having an open house where some key early s-f writers passed through, and think of the HUGE influence s-f has, as the modern mythology par excellence.)
But actually I think in the long run that the main effect of Crowley's (and Germer's and Motta's, imho) work is magickal. Both the symptoms of decay of old forms (especially the reactions from their diehard supporters, fundamentalists of all stripes) and the symptoms of new growth (in movements like "new age", which is constantly learning, and already mutating and growing as we speak, especially with the introduction of Advaitin thought) and in parallel religious movements like neopaganism - the whole slew of new religions - is where Thelema really is at work. IOW, people today are the "magickal children" of AC and his successors, born of their magick opii.
Well, at least that's what I'd believe if I seriously believed in magick 
A more prosaic way of putting it might be simply that AC was an early attuner to the same Zeitgeist. |
_________________
"To wake up is to wake the world up" - D.E. Harding
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
ianrons |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jul 30, 2008 - 12:26 AM
|
|
Joined: Jul 02, 2004
Posts: 684
Location: U.K.
Status: Offline
|
|
Religion is, and always has been, "unionised". This is a natural instinct, and I don't see why it should be discouraged. The following quote expresses it very well:
Life and liberty are threatened everywhere.
We need a watchword and a banner for the battle.
We need a principle on which to reconstruct.
As so:
Do what thou wilt
shall be the whole of the Law.
If you want freedom you must fight for it.
If you want to fight you must organise.
If you want to organise [...]
The world's religions have even until now succeeded in shaping the societies around them. Organisation is the only way for Thelema to influence society in such a way. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Iskandar |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jul 30, 2008 - 01:17 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 14, 2005
Posts: 193
Status: Offline
|
|
I thought these two quotes from the late Romanian historian of religions Ioan Couliano might be illuminating in the context of present discussion.
"We somewhat artificially distinguish among different systems, all of them a flowering of mind. The unexpected conclusion of this cognitive view of religion [i.e. all religions are maps of the human mind] is that a change in the system of religion would immediately affect all other systems that create history, and thus religion actually has an enormous impact on all other human activities." ( The HarperCollins Concise Guide to World Religions, 6-7.)
"The modern West - as Nietzsche foresaw - is assuming the character of a fatal result of the Reformation. But is it also the final result, its lines of development fixed, once and for all, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries?
On this question, my book closes, without daring to express too clearly a hope that may be utopian: that a new Renaissance, a rebirth of the world, may overcome all our neuroses, all conflicts, and all divisions existing between us.
For such a Renaissance to appear a new Reformation must arise, effecting once again a profound modification of the human imagination in order to impress on it other paths and other goals. The only question is whether it will seem friendly and benign to those who experience its upheavals."
(Eros and Magic in the Renaissance, 222-3.)
Needles to say, a new Renaissance in whatever form cannot be brought about by silence and laissez-faire attitude. Perhaps a movement is preferable to an Order as a means to accomplish this task, but on the other hand, perhaps this is an old-Aeon binary opposition that needs not to be maintained. Why not both or as much as possible? The more the merrier. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Camlion |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jul 30, 2008 - 01:26 AM
|
|
Joined: Apr 23, 2004
Posts: 535
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Status: Offline
|
|
ianrons wrote: › Religion is, and always has been, "unionised". This is a natural instinct, and I don't see why it should be discouraged. The following quote expresses it very well:
| | | | |
|
in 1° 
: 
in 15° 
: Anno IVxvi 
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
