Notifications
Clear all

Aleister Crowley and 'magical fascism'  

Page 10 / 11
  RSS

Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
28/07/2011 7:43 pm  
"Frater_HPK" wrote:
"Los" wrote:
No, it’s very far from being easy because the proper practice of Thelema involves a destruction of *all* moral notions and *all* senses of “should.”

Do you talk about moral or about ethic? Moral training is a part of Thelemic way, isn't it?

Well, Crowley writes, in his New Comment to AL I:28, “There are no ‘standards of Right.’ Ethics is balderdash. Each Star must go on its orbit. To hell with 'moral Principle;' there is no such thing”

So it would appear that Crowley, at least, doesn’t favor “ethics” over “morality,” even if we want to distinguish between them.

Elsewhere, when Crowley talks about a “moral code,” he’s emphatic on the point that moral codes have no virtue in themselves, that they are merely useful as practical means to an end: such as, for example, adopting a code that will calm down the mind to aid in meditation (see Book 4 part 1, on Yama and Niyama). In other places, like Liber OZ, Crowley isn’t creating a moral code in the sense that he dismisses in the New Comment: he’s listing rights – that is, abilities – given by nature to anyone who is strong enough to take them.

Even in “Duty,” Crowley mainly restricts himself to writing “rules” that are little more than elaborations on Thelemic philosophy: the method of discovering the True Will (“Do not repress or restrict any true instinct of your nature”), the method of carrying it out (“Unite yourself passionately with every other form of consciousness” and “Combat stimulates the virile or creative energy”)

Even the end of this document – where he makes silly, sweeping generalizations about the true wills of all people (“You [the reader] may regard the establishment of the Law of Thelema as an essential element of your True Will”) – these sections read perfectly fine if we make the implicit assumption that Crowley means that only those people whose true will is to do these things “should” do them.

“Duty” is thus most emphatically not a list of “shoulds” that one has to adopt in order to be a “good Thelemite” – it merely rewords and illustrates some fundamental points of Thelemic practice.

The “moral training” that’s part of the "Thelemic way" consists of detecting when your mind is delusively thinking that morality is real. And you do this so you don’t get fooled by it.

What people like Keith are doing is entirely opposite: they’re converting Thelema into a moral code in the sense of thinking that there’s something virtuous in doing a particular action (say, for example, opposing “liberal programs” or opposing the “status quo”). If one were to actually “Let there be no difference made,” then it would be obvious that no particular piece of legislation is objectively “better” than any other, and that being the case, the only guide to deciding whether or not to support a particular piece of legislation is one’s true will (one’s actual inclinations, as opposed to those inclinations one mistakenly believes one “should” have in order to be a “good Thelemite”).

To use a horribly cliché spiritual metaphor, all of us spend most of our lives living in the prison of our minds. Some people simply despair, but others cope by hanging up nice pictures and decorating their cell – that is to say, they prop up some values and moral ideals that they try to live up to (for example, the ideal of “opposing liberal programs” or the ideal of “fighting the status quo” or the ideal of “creating a Thelemic utopia”).

But no matter how nicely you decorate your cell, you’re still living in a prison, after all. “Enlightenment” isn’t about making your prison more pleasant to live in: it’s about realizing that you can leave the prison because the door is unlocked. It’s about realizing that those ideals your mind has cooked up don’t have to boss you around.

Now, naturally, this is a difficult realization to come to, but the first hurdle is getting over your own “moral ideals” -- the most insidious ones being the "convictions" that you think you've come to on your own through "hard work," the convictions that make you special because (you mistakenly think) you've risen above the "herd."

And you’re never going to succeed if you insist on turning Thelema into a set of moral ideals.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
29/07/2011 8:52 pm  
"Camlion" wrote:
I'd be interested in comments from the Membership here, pro or con, on this document by Crowley:

http://lib.oto-usa.org/crowley/essays/duty.html

Paul, no thoughts on this essay? Anyone?


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
29/07/2011 9:14 pm  

93,

How about a more "forum friendly" way. Feel free to take out my comments and insert your own.

Duty (by Aleister Crowley)

A note on the chief rules of practical conduct to be observed by those who accept the Law of Thelema.

“Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.” AL I:40
“There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt.” AL III:60
“[...] thou hast no right but to do thy will. Do that, and no other shall say nay. For pure will, unassuaged of purpose, delivered from the lust of result, is every way perfect.” AL I:42-44
“Love is the law, love under will.” AL I:57
“Every man and every woman is a star.” AL I:3

A. YOUR DUTY TO YOURSELF

1. Find yourself to be the centre of your own Universe.
“I am the flame that burns in every heart of man, and in the core of every star.” AL II:6

Star Ruby, anyone?

2. Explore the Nature and Powers of your own Being.
This includes everything which is, or can be, for you: and you must accept everything exactly as it is in itself, as one of the factors which go to make up your True Self. This True Self thus ultimately includes all things soever; its discovery is Initiation (the travelling inwards) and as its Nature is to move continually, it must be understood not as static, but as dynamic, not as a Noun but as a Verb.

From the Probationer's Oath: "to obtain a scientific knowledge of the nature and powers of my own being."

3. Develop in due harmony and proportion every faculty which you possess.
“Wisdom says: be strong!” AL II:70
“But exceed! exceed!” AL II:71
“Be strong, o man! lust, enjoy all things of sense and rapture: fear not that any God shall deny thee for this.” AL II:22

From the Neophyte Oath: "to obtain control of the nature and powers of my own being."

4. Contemplate your own Nature.
Consider every element thereof both separately and in relation to all the rest as to judge accurately the true purpose of the totality of your Being.

From the Zelator Oath: "to obtain control of the foundations of my own being."

5. Find the formula of this purpose, or “True Will,” in an expression as simple as possible.
Learn to understand clearly how best to manipulate the energies which you control to obtain the results most favourable to it from its relations with the part of the Universe which you do not yet control.

From the Practicus Oath: "to obtain control of the vacillations of my own being."

6. Extend the dominion of your consciousness, and its control of all forces alien to it, to the utmost.
Do this by the ever stronger and more skillful application of your faculties to the finer, clearer, fuller, and more accurate perception, the better understanding, and the more wisely ordered government, of that external Universe.

From the Philosophus Oath: "to obtain control of the attractions and repulsions of my own being."

7. Never permit the thought or will of any other Being to interfere with your own.
Be constantly vigilant to resent, and on the alert to resist, with unvanquishable ardour and vehemence of passion unquenchable, every attempt of any other Being to influence you otherwise than by contributing new facts to your experience of the Universe, or by assisting you to reach a higher synthesis of Truth by the mode of passionate fusion.

From the Dominus Liminous Oath: "to obtain control of the aspirations of my own being."

8. Do not repress or restrict any true instinct of your Nature; but devote all in perfection to the sole service of your one True Will.
“Be goodly therefore…” AL I:51

“The word of Sin is Restriction. O man! refuse not thy wife, if she will! O lover, if thou wilt, depart! There is no bond that can unite the divided but love: all else is a curse. Accursed! Accursed be it to the aeons! Hell.” AL I:41

“So with thy all; thou hast no right but to do thy will. Do that, and no other shall say nay. For pure will, unassuaged of purpose, delivered from the lust of result, is every way perfect.” AL I:42-44

“Ye shall gather goods and store of women and spices; ye shall wear rich jewels; ye shall exceed the nations of the earth in splendour & pride; but always in the love of me, and so shall ye come to my joy.” AL I:61 “Remember all ye that existence is pure joy; that all the sorrows are but as shadows; they pass & are done; but there is that which remains.” AL II:9

“But ye, o my people, rise up & awake! Let the rituals be rightly performed with joy & beauty! [...] A feast for fire and a feast for water; a feast for life and a greater feast for death! A feast every day in your hearts in the joy of my rapture! A feast every night unto Nu, and the pleasure of uttermost delight! Aye! feast! rejoice! there is no dread hereafter. There is the dissolution, and eternal ecstasy in the kisses of Nu.” AL II:34-36…41-44

“Now rejoice! now come in our splendour & rapture! Come in our passionate peace, & write sweet words for the Kings!” AL II:64

“Thrill with the joy of life & death! Ah! thy death shall be lovely: whoso seeth it shall be glad. Thy death shall be the seal of the promise of our agelong love. Come! lift up thine heart & rejoice!” AL II:66

“Is a God to live in a dog? No! but the highest are of us. They shall rejoice, our chosen: who sorroweth is not of us. Beauty and strength, leaping laughter and delicious languor, force and fire, are of us.” AL II:19-20

From the Adeptus Minor Oath: "to attain to the knowledge and conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel."

All Oaths can be found in Liber 185.

B. YOUR DUTY TO OTHER INDIVIDUAL MEN AND WOMEN

1. Unite yourself passionately with every other form of consciousness,
Thus destroying the sense of separateness from the Whole, and creating a new baseline in the Universe from which to measure it.
“Love is the law, love under will.” AL I:57
“Come forth, o children, under the stars, & take your fill of love!” AL I:12

From One Star in Sight:

"Adeptus (within). —Is admitted to the practice of the formula of the Rosy Cross on entering the College of the Holy Ghost. Adeptus (Major). —Obtains a general mastery of practical Magick, though without comprehension."

2. “As brothers fight ye!” AL III:59
“If he be a King, thou canst not hurt him.” AL II:59

To bring out saliently the differences between two points-of-view is useful to both in measuring the position of each in the whole. Combat stimulates the virile or creative energy; and, like love, of which it is one form, excites the mind to an orgasm which enables it to transcend its rational dullness.


"Adeptus (Exemptus). —Completes in perfection all these matters. He then either (a) becomes a Brother of the Left Hand Path or, (b) is stripped of all his attainments and of himself as well, even of his Holy Guardian Angel, and becomes a babe of the Abyss, who, having transcended the Reason, does nothing but grow in the womb of its mother. It then finds itself a"

3. Abstain from all interferences with other wills.
“Beware lest any force another, King against King!” AL II:24

The love and war in the previous injunctions are of the nature of sport, where one respects, and learns from the opponent, but never interferes with him, outside the actual game. To seek to dominate or influence another is to seek to deform or destroy him; and he is a necessary part of one’s own Universe, that is, of one’s self.


"Magister Templi. —(Master of the Temple): whose functions are fully described in Liber 418, as is this whole initiation from Adeptus Exemptus. See also "Aha!". His principal business is to tend his "garden" of disciples, and to obtain a perfect understanding of the Universe. He is a Master of Samadhi."

4. Seek, if you so will, to enlighten another when need arises.
This may be done, always with the strict respect for the attitude of the good sportsman, when he is in distress through failure to understand himself clearly, especially when he specifically demands help; for his darkness may hinder one’s perception of his perfection. (Yet also his darkness may serve as a warning, or excite one’s interest.) It is also lawful when his ignorance has lead him to interfere with one’s will. All interference is in any case dangerous, and demands the exercise of extreme skill and good judgement, fortified by experience. To influence another is to leave one’s citadel unguarded; and the attempt commonly ends in losing one’s own self-supremacy.


"Magus. —Attains to wisdom, declares his law (See Liber I, vel Magi) and is a Master of all Magick in its greatest and highest sense."

5. Worship all!

“Every man and every woman is a star.” AL I:3

“Mercy let be off; damn them who pity!” AL III:18

“We have nothing with the outcast and the unfit: let them die in their misery. For they feel not. Compassion is the vice of kings: stamp down the wretched & the weak: this is the law of the strong: this is our law and the joy of the world. Think not, o king, upon that lie: That Thou Must Die: verily thou shalt not die, but live. Now let it be understood: if the body of the King dissolve, he shall remain in pure ecstasy for ever. Nuit! Hadit! Ra-Hoor-Khuit! The Sun, Strength & Sight, Light; these are for the servants of the Star & the Snake.” AL II:21

Each being is, exactly as you are, the sole centre of a Universe in no wise identical with, or even assimilable to, your own. The impersonal Universe of “Nature” is only an abstraction, approximately true, of the factors which it is convenient to regard as common to all. The Universe of another is therefore necessarily unknown to, and unknowable by, you; but it induces currents of energy in yours by determining in part your reactions. Use men and women, therefore, with the absolute respect due to inviolable standards of measurement; verify your own observations by comparison with similar judgements made by them; and, studying the methods which determine their failure or success, acquire for yourself the wit and skill required to cope with your own problems.

Pity, sympathy and like emotions are fundamentally insults to the Godhead of the person exciting them, and therefore also to your own. The distress of another may be relieved; but always with the positive and noble idea of making manifest the perfection of the Universe. Pity is the source of every mean, ignoble, cowardly vice; and the essential blasphemy against Truth.

“To Me do ye reverence! to me come ye through tribulation of ordeal, which is bliss.” AL III:62


"Ipsissimus. —Is beyond all this and beyond all comprehension of those of lower degrees."

C. YOUR DUTY TO MANKIND

1. Establish the Law of Thelema as the sole basis of conduct.
The general welfare of the race being necessary in many respects to your own, that well-being, like your own, principally a function of the intelligent and wise observance of the Law of Thelema, it is of the very first importance to you that every individual should accept frankly that Law, and strictly govern himself in full accordance therewith.

You may regard the establishment of the Law of Thelema as an essential element of your True Will, since, whatever the ultimate nature of that Will, the evident condition of putting it into execution is freedom from external interference.

Governments too often exhibit the most deplorable stupidity, however enlightened may be the men who compose and constitute them, or the people whose destinies they direct. It is therefore incumbent on every man and woman to take the proper steps to cause the revisions of all existing statutes on the basis of the Law of Thelema. This Law being a Law of Liberty, the aim of the legislature must be to secure the amplest freedom for each individual in the state, eschewing the presumptuous assumption that any given positive ideal is worthy to be obtained.

“The word of Sin is Restriction.” AL I:41

The essence of crime is that it restricts the freedom of the individual outraged. (Thus, murder restricts his right to live; robbery, his right to enjoy the fruits of his labour; coining, his right to the guarantee of the state that he shall barter in security; etc.) It is then the common duty to prevent crime by segregating the criminal, and by the threat of reprisals; also, to teach the criminal that his acts, being analyzed, are contrary to his own True Will. (This may often be accomplished by taking from him the right which he has denied to others; as by outlawing the thief, so that he feels constant anxiety for the safety of his own possessions, removed from the ward of the State.) The rule is quite simple. He who violated any right declares magically that it does not exist; therefore it no longer does so, for him.

Crime being a direct spiritual violation of the Law of Thelema, it should not be tolerated in the community. Those who possess the instinct should be segregated in a settlement to build up a state of their own, so to learn the necessity of themselves imposing and maintaining rules of justice. All artificial crimes should be abolished. When fantastic restrictions disappear, the greater freedom of the individual will itself teach him to avoid acts which really restrict natural rights. Thus real crime will diminish automatically.

The administration of the Law should be simplified by training men of uprightness and discretion whose will is to fulfill this function in the community to decide all complaints by the abstract principle of the Law of Thelema, and to award judgement on the basis of the actual restriction caused by the offense.

The ultimate aim is thus to reintegrate Conscience, on true scientific principles, as the warden of conduct, the monitor of the people, and the guarantee of their governors.

A few words of wisdom on Understanding the Word.

D. YOUR DUTY TO ALL OTHER BEINGS AND THINGS

1. Apply the Law of Thelema to all problems of fitness, use, and development.
It is a violation of the Law of Thelema to abuse the natural qualities of any animal or object by diverting it from its proper function, as determined by consideration of its history and structure. Thus, to train children to perform mental operations, or to practice tasks, for which they are unfitted, is a crime against nature. Similarly, to build houses of rotten material, to adulterate food, to destroy forests, etc., etc., is to offend.

The Law of Thelema is to be applied unflinchingly to decide every question of conduct. The inherent fitness of any thing for any proposed use should be the sole criterion.

Apparent, and sometimes even real, conflict between interests will frequently arise. Such cases are to be decided by the general value of the contending parties in the scale of Nature. Thus, a tree has a right to its life; but a man being more than a tree, he may cut it down for fuel or shelter when need arises. Even so, let him remember that the Law never fails to avenge infraction: as when wanton deforestation has ruined a climate or a soil, or as when the importation of rabbits for a cheap supply of food has created a plague.

Observe that the violation of the Law of Thelema produces cumulative ills. The drain of the agricultural population to big cities, due chiefly to persuading them to abandon their natural ideals, has not only made the country less tolerable to the peasant, but debauched the town. And the error tends to increase in geometrical progression, until a remedy has become almost inconceivable and the whole structure of society is threatened with ruin.

The wise application based on observation and experience of the Law of Thelema is to work in conscious harmony with Evolution. Experiments in creation, involving variation from existing types, are lawful and necessary. Their value is to be judged by their fertility as bearing witness to their harmony with the course of nature towards perfection.

A few words of wisdom on Speaking the Word.

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5034
30/07/2011 12:10 am  
"Los" wrote:
So it would appear that Crowley, at least, doesn’t favor “ethics” over “morality,” even if we want to distinguish between them.

There are some people who make a difference between these two words, some technical meaning, but we know better. They are the same thing - a codex of guiding principles - the full manifestation of the 4th neuro-circuit, the socio-sexual programming. They and their uses for the mystic [or the magician] are fully summed up by ...

"Los" wrote:
"... adopting a code that will calm down the mind to aid in meditation (see Book 4 part 1, on Yama and Niyama).
"Los" wrote:
And you’re never going to succeed if you insist on turning Thelema into a set of moral ideals.

This entire thread is a living archetype right out of Netzach. Philosophical musings, the making of great differences that influence reality. Talk of leaving the herd, the group, when one ultimately is the whole herd. Scenes of distaining the family when they depend so much on you?

You have no right but to do your Will.
You have the right to talk to the Clear Light.
These two are the same.

When one is talking to the Clear Light, or is single-pointedly doing what the Light said to do, there are no moral concerns or considerations of any kind. I nominate this thread for hanging as a formally-identified archetype on the walls of the temple of Netzach in the Bardo of Hallucinations.


ReplyQuote
Frater_HPK
(@frater_hpk)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 104
30/07/2011 4:57 pm  

@Shina & Los

Thank you for your contribution to the discussion. I would like to quote crowley himself: "Self-psychoanalysis is the root of all moral training. No will-controled act must be left to the Unconscious." (The Magical Diaries of Aleister Crowley, Samuel Weiser, 1971, page 183). Rest of the text is also very worth of reading, IMO. When Crowley talk about moral norms, as you Los Los illustrated here and thank you for this, I suppose this is probably about collective moral norms related to sexuality. But maybe I am wrong?


ReplyQuote
Frater_HPK
(@frater_hpk)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 104
30/07/2011 5:53 pm  

@N.O.X.

yes, in my early days I studied occultism with him for one years. Also I worked a lot with his close associates, in some periods. And this workings is not finshed, I still cooperate with some of them.
Fascism is very conservative and fascist always talk about protection of traditional values and traditional way of living. And that changes will destroy this and bring chaos in the social order and people's lives. And mostly fascism is based on fear. Fear of changes, fear of experience Fear of altered states of consciousness. Thelema and changes go together. Thelema and fear don't go together. Slavinski is not the perfect writter and Slavinski now do some other things and he can be criticed for a lot of things, as everybody else can be. But in my opinion, his idea to make Gnostc Thelemic Post-Crowley Church dealing with altered states of mind and Lam workings was brilliant. Not just talking about gnosis, as a lot of other gnostic churches do, but offering to the poeple possibility that they really experience gnosis is something amazing in my opinion. I don't think Thelema is something frosen in time and every new technology who works based on thelemic principles is worth of attention if you agree with me 🙂


ReplyQuote
Frater_HPK
(@frater_hpk)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 104
30/07/2011 6:14 pm  

Shiva not Shina, I apologise for the typo. Sorry.


ReplyQuote
Keith418
(@keith418)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 127
30/07/2011 7:59 pm  
"einDoppelganger" wrote:
You're a big Boyd Rice, fan aren't you? .

Have any of you folks actually studied fascist philosophers and political theorists? I keep getting the idea that you toss around terms like "fascist" without really being too aware of the tenets and definitions of the word itself.

I'd recommend checking out the "Roots of the Right" series edited by George Steiner. It includes translated texts from every major fascist thinker. I'd also recommend reading "The Philosophy of Fascism" by Mario Palmieri.

Any serious and sober study of Fascism will reveal that it is the positive antithesis of the doctrines taught by Crowley, especially as elucidated in MWT. Fascism is all about the subordination of the individual to the family, clan, race, state, etc. It's a collectivist philosophy that demands the sacrifice of the individual to the group. This can't be reconciled with anything Crowley taught.

The problem, however, is that while Crowley's teachings are anti-fascist, they are also, and no less, opposed to every other collectivist ideology and morality. Most anti-fascism isn't about opposing fascism with individualism. Instead, most anti-fascism is just another kind of collectivism - but with a different group that one needs to surrender one's individuality to. When fascism might appeal to the power of the nation, or race, most kinds of anti-fascism tends to demand subservience to "humanity" or "all mankind."

If we educate ourselves to understand the basis and the history of fascist ideas, we can see that individualism is resolutely opposed to it. But a real individualism is also opposed to any call for self-sacrifice - whether it comes from Hitler or from Stalin, from Mussolini or from Trotsky, from the right wing herd or from the left wing herd.

Most of the people in the Thelemic community aren't ready to dismiss both calls. They reject fascism, but they have a much harder time rejecting leftist appeals to collectivist ideals and morality. Just because someone rejects left-leaning morality and its virtues doesn't make them a friend of the right. The left generally sees no point in making these kinds of distinctions, because it wants to tar all of its critics as "fascists."


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
30/07/2011 9:22 pm  

Well elucidated, Keith. An environment ideally conducive to Thelema is incompatible with either Rightist or Leftist paradigms, imo. (The thing to remember is that we hold our environments in common with others to a great extent. We have to agree upon one that is most conducive to individual freedom and independence, if it our Will to concern ourselves with such things, of course. If not, we can just go with the flow and mind our own business, which is fine, too, but we can't rightfully complain later about the results of our complacence.)


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
30/07/2011 9:22 pm  
"Keith418" wrote:
Have any of you folks actually studied fascist philosophers and political theorists? I keep getting the idea that you toss around terms like "fascist" without really being too aware of the tenets and definitions of the word itself.

Oh, you mean this definition?

or this one?

"often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition "

I find it funny how you fail to reply to more of the sensible posts on these forums, and then decide to start a whole new rant every few days, completely missing (or dismissing) said points. I'm sure Los would enjoy answers to many of the questions he's posed at you, and he's not the only one.


ReplyQuote
Keith418
(@keith418)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 127
30/07/2011 9:50 pm  

The ultimate example of the individual sacrificing themselves for the sake of the group is, of course, the Christian one. According to the metaphysical model of herd values, Christ's sacrifice for the sake of humanity provides us with the ultimate model in true ethical behavior. In secular terms, the individual is expected to put aside their own selfish agendas and subordinates themselves to the needs of the greater community. In fascism, this community is defined as the state, race, or nation - with plenty of the defense of the "family" thrown in. In more left-leaning variants, the individual is supposed to set aside their own selves for the good of "humanity" or in "solidarity." It's not hard to see the Judeo-Christian origins of these supposedly "secular" ideologies and values. People who despise religion are unable to let go of the group morality that religion ratified and propounded. These "skeptics" "rationally" reject religious appeals to a group-based morality, but they cannot resist the demands of their secular descendents.

When the Thelemic community can't parse this out, and insists that Thelema is really in favor of a group-based morality, usually aligned to the left, it reveals the way it resist Crowley's individualism. Sometimes this rejection is unconscious, and manifests itself in a kind of blind editing function in which everything that Crowley wrote and taught that contradicts herd morality is silently rejected or dismissed. Sometimes it is accompanied by more or less conscious and deliberate choice, along with declarations like, "Crowley wasn't right about everything!" etc. But in the end, all it is is a migration back to the values and ideals of the Old Aeon.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4054
30/07/2011 10:50 pm  

This is getting to be like Groundhog Day.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5034
30/07/2011 10:58 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
I find it funny how you fail to reply to more of the sensible posts on these forums, and then decide to start a whole new rant every few days, completely missing (or dismissing) said points.

Oh, you noticed that? Look, it's obvious what is happening.

Keith is just cutting and pasting huge sections from his latest Liber or Glob. Without reference to, or acknowledgment of, any previous posts. This is not a "thread," it is an example of THE CHRONOLOGY OF COMPARTMENTS. What? Oh look, let me cut and paste from - Behind the Veil:

"In order to put Book IV into any sort of chronological order, you must be familiar with the more-or-less lineal order of Books I, II and III, because Book IV is assembled mostly along the lines of …

The Chronology of Compartments
The Mediterranean cultures and countries (that is, the Greek, Roman, Jewish, Christian and Islamic nations) have used in the past, and indeed still use today, systems of chronology that have fixed starting points, thus permitting the calculation of years forward and backward.
On the other hand, China has always utilized a Chronology of Compartments - a series of temporal cycles isolated from each other.
The Chinese Chronology of Compartments has the advantage that each historical fact is situated in an extremely precise framework.
The disadvantage includes the fact that time is conceptualized as a series of moments without continuity and that it is difficult to extract a fact from the framework, because the fact has been set so firmly in the framework.
Chinese culture is unacquainted with the notions of evolution, comparison, and context. There is a precise knowledge of what happened in a given period of time, but no determined attempt to compare a period with preceding or following periods.
This has led to a timeless atmosphere in which there is no fundamental differentiation of scientific data, works of art, or techniques that may be separated by vast periods of time
- Taken from The History of Oriental Medicine with permission

This simply means that Book IV is divided into several separate, but sometimes overlapping, time or subject compartments. Each compartment is like a separate tour, having its own timespan and view of historical events." (c) 2011 Frater Shiva

I know, because I do the same thing. I just did it. But at least I try to maintain some continuity, some rapport, with the other commentators.

Another possibility is that this material is being written for a Liber or a Glob. You see, it's being channeled without regard for effects or opinions, they all being wrong in any case.

Or something like that.
Build your own scenario to explain the bazaar.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5034
30/07/2011 11:00 pm  
"Keith418" wrote:
The ultimate example of the ... blind editing function.

😆


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4054
30/07/2011 11:05 pm  
"Camlion" wrote:
Well elucidated, Keith.

Really? What's he elucidating?


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5034
30/07/2011 11:32 pm  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
Really? What's he elucidating?

He is elucidating ("making clear") the concept that all [or most] of the Thelemites he has known, and [most of] the Thelemic leaders (?), and mostly all of the people here at Lashtal, and society in general, have it all wrong in the moral area.

They are contaminated by the Borg, or something along that line. They are not perceiving things correctly due to imperfections in their awareness. In short, they are Human beings.

I believe he is taking the position that he sees correctly, or at least he interprets Crowley and other writers correctly, while other people are not. There is the implication that he knows how to solve the infective moral crisis (or chronic condition). It's too bad that the subject is so difficult that it becomes hard to see the proffered solution.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
31/07/2011 1:36 am  
"Shiva" wrote:
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
Really? What's he elucidating?

He is elucidating ("making clear") the concept that all [or most] of the Thelemites he has known, and [most of] the Thelemic leaders (?), and mostly all of the people here at Lashtal, and society in general, have it all wrong in the moral area.

They are contaminated by the Borg, or something along that line. They are not perceiving things correctly due to imperfections in their awareness. In short, they are Human beings.

I believe he is taking the position that he sees correctly, or at least he interprets Crowley and other writers correctly, while other people are not. There is the implication that he knows how to solve the infective moral crisis (or chronic condition). It's too bad that the subject is so difficult that it becomes hard to see the proffered solution.

Ever the optimist! 🙂


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
31/07/2011 10:34 am  

Well, lol, I agree that Keith certainly got off to an uneven start in this thread, for whatever reasons. But I would like to see someone refute his last two posts, without diminishing them based upon his previous efforts in this thread.

Michael, you question "What's he elucidating?" I'd like to see you respond to his last two posts, point by point, if you differ with his opinions. Shiva and Az, please feel free to do the same, without mixing the planes too much, please. This topic pertains to manifest duality (2), not to "Clear Light" (0), but these are =, so each pertains to our Universe equally.

Myself, I find the social conservatism (restriction) of the Right to be despicable, but I find the lack of emphasis on individualism of the Left to be equally despicable. I find neither to be compatible with the Law of Thelema. I therefore have long ago rejected BOTH, unlike most Thelemites that I have known, who DO indeed lean toward the Left. Most, not all, but most. This is my observation based on 43 years as a self-identifying Thelemite interacting at every opportunity with other Thelemites. So, I must agree with Keith on this point.

Now, this is perhaps a natural tendency, after our rejection of the absurd Rightist social and religious mores, we have tended to the opposite extreme without our having consciously considered that we are embracing some very "unThelemic" elements of the Left. But, perhaps it is time that we reconsider our positions with regard to the Right AND the Left and take from each those elements that are most in accord with the Law of Thelema, and discard the rest as rubbish.

Or perhaps not, but tell me why we shouldn't forge a more Thelemic paradigm for those things which we hold in COMMON, such as education, political science, law, sociology, etc.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
31/07/2011 10:56 am  
"Keith418" wrote:
When the Thelemic community can't parse this out, and insists that Thelema is really in favor of a group-based morality, usually aligned to the left, it reveals the way it resist Crowley's individualism. Sometimes this rejection is unconscious, and manifests itself in a kind of blind editing function in which everything that Crowley wrote and taught that contradicts herd morality is silently rejected or dismissed. Sometimes it is accompanied by more or less conscious and deliberate choice, along with declarations like, "Crowley wasn't right about everything!" etc. But in the end, all it is is a migration back to the values and ideals of the Old Aeon.

The language you speak is only meaningful because other people understand it, and taught it to you. We are all still learning.

Simply saying "others just say Crowley wasn't always right" as though that somehow dismisses their argument, without engaging with the fact in any meaningful way or examining his shortcomings, does not make it any less true or relevant to the subject.

Simply ignoring it makes you sound like a brainwashed cultish freak, rather than the sincere and sensible human being I am sure you are.

Perhaps the most important distinction you have failed to make is between your derisive notion of "herd morality" and the simple fact that human beings exist together, and compromise is an inevitable pragmatic part of doing anything collectively at all.

Aleister Crowley, for all his Romantic bluster, compromised, obeyed the laws of England, submitted to court rulings, etc. etc. etc. So if you claim "Thelemites insist in a group-morality" then I'm afraid you must include him there too.

Also, have you attempted Liber Nu and Liber Had? I think there is no better essential paradox or Mystery of Thelema in practise, including the issues you're talking about.

I ask again, have you read my four other recent posts in this thread? and what is your response to them, specifically?


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
31/07/2011 11:50 am  
"Camlion" wrote:
Michael, you question "What's he elucidating?" I'd like to see you respond to his last two posts, point by point, if you differ with his opinions. Shiva and Az, please feel free to do the same, without mixing the planes too much, please. This topic pertains to manifest duality (2), not to "Clear Light" (0), but these are =, so each pertains to our Universe equally.

I wouldn't mind doing that, except for:

"Azidonis" wrote:
I find it funny how you [Keith] fail to reply to more of the sensible posts on these forums, and then decide to start a whole new rant every few days, completely missing (or dismissing) said points. I'm sure Los would enjoy answers to many of the questions he's posed at you, and he's not the only one.

When you talk to someone who doesn't respond consistently, it's called being ignored, something which I'm not sure many people enjoy, regardless of their political preferences. I'm not saying he has ignored me, but I've seen him completely ignore other people's posts or follow them with broad, sweeping statements as if this were his personal blog.

This is a discussion board, and I choose to no longer attempt a debate with someone mistaking it for a personal bulletin.

My personal view on politics in general is to educate oneself and vote on the issues at hand, not on any one particular party. I think that in itself may have contributed to more problems than it has solved, the fact that some people "always vote Republican", or "always vote Democrat", regardless of what product either group is selling at the moment.

On the 2 versus 0 remark, I think it is inevitable that as long as the world leaders are as trapped inside of the 2 as they are, they won't be able to see the zero, which inevitably, is the very balance they claim to be seeking to achieve.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4054
31/07/2011 12:09 pm  
"Camlion" wrote:
Michael, you question "What's he elucidating?" I'd like to see you respond to his last two posts, point by point, if you differ with his opinions.

Perhaps you would. However, whether or not I choose to engage is a matter for me, not for you. As a matter of fact I've responded to Keith's posts in the past, as have others; Keith seems to prefer simple reiteration, so I'll use my time more profitably.

Best wishes,

Michael.


ReplyQuote
Keith418
(@keith418)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 127
31/07/2011 5:34 pm  

"Selfishness? I am glad to find you worrying that bone, for it has plenty of meat on it; fine juicy meat, none of your Chilled Argentine or Canterbury lamb. It is a pelvis, what's more; for in a way the whole structure of the ethics of Thelema is founded upon it. "

- Crowley

You'd think this sort of thing would be seen for what it is - the antithesis of "fascism" - magical or otherwise. Sadly, for those on the left, it's also the antithesis of their ideologies and values too. They aren't invested in telling people to be selfish, or seeing selfishness as a sign of attainment, any more than anyone on the far right is. From the Thelemic point of view, the left and the right look more alike - metaphysically speaking - then they look different.

I keep wondering why the community has moved away from promoting selfishness in the same way Crowley does, and does so unambiguously and directly, here. It's the same with drug use. Once, people saw drugs as a sacrament and resented the government's prohibitions. Now, less and less is said about that.

Is it because people are raising children? Has parenthood rendered people more conservative? If so, then doesn't this support Crowley's attack on the family as "Public Enemy number One"?


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5034
31/07/2011 6:09 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
... it is inevitable that as long as the world leaders are as trapped inside of the 2 as they are, they won't be able to see the zero, which inevitably, is the very balance they claim to be seeking to achieve.

"Nothing is a secret key ..." 😉


ReplyQuote
Keith418
(@keith418)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 127
31/07/2011 7:57 pm  
"Noctifer" wrote:
Aleister Crowley, for all his Romantic bluster, compromised, obeyed the laws of England, submitted to court rulings, etc. etc. etc.

He was tried, convicted and fined 50 pounds by a judge in July of 1934. If that's "obeying the law" it's a weird definition of it.

http://books.google.com/books?id=JpR0FKRIissC&lpg=PA372&dq=aleister%20crowley%20fined%20court&pg=PA372#v=onepage&q&f=false

I think you are worried about the implications of AC's teachings are trying to find a way out of dealing with them. Pretending he was a "law abiding citizen' is more than a little off. Remember, sodomy was illegal in the UK when AC was alive. Each time he engaged in it, he was breaking the law.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
31/07/2011 8:29 pm  
"Keith418" wrote:
"Noctifer" wrote:
Aleister Crowley, for all his Romantic bluster, compromised, obeyed the laws of England, submitted to court rulings, etc. etc. etc.

He was tried, convicted and fined 50 pounds by a judge in July of 1934. If that's "obeying the law" it's a weird definition of it.

http://books.google.com/books?id=JpR0FKRIissC&lpg=PA372&dq=aleister%20crowley%20fined%20court&pg=PA372#v=onepage&q&f=false

I think you are worried about the implications of AC's teachings are trying to find a way out of dealing with them. Pretending he was a "law abiding citizen' is more than a little off. Remember, sodomy was illegal in the UK when AC was alive. Each time he engaged in it, he was breaking the law.

When I initially read about this incident years ago, it seemed pretty clear to me that Crowley's self preservation, at that point in time, came before British law.

I don't suppose there is anyone here who has never put themselves "above the law" in efforts of self preservation?

And sodomy. Wow, you really dug deep, didn't you? I think I see it now. You have this image of Crowley as a robot, right? Because no human I have ever heard of has ever obeyed every manmade law 100% of the time in his life.

Remember that the next time you forget to use your turn signal.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
31/07/2011 8:59 pm  
"Shiva" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
... it is inevitable that as long as the world leaders are as trapped inside of the 2 as they are, they won't be able to see the zero, which inevitably, is the very balance they claim to be seeking to achieve.

"Nothing is a secret key ..." 😉

There are some contributors to these forums who are trapped inside of the 2 and who cannot see the 0, but there are more who are trapped inside of the 0 and who cannot see the 2, by my count. 😉

In point of fact, though, 0 =2, it is not above or below it. Thelemites, by my understanding, embrace their manifestation as duality, which they Willed voluntarily, to realize their own infinite possibilities serially, and take Joy in doing so. They are therefore not "trapped" in the 2, nor are they intent upon escaping or transcending it; these are not Daoists or Buddhists or Hindus. They are Thelemites and they unite in Love with the Absolute All and cease to be (0), or reissue manifest as the duality of the 2 as they Will. They are not the victims of circumstance (karma), they are the Masters of it.

'Nuff said regarding the 'Initiated Interpretation,' as welcome a distraction as it might be. 🙂 See the commentary to Reguli for more words on these matters. http://hermetic.com/crowley/libers/lib5.html


ReplyQuote
Keith418
(@keith418)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 127
31/07/2011 9:39 pm  

Earlier this year, the prominent American "Constitutional conservative" Ron Paul was at a Republican party debate/event and he began attacking drug laws. At this debate, he specifically called for the legalization of heroin. Not pot, or some other lightweight drug, but narcotics.

Here was a Republican, and a Christian, and a father - and yet he was ready to call for an end to drug laws in ways that I have never seen any Thelemic community leader ever do. Drugs aren't sacramental to Ron Paul in the way they are for, at least for some, Thelemites. But he was still ready to stand up and demand an end to the drug laws when all of the Thelemic leaders remain silent on this issue.

To me, this seems to indicate their reticence, and it is a shared reticence, to take the same strong stand for individual liberties that a conservative Christian is taking. How did we get to this point? I think it's interesting to compare the way the call for an end to drug laws has shifted over the last 25 years. Has the greater Thelemic community simply decided to embrace drug prohibition? Or is it collectively nervous about the implications of any call for legalizing drugs like heroin? What happens when you make a metaphysical choice between Crowley's individualism, on the one hand, and a herd morality, on the other, is very clear here.

I suspect that there are other people looking at this sort of evidence and wondering what happened...


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
31/07/2011 10:00 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
"Keith418" wrote:
"Noctifer" wrote:
Aleister Crowley, for all his Romantic bluster, compromised, obeyed the laws of England, submitted to court rulings, etc. etc. etc.

He was tried, convicted and fined 50 pounds by a judge in July of 1934. If that's "obeying the law" it's a weird definition of it.

http://books.google.com/books?id=JpR0FKRIissC&lpg=PA372&dq=aleister%20crowley%20fined%20court&pg=PA372#v=onepage&q&f=false

I think you are worried about the implications of AC's teachings are trying to find a way out of dealing with them. Pretending he was a "law abiding citizen' is more than a little off. Remember, sodomy was illegal in the UK when AC was alive. Each time he engaged in it, he was breaking the law.

When I initially read about this incident years ago, it seemed pretty clear to me that Crowley's self preservation, at that point in time, came before British law.

I don't suppose there is anyone here who has never put themselves "above the law" in efforts of self preservation?

And sodomy. Wow, you really dug deep, didn't you? I think I see it now. You have this image of Crowley as a robot, right? Because no human I have ever heard of has ever obeyed every manmade law 100% of the time in his life.

Remember that the next time you forget to use your turn signal.

Well, really, there are the laws and there is the Law. The idea, as I see it, is to get the former as much in line with the latter as possible, to make our common environments as conducive to the Law as possible; but when it comes it comes down to dust, we do what we must: Do what thou wilt. 🙂


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
31/07/2011 10:37 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
I also think that statements about the "Thelemic community" often point to more common parts of the community, and not the exceptions which the Book of the Law is designed to uplift. There are some that will argue that many members of the "Thelemic community" are not necessarily Thelemites, but seeds, if you will, waiting to become Thelemites. In that case, it would be erroneous to judge say, all of the "Thelemites" on this website, and in other places, by the same standards, as many of them are not yet Thelemites.

This is true, the situation is not so simple as there actually being a "Thelemic community," it is much more complicated than that. Liber AL seems to have this taken into account, although there are varying interpretations as to the breakdown.

I believe that Keith may be referring to Thelemic Order leaders in his questioning the complacency of our "leaders." I rather think that the Thelemic Order leaders must choose their battles wisely in accordance with their priorities, to avoid bringing heat down on their Orders that would interfere with their being able to Initiate and perform other primary Order functions.

We have no common leaders and we, seemingly, have no common values, I'm afraid. Even the meaning of 'Do what thou wilt' and the idea of 'true Will' are not really held in common among us, it would seem.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
31/07/2011 11:21 pm  
"Noctifer" wrote:
Perhaps the most important distinction you have failed to make is between your derisive notion of "herd morality" and the simple fact that human beings exist together, and compromise is an inevitable pragmatic part of doing anything collectively at all.

Of course we exist together, and compromise is an inevitable pragmatic part of doing anything collectively at all, but not at the expense of our individuality. This is what is meant by "we are not herd animals," as if you didn't already know that, Noc. 🙄


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
31/07/2011 11:27 pm  
"Camlion" wrote:
"Shiva" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
... it is inevitable that as long as the world leaders are as trapped inside of the 2 as they are, they won't be able to see the zero, which inevitably, is the very balance they claim to be seeking to achieve.

"Nothing is a secret key ..." 😉

There are some contributors to these forums who are trapped inside of the 2 and who cannot see the 0, but there are more who are trapped inside of the 0 and who cannot see the 2, by my count. 😉

In point of fact, though, 0 =2, it is not above or below it. Thelemites, by my understanding, embrace their manifestation as duality, which they Willed voluntarily, to realize their own infinite possibilities serially, and take Joy in doing so. They are therefore not "trapped" in the 2, nor are they intent upon escaping or transcending it; these are not Daoists or Buddhists or Hindus. They are Thelemites and they unite in Love with the Absolute All and cease to be (0), or reissue manifest as the duality of the 2 as they Will. They are not the victims of circumstance (karma), they are the Masters of it.

'Nuff said regarding the 'Initiated Interpretation,' as welcome a distraction as it might be. 🙂 See the commentary to Reguli for more words on these matters. http://hermetic.com/crowley/libers/lib5.html

As trite as it may seem, what this thread has devolved into is a discussion concerning the continual search of the very zero inherent in politics. To place "Leftist and Rightist" notions on either side of a scale, or add other such "ists" and "isms" onto other plates as well, inevitably the idea behind would be to see where they balance each other out. No one political party is going to have the right ideas all the time, even if by some shape, form, or fashion a governing body of Thelemites comes into office. They will still seek the balance in the equation, and they will have to utilize the tools and methods they are able to in order to achieve this.


ReplyQuote
Keith418
(@keith418)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 127
01/08/2011 1:24 am  
"Camlion" wrote:
Well, really, there are the laws and there is the Law. The idea, as I see it, is to get the former as much in line with the latter as possible, )

Has anyone looked at what 50 pounds sterling was worth in 1937? One inflation calculator I used suggested that the amount is now worth:

£2,390.00 using the retail price index

£9,320.00 using average earnings

Not exactly chump change.

I just think it's absurd to suggest AC was law-abiding when he died a non-discharged bankrupt and - in his will - proceeded to give money and rights away that legally belonged to the people who held his bankruptcy note.

We can't figure out how we might want to change the current system unless we can bring ourselves to look at it critically. This means also looking critically at the values and ideologies that keep it going. Back in the '70s and '80s, people were much more willing to look skeptically at the system and question the status quo. Then a prolonged reticence set in that, in my estimation, has only increased over the years. This kind of reluctance is common in the larger society, but it is also widespread in Thelemic circles.

We can overcome this tendency by turning back to Crowley and pondering his most difficult and controversial teachings. Is democracy the best we can do? Is the family and its demands really a problem? Is there too much government regulation and not enough individual freedom? Has an unsubstantiated belief in human equality led to the advance of the lowest common denominator? Is selfishness underrated?

The definition of insanity, as some put it, is to keep doing the same thing over and over again, while somehow expecting a different result. The unanimity with which these "difficult" teachings of Crowley are summarily rejected within the Thelemic community prompts me to think that we would benefit from not immediately rejecting them, but to try accepting them instead... and start to see what happens as a result.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
01/08/2011 2:24 am  
"Keith418" wrote:
We can overcome this tendency by turning back to Crowley and pondering his most difficult and controversial teachings. Is democracy the best we can do? Is the family and its demands really a problem? Is there too much government regulation and not enough individual freedom? Has an unsubstantiated belief in human equality led to the advance of the lowest common denominator? Is selfishness underrated?

Are you asking those questions to get answers, or as rhetoric? If you are seeking answers, maybe you want to back up a bit and reciprocate.

Done with the blog, moving on...


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
01/08/2011 2:31 am  
"Keith418" wrote:
We can overcome this tendency by turning back to Crowley and pondering his most difficult and controversial teachings. Is democracy the best we can do? Is the family and its demands really a problem? Is there too much government regulation and not enough individual freedom? Has an unsubstantiated belief in human equality led to the advance of the lowest common denominator? Is selfishness underrated?

The definition of insanity, as some put it, is to keep doing the same thing over and over again, while somehow expecting a different result. The unanimity with which these "difficult" teachings of Crowley are summarily rejected within the Thelemic community prompts me to think that we would benefit from not immediately rejecting them, but to try accepting them instead... and start to see what happens as a result.

There are exceptions. My own 'Circle of Brother and Sisters,' while it is not too broad, is now three generations deep. There are other similar groups of 'Cousins' that I know of. We happen to agree with Crowley on most things, the exceptions being mostly on advances that he could not have foreseen in his life and times. None of these people are of the "fanboy" type, by the way, nor do they swear any sort allegiance to him, or to anyone else. It is just that, in their long considered, experienced and thus informed personal opinions, most of his ideas have practical value and merit.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
01/08/2011 4:57 am  
"Keith418" wrote:
"Noctifer" wrote:
Aleister Crowley, for all his Romantic bluster, compromised, obeyed the laws of England, submitted to court rulings, etc. etc. etc.

He was tried, convicted and fined 50 pounds by a judge in July of 1934. If that's "obeying the law" it's a weird definition of it.

http://books.google.com/books?id=JpR0FKRIissC&lpg=PA372&dq=aleister%20crowley%20fined%20court&pg=PA372#v=onepage&q&f=false

Yes, and he paid the fifty pound fiine, didn't he. And obeyed all other court rulings which he was ever involved in, whether in England or otherwise.

I think you are worried about the implications of AC's teachings are trying to find a way out of dealing with them.

Actually I'm not worried about anything, I've fully appreciated the implications both of Crowley's "teachings" and of his life story and of my understanding of Thelema additionally to those two separate things, and it actually seems to me that you are confusing your individuality and your sense of identity or separateness (or ego). You are not separate and can never be separate. You're actually trying to "find a way out of" this simple fact and using selective quoting by Crowley to excuse yourself from its implications, which obviously threaten your ego's sense of self-importance and the illusion of its separateness.

Pretending he was a "law abiding citizen' is more than a little off. Remember, sodomy was illegal in the UK when AC was alive. Each time he engaged in it, he was breaking the law.

Sure, but a) I never said he was a "law abiding citizen", I said he obeyed court rulings and the laws of England, which he did. As well as breaking them if he thought he'd get away with it. That's not particularly impressive or profound but it does raise the issue of living under oppressive inhuman laws (such as Sharia), and that's something worth exploring, sure.

Actually, I would even agree quite strongly with you that many modern laws of UK and USA and related places are actually barbaric and inhuman and that situations can arise in which the moral thing to do is to break them.

You have still completely ignored the many valid points which I've raised - presumably because they change the validity of your premise (that Crowley is infallible) instead of being a black/white binary absolutist response.

It kind of makes it pointless to bother with your position at all and I would think is something of an insult to the work and thought of a very complex and subtle man. It cheapens it and reduces it to the level of a cartoon.

Fine if that's what you believe, but it makes you no better than a Roman Catholic or a Pentacostal.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
01/08/2011 6:08 am  
"Keith418" wrote:
"Selfishness? I am glad to find you worrying that bone, for it has plenty of meat on it; fine juicy meat, none of your Chilled Argentine or Canterbury lamb. It is a pelvis, what's more; for in a way the whole structure of the ethics of Thelema is founded upon it. "

- Crowley

You'd think this sort of thing would be seen for what it is - the antithesis of "fascism" - magical or otherwise. Sadly, for those on the left, it's also the antithesis of their ideologies and values too. They aren't invested in telling people to be selfish, or seeing selfishness as a sign of attainment, any more than anyone on the far right is. From the Thelemic point of view, the left and the right look more alike - metaphysically speaking - then they look different.

I keep wondering why the community has moved away from promoting selfishness in the same way Crowley does, and does so unambiguously and directly, here. It's the same with drug use. Once, people saw drugs as a sacrament and resented the government's prohibitions. Now, less and less is said about that.

Is it because people are raising children? Has parenthood rendered people more conservative? If so, then doesn't this support Crowley's attack on the family as "Public Enemy number One"?

How interesting that we can create our own fantastic reality by quoting Crowley out of context.

Crowley did not attack the concept of having a family in that letter. Otherwise he wouldn't have said:

"Of course, one must be of good family to do anything much that is worth doing;"

Crowley was responding quite forcefully to his student who apparently complained about family pressure. That was the context. To this student, this particular time, he attacked the magical formula of the family as hostile to the Great Work and said that family must be outside your magical circle.

He also invoked old-aeon Christian examples to back himself up probably because he thought that meant something to the student.

It doesn't follow that this advice for a specific set of circumstances becomes dogmatic Holy Writ applicable for everyone under all conditions to be slavishly obeyed.

At no point does he suggest to this student, whose work is getting interfered with by the family, that it's wrong or unThelemic to have a family or family ties.

He goes on to say:

"The point of this story is that I hope it will answer your next question: You are so very clear and firm about the family; then why don't you insist on all your pupils starting with a domestic holocaust?

Why? Because a lot of my early rock climbing was done on Beachy Head. Ask me something harder!

Look you now, chalk has every possible element of danger from the standpoint of the cragsman. All the more glory to him who can master it!

It is an essential part of the Rosicrucian system that the Adept should "wear the costume of the country in which he is travelling." I take this in the widest sense. By that word "country" I understand this planet and this social status "to which it has pleased God to call me." The Brethren of the Rose and Cross depreciated monastic life or hermit life: perhaps they thought such expedients cowardly, or at least as a confession of weakness.

I agree. One ought to be able to live the normal life of a member of one's class, to all external seeming; at least sufficiently so as not to appear unduly eccentric."

Here he suggests that the resistance family provides helps with learning to climb.


ReplyQuote
einDoppelganger
(@eindoppelganger)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 915
01/08/2011 6:08 am  
"Keith418" wrote:
Is it because people are raising children? Has parenthood rendered people more conservative? If so, then doesn't this support Crowley's attack on the family as "Public Enemy number One"?

It sounds like you imagine there is only one generation of 30-somethings who have ever engaged with AC and complained about drug laws...


ReplyQuote
Falcon
(@falcon)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 361
01/08/2011 8:09 am  

The far-right Christian, anti-Muslim, English Defence League- Jewish Division leader Robert Bartholomeus, called the murdered Norwegian victims of far-right Christian Zionist terrorist Anders Breivik 'scum' on Facebook, for supporting the Palestinians.

www.democracyforum.co.uk/bnp/98030-edl- ... tacks.html


ReplyQuote
OKontrair
(@okontrair)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 501
01/08/2011 9:22 am  

I am sure that is very interesting to lots of people but this really isn't the place for it. Even though it's your original thread.

This is the Aleister Crowley Society and discussions are supposed to be related somehow to him and/or his work or influence.

Personally speaking, I can't see any connection between Crowley and Fascism at all except perhaps the historical accident of time and that they both sometimes went a bit too far.

OK


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
01/08/2011 9:55 am  
"Noctifer" wrote:
Keith, has it ever occurred to you that your slavish adherence to the letter of what an eccentric English poet wrote a century ago is, in fact, an utter subjugation of your individual sovreignty, autonomy and independence?

Just saying...


ReplyQuote
Patriarch156
(@patriarch156)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 486
01/08/2011 11:54 am  
"OKontrair" wrote:
I am sure that is very interesting to lots of people but this really isn't the place for it. Even though it's your original thread.

This is the Aleister Crowley Society and discussions are supposed to be related somehow to him and/or his work or influence.

Personally speaking, I can't see any connection between Crowley and Fascism at all except perhaps the historical accident of time and that they both sometimes went a bit too far.

OK

While I agree that there is no connection between Crowley and Breivik, let alone that of the English Defense League with their ostensible instrumental Christian veneer to hide their Odinist links and anti-Islamist agenda, there is, as demonstrated by many scholars, including Goodrich-Clarke in his excellent study Black Sun, a significant influence from Crowley on the New Right in the person of Alexandr Dugin and Christian Bouchet and others.

As such Fascism was and remains a legitimate area of discussing the legacy of Aleister Crowley in the same manner as Kenneth Grant and Austin Osman Spare.

While I agree that these trends misunderstand and misrepresent Crowleyan politics as founded on the Law of Thelema, the same case might be and has been presented against Kenneth Grant. Crowley certainly has had a much more profound impact on Bouchet and Dugin than he ever had on Spare in my opinion. None of this makes any of them morally equivalent or even equivalent in interest or influence, but it raises an important point regarding the legacy of a person: one may control many things, but in what manner the seed of ideas sprouts is not one of them.

The fact that people may feel that this influence makes them uncomfortable or that it tarnishes the reputation of Crowley should not factor into the evaluation of proper topics, unless this is first and foremost a fansite that is only dedicated to bringing to light topics that cast Crowley in a positive light. I have never gotten the impression that LAShTAL.com was supposed to be this and so I hope that we can leave the comments about the appropriateness of the topic aside and focus on the actual topic.

There is one more reason for my hope and that is the fact that the influence is already out there and noted by scholars and will so in time be noted (it was noted in the eighties and the nineties in continental tabloid press so this is nothing) again in the popular press. If we do not address these things, then when this happens the New Right will be the ones gaining the definitional ground as far as this influence goes.

While politics in general and Thelemic politics in particular might not be everyones cup of of tea, they clearly were part of the program that Crowley envisioned and as such is an legitimate are of discussion and I hope that we can get some adult discussion here that goes beyond the perennial: this has nothing to do with the Law of Thelema, or contra-left or right accusations that seems to accompany these issues.

Naturally things will get heated in a discussion where there might be people who disagree, but I do not consider that to be a problem, but rather a boon. Crowley certainly thoughts so if going from his words in Duty.


ReplyQuote
Falcon
(@falcon)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 361
01/08/2011 12:10 pm  

I appreciate what you are saying. I was trying to expose far-right, fascist Christian and Jewish hatred for the young Norwegian victims of Christian Zionist terrorist Breivik. I am sure if AC were around today he would have plenty to say on the whole sorry business.


ReplyQuote
Patriarch156
(@patriarch156)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 486
01/08/2011 7:02 pm  
"wolf354" wrote:
93,
I've watched an Egyptian leader yesterday talking about how the Muslims are already expecting that sooner or later theire will be terrorist attacks from christian right wing on their countries (if you think about everything that Bin Ladden did it will become more clear)
It may never happen ... but if it does it won't be a surprise (especially after Breivik), but it won't be very easy to mix Thelema with Western extreme right wing. At least for me it is very hard to imagine thelemites and christians joined together against muslims.
Best regards,

Right but the extreme right is no less a monopolitic size than the extreme left. The New Right as an example is very critical of Christianity and in general positive towards Islam.

That being said, extreme right-wingers such as Alexandr Dugin, a man with limited but actual impact on Russian politics, is inspired by among other things Crowley and were one of the first people to translate him into russian.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
01/08/2011 7:07 pm  
"Patriarch156" wrote:
Crowley certainly thought[] so if going from his words in Duty.

Well, apparently this essay by Crowley is of little interest to our forum contributors. It has been linked to this thread and then posted verbatim with little comment either pro or con, although I think it quite relevant to the current sub-topic. (Los and Az did comment, and are gratefully acknowledged for do so.)


ReplyQuote
Patriarch156
(@patriarch156)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 486
01/08/2011 8:47 pm  
"Camlion" wrote:
"Patriarch156" wrote:
Crowley certainly thought[] so if going from his words in Duty.

Well, apparently this essay by Crowley is of little interest to our forum contributors. It has been linked to this thread and then posted verbatim with little comment either pro or con, although I think it quite relevant to the current sub-topic. (Los and Az did comment, and are gratefully acknowledged for do so.)

At least there is no particular interest in discussing it in this particular thread of this particular forum, which is something entirely different than being "of little interest to our forum contributors."


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
01/08/2011 8:59 pm  
"Patriarch156" wrote:
"Camlion" wrote:
"Patriarch156" wrote:
Crowley certainly thought[] so if going from his words in Duty.

Well, apparently this essay by Crowley is of little interest to our forum contributors. It has been linked to this thread and then posted verbatim with little comment either pro or con, although I think it quite relevant to the current sub-topic. (Los and Az did comment, and are gratefully acknowledged for do so.)

At least there is no particular interest in discussing it in this particular thread of this particular forum, which is something entirely different than being "of little interest to our forum contributors."

Perhaps.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5325
01/08/2011 9:24 pm  
"Camlion" wrote:
Well, apparently this essay by Crowley is of little interest to our forum contributors.

Inappropriate inference.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
Patriarch156
(@patriarch156)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 486
01/08/2011 9:26 pm  
"Camlion" wrote:
"Patriarch156" wrote:
"Camlion" wrote:
"Patriarch156" wrote:
Crowley certainly thought[] so if going from his words in Duty.

Well, apparently this essay by Crowley is of little interest to our forum contributors. It has been linked to this thread and then posted verbatim with little comment either pro or con, although I think it quite relevant to the current sub-topic. (Los and Az did comment, and are gratefully acknowledged for do so.)

At least there is no particular interest in discussing it in this particular thread of this particular forum, which is something entirely different than being "of little interest to our forum contributors."

Perhaps.

I am one of the semiregular posters on this forum and I host a weekly public discussion group of basic Class E tracts and O.T.O. public books such as Duty and we go through it at least twice a year and get a lot out of it. I also often argue from Duty and have done so in the past, including on this forum as have to my knowledge others. I also use Duty extensively in my teaching of new O.T.O. initiates.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
01/08/2011 10:40 pm  
"Patriarch156" wrote:
"Camlion" wrote:
"Patriarch156" wrote:
"Camlion" wrote:
"Patriarch156" wrote:
Crowley certainly thought[] so if going from his words in Duty.

Well, apparently this essay by Crowley is of little interest to our forum contributors. It has been linked to this thread and then posted verbatim with little comment either pro or con, although I think it quite relevant to the current sub-topic. (Los and Az did comment, and are gratefully acknowledged for do so.)

At least there is no particular interest in discussing it in this particular thread of this particular forum, which is something entirely different than being "of little interest to our forum contributors."

Perhaps.

I am one of the semiregular posters on this forum and I host a weekly public discussion group of basic Class E tracts and O.T.O. public books such as Duty and we go through it at least twice a year and get a lot out of it. I also often argue from Duty and have done so in the past, including on this forum as have to my knowledge others. I also use Duty extensively in my teaching of new O.T.O. initiates.

A commendable undertaking on your part.


ReplyQuote
Patriarch156
(@patriarch156)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 486
02/08/2011 12:26 am  
"Camlion" wrote:
"Patriarch156" wrote:
"Camlion" wrote:
"Patriarch156" wrote:
"Camlion" wrote:
"Patriarch156" wrote:
Crowley certainly thought[] so if going from his words in Duty.

Well, apparently this essay by Crowley is of little interest to our forum contributors. It has been linked to this thread and then posted verbatim with little comment either pro or con, although I think it quite relevant to the current sub-topic. (Los and Az did comment, and are gratefully acknowledged for do so.)

At least there is no particular interest in discussing it in this particular thread of this particular forum, which is something entirely different than being "of little interest to our forum contributors."

Perhaps.

I am one of the semiregular posters on this forum and I host a weekly public discussion group of basic Class E tracts and O.T.O. public books such as Duty and we go through it at least twice a year and get a lot out of it. I also often argue from Duty and have done so in the past, including on this forum as have to my knowledge others. I also use Duty extensively in my teaching of new O.T.O. initiates.

A commendable undertaking on your part.

No need for praise, I only wished to show that despite low interest in the document in this particular thread, interest might still be high elsewhere among the participants of this forum. As Paul pointed out, you made an inapropriate inference.


ReplyQuote
Page 10 / 11
Share: