| From the Galleries |
1703 pictures in 26 albums
Members' Creations
Sacral Chakra
Last Updated Picture:
'Chinese Dragons' Automatic Drawing by Chris Anthony Wills
|
|
| Statistics |
Site visits since 30 September 2003:
21,499,640
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 |
|
I slept with faith and found a corpse in my arms on awakening; I drank and danced all night with doubt and found her a virgin in the morning.
-- Aleister Crowley
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
daimonos |
|
Post subject:
 Posted: Jul 25, 2008 - 06:29 PM
|
|
Joined: May 24, 2008
Posts: 26
Location: U.K.
Status: Offline
|
|
@zain: And why do people need persuading about Thelema? They dont. Leave them be. Do what thou wilt.
Along with 'convert not', and 'few and secret', there is equally, 'the law is for all' and 'it is the law to give.' You seem unable to grasp that walterfive, patriarch and others' wills is indeed to spread the law. You say, 'Leave them be. Do what thou wilt' when it's exactly their wills not to 'leave them be.' You don't wish to spread the law? That's fine. They do? That's got to be fine as well. |
_________________
93 93/93
Δαιμονος
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
zain |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jul 25, 2008 - 07:50 PM
|
|
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
Posts: 155
Status: Offline
|
|
daimonos i am assuming you will be familar with the book of the law. so can you explain the contradiction of these two quotes and compare them to the evangelical zeal of "aggressive promulgation":
"The study of the book is forbidden. It is wise to destroy this copy after the first reading"
Those who discuss the contents of this book are to be shuned by all, as centres of pestilence"
This is to show that at the best of times Crowley contradicted himself. In that sense i cant see how "spreading the word" or the aggressive promulgation of Thelema can even be coherent. Daimonos do you think you would be able to "spread the word" of Thlelema? And if so how? and how would you know if your understanding of Thelema in its various forms was any more coherent than anyone else's? There is no authority in this. And anyone who claims so will be treated with suspicion by their follow Thelemites. See the problem here? |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Camlion |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jul 25, 2008 - 07:51 PM
|
|
Joined: Apr 23, 2004
Posts: 535
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Status: Offline
|
|
zain wrote: › In Thelema when a person goes to the trouble to pick up a Thelemic book under their own will and seek to decipher it.
Zain,
Once again, who publishes the Thelemic book and why? Because they consider it of some potential value to others? Is this publication not "spreading the Thelemic word?" Do you know what sort of effort goes into properly publishing a Thelemic book? Who (hopefully) acquires permission and then makes such a book available on the Internet, and why? What of people who refer to or discuss the book on the Iinternt? What if one person finds such a book, reads it, and recommends it to another person? Is all of this not "spreading the Thelemic word?"
Your conflict with Walter, (who may indeed have misspoken in the heat of the moment and given you an opportunity to divert from the topic), is indicative of the prevailing undercurrent of hostility among and between Thelemites. The "us against them" paradigm that would be of greater value to Thelema in general if directed toward some threat other than fellow Thelemites.
It is perfectly natural that some Thelemites organize themselves into groups while others refrain from doing so. It is also perfectly natural that some Thelemites discuss Thelema openly while others refrain from doing so. This is determined by the natural inclinations (Will) of the individuals involved. Hostility between those who do and those who don't is ridiculous and is counterproductive to Thelema in general.
Both time and energy are limited commodities among us, and their expenditure should follow some sort of judicious consideration. There are probably battles to be fought in a world where we represent such a minority, but these battles should be more carefully chosen. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Patriarch156 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jul 25, 2008 - 08:29 PM
|
|
Joined: Jun 03, 2005
Posts: 149
Status: Offline
|
|
zain wrote: › This is to show that at the best of times Crowley contradicted himself. In that sense i cant see how "spreading the word" or the aggressive promulgation of Thelema can even be coherent.
This is typical quoting out of context. Did you know that the same period that Crowley received the Tunis comment was also the same period that he particularly ramped up the Promulgation campaign and demanding more of the same from his acolytes. Crowley's interpretation of the Tunis comment is clearly not in line with yours, as he remained an unrepentant promulgator and demanding the same of his acolytes until his death.
Me I don't mind that you don't want to promulgate the law of thelema, hell I don't mind that you think it is a mistake. But it is clear that as long as you do not engage in extremely creative and selective quoting out of context, that Crowley disagreed with you. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Patriarch156 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jul 25, 2008 - 08:35 PM
|
|
Joined: Jun 03, 2005
Posts: 149
Status: Offline
|
|
daimonos wrote: › walterfive, patriarch and others' wills is indeed to spread the law.
I would like to point out that though I do agree with A.C., my contribution in this thread hasn't been to whether or not it is right to promulgate the Law of Thelema, only a concern of historical accuracy as far as what A.C. wanted us to do.
I don't think it is necesarily a bad thing to disagree with A.C., nor do I think it is a bad think of Zain and others to tell us that they think what we are doing is a mistake. I think that is perfectly legitimate in light of section B of Duty.
I only mind when he appeals to the Law of Thelema or Crowley, when in fact what he actually is doing is demanding that his own idiosyncratic and some might even say misinformed take on the same should hold any relevance for other Thelemites as far as settling this discussion goes. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Camlion |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jul 25, 2008 - 08:46 PM
|
|
Joined: Apr 23, 2004
Posts: 535
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Status: Offline
|
|
zain wrote: › This is to show that at the best of times Crowley contradicted himself.
This conclusion is likely without benefit of scholarship. Actually, if we take into account with each example when Crowley was writing, to whom he was writing and from what perspective, many of the apparent contradictions are explained. Crowley's views and understanding evolved over time, his intended audience varied considerably from one example to another, and he was required by circumstance to shift gears with regard to the multiple perspectives available to him, as necessitated by the nature of his Work.
So, please don't blame your own confusion on Crowley, Zain. It seems from what you say that you may be accessing your bookshelves blindfolded and pulling out Crowley quotes at random. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
DD |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jul 25, 2008 - 10:43 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 bang your head against a brick wall long enough, do the colors of the pot and the kettle change so that they look different?
"Thelemites are equal with each other, and its sad that you dont see that because of you egocentric take on things."
As you have said, Thelemites are equal, yet you have put yourself above other Thelemites in a place of judgement as to whether or not people should talk or 'educate' others on Thelema.
"And why do people need persuading about Thelema? They dont. Leave them be. Do what thou wilt. If people are happy with what they have why do they need to be persuaded? Again it comes back to the parallel with control freaks in organised religions who seek to push their own take on whats right and wrong. and from what you have posted you seem to be very similar in this context."
I am confused? Here you seem to making a point that the control freaks are pushing their ideas on others. Are you describing yourself again?
"and how would you know if your understanding of Thelema in its various forms was any more coherent than anyone else's?"
Take a look at this question zain. You want other poeple to ask this of themselves, I would like you to ask this of yourself.
"There is no authority in this. And anyone who claims so will be treated with suspicion by their follow Thelemites. See the problem here?"
Aren't you taking an authoritive position in claiming that no one should teach Thelema? Are you now being treated with suspicion?
zain almost every argument that you make against other people's view is an argument against your own.
I am guessing that most people on this forum accept that you have your own view on Thelema and while people have disagreed with your view, they have not said that it was invalid. (just that some of the points you make are less then valid).
My question is, can you accept that other peoples views are different then yours and that it is O.K.? Isn't that what Thelema is about, that "every man and woman is a star" and follow their own course?
With Love and Laughter,
DD
Love is the law, love under will. |
Last edited by DD on Jul 26, 2008 - 03:32 AM; edited 2 times in total
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Erwin |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jul 25, 2008 - 11:19 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2007
Posts: 314
Status: Offline
|
|
zain wrote: › And why do people need persuading about Thelema? They dont. Leave them be. Do what thou wilt.
Trying to persuade people - by attempting to push your "views" on Thelema onto them - not to persuade people about Thelema; you really couldn't make this kind of stuff up.
You are one deeply conflicted and confused fellow. It's pretty clear that my dog has a better understanding of Thelema than you do, but because you cling to this ridiculous nonsense about everyone's views being equally "valid" and "relevant" in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary it's unlikely you're ever going to see what everyone is pointing out to you.
Erwin |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Camlion |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jul 26, 2008 - 12:49 AM
|
|
Joined: Apr 23, 2004
Posts: 535
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Status: Offline
|
|
Erwin wrote: › zain wrote: › And why do people need persuading about Thelema? They dont. Leave them be. Do what thou wilt.
Trying to persuade people - by attempting to push your "views" on Thelema onto them - not to persuade people about Thelema; you really couldn't make this kind of stuff up.
You are one deeply conflicted and confused fellow. It's pretty clear that my dog has a better understanding of Thelema than you do, but because you cling to this ridiculous nonsense about everyone's views being equally "valid" and "relevant" in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary it's unlikely you're ever going to see what everyone is pointing out to you.
Erwin
You would think that by the words "aggressive promulgation," Patriarch156 meant 'convert or die,' which he did not, I'm sure. With slavery being the voluntary option that it is, no one is forced to accept the mastery of Thelema. However, if they have never learned of the option of Thelema, if they have been denied that choice by such views as those of Zain, then they are possibly condemned to the slavery of their forebearers and the inhabitants of their birth environment. Zain says just "let them be." This seems to me an indefensible position. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
sonofthestar@Gmail.com |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jul 26, 2008 - 03:01 AM
|
|
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.
First, the "unhidden methods" of the promulgation of Thelema are:
1. Making sure the works of 666 are always available, the way he wrote them.
2."Teaching" the rituals, and meditation methods as given, and or modified by 666,
to those having problems understanding, and or performing them..
3.As far as the OTO is concerned:---trying to adhere to the writ given by 666 for its mission, as closely as possible. Remember, if you claim to be the "real and only OTO", and you are going a dramatical different rout than as that outlined for it by 666, than it is another story altogether that needs not be reiterated here. There are more than enough threads about it.
4. If an individual feels up to it, and considers herself, or himself, to be knowledgeable to discourse through lectures, writing, and books--- what they think Thelema means, and is all about, then it is of course their absolute right to do so.
They are not forcing their listeners, and readers---to accept their take on things--as absolute truth;
that would be impossible, would it not? Some will do this in an authoritarian manner, whilst others will do it in a laid back way. What works works. What does not does not.
1 through 4 as listed above, seem amply sufficient to provide anyone having the dedication, to then---Experience Thelema! for themselves.
None of the above methods of promulgation, prevent a person from making their own decisions.
The individuals taking advantage of what the "promulgation of Thelema" has to offer--as listed above,
"are still Teaching themselves" Thelema! through the variety of methods made available.
Love is the law, love under will. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jul 26, 2008 - 04:11 AM
|
|
Joined: Jan 02, 2006
Posts: 205
Location: New York
|
|
I don't believe anyone directly commented on zain's question other than to note that Crowley thought it was important:
Quote: › And why do people need persuading about Thelema?
Why is the proselytization of Thelema important to society or individuals?
What do you think would change if everyone understood and accepted the Law - say tomorrow?
John |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
DD |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jul 26, 2008 - 05:48 AM
|
|
Joined: Nov 13, 2007
Posts: 17
Location: Eugene, Oregon, U.S.
Status: Offline
|
|
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
There has been a lot of discussion about educating, persuading, and proselytization. I think different people have different definitions for these words, so I have copied the definitions below for clarification:
per·suade
1. to prevail on (a person) to do something, as by advising or urging: We could not persuade him to wait.
2. to induce to believe by appealing to reason or understanding; convince: to persuade the judge of the prisoner's innocence.
ed·u·cate
1. to develop the faculties and powers of (a person) by teaching, instruction, or schooling.
2. to qualify by instruction or training for a particular calling, practice, etc.; train: to educate someone for law.
3. to provide schooling or training for; send to school.
4. to develop or train (the ear, taste, etc.): to educate one's palate to appreciate fine food.
5. to inform: to educate oneself about the best course of action.
–verb (used without object) 6. to educate a person or group: A television program that educates can also entertain.
pros·e·lyt·ize
to convert or attempt to convert as a proselyte; recruit.
Now zain has expressed his opinion that no one has the authority to educate anybody else on Thelema, even though to educate simply means "to inform"
zain has asked why do people need persuading? Persuade has two definitions, one that seems imposing and the other appealing to reason. zain would need to clarify which definition he is addressing in order to receive an appropriate response, though I don't believe he would be willing to listen to others as that would be against his view on Thelema. Now people on this list have responded to zain's quesions by quoting Crowley as that seems the only authority that zain might understand.
Why proselytize Thelema? Why recruit for Thelema? Because Crowley said so could be one answer. Another might be that without new people, the 'religion' of Thelema would die out in the next 100 years or less.
What do you think would change if everyone understood and accepted the Law - say tomorrow?
I think that there would be great change, but to speculate would not be productive for the supposed topic of this forum.
With Love and Laughter,
DD
Love is the law, love under will. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Erwin |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jul 26, 2008 - 01:08 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2007
Posts: 314
Status: Offline
|
|
Camlion wrote: › With slavery being the voluntary option that it is, no one is forced to accept the mastery of Thelema. However, if they have never learned of the option of Thelema, if they have been denied that choice by such views as those of Zain, then they are possibly condemned to the slavery of their forebearers and the inhabitants of their birth environment. Zain says just "let them be." This seems to me an indefensible position.
This is going a bit too far. If someone wants to just "let them be" then that's their own business, and a perfectly defensible position. It's the idea that everyone else should be forced to "let them be" just because Zain doesn't like it that the ludicrous one.
Part of the problem here is that Zain's ideas are complete gibberish, so it's difficult to sensibly counter what he's actually saying in its totality. If you look at what he's actually said, apparently it's fine for people to read stuff on the internet, for example. From his comments in this and other threads, it's also clear that he does not consider either The Book of the Law or the writings of Crowley to define Thelema (Grant's writings might be included, for instance, and presumably anyone else's since they're all "just as valid") so it's obvious he doesn't mean it's fine for people to just read Crowley's works on the internet, but to read the works of others, too - including Zain's own, by implication - so apparently "teaching" over the internet is fine, and nobody is going to be "corrupted" by that. Exactly what distinction he's drawing between this and any other kind of "teaching" is unclear.
So when he says that "Thelema should not be taught", it's at least clear that he doesn't mean "Thelema should not be taught" in the way that anyone else would use the English language. What he actually does mean is anybody's guess at this point, if he means anything at all, which I doubt. He could be just posting drunk, for all we know.
Erwin |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Erwin |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jul 26, 2008 - 01:22 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2007
Posts: 314
Status: Offline
|
|
Proteus wrote: › I don't believe anyone directly commented on zain's question other than to note that Crowley thought it was important:
Quote: › And why do people need persuading about Thelema?
It should be obvious for anyone with more than a passing familiarity with the subject. Since "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law" the "need" for anyone else to be persuaded is completely irrelevant. The only people who are relevant to the question "should one or should one not promulgate the law?" are the individuals contemplating the promulgation, since the only relevant factor to take into account is whether or not such promulgation would be in accordance with their wills.
It's purely a question for the individuals involved. Once you start basing actions on what you think other people do or do not need, then you're squarely in the realms of "interference" in the sense used in Duty and abrogating your own will.
Proteus wrote: › Why is the proselytization of Thelema important to society or individuals?
As above, it's not important to society or other individuals, and the question of why it's important to the individuals contemplating doing it is entirely moot - "If Will stops and cries Why, invoking Because, then Will stops & does nought." If it is important to one, then promulgate. If it isn't, then don't. "Why" simply does not come into it.
Proteus wrote: › What do you think would change if everyone understood and accepted the Law - say tomorrow?
A lot more people would understand and accept the Law. Anything else would just be decorative sprinkles.
Erwin |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Camlion |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jul 26, 2008 - 02:53 PM
|
|
Joined: Apr 23, 2004
Posts: 535
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Status: Offline
|
|
Erwin wrote: › Camlion wrote: › With slavery being the voluntary option that it is, no one is forced to accept the mastery of Thelema. However, if they have never learned of the option of Thelema, if they have been denied that choice by such views as those of Zain, then they are possibly condemned to the slavery of their forebearers and the inhabitants of their birth environment. Zain says just "let them be." This seems to me an indefensible position.
This is going a bit too far. If someone wants to just "let them be" then that's their own business, and a perfectly defensible position. It's the idea that everyone else should be forced to "let them be" just because Zain doesn't like it that the ludicrous one.
Erwin, I wrote, "This seems to me an indefensible position." To me, it is. Anyone else is welcome to let them be, as far as I'm concerned, but to do so, for me, would contradict my Will. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Camlion |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jul 26, 2008 - 03:14 PM
|
|
Joined: Apr 23, 2004
Posts: 535
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Status: Offline
|
|
Erwin wrote: › Proteus wrote: › What do you think would change if everyone understood and accepted the Law - say tomorrow?
A lot more people would understand and accept the Law. Anything else would just be decorative sprinkles.
Erwin
Proteus, this happening, "say tomorrow," makes for an interesting fantasy, but it is just that. For example, on one level alone, the erosion of the influence of Judeo-Christian-Islam, which has a tremendous negative influence on the world's population today, must be more gradual than that, in much the same way that it evolved.
But yes, a lot more people will understand and accept the Law. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Erwin |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jul 26, 2008 - 03:21 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2007
Posts: 314
Status: Offline
|
|
Camlion wrote: › Erwin, I wrote, "This seems to me an indefensible position." To me, it is. Anyone else is welcome to let them be, as far as I'm concerned, but to do so, for me, would contradict my Will.
That's not what you wrote. You started off talking about condemning people to the slavery of their forebears, and that the position was "indefensible", by implication for that reason. Now you're saying it would contradict your will if you did it.
Such a thing may contradict your personal sense of propriety if you or anybody else were to do it, or it may contradict your will if you were to do it, or both, but these are two radically different things. Will doesn't need defending, and willed acts do not require justification, so when you were talking about whether or not the position is "indefensible" - as you were - you weren't talking about will.
Defending a position is a rational argument, and the will isn't rational; even arguing that something is "defensible" because it's in accordance with your will would be a mistake if it is that rational position influencing action instead of the will itself (unless you're just using it to point out that "will requires no justification", but that's not what happened here). If someone were to say that "letting them be would condemn them to the slavery of their forebears, and condemning people to the slavery of their forebears would contradict my will, so letting them be would also contradict my will", for instance, then that individual would not have understood what will is and would have fallen straight into the good old "pit called Because". Actions can be in accordance with will, but principles can't. One cannot serve both one's will and one's principles.
Maybe you meant will all along and you just got carried away into trying to justify things and wandered off the point, I don't know, but I can only work with what you actually write, here, not with what you might have otherwise meant.
Erwin |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Uni_Verse |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jul 26, 2008 - 04:59 PM
|
|
Joined: Apr 16, 2007
Posts: 329
Status: Offline
|
|
Although I am all for the spreading of Thelema, I am constantly at odds at how to do it without interjecting my own opinion into the matter.
Can a member of the OTO effectively spread the Thelemic Word without also mentioning the OTO? If not, then they are spreading their Thelemic view, as opposed to the Thelemic Word itself.
The purpose of keeping the books in publication, in my opinion, is to avoid a need to push our views onto other people. Instead, you can say "Yeah, you are interested ? Then check out this book or that book.. " Allowing the person to read and interpret the writings as they see fit.
To me, the personal readings and interpretations of the Holy Books is at the heart of Thelema. You can tell a person there is only one Law, but you cannot tell them how to enact that Law in their daily lives. You cannot tell them what their Will is or how to discover that Will. Just as you cannot tell them what the The Book of the Law is all about. It is a personal journey of discovery.
There is a fine line that is easily crossed, taking it from spreading the Law to spreading your interpretation of it. The majority of people cross the line without even realizing it. I am certainly not innocent of anything. |
_________________
You are missing the point
There is only one verse, sung in inf | | | | |
|
in 1° 
: 
in 16° 
: Anno IVxvi 
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
