| From the Galleries |
2074 pictures in 33 albums
Cefalu
Cefalu 1920
Last Updated Picture:
B.A.B.A.L.O.N.
|
|
| Statistics |
Site visits since 30 September 2003:
32,917,172
Yesterday's visits:
27,846
Registrations:
Today: 0
Yesterday: 2
Overall: 6878
Newest Members:
|
|
| Random Quote |
|
I felt a kind of forlorn sense of being lost
in a world of incredibly stupid and malicious dwarfs...
-- Aleister Crowley
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
asclepio |
|
Post subject:
 Posted: Oct 03, 2007 - 05:13 AM
|
|
Joined: Jun 21, 2006
Posts: 164
Status: Offline
|
|
93
Uni_Verse,
I think I understand what you're saying, which is pretty much what Aum and others have already explained, the forcing of the Will, or better yet it's denial is evil, black magick is evil, I just remembered the LiberAL where we are told that if the ritual is not done unto Nuit, then one must await for the wrathful judgement of Ra-Hoor-Khuit. That just makes a lot of sense (at least for me, I've been focusing on Nuit for a while now).
I liked Zain's post, and I found it amusing  , and when you say this:
Quote: ›
There is no such thing as an "evil" rape for , as you have said there is no "good" rape.
What I had been trying to point out is that the morality of a situation is dependent upon the view of the people involved. If doing action X pleases you, that is fine. But do not force another to do X, instead find someone else who finds pleasure in X.
I think we're all on the same page on that one, it's just that when you say:
Quote: › So, rape, or the act of forcing oneself upon another sexually is not always a "bad" thing. Some women find it intensely arousing when a man forces himself on them DESPITE their complaints other wise. Although the woman has not verbally consented to the act, it is not something that conflicts with her Will.
I can't help but to giggle, no offense, but, in the future, you think it would be prudent not to rape anyone? Maybe I'm at a lost, but if it is consentual, like, for instance, when you know your partner so well that you know that "no" means "yes", and "harder" means "much much harder", it's not rape, nor is it forcing anotherone, BUT, if she/complaints afertwards, then either you misread the signals and she DID have a headache, or you raped her.
Giggle not in the bad sense, I think I know what you mean, it's just that reading about how sometimes it's OK to force anotherone sexually seems so strange. I've never seen that before.
I've you've had sex with someone and she claims that she was raped, it could be that a) she's insane and you made a mistake picking her, or b) you did force yourself, if that's the case I don't think it's healthy.
Quote: › Each person is at their own state of spiritual development. The slave will be a slave because that is their choice.
That doesn't mean we can rape them. If she or he is a slave and you have sex with them, it's your mistake, I know a king may choose his clothing, but it's not healthy to mingle with the weak in that way. Surround yourself with misery and that's where you'll end, if you like women who want to be forced and then claim they've been raped, you're not choosing the best women, they're not exlacty queens are they? And if she did like being forced despite stating the contrary, she has issues
Very interesting post Uni_Verse, yours usually are.
93/93 |
_________________
I:30. This is the creation of the world, that the pain of division is as nothing, and the joy of dissolution all.
http://stores.lulu.com/ohem
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
zain |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 03, 2007 - 08:33 AM
|
|
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
Posts: 172
Status: Offline
|
|
"Rape is not always a bad thing." : Uni Verse
Huh? What planet are you on Uni Verse?
Rape is always a bad thing. Uni Verse you need to withdraw that statement or i am getting the moderator involved in this thread. Any sexual act where there has been no explicit consent is by legal definiton Rape. No ifs or buts. And you are there saying that "its not always a bad thing". Are you condoning the rape of women Uni Verse? Are you suggesting that Lashtal members can get away with rape Uni Verse?
Like i said , nowhere in Crowleys writings or general Thelemic writing suggests what you are saying. You need to withdraw your statement Uni Verse. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
lashtal |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 03, 2007 - 12:25 PM
|
|
Site Admin
Joined: Sep 30, 2003
Posts: 3040
Status: Offline
|
|
Uni_Verse wrote: › Even a rape is not necessarily "evil," as there are some women who fantasize about it happening to them!
As a moderator, I'm in a difficult position with this one...
Your sentence is self-evidently such a crass, stupid thing for someone to have written, 'Uni_Verse', that I can't decide whether or not you're simply demonstrating your command of irony. Or, maybe you've slipped back to the 1970s.
Or, maybe it's just crass and stupid and unlikely to achieve anything but contempt from Members here and shock to casual visitors looking to learn something about Thelema and Crowley.
Until further notice, please submit future posts to me for approval: I'm withdrawing your authority to post without pre-moderation. |
_________________
Editor and Owner
LAShTAL.COM
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Erwin |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 03, 2007 - 12:35 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2007
Posts: 654
Status: Offline
|
|
zain wrote: › Like i said , nowhere in Crowleys writings or general Thelemic writing suggests what you are saying. You need to withdraw your statement Uni Verse.
And that's twice more you've been completely and predictably wrong. From Crowley's new comment to AL I, 41:
"Physical constraint, up to a certain point, is not so seriously wrong; for it has its roots in the original sex-conflict which we see in animals, and has often the effect of exciting Love in his highest and noblest shape. Some of the most passionate and permanent attachments have begun with rape. Rome was actually founded thereon."
There's more, too:
"Similarly, murder of a faithless partner is ethically excusable, in a certain sense; for there may be some stars whose Nature is extreme violence"
There you go, Crowley saying that both rape and murder can be Thelemically "ethically excusable" in his most well-known commentary to the Book of the Law, the existence of which you apparently are not aware. Seems your fluffy "why-can't-we-all-just-get-along" understanding of Crowley and Thelema is not quite as strong as you appear to think it is.
So, are you now going to withdraw your statement, and exercise caution before making such ill-advised and ill-informed statements in the future, or are you going to pipe down and stop being such a drama queen? |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
nashimiron |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 03, 2007 - 12:57 PM
|
|
Joined: Jul 14, 2005
Posts: 296
Location: Innsmouth
Status: Offline
|
|
I think with this "rape is not always a bad thing", what is meant is that simulated rape in a safe environment with someone trusted is not bad because it is consensual and is just acting out a fantasy. But self destructive traits are strong in some peoples personality, usually due to them being damaged some way, and in women this is obviously going to come out as fantasizing about rape. There are also men who go out on Friday nights looking to pick fights with people they don't stand a chance against and they inevitably end up taking a beating.
But any act that forces someone into anything against their will, whether it be rape, marraige or smoking cigarettes is usually going to be evil. Then again, someone who is a bit of a push over and really needs to grow some balls before he can advance spriritually or otherwise might benefit from being forced to drink a bottle of whiskey and smoke a packet of fags so he can get over his withering fear of such things. So maybe that word relativity does deserve a place in the Thelemic dictionary.
As for Crowley condoning rape and murder - your not supposed to just passively accept everything he writes. Your supposed to be challenged by it and maybe even outraged by it. Taking statements like the one quoted above at face value is a recipe for disaster. I think the bit about Rome being founded on rape should be a clue that he's expecting some sort of response other than dumb acceptance. |
_________________
I fell off the Qliphothic tree and hit every branch on the way down...
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Erwin |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 03, 2007 - 01:05 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2007
Posts: 654
Status: Offline
|
|
nashimiron wrote: › As for Crowley condoning rape and murder - your not supposed to just passively accept everything he writes. Your supposed to be challenged by it and maybe even outraged by it.
As you say, it is indeed true that nobody is under any obligation to accept the Law of Thelema if the implications of doing so "outrage" their precious moral beliefs and "challenge" them beyond their capacity to accept the simple facts of nature. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
nashimiron |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 03, 2007 - 01:44 PM
|
|
Joined: Jul 14, 2005
Posts: 296
Location: Innsmouth
Status: Offline
|
|
There are no simple facts of nature which suggest that human beings are inclined towards rape. Even in other species like cats where the mating activity looks unbelievably brutal the females are still consenting and allowing the males to mate with them and they fight off the males they don't fancy.
I had thought that maybe in cave man times the males would simply take the females they wanted and "rape" them, but when you consider our close relatives in the primate species even they don't seem to be all that bad. Although sometimes they are quite brutal the more refined types like the Bonobo monkeys show real tenderness towards some of their partners. And they use sex in so many ways as social interaction that for them it's already getting quite complicated.
And "murder of a faithless partner"? what about
"take your fill and will of love as ye will, when, where, and with whom ye will."
and
"O lover, if thou wilt, depart"
and Liber Oz rounds off with
"Man has the right to kill those who would thwart these rights."
- which suggests it would be more right to kill a partner who stops you from being unfaithful that to kill an unfaithful partner! 
If accepting the Law of Thelema doesn't outrage your moral beliefs and challenge your world view then it hasn't really sunk in. Liber AL should challenge you greatly, it's not supposed to be a walk in the park. |
_________________
I fell off the Qliphothic tree and hit every branch on the way down...
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Erwin |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 03, 2007 - 02:14 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2007
Posts: 654
Status: Offline
|
|
nashimiron wrote: › There are no simple facts of nature which suggest that human beings are inclined towards rape.
Neither do there need to be. It only takes one human being to be - genuinely - inclined towards rape, and there exists a Thelemic justification for doing it.
The "simple facts of nature" to which I was referring is the fact that moral qualities simply do not exist in it, outside of the imagination. You can come up with any number of arguments that rape or anything else is "generally unnatural", "unacceptable to society", "illegal" or such, but this doesn't get you any closer to being able to classify it as "wrong", or "bad", or "evil", which was one of Zain's "arguments". And because moral qualities do not objectively exist in nature, you're never going to get close to being able to do this without just making up a lot of silly shit.
The Law of Thelema requires action to be in accordance with only one thing - one's own true nature. The extent to which an act is "generally" natural to other people or species, or the extent to which it is sanctioned by society, is completely irrelevant, except insofar as the individual needs to take into account the way in which the likely consequences of his actions are liable to help or hinder the fulfillment of his will. If it truly was in his nature to rape, for instance, and he didn't give a hoot if he had to suffer a few years in jail in order to be able to do it, then such a course of action may be perfectly in compliance with the Law of Thelema. The fact that you or anybody else might not like it has no bearing on the matter.
nashimiron wrote: › I had thought that maybe in cave man times the males would simply take the females they wanted and "rape" them, but when you consider our close relatives in the primate species even they don't seem to be all that bad. Although sometimes they are quite brutal the more refined types like the Bonobo monkeys show real tenderness towards some of their partners. And they use sex in so many ways as social interaction that for them it's already getting quite complicated.
This is meaningless jibber-jabber. There are plenty of examples in nature when animals kill each other, same species or not. Unless you want to argue that rape is a more serious crime than murder, this line of inquiry isn't going to help your argument any.
nashimiron wrote: › And "murder of a faithless partner"? what about
"take your fill and will of love as ye will, when, where, and with whom ye will."
and
"O lover, if thou wilt, depart"
What about them? Both these quotes deal with the importance of doing one's own will regardless of the will of others. The first says "take your fill and will of love" in accordance with your own will, regardless of the social niceties that others might seek to impose on you. The second says "leave your lover once you're done" if you are ready to regardless of whether said lover really, really wants you to stay.
The context of the "murder of a faithless partner" quote was that of a star whose "Nature is extreme violence", that is, it his nature - and, accordingly, his will - to kill. The "faithless" part is illustrative, but not definitive; you could replace it with any other qualifier you liked, or none at all.
"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law". This is given entirely in the second person. There is nothing in the Book of the Law which suggests conflicting with the will of another is in any way problematic; on the contrary, it goes out of its way to state the exact opposite in many places. Interfering with the will of another is sanctioned, but this is not because there is a conflict, it is because in order to "interfere" one has to turn away from one's own will for a while. "Conflict" and "interference" are not the same thing.
nashimiron wrote: › and Liber Oz rounds off with
"Man has the right to kill those who would thwart these rights."
But notably doesn't give man the ability to do so.
nashimiron wrote: › - which suggests it would be more right to kill a partner who stops you from being unfaithful that to kill an unfaithful partner!
Unfortunately for your argument, Liber OZ can be used to justify anything if you interpret it like this. As an elementary example, Liber OZ appears to grant man the "right to love as he will", and the "right to kill those who would thwart these rights". Therefore, if an individual wishes to love another individual, and that individual resists, then your interpretation of Liber OZ gives him the right not only to rape her, but to kill her for resisting. Q.E.D.
Liber OZ does not "grant rights"; it lists the freedoms available to anyone who has the ability to enforce them and the willingness to discard their belief in absolute morality:
"this is the law of the strong: this is our law and the joy of the world." - AL II, 21
"There are much deeper considerations in which it appears that ‘Everything that is, is right’. They are set forth elsewhere; we can only summarise them here by saying that the survival of the fittest is their upshot." — Magick in Theory and Practice, Chapter I
nashimiron wrote: › If accepting the Law of Thelema doesn't outrage your moral beliefs and challenge your world view then it hasn't really sunk in.
Not everybody has highly structured moral beliefs to begin with. Beware of making the assumption that everybody else thinks like you, or that there's something "wrong" with them if they don't.
nashimiron wrote: › Liber AL should challenge you greatly, it's not supposed to be a walk in the park.
It's only a challenge until you understand and accept it. As long as the moral implications continue to challenge you, you haven't really grasped what it's about. Once you apprehend your moral beliefs as the self-imposed mental prison that they are, the Book will begin to make a lot more sense to you, many of the apparent contradictions in it will be resolved, and you'll start to grasp the real nature of the liberty it promises.
This subject is examined in more depth in my essay The Ethics of Thelema, if anybody is interested. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
lashtal |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 03, 2007 - 02:30 PM
|
|
Site Admin
Joined: Sep 30, 2003
Posts: 3040
Status: Offline
|
|
Thanks for a genuinely interesting and intellligent post, Erwin.
One slight concern: you state that "it his nature - and, accordingly, his will". It seems to me to be excessively simplistic to suggest one as a synonym of the other. |
_________________
Editor and Owner
LAShTAL.COM
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Erwin |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 03, 2007 - 02:54 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2007
Posts: 654
Status: Offline
|
|
lashtal wrote: › Thanks for a genuinely interesting and intellligent post, Erwin.
You're welcome.
lashtal wrote: › One slight concern: you state that "it his nature - and, accordingly, his will". It seems to me to be excessively simplistic to suggest one as a synonym of the other.
This all depends on how simplistically you want to define both "nature" and "will".
An an illustrative example, it is the "nature" of a pole of a magnet to enjoy the company of its colleague on the other pole, and it is also its "nature" to despise the company of poles like itself. Its "will", which we can observe through its action, is therefore to move towards opposite poles, and to move away from similar poles.
In this sense, "will" and "nature" are simply two sides of the same coin; one is "active", the other "passive". "Will" is a tendency to action, and this tendency is defined entirely by the nature of the object doing the acting, since its interactions arise from its own nature in conjunction with the natures of the other things in its environment. Similarly, we can infer the nature of an object by observing how it interacts with other objects, just like we inferred that it was the nature of our magnetic pole to enjoy the company of its complement.
For those still not convinced, if it is not the nature of the individual that determines his will when interacting with his environment, I'd be interested to hear what else might be.
However, if you want to take a more simplistic view, for instance saying that it is "natural" for man to break wind, then you are perfectly correct in saying that this does not imply it is one's true will to fart incessantly at each and every opportunity.
If, on the other hand, you are thinking along the lines that the "will" is some kind of "higher purpose" that allows man to "transcend his animal urges", then I'm going to have to disagree with you. "Nature" in the way I employ the term includes all his characteristics, not just the ones that may be considered "animal". There is no a priori reason to consider some of those qualities to be "higher", "more noble", or "more meritous" than any of the others, for the precise reason I gave: moral qualities are imaginary. If it genuinely is the true will of a man to, for instance, "rise above" his animal urges and live a life of peaceful asceticism, then I'm saying it is part of his nature to do that, and that he's not "rising above" his nature at all. There may be conflicting qualities within the being of a man; his nature is reflected in the way he balances them. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
zain |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 03, 2007 - 02:55 PM
|
|
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
Posts: 172
Status: Offline
|
|
An act of Rape is not a Thelemic act. It is an uncontrollable act/violation that lacks any willpower. A lack of control. A corruption. Erwin all you have done is again taken Crowleys words out of context (Again) to fit your distorted view on Thelema. And a sick view at that one. If we go by your unorthodox criteria then its ok for you to rape?
So i need to ask you has well Erwin are you saying the act of rape/sexual violation is ok? Putting aside you "unique" take on Thelema are you really saying that a woman welcomes rape?
Think carefully Erwin. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
nashimiron |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 03, 2007 - 03:20 PM
|
|
Joined: Jul 14, 2005
Posts: 296
Location: Innsmouth
Status: Offline
|
|
Interpreting the True Will as being no more than the nature of the individual in his / her current incarnation is the fundamental mistake people outside of Thelema make when reading The Book of the Law. The Higher Self is nothing if it does not transcend the animal nature.
In the Herb Dangerous Crowley quotes Zoroaster:
"Invoke not the visible Image of the Soul of Nature.”
“Look not upon Nature, for her name is fatal.”
If the adept is led astray by taking nature at face value and mistaking a passing whim or even a deeply ingrained complex for the True Will, then that adpet will fail.
The whole process of discovering the True Will is about dissecting ones nature and seeing it as symptoms of the Will, but not the Will itself. |
_________________
I fell off the Qliphothic tree and hit every branch on the way down...
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Erwin |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 03, 2007 - 03:32 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2007
Posts: 654
Status: Offline
|
|
zain wrote: › An act of Rape is not a Thelemic act.
So you keep saying. The unfortunate fact for you, however, is that there are no acts which are absolutely "Thelemic" or "Unthelemic", no matter how much you want to believe there are. It all comes down to will, and will is individual.
zain wrote: › It is an uncontrollable act/violation that lacks any willpower. A lack of control. A corruption.
So you believe.
zain wrote: › Erwin all you have done is again taken Crowleys words out of context (Again)
Really? Then I'm sure you'll be able to provide us with the "correct" context, won't you, as opposed to just making baseless claims like this?
zain wrote: › to fit your distorted view on Thelema. And a sick view at that one. If we go by your unorthodox criteria then its ok for you to rape?
You're way out of your depth here, Zain. Your mind simply isn't able to comprehend what I'm saying. That's why you reject the parts of Crowley's writings - and the parts of the Book of the Law - that you don't personally find agreeable, and spend your time pretending that the mess of conflicting nonsense you're left with has anything to do with Thelema.
"ok" is a measure of social acceptability. In the current society we live in, it is not generally considered to be acceptable, which is the reason why it's illegal pretty much everywhere.
However, "social acceptability" is completely unconnected with the concept of absolute morality. Since moral qualities are imaginary, it is not objectively "wrong" to rape, and it is not objectively "right" to rape, either. Moral statements contain no truth value. At all. Your argument is fruitless and empty, as usual. You think the louder you shout, and the more emotive you try to make your statements, the more correct you are going to be. You are mistaken.
zain wrote: › So i need to ask you has well Erwin are you saying the act of rape/sexual violation is ok?
See above.
zain wrote: › Putting aside you "unique" take on Thelema are you really saying that a woman welcomes rape?
Whether or not the woman welcomes it is entirely irrelevant to whether it's "right" or "wrong", and it is entirely irrelevant to whether it could, in some situations, be in accordance with the Law of Thelema. You are confusing the issue again, because you really don't understand what the issue is, here. You just see the word "rape" and run screaming, frothing at the mouth and pawing at the air. This isn't a sensible way to approach such questions.
I'll restate, in case you missed it. It is entirely possible - although probably relatively rare - for an act of rape to be fully in compliance with the Law of Thelema, and that fact that the woman doesn't welcome it, or that it might conflict with her own will, is entirely irrelevant to this question. The only question relevant to the Law of Thelema is whether or not the act in question is in conformity with the will of the person carrying it out.
You can make a statement that it couldn't possibly really be someone's will to commit rape, if you wanted, but you'd be talking out of your ass if you did. Someone else's will is their business.
zain wrote: › Think carefully Erwin.
Suggest you take your own advice. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Aum418 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 03, 2007 - 03:37 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 01, 2006
Posts: 812
Status: Offline
|
|
lashtal wrote: › Thanks for a genuinely interesting and intellligent post, Erwin.
One slight concern: you state that "it his nature - and, accordingly, his will". It seems to me to be excessively simplistic to suggest one as a synonym of the other.
I disagree, Paul.
For example, Crowley writes in the intro to Liber AL: 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 is saying "under will" = "fulfilling... not thwarting... the true nature of the being concerned." This is one example of many.
Hi Erwin! :wave: Ye dareth emerge from yonder darkness?
65 & 210,
111-418 |
_________________
.: http://iao131.cjb.net :.
-~: The Journal of Thelemic Studies :~-
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Erwin |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 03, 2007 - 03:40 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2007
Posts: 654
Status: Offline
|
|
nashimiron wrote: › Interpreting the True Will as being no more than the nature of the individual in his / her current incarnation is the fundamental mistake people outside of Thelema make when reading The Book of the Law. The Higher Self is nothing if it does not transcend the animal nature.
Ironic, really, since the "Higher Self" is nothing. What you are describing is the fundamental mistake people inside of Thelema make. You are confusing the Golden Dawn and its predecessors with Thelema.
"that is why I have insisted rather heavily that the term 'Higher Self' implies 'a damnable heresy and a dangerous delusion.'" - Crowley, Magick Without Tears
"It is a lie, this folly against self." AL II, 22
"I am alone: there is no God where I am." AL II, 23
The concept of "Higher Self" is absent from the Book of the Law, and, like moral qualities, is entirely imaginary in its own right. Feel free to demonstrate otherwise, if you disagree. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
the_real_simon_iff |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 03, 2007 - 03:41 PM
|
|
Joined: Nov 07, 2003
Posts: 766
Location: Munick / Germany
Status: Offline
|
|
93!
Some people here seem to have finally found the solution how to determine WHAT the True Will is. All this babbling about some alleged Thelemite to whom murder is his True Will and such he is welcome to do so (but, wait, only if he is also willing to take the consequences) sounds really ridiculous to me. And women whose True Will is is to be raped sometimes? Come on. This just sounds like power fantasies to me: We are Thelemites - we are Gods - we can do anything - it is our Will! Who decides what the True Will is? How can we recognize a True Will murderer? Isn't that all a bit theoretical?
I think you both did not see what in my opinion is the most important part of the Crowley quote referring to murdering a faithless partner: "Similarly, murder of a faithless partner is ethically excusable, IN A CERTAIN SENSE; for there may be some stars whose Nature is extreme violence". I can see nothing in there that says something about the Will. I learned that "human nature" is not a fixed thing. It is altered by countless circumstances during the years. To think of someone of a certain nature, does not sound very much like free will to me. It sounds like surrendering to the circumstances. I think the True Will is something different. The way you use it, it sounds like fate.
You don't have to be a Thelemite to see that the concept of good and evil is just a concept, a convention, an imprinting, nothing more. Trying to understand these imprintings and maybe overcoming them and by that becoming maybe more than "ordinary human" and then finding your (or THE) True Will will eventually lead you to Joy, Love and Leaping Laughter (check your BOTL, Love and Joy can be found pretty often in there) - and if you are then still thinking about rape and murder, maybe you should start all over again (in a certain sense).
Please bear in mind that these are my opinions. I will probably find as much Crowley quotes to support them as you may find quotes against them. Murder and rape are brutal attacks against Stars (in a certain sense). Period. But they happen. Nothing Thelemic about it (in a certain sense). Lots of good Christians love to play the "rape game" once in a while.
Love=Law
Lutz
P.S. I have forgotten who is the exact "you" I am adressing in my post. But I think those "you's" will know... |
_________________
"With my Hawk's head I am eyeing the pecker of Jesus as he hangs upon the cross."
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Erwin |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 03, 2007 - 03:42 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2007
Posts: 654
Status: Offline
|
|
Aum418 wrote: › Hi Erwin! :wave: Ye dareth emerge from yonder darkness?
I couldn't let "nowhere in Crowleys writings or general Thelemic writing suggests what you are saying" go unchallenged, and after waiting a while nobody else seemed knowledgable or brave enough to challenge it, so I've temporarily come out of Lashtal retirement. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Erwin |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 03, 2007 - 03:47 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2007
Posts: 654
Status: Offline
|
|
the_real_simon_iff wrote: › I think you both did not see
I think you are mistaken, as you will see.
the_real_simon_iff wrote: › what in my opinion is the most important part of the Crowley quote referring to murdering a faithless partner: "Similarly, murder of a faithless partner is ethically excusable, IN A CERTAIN SENSE; for there may be some stars whose Nature is extreme violence".
It has to be "in a certain sense" for two reasons. Firstly, it's only excusable in the sense that it is in conformity with will, which we can presume will be rare. Secondly, and more importantly, since "There are no 'standards of Right'. Ethics is balderdash. Each Star must go on its own orbit. To hell with 'moral principle'; there is no such thing" from the same document as that original quote came from, all things which are "ethically excusable" are only so "in a certain sense", since there are no fixed ethical principles against which to excuse them in the first place.
EDIT: Responding to this, too:
the_real_simon_iff wrote: › Who decides what the True Will is?
The individual in question.
the_real_simon_iff wrote: › How can we recognize a True Will murderer?
Why would we want to? Whether or not the murder is in conformity with his true will is entirely irrelevant to anybody except for the individual himself. If it is the true will of others to try and punish him for it, then they are at liberty to do. There is nothing to suggest that the Law of Thelema does or should coincide with the temporal law of the society the individual finds himself in. Opposition to his actions, legal or otherwise, is just part of the circumstances he needs to navigate in order to fulfill his will. |
Last edited by Erwin on Oct 03, 2007 - 04:13 PM; edited 1 time in total
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Aum418 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 03, 2007 - 04:09 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 01, 2006
Posts: 812
Status: Offline
|
|
Erwin wrote: › Aum418 wrote: › Hi Erwin! :wave: Ye dareth emerge from yonder darkness?
I couldn't let "nowhere in Crowleys writings or general Thelemic writing suggests what you are saying" go unchallenged, and after waiting a while nobody else seemed knowledgable or brave enough to challenge it, so I've temporarily come out of Lashtal retirement.
Nothing like a challenge to bring the gladiators from their den. |
_________________
.: http://iao131.cjb.net :.
-~: The Journal of Thelemic Studies :~-
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
nashimiron |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 03, 2007 - 04:13 PM
|
|
Joined: Jul 14, 2005
Posts: 296
Location: Innsmouth
Status: Offline
|
|
If you believe it is your True Will to carry out any act you should in any case be asking "to what end?". To do your Will you have to discover what it is. Your "nature" is as already said a changeable thing, True Will is not.
It's hard to imagine a definition of True Will that makes Will be determined by nature, as True Will is supposed to be something that originates before nature. Therefore as you get an idea of what your True Will is you realise there are parts of your nature that are in conflict with it and need to be reduced. Things such as laziness, tendency towards excess, whatever seems contrary to your Will. It is true though that you have to rise above morality to determine what parts of yourself are helpful in the Great work and which are not.
If it is someones will to commit murder, and they genuinely have only been born to commit murder then I guess they have to go out and murder. But it's hard to see that someones entire destiny, perhaps even through countless reincarnations will resolve itsef around them roaming the streets killing people. |
_________________
I fell off the Qliphothic tree and hit every branch on the way down...
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
the_real_simon_iff |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 03, 2007 - 04:16 PM
|
|
Joined: Nov 07, 2003
Posts: 766
Location: Munick / Germany
Status: Offline
|
|
93, Erwin!
I don't feel I am mistaken. I did not say anything about a "moral principle". Anyway, even in the longer quote I can see nothing about the Will. Of course, in a certain sense, everything is "in a certain sense". That's what I am talking about. Why fabulate of some "True Will to murder"? Overcoming moral principles ("Let there be made no difference between any one thing and another") is not the antonym of "moral principles", which is simply "anti-moral principles". I am aware that there is a school of thought who thinks that this "shock therapy" is a good way to get rid of the "lust for results", but I don't like it and I think there are other ways. Anyway, to presume that there is someone whose True Will is to murder, makes it legitimate to presume thet there is someone whose True Will is to kill all Thelemites who found their True Will, or someone whose True Will is to murder all left-handed people or people of different races or whatever. Since this brings us into the realm theoretical, meaningless noise, why not concentrate on the real meaning of True Will. There must be more about it than "everything that is, is right", must it not? Especially since "right" is one of those damned "moral priciples"....
Love=Law
Lutz |
_________________
"With my Hawk's head I am eyeing the pecker of Jesus as he hangs upon the cross."
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Aum418 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 03, 2007 - 04:37 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 01, 2006
Posts: 812
Status: Offline
|
|
Quote: › There must be more about it than "everything that is, is right", must it not? Especially since "right" is one of those damned "moral priciples"....
I disagree on several points. This is not a moral "right" that hes talking about. On a certain plane, all acts are lawful and necessary but on the normal practical plane, we have the duty to perform acts of "love under will," which demands of us to find our true nature/will and fulfill it. |
_________________
.: http://iao131.cjb.net :.
-~: The Journal of Thelemic Studies :~-
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Erwin |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 03, 2007 - 05:05 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2007
Posts: 654
Status: Offline
|
|
the_real_simon_iff wrote: › I don't feel I am mistaken. I did not say anything about a "moral principle".
You might not have said it, but you implied it.
the_real_simon_iff wrote: › Why fabulate of some "True Will to murder"?
Because the question here is whether or not it could be Thelemic to rape or murder, and in Thelema such questions are answered with respect to the will. How else do you propose we answer them? Would you rather we just avoid the questions altogether?
the_real_simon_iff wrote: › I am aware that there is a school of thought who thinks that this "shock therapy" is a good way to get rid of the "lust for results", but I don't like it and I think there are other ways.
See, not everybody thinks this is "shock therapy". From my point of view, there is nothing remotely controversial in discussing these sorts of views, since the truth of them is so obvious. Not everybody is horrified or shocked at the thought of what many consider to be "immoral" acts.
These answers are real answers, they are not being made purely for effect. What I am describing are the facts of the matter according to the Book of the Law.
the_real_simon_iff wrote: › Anyway, to presume that there is someone whose True Will is to murder, makes it legitimate to presume thet there is someone whose True Will is to kill all Thelemites who found their True Will, or someone whose True Will is to murder all left-handed people or people of different races or whatever.
It doesn't make it legitimate to "presume that there is someone whose True Will" is to do those things at all, but it does certainly make it legitimate to assume that such people may exist. And it is necessary to do so in order to understand the Law of Thelema operating at its extremes, and that is necessary to understand it at all, since it is only at the extremes that its nature becomes highly visible.
the_real_simon_iff wrote: › Since this brings us into the realm theoretical, meaningless noise, why not concentrate on the real meaning of True Will.
An excellent and practical scheme, and one which I would wholeheartedly support. How about telling us what you think the real meaning of True Will is, so we can discuss it? I've already given my views in a previous thread, to which I can refer you if needed.
the_real_simon_iff wrote: › There must be more about it than "everything that is, is right", must it not?
Not necessarily, but it certainly can be useful to adopt a working definition that goes beyond that. As I have said, the true will means different things on different planes, which is true of many other more mundane concepts too.
the_real_simon_iff wrote: › Especially since "right" is one of those damned "moral priciples"....
This is just a defect of language. To say that "Everything that is, is right" is just another way of saying "there is no such thing as right or wrong". |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
zain |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 03, 2007 - 05:09 PM
|
|
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
Posts: 172
Status: Offline
|
|
Erwin Can you clarify so i am not misunderstanding you? Do you think its ok to rape? My issue is not a case of good or evil or whether or not "i reject" Crowleys writings. It is a case of you who seems to be suggesting that rape is a neutral act. This is a ludicrous propostion. It is a case of a person who cant control themselves and seeks to violate another human being for their own base gratification. This is so far removed from the principle of will on equal terms with divine love in the 93 formula of Agape/Telema. So under your terms Erwin, rape is an act of divnine love? Thats just plain sick. Ludicrous.
The principles of Thelema do not condone rape or unwanted violation. And for you to suggest that Erwin suggests you have problems. Taking Crowleys writng out of context to suggest rape is a form of Agape/love is just ludicrous.
So i again i ask you , do you condone rape Erwin? |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Erwin |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 03, 2007 - 05:16 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2007
Posts: 654
Status: Offline
|
|
nashimiron wrote: › If you believe it is your True Will to carry out any act you should in any case be asking "to what end?".
For the end of doing your will. Because you're the kind of individual who happens to be particularly suited to carrying out that kind of act, because that kind of act is natural to you. No other consideration is necessary. I refer you to AL I, 44.
nashimiron wrote: › To do your Will you have to discover what it is. Your "nature" is as already said a changeable thing, True Will is not.
Utter rot. If it is my true will to eat this cake, and I eat it, then clearly it can't be my true will to eat it anymore, since it's gone. The will changes all the time. Change, indeed, is its very nature.
nashimiron wrote: › It's hard to imagine a definition of True Will that makes Will be determined by nature, as True Will is supposed to be something that originates before nature.
"Originates before nature"? Where do you think the will comes from, then? Some "god" who's wholly apart from nature? Or somewhere else? It sounds like you are romanticising the concept, to me.
nashimiron wrote: › Therefore as you get an idea of what your True Will is you realise there are parts of your nature that are in conflict with it and need to be reduced. Things such as laziness, tendency towards excess, whatever seems contrary to your Will. It is true though that you have to rise above morality to determine what parts of yourself are helpful in the Great work and which are not.
There are certainly parts of the being that will not always work in harmony, and these conflicts of interest have to be managed by the self. What you describe as "laziness" might indeed seem "contrary to your Will", but then again, a marked reluctance to get up and do a particular thing might also be a sign that you're barking up the complete wrong tree, and that what you think is your true will is something else entirely. If the work you are trying to do seems unnatural or distasteful to you, there's a good chance that it isn't your will to do it. The will is something you do because that's what you thrive on doing, not something that you have to talk yourself into doing because you think you "should".
Figuring all this stuff out is what the "great work" is really about, and this is the prime reason why starting from an assumption that certain things are "virtuous" in themselves (like the commonly held assumption that one should by right just 'get on with the work' of yoga and ceremonial magick) can throw you off the track for years, perhaps permanently, because these assumptions will colour and distort your perceptions and prevent you from seeing clearly. The deeper question of "moral qualities" has far wider implications than simple questions of "good" and "evil".
nashimiron wrote: › If it is someones will to commit murder, and they genuinely have only been born to commit murder then I guess they have to go out and murder. But it's hard to see that someones entire destiny, perhaps even through countless reincarnations will resolve itsef around them roaming the streets killing people.
It doesn't have to be "only". Killing someone might take seconds in a life otherwise free from murder. The true will is not some single overarching goal to achieve, it's something that manifests on a moment-to-moment basis. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
sonofthestar |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 03, 2007 - 05:31 PM
|
|
Joined: Jul 14, 2005
Posts: 355
Location: The United States of America
Status: Offline
|
|
Do what thu wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
The Nazis had great academic and technological knowledge, and yet they were savages and brutes---without any sense of mans innate divinity and worth. They lacked “WISDOM”!
So although academic knowledge is the antidote to the so called “evils” of cancer, and other such things that trouble man,---Wisdom---(which I thoroughly equate with Thelema) is the coup de grace in dealing with such greater troubles as have been broached concerning what is and is not ethical---and what is or is not “Thelemic”.
Some men may be incapable of becoming anything other than savages and brutes, if that is their particular “true natures“---but on the whole I always thought that the method most grand was to rise above such states; Thelema providing the ultimately workable methods of bringing about the wisdom necessary to manifest the true will and nature of not only man the individual---but also that of “man the species” --which should not be anything less ---than acts and expressions of will of the most glorious kind , once that will is discovered and finally implementable. There are of course splendid acts of true will that on the surface seem quite the contrary to the majority---but the wisdom of the initiated adept should be quite adequate to discern if the fruits of another’s actions are glorious in their splendor (however seemingly cruel)---or acts of mindless brutality. On the whole, the actions of individuals expressing themselves once having discovered their true will is indeed something glorious--each according to capacities and talents--and the effort put into their perfecting of those capacities and talents.
The true will to me is the uttermost expression of one’s true nature/self and divine birthright---I cannot fathom it personally as having anything to do with some base and brutish actions---such as that of imposing anything at all suggestive of such brutalities, upon any particular woman, or women/ man, or men.
Love is the law, love under will. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Erwin |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 03, 2007 - 05:42 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2007
Posts: 654
Status: Offline
|
|
zain wrote: › Erwin Can you clarify so i am not misunderstanding you?
I don't know if I can be any clearer than I already have, but I'll certainly give it a try, because I'm nice like that.
zain wrote: › Do you think its ok to rape?
We've been through this already. "OK" is a measure of social acceptability, and our current society does not view rape as being acceptable, so in that sense, it is not "ok to rape".
But, as I said, it is not objectively "wrong" to rape, and it is not necessarily "unthelemic", either, although in most cases it probably will be.
zain wrote: › My issue is not a case of good or evil or whether or not "i reject" Crowleys writings. It is a case of you who seems to be suggesting that rape is a neutral act.
Depends what you mean by "neutral". The act of rape, by itself, has no moral or ethical significance whatsoever, since moral qualities are purely imaginary. So, in that sense, you could say it is a "morally neutral" act since all acts are "morally neutral".
In the scheme of things, by any standard rape is a far less severe act than someone, for instance, cutting your arm off, or poking your eyes out, so let's keep things in perspective, here. People only make a big deal of it because even now, in 2007, society suffers from an absolutely incredible degree of morbid hysteria on the subject of sex. Particularly in the USA, the general consensus appears to be that society values a woman's chastity more than it values her life, as evidenced by the frequent attempts to make rape a capital offence and hence to provide the rapist with the perfect excuse to murder his victim - and, incidentally, the only witness - too. If that kind of view accords with your idea of "civilised society", that's your prerogative.
zain wrote: › This is a ludicrous propostion. It is a case of a person who cant control themselves and seeks to violate another human being for their own base gratification.
Maybe. That might be exactly what their will is. The fact that you disapprove of it, and that you think it's ludicrous, has no bearing on the question.
zain wrote: › This is so far removed from the principle of will on equal terms with divine love in the 93 formula of Agape/Telema. So under your terms Erwin, rape is an act of divnine love? Thats just plain sick. Ludicrous.
The probably you are suffering here, Zain, is that your understanding of Thelema is exceedingly poor, matched only by your pitiful powers of analysis and debate. You've demonstrated this here on many occasions with your many rambling, aimless, and outright weird posts.
Thelema has nothing to do with "divine love". Nothing at all. The word "agape" does not appear in the Book of the Law, and neither does the number 93. Love, in the Thelemic sense, is the expansion of the self through union in the form of experience. It has nothing to do with hippies, Jesus, or pretty little bunnies playing happily in fields of sunflowers.
zain wrote: › The principles of Thelema do not condone rape or unwanted violation.
If such things are in accordance with the will of the individual in question, then Thelema not only condones it, but demands it. You may not believe it's in accordance with their will, but as I told you, that's just idle speculation on your part. Worrying about their will is certainly not something that's in accordance with yours, I can tell you that much.
Of course, like I've said, nobody, including you, is under any obligation to accept the Law of Thelema. If it upsets you so much, just stop pretending to be a Thelemite, there's no shame in it.
zain wrote: › And for you to suggest that Erwin suggests you have problems.
Problems getting simple concepts through your thick skull, yes.
zain wrote: › Taking Crowleys writng out of context to suggest rape is a form of Agape/love is just ludicrous.
Your predictable failure to supply an alternative context is duly noted.
zain wrote: › So i again i ask you , do you condone rape Erwin?
For starters, you're not "asking me again", since you never asked me this the first time, but I'll indulge your curiosity despite your morass of inaccuracies.
I'll tell you again, since you appear to be having extreme problems grasping this. I do not "condone" any action, neither do I "condemn" any action, because I consider moral statements to have no truth value and moral qualities to have no real existence, so I have absolutely no basis for "condoning" or "condemning" anything.
If somebody wants to commit rape, that's their affair. It only becomes my business when it affects my will, and in that eventuality, I couldn't care two figs what the other guy wants or what his justifications are, since if it comes down to my will or his, mine is going to win one way or another. If he's not conflicting with my will, then as far as I'm concerned he can do what he likes, and good luck to him. If other people want to try and punish him for it, they can do what they like too. I would quite simply be uninterested in the entire affair, since it's of no concern to me. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Erwin |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 03, 2007 - 05:48 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2007
Posts: 654
Status: Offline
|
|
sonofthestar@Gmail.com wrote: › The true will to me is the uttermost expression of one’s true nature/self and divine birthright---I cannot fathom it personally as having anything to do with some base and brutish actions---such as that of imposing anything at all suggestive of such brutalities, upon any particular woman, or women/ man, or men.
Maybe you can't fathom it, but to risk belaboring a point, whether you can or cannot fathom it is entirely beside the point, since it's not your decision. Each individual is responsible for their own will, and the only thing that matters is therefore whether he can "fathom it".
You cannot sensibly profess to be a Thelemite in one breath, and in the next breath say that you expect everybody else to share your values. You either accept the Law of Thelema, and everything that goes along with it, or you don't. Either way is fine with me. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
zain |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 03, 2007 - 05:59 PM
|
|
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
Posts: 172
Status: Offline
|
|
Quote: › "it is not objectively wrong to rape". Erwin
Erwin you should withdraw that statement. What ever your "unique" take on Thelema is, that statement cant be defended or justified. Withdraw that statement. Secondly i dont think that rape victims or victims of sexual assault would share your view that "its not objectively wrong to rape". So are you saying that rape victims have benefited in a Thelemic manner from their horrible ordeal? Again there is no suggestion of this ludicrous postion in Thelema. Again your position seems to suggest a big problem if you equate Rape with Agape/divine love.
If you dont withdraw your statement, i will take this to the moderator. I do not condone or want to be associated with a person through a website who thinks that rape "is not objectively wrong". And just the fact that you can use something has horrible has the act of rape for "point scoring" is very crass and in bad taste.
Has a side note i include the Wiki entry on what constitutes "Rape" just so this nonsense can be put to some useful context.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/rape |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Kalki93 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 03, 2007 - 06:05 PM
|
|
Joined: Sep 11, 2007
Posts: 33
Status: Offline
|
|
Is this a discussion group or an argument group?
Magical personalities have way too many of their own views. What does rape have to do with anything? Is it even worth discussing. There have been much more profound things revealed in Thelemic Understanding. I see it more as a Modern Universal Understanding still it does not fall so far away from Yoga. Since when does Yoga have to do with Evil?
Who cares anyway, should'nt we be focusing on Better things?
I've known evil types all of my life, so what's new!?
Personally I think it is so overrated now to be evil.
In the aspect of Tiphareth we harmonize and resolve all of this and that is really what the Book of the Law is about, resolving our conflicts.
Even if it does say " I peck out the eyes of Jesus." it does'nt mean we hate Jesus, the Indian, Mohammed, etc.! It means to understand that Love Conquers All.
If we understand that we will know what evil is.
Is'nt that the real Challenge.
Did Aleister Crowley Hate or Love everyone and does it Matter so much? Has anyone here read Moonchild?
All is Brahman. We are not the Parabrahman, and that is God and that is the All-Attractive Supreme Person and that is not who we miscreants are only Partially are we.
We are all like the Antichrist at first until we learn to resolve our conflicts and that is the Challenge of Thelema.
Haribol
Bhakta Aaron nee Goth devoid of vast learning, Leaping Laughter to IO Pan and Hare Krsna Hare Krsna Krsna Ksrna Hare Hare Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
in 20° 
: 
in 24° 
: Anno IVxvii 
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
