Notifications
Clear all

Aleister Crowley and 'magical fascism'  

Page 9 / 11
  RSS

Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
25/07/2011 7:30 am  
"Keith418" wrote:
I asked [skeptics] why they never appeared at local Catholic Cathedrals to mock the idea of the transubstantiation

You can read about PZ Myers' public desecration of a eucharist here:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/the_great_desecration.ph p"> http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/the_great_desecration.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PZ_Myers#Eucharist_controvers y"> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PZ_Myers#Eucharist_controversy


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 4094
25/07/2011 11:15 am  
"Keith418" wrote:
But AC says nothing about balance in his original writing in MWT. Instead, he says that the individual is all, and the clan, family, etc. is nothing.

What if he might have been wrong on this?

😯


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
25/07/2011 3:01 pm  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
"Keith418" wrote:
But AC says nothing about balance in his original writing in MWT. Instead, he says that the individual is all, and the clan, family, etc. is nothing.

What if he might have been wrong on this?

😯

Indeed.

Who is Crowley to talk about family?

Crowley was an only child, but not just that - his father, whom he loved, died when he was a boy. This was a terrible tragedy for him: the only family member he actually liked, a parent, died when he was still growing up. Then he was on his own.

He had a totally loveless, inimical relationship with his mother.

For someone like that to state a policy like "family is nothing" in their manifesto is really little more than a declaration of their own subjective situation. His family was nothing, and making an effort with his mother, the only family he had after his father died, brought with it no joy.

I'm not "blaming him", just observing that dissociating from an already tiny family was a natural part of his coping mechanism.

He had no siblings.

Disliking your own mother as intensely as Crowley did - whether she was a terrible mother or person or not, she probably was - is a horrible state to be in. Maternal love is the first and usually deepest relationship anyone ever has.

To be in a situation where you believe that your mother hates everything you are - as he did - is an incredibly deep emotional wound to bear throughout your life.

Almost as bad, or possibly worse, as losing his father to death at a young age, as he did.

Imagine the grief!

No wonder he came out with a "family is nothing" policy. It was both emotionally true for him due to his circumstances, and the most obvious policy to adopt in order to deal rationally with it.

If he had had half a dozen dearly loved kindred soul sisters or brothers, or a twin (!), or great relationships with both parents, a happy extended family, children who survived, and so forth, he would be better qualified to speak about "family" from a position of experience of real "family" rather than what certainly seems to me like its total absence, prejudiced by his own tragic misfortune in that particular department.

Was Crowley wrong to say "family is nothing"? He had little choice, personally. But he's not speaking for the rest of us, as much as he might have liked to.


ReplyQuote
Keith418
(@keith418)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 127
25/07/2011 3:01 pm  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
"Keith418" wrote:
But AC says nothing about balance in his original writing in MWT. Instead, he says that the individual is all, and the clan, family, etc. is nothing.

What if he might have been wrong on this?

😯

But this is my whole point. Most of the people calling themselves Thelemites think he was wrong - or strongly suspect that he was. Our larger society, informed and influenced by the Judeo-Christian tradition, insists that he was wrong. If our parents were Catholics and Evangelical Christians, or even if they were liberal-left leaning Jews, they will tell us he was wrong. Atheists will tell us he was wrong. Movies and TV will tell us he was wrong.

Isn't it better, given the track record of these characters, to suspect that he was right? I didn't get involved in Thelema to make Thelema more like the world. I got involved in Thelema to make the world more like it. It's the "New Aeon" because it's "new" - not because it's more of the same.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
25/07/2011 3:23 pm  
"Keith418" wrote:
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
"Keith418" wrote:
But AC says nothing about balance in his original writing in MWT. Instead, he says that the individual is all, and the clan, family, etc. is nothing.

What if he might have been wrong on this?

😯

But this is my whole point. Most of the people calling themselves Thelemites think he was wrong - or strongly suspect that he was. Our larger society, informed and influenced by the Judeo-Christian tradition, insists that he was wrong. If our parents were Catholics and Evangelical Christians, or even if they were liberal-left leaning Jews, they will tell us he was wrong. Atheists will tell us he was wrong. Movies and TV will tell us he was wrong.

Isn't it better, given the track record of these characters, to suspect that he was right? I didn't get involved in Thelema to make Thelema more like the world. I got involved in Thelema to make the world more like it. It's the "New Aeon" because it's "new" - not because it's more of the same.

Keith, my previous post has some angles that might be worth considering regarding this.

I totally understand your radical revolutionary thrust, the desire to make a new world out of the ashes of the old, it's a big part of what drives me too, probably all or most of us.

There are two aspects I want to point out, the macrocosm and microcosm.

This may be a defect of my current level of consciousness, but I can't imagine a "perfected state" of affairs being one in which every individual is totally inconsiderate.

It is impossible to exist without relationships to other people unless you're a complete hermit. And being a complete hermit is, quite literally, pointless.

If each relationship is between two inconsiderate individuals how could it possibly produce a desirable situation?

I'm all for making the world more like Thelema, just not more like Aleister Crowley's personal life, which generally sucked.


ReplyQuote
HG
 HG
(@hg)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 96
25/07/2011 3:26 pm  
"Keith418" wrote:
But this is my whole point. Most of the people calling themselves Thelemites think he was wrong - or strongly suspect that he was. Our larger society, informed and influenced by the Judeo-Christian tradition, insists that he was wrong. If our parents were Catholics and Evangelical Christians, or even if they were liberal-left leaning Jews, they will tell us he was wrong. Atheists will tell us he was wrong. Movies and TV will tell us he was wrong.

Isn't it better, given the track record of these characters, to suspect that he was right? I didn't get involved in Thelema to make Thelema more like the world. I got involved in Thelema to make the world more like it. It's the "New Aeon" because it's "new" - not because it's more of the same.

OK, let me get this straight.

You believe Crowley's political views are right, because people and institutions you detest say his views are wrong.

But think about this:

Those people and institutions you detest are also saying Adolf Hitler's and Josef Stalin's political views were wrong.
So according to your logic, shouldn't you become a Nazi and a hardline Stalinist as well?

And how about becoming an advocate for pedophilia and cannibalism? Those people you detest don't like it, therefore it should be good, according to your logic.

Hell, go the whole hog, buy an automatic weapon and massacre dozens, like that Norwegian guy. After all, all those authorities you're rebelling against think that's a vile and despicable thing to do.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
25/07/2011 3:50 pm  
"Keith418" wrote:
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
"Keith418" wrote:
But AC says nothing about balance in his original writing in MWT. Instead, he says that the individual is all, and the clan, family, etc. is nothing.

What if he might have been wrong on this?

😯

But this is my whole point. Most of the people calling themselves Thelemites think he was wrong - or strongly suspect that he was. Our larger society, informed and influenced by the Judeo-Christian tradition, insists that he was wrong. If our parents were Catholics and Evangelical Christians, or even if they were liberal-left leaning Jews, they will tell us he was wrong. Atheists will tell us he was wrong. Movies and TV will tell us he was wrong.

Isn't it better, given the track record of these characters, to suspect that he was right? I didn't get involved in Thelema to make Thelema more like the world. I got involved in Thelema to make the world more like it. It's the "New Aeon" because it's "new" - not because it's more of the same.

Point 1: Crowley was not always right.

Point 2: Very good assertion, Noc.

Point 3: Keith, do yourself a favor. An object of meditation... from Liber 156 v7-12

"Now therefore that thou mayest achieve this ritual of the Holy Graal, do thou divest thyself of all thy goods.
Thou hast wealth; give it unto them that have need thereof, yet no desire toward it.
Thou hast health; slay thyself in the fervour of thine abandonment unto Our Lady. Let thy flesh hang loose upon thy bones, and thine eyes glare with thy quenchless lust unto the Infinite, with thy passion for the Unknown, for Her that is beyond Knowledge the accursèd one.
Thou hast love; tear thy mother from thine heart, and spit in the face of thy father. Let thy foot trample the belly of thy wife, and let the babe at her breast be the prey of dogs and vultures.
For if thou dost not this with thy will, then shall We do this despite thy will. So that thou attain to the Sacrament of the Graal in the Chapel of Abominations.
And behold! if by stealth thou keep unto thyself one thought of thine, then shalt thou be cast out into the abyss for ever; and thou shalt be the lonely one, the eater of dung, the afflicted in the Day of Be-with-Us."

You seem to be taking passages like this literally. If not, would you care to explain why it seems so?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
25/07/2011 6:38 pm  
"Noctifer" wrote:
If he had had half a dozen dearly loved kindred soul sisters or brothers, or a twin (!), or great relationships with both parents, a happy extended family, children who survived, and so forth, he would be better qualified to speak about "family" from a position of experience of real "family" rather than what certainly seems to me like its total absence, prejudiced by his own tragic misfortune in that particular department.

Was Crowley wrong to say "family is nothing"? He had little choice, personally. But he's not speaking for the rest of us, as much as he might have liked to.

This has been a really interesting little chat, with each contribution fairly typical of its source.

But Noc, are you saying that, in your opinion, each person's primary identity is entirely dependent upon his or her immediate environment during the formative years; family, community, culture, etc? And, if so, is the process that we know of as Initiation of no real value at all beyond an exercise in imaginative distraction?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
25/07/2011 7:51 pm  
"Keith418" wrote:
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
[
It's not as straightforward as you present it. Take for instance the star, an entity which is referenced in, for instance "every man and every woman is a star".

But AC says nothing about balance in his original writing in MWT. Instead, he says that the individual is all, and the clan, family, etc. is nothing. No one rooted in Judeo-Christianity, and its secularized social values, can accept this so they must moderate and adulterate Crowley's emphasis on the individual with terms like "social cohesion" and "balance." Thelema isn't a new values system that has been tried and found wanting. Instead, it's a new values system that has been found difficult... and not tried. Instead of trying it we tell ourselves it's "unbalanced," or not practical, etc. I have been hearing variations of these rationalizations ever since I joined the Thelemic community in 1987 e.v.

Keith, Michael is just butting the facts of life aside here and there again to make room for his cherished socialist fantasies. An ironic thing for a European to be doing these days, but there you have it.

As I read you, Keith, you seem to both understand and agree with Crowley to a great extent, and I agree with him, as well. I think you have trouble articulating that at times, but not all that much.

I would say that family, clan, etc, are not "nothing," but that they are not, in Thelema, the true source of the individual's Primary identity. They are factors, but they are secondary. In Thelema, every element of an individual's Universe must be put in order according to its priority, and each individual is the center of that Universe doing his or her true Will while manifest as duality (2). (0 is a complimentary Truth, but not one under discussion presently.) This is part of the process of Initiation. This is what Crowley thought and what he taught and, again, I happen to agree with you and he on this.

Those few who are truly inclined to oppose the status quo are, not coincidentally, usually those who are best qualified to do so. The average Joe or Jane is perfectly content so long as they are allowed to live, not set on fire or anything, just like most domesticated animals. 🙂


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5329
25/07/2011 8:36 pm  
"Camlion" wrote:
As I read you, Keith, you seem to both understand and agree with Crowley to a great extent, and I agree with him, as well. I think you have trouble articulating that at times, but not all that much.

Really, Camlion? "As you read" Keith? You think Keith's posts on LAShTAL "agree with Crowley"? Or do they only "agree" with Keith's preferred Crowley text, Magick Without Tears? Or do you just feel obliged to leap to the defence of a fellow OTO member? Keith has written much of interest on LiveJournal - 5,000 posts and counting, I believe - but his posts here (not to mention his emails to me) have been unconvincing and, frankly, more than a little bit silly.

For goodness' sake: I've been sufficiently impressed with Crowley over the past three decades to invest a great deal of time in this site and 'The Aleister Crowley Society', but even I - feeble Crowleyite that I may be - don't see him as the final arbiter when it comes to politics or sociology and I'm certainly no "liberal-leftist."

This thread has proved enormously useful in identifying those that adhere slavishly to Crowley's opinions and use their fanboy interpretations of the same to guide their view of Thelema, way beyond what the Holy Books actually indicate.

Disappointing.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
25/07/2011 9:03 pm  
"lashtal" wrote:
"Camlion" wrote:
As I read you, Keith, you seem to both understand and agree with Crowley to a great extent, and I agree with him, as well. I think you have trouble articulating that at times, but not all that much.

Really, Camlion? "As you read" Keith? You think Keith's posts on LAShTAL "agree with Crowley"? Or do they only "agree" with Keith's preferred Crowley text, Magick Without Tears? Or do you just feel obliged to leap to the defence of a fellow OTO member? Keith has written much of interest on LiveJournal - 5,000 posts and counting, I believe - but his posts here (not to mention his emails to me) have been unconvincing and, frankly, more than a little bit silly.

For goodness' sake: I've been sufficiently impressed with Crowley over the past three decades to invest a great deal of time in this site and 'The Aleister Crowley Society', but even I - feeble Crowleyite that I may be - don't see him as the final arbiter when it comes to politics or sociology and I'm certainly no "liberal-leftist."

This thread has proved enormously useful in identifying those that adhere slavishly to Crowley's opinions and use their fanboy interpretations of the same to guide their view of Thelema, way beyond what the Holy Books actually indicate.

Disappointing.

I have never been an OTO member, Paul, but I am also familiar with Keith's writings elsewhere. I find some of his posts here inarticulate, as I said, flustered, almost, but I would not call him or myself a fanboy. Nor would I call you a socialist, based upon what you've written here in your forums, but Michael is another matter and I'd stand by that.

Final arbiter? No. I find Keith somewhat out of his element in these forums, and reacting immaturely at times in an attempt to balance some of the very odd interpretations of Crowley's teachings that are to be found here, but I also see him painting the OTO itself with that same broad brush. He's nothing more or less than a man with an opinion.

Equally disappointed.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5329
25/07/2011 9:14 pm  
"Camlion" wrote:
Equally disappointed.

With good reason. I regret suggesting that your support of Keith's bizarre posts resulted from you being an OTO member: that was a typo that I failed to correct prior to you posting your reply.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
25/07/2011 10:46 pm  
"Camlion" wrote:
"Noctifer" wrote:
If he had had half a dozen dearly loved kindred soul sisters or brothers, or a twin (!), or great relationships with both parents, a happy extended family, children who survived, and so forth, he would be better qualified to speak about "family" from a position of experience of real "family" rather than what certainly seems to me like its total absence, prejudiced by his own tragic misfortune in that particular department.

Was Crowley wrong to say "family is nothing"? He had little choice, personally. But he's not speaking for the rest of us, as much as he might have liked to.

This has been a really interesting little chat, with each contribution fairly typical of its source.

But Noc, are you saying that, in your opinion, each person's primary identity is entirely dependent upon his or her immediate environment during the formative years; family, community, culture, etc? And, if so, is the process that we know of as Initiation of no real value at all beyond an exercise in imaginative distraction?

Er, no, I'm saying what I actually wrote.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
25/07/2011 10:57 pm  
"Camlion" wrote:
Keith, Michael is just butting the facts of life aside here and there again to make room for his cherished socialist fantasies. An ironic thing for a European to be doing these days, but there you have it.

Those few who are truly inclined to oppose the status quo are, not coincidentally, usually those who are best qualified to do so.

Haha!

I look forward to the movie!


ReplyQuote
einDoppelganger
(@eindoppelganger)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 915
25/07/2011 10:57 pm  
"Keith418" wrote:
Back in the 1980s and part of the '90s there was more of a movement towards transgression and challenging boundaries. If it wasn't always appreciated, it was permitted and expected. One of the things I've noticed, since then, is a real reluctance coming from people to shake things up or question and take on the status quo and its normative values and beliefs. That "permission to transgress" has been withdrawn. We know this because anyone who significantly deviates from the consensus is immediately labeled dangerous or a "fascist" - no matter how poor a label for their beliefs that might be. The fear of a resurgent Nazism (less of communism) seems to enforce a kind of complacency - in which people seem to possess an unshakeable and instinctual worry regarding where a questioning of contemporary root values and beliefs might lead to.

You're a big Boyd Rice, fan aren't you? I have a sneaking suspicion your nostalgia for the halcyon days of 90s transgression is a rose tinted view of "The Werewolf Order, "Jim Rose Circus" and World Serpent/Abraxas Foundation quasi-fascist wankery. A bunch of middle class white kids in ill fitting mail order uniform bits playing at authority - imagining themselves some kind of aristocracy while paging furiously though the Cheeto stained pages of "Men Among the Ruins" and "The Fifth Path."

Was it transgression in the 90s to wallow in the same tired old "transgressions" made popular by performance artists and cookie cutter industrial acts? (wooo wooo MANSON - spooky). Were "Serial Killer trading cards," Peter Sotos pedophilia, and voyeuristic masturbation as Norwegian kids burned down churches, transgressive acts worthy of nostalgia?

Transgressive thinkers mis-labeled as fascist... Who could you possibly mean?
Please illustrate who some of these shining examples of bygone transgressive, and ostensibly original thought, might be.


ReplyQuote
einDoppelganger
(@eindoppelganger)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 915
26/07/2011 12:18 am  
"wolf354" wrote:
93,
my apologies for laughing but I bet that if you interview Douglas Pearce (from DIJ) you will know so much about him as you do right now (be it bad or good).
Maybe it's a style, I don't know.
Best regards,

Sorry Wolf, I dont understand. Do you mean I'd know more about Douglas or Keith?

I know quite a bit about Douglas already... and by extension I'm pretty sure I can sum Keith up for you now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28WdZXOLgjg


ReplyQuote
amadan-De
(@amadan-de)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 686
26/07/2011 12:43 am  

Strikes me that Keith is basically saying this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8ExELkCBiE
but with less self-knowledge, humour or tune 🙂

(Mind you, I'm starting to think that large parts of this thread are some weird exercise in post-modern ironic humour. I mean, "Behold! I am teh mighty individual iconoclast, I despise all 'herds' and those who fall in with them and slavishly agree with their codes..............but, but, but why don't the other members of the group (not-herd) I identify with agree with me? They are wrong and must all think like me, so we can all be the same (but still not-herd)!")


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
26/07/2011 1:04 am  
"amadan-De" wrote:
Strikes me that Keith is basically saying this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8ExELkCBiE
but with less self-knowledge, humour or tune 🙂

(Mind you, I'm starting to think that large parts of this thread are some weird exercise in post-modern ironic humour. I mean, "Behold! I am teh mighty individual iconoclast, I despise all 'herds' and those who fall in with them and slavishly agree with their codes..............but, but, but why don't the other members of the group (not-herd) I identify with agree with me? They are wrong and must all think like me, so we can all be the same (but still not-herd)!")

Wow... in a good way.

Has this what the thread has come to, sheep vs. wolf?

If so, I suggest that we find a way to agree upon a definition (however loose) of both "sheep" and "wolf", before things get blown way out of proportion.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
26/07/2011 1:11 am  

Well, I think it's a very good idea to vigilant about questioning the status quo, both in ourselves and in our environment. I'd like to hear a convincing argument against this, if there is one.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5350
26/07/2011 1:32 am  
"Keith418" wrote:
The counter culture of the 60s didn't happen, after all, because people were worried about upsetting the status quo.

Actually, it did happen. As stated, it was "the counter culture of the 60s," and it actually happened - in the 60s. It was pretty much shut down by the brute force of the status quo Establishment in the early 70s.

War protesters shot down by the Army. LSD banned - even for psychiatric use? All known psychedelics named and banned. Communes raided and burned!

"IT IS ONE THING to have had well over one-hundred voyages into other dimensions with assistance from a variety of well-known members of the AMD.'. triad. [Acid-Mescaline-DMT].
It was another thing to watch as a panicked worldwide Establishment, through the use of its own form of the hyperspace bypass tunnel, circumvented the usual procedures known as "governmental red tape" and rushed to impose harsh restrictions upon anyone who dared to possess a key to the lock on reality."
"Seotonin suppresses unnecessary information ... The Establishment suppresses unnecessary information. The Establishment will do anything in its power to prevent its citizens from visiting other dimensions, especially when the initiates and the psychonaughts return with unnecessary information, such as insights into the manipulation of "reality" by the Lords of Materialism." - Coruscatio (c)2011.

Well, you're right in that the counter-culture didn't TAKE OVER THE ESTABLISHMENT. However, many of those hippies and agitators rose into Establishment positions. Even though the status quo may have affected them, a lot of the counter-culture got through - and THE WORLD IS NOT THE SAME AS IT WAS. You can argue about whether it's better (or not), but that Acid is still fiddling with today's reality.

"Keith418" wrote:
Why then, are so many people worried now - even the people who see the cultural revolution of the 60s as some kind of important benchmark?

What? Me worry?

Er, the "cultural revolution" took place in China. Kee-rist, that one really took hold!


ReplyQuote
amadan-De
(@amadan-de)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 686
26/07/2011 2:15 am  
"Camlion" wrote:
Well, I think it's a very good idea to vigilant about questioning the status quo, both in ourselves and in our environment. I'd like to hear a convincing argument against this, if there is one.

Absolutely bang on. With the proviso that this vigilant questioning is engaged and informed and never merely reflexive and applied equally to all proposed alternatives also, without exception. The rigorous scrutiny of your own 'comfortableness' with how things are is a good place to start and then proceed outwards. Those things you are most comfortable with may be the most in need of attention because you will tend to just 'glide over them' to focus on minor niggles.

If in doubt, test to destruction.

I'm guessing you mean 'social' or 'cultural' environment - don't think I'm going to start messing with the natural environment just yet i) we don't know enough (picture a four year-old rewiring the house) ii) it'll only win anyway. 🙂


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
26/07/2011 2:44 am  

status quo

"Status quo, a commonly used form of the original Latin "statu quo" – literally "the state in which" – is a Latin term meaning the current or existing state of affairs.[1] To maintain the status quo is to keep the things the way they presently are. The related phrase status quo ante, literally "the state in which before", means "the state of affairs that existed previously".[2]"

I hear ya, Cam. How about we start here? Considering the current state of affairs "where? with what? in what organization, or group? etc.", seems like a reasonable starting point.

I'm not going to run around proclaiming objection to any "status quo" just for the hell of it. The current state of affairs for speed zones on the roads isn't too bad, so why oppose it just for the hell of it? Just because some dead guy with a mastery of English says we should? Or just because there should never be a "status quo", which by definition means there should never be a "current state of affairs"?


ReplyQuote
Keith418
(@keith418)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 127
26/07/2011 2:53 am  
"lashtal" wrote:
? Or do they only "agree" with Keith's preferred Crowley text, Magick Without Tears?

Well, I thought I also cited "Liber Aleph" too:

"For we are born into a World which is in Bondage to Ideals; to them we are perforce fitted, even as the Enemies to the Bed of Procrustes."

For some, the victims of Evangelical Christian and Catholic upbringings, those "ideals" they are born into are what mommy and daddy and Pastor Bob or Father Ted taught you about sin and god and death and the afterlife. For others, and I'd argue the majority of college educated, upper middle class, cultured people in Western democracies, the "ideals" they are raised with are more the ideals of democracy and liberal-left leaning egalitarianism and "scientific rationalism." One group is taught to fear hell. The other group is taught to fear a resurgent Nazism, racial prejudice, sexism, homophobia, etc. Each group has its own "sins" its members feel guilty about - and each has its own way of "atoning."

If the occult community is dominated by people from the first group, it will never easily see the way the second group is born into "bondage" in the same sense. They have to escape the '"deals" of the Passion of Christ and the saints, etc. The liberal-left people have to escape the "bondage" of having to pretend everyone is equal and the guilt-trips that come with that set of ideals. I'd argue that this separation of struggle causes some of the impasses we see. It's easy for most cultured people to see why escaping from the mental bonds of primitive, stupid Fundamentalism or Catholicism is desirable. But the "ideals" of the Rev. Martin Luther King and Elie Wiesel can be just as binding and they come with their own kind of strict and unquestioning "fundamentalism" too.

How much is disdaining religious primitive fundamentalism really a class marker? Isn't there a kind of social aspiration, and class movement, going on among the ex-Fundamentalists?


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
26/07/2011 4:07 am  
"Keith418" wrote:
"lashtal" wrote:
? Or do they only "agree" with Keith's preferred Crowley text, Magick Without Tears?

Well, I thought I also cited "Liber Aleph" too:

"For we are born into a World which is in Bondage to Ideals; to them we are perforce fitted, even as the Enemies to the Bed of Procrustes."

For some, the victims of Evangelical Christian and Catholic upbringings, those "ideals" they are born into are what mommy and daddy and Pastor Bob or Father Ted taught you about sin and god and death and the afterlife. For others, and I'd argue the majority of college educated, upper middle class, cultured people in Western democracies, the "ideals" they are raised with are more the ideals of democracy and liberal-left leaning egalitarianism and "scientific rationalism." One group is taught to fear hell. The other group is taught to fear a resurgent Nazism, racial prejudice, sexism, homophobia, etc. Each group has its own "sins" its members feel guilty about - and each has its own way of "atoning."

If the occult community is dominated by people from the first group, it will never easily see the way the second group is born into "bondage" in the same sense. They have to escape the '"deals" of the Passion of Christ and the saints, etc. The liberal-left people have to escape the "bondage" of having to pretend everyone is equal and the guilt-trips that come with that set of ideals. I'd argue that this separation of struggle causes some of the impasses we see. It's easy for most cultured people to see why escaping from the mental bonds of primitive, stupid Fundamentalism or Catholicism is desirable. But the "ideals" of the Rev. Martin Luther King and Elie Wiesel can be just as binding and they come with their own kind of strict and unquestioning "fundamentalism" too.

How much is disdaining religious primitive fundamentalism really a class marker? Isn't there a kind of social aspiration, and class movement, going on among the ex-Fundamentalists?

You are really stuck on this. Do you live in the Bible Belt?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
26/07/2011 4:14 am  
"Azidonis" wrote:
I hear ya, Cam. How about we start here? Considering the current state of affairs "where? with what? in what organization, or group? etc.", seems like a reasonable starting point.

The logical starting point is evaluating what goes on between our own ears, I would think. Our thoughts, feelings, values, etc. We should understand their origins, and then we can retain or discard them freely as they relate to our true Will. If they are in conflict with our true Will, and we do not recognize them as such, we are poised for self-defeat. Every thought, word and deed is therefore consecrated to that purpose, etc, etc, as with Liber Jugorum. "Now these Beasts run wildly upon the earths and are not easily obedient to the Man." So I would start between our own ears.

"Azidonis" wrote:
The current state of affairs for speed zones on the roads isn't too bad, so why oppose it just for the hell of it?

The speed rules seem fine with me too, and that seems to be the consensus. But what if they were, say, 5 MPH on the theory that safety is better assured thereby? I, for one, would move to increase the speed limit laws. You hit the nail on the head with your simple example. We evaluate our environment by the same standards as above. It actually is a very good example because this is the way some people advocate for making our laws, trading more freedom than necessary for the sake of greater security.


ReplyQuote
Keith418
(@keith418)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 127
26/07/2011 5:45 am  
"Azidonis" wrote:
You are really stuck on this. Do you live in the Bible Belt?

No, I like in the opposite, But most of the "atheists" I know are "recovering" Fundamentalists and Catholics, and many of the Thelemites I know are too. Sometimes they tell you right off and with others it's years later that you discover they have some crazy Evangelical parent they are still struggling with. Deep in their own past they still wrestle with the old Gods of their childhoods - often oblivious to anything else.

Because I don't live in the Bible belt I can see the way liberal humanism has created its own pantheon of gods and saints. On public transportation, recently, I saw a child's award -winning mural depicting MLK and Rosa Parks at the Montgomery Bus Boycott. Their hallowed faces and central place in the adoring composition made them look like Christ and Mary together. How many occultists would look at this new and brightly pained icon that and see the way one set of gods and goddesses was usurping the place of another?


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
26/07/2011 5:56 am  
"Camlion" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
I hear ya, Cam. How about we start here? Considering the current state of affairs "where? with what? in what organization, or group? etc.", seems like a reasonable starting point.

The logical starting point is evaluating what goes on between our own ears, I would think. Our thoughts, feelings, values, etc. We should understand their origins, and then we can retain or discard them freely as they relate to our true Will. If they are in conflict with our true Will, and we do not recognize them as such, we are poised for self-defeat. Every thought, word and deed is therefore consecrated to that purpose, etc, etc, as with Liber Jugorum. "Now these Beasts run wildly upon the earths and are not easily obedient to the Man." So I would start between our own ears.

Couldn't agree more.

"Camlion" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
The current state of affairs for speed zones on the roads isn't too bad, so why oppose it just for the hell of it?

The speed rules seem fine with me too, and that seems to be the consensus. But what if they were, say, 5 MPH on the theory that safety is better assured thereby? I, for one, would move to increase the speed limit laws. You hit the nail on the head with your simple example. We evaluate our environment by the same standards as above. It actually is a very good example because this is the way some people advocate for making our laws, trading more freedom than necessary for the sake of greater security.

Yes, that's what I was getting at. The "current state of affairs" of everything isn't completely screwed up. There are some things that can use some tweeks, and some things can use downright overhauls. I don't think that advocating massive change just for the sake of changing things (or because Crowley or someone else said to) is supremely beneficial in the long run.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If it is broke, fix it or get a new one. I don't buy a new shirt every day just because the shirt I wore yesterday is "dirty". I clean it, iron it if need be, and re-use it.

Granted, when it comes to politics, humanity overall has experimented with quite a few systems. All of them have had their pros and cons, and all of them eventually collapse for one reason or another. In the case of trying new systems and approaches, it is important for us to take a look at both current processes and those of history, and find out what has worked. Some of the methods used in the past, and even in the present, do indeed work. Some of them work rather well. There are many other laws and processes that are just plain bad, and could very well use a change or be tossed out. But I wouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater just because she made a mess in the tub.

If you had, say, a Probationer that was very good at say, magick, but not so great with mysticism, you wouldn't count that person out as a "failed Probationer". You would encourage them to identify their strengths and their weaknesses, and perhaps quietly point them towards means that will help them strengthen their strong points, while possibly using those strong points to assist in overcoming the weaknesses. [Granted, it has been stated in Liber Aleph that the number one rule in dealing with Probationers is "Mind Thine Own Business", but I'm sure that anyone who has actually dealt with Probationers, or has been one, gets the point.]


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
26/07/2011 5:58 am  
"Keith418" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
You are really stuck on this. Do you live in the Bible Belt?

No, I like in the opposite, But most of the "atheists" I know are "recovering" Fundamentalists and Catholics, and many of the Thelemites I know are too. Sometimes they tell you right off and with others it's years later that you discover they have some crazy Evangelical parent they are still struggling with. Deep in their own past they still wrestle with the old Gods of their childhoods - often oblivious to anything else.

Because I don't live in the Bible belt I can see the way liberal humanism has created its own pantheon of gods and saints. On public transportation, recently, I saw a child's award -winning mural depicting MLK and Rosa Parks at the Montgomery Bus Boycott. Their hallowed faces and central place in the adoring composition made them look like Christ and Mary together. How many occultists would look at this new and brightly pained icon that and see the way one set of gods and goddesses was usurping the place of another?

Perhaps you could introduce these "recovering" people to the Four Noble Truths. In specific, the 2nd Noble Truth, that attachment causes suffering.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
26/07/2011 7:16 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
Yes, that's what I was getting at. The "current state of affairs" of everything isn't completely screwed up. There are some things that can use some tweeks, and some things can use downright overhauls. I don't think that advocating massive change just for the sake of changing things (or because Crowley or someone else said to) is supremely beneficial in the long run.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If it is broke, fix it or get a new one. I don't buy a new shirt every day just because the shirt I wore yesterday is "dirty". I clean it, iron it if need be, and re-use it.

Granted, when it comes to politics, humanity overall has experimented with quite a few systems. All of them have had their pros and cons, and all of them eventually collapse for one reason or another. In the case of trying new systems and approaches, it is important for us to take a look at both current processes and those of history, and find out what has worked. Some of the methods used in the past, and even in the present, do indeed work. Some of them work rather well. There are many other laws and processes that are just plain bad, and could very well use a change or be tossed out. But I wouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater just because she made a mess in the tub.

Let's look at Keith's (and Crowley's) political pet peeves, egalitarianism and democracy, very briefly.

Egalitarianism, in the light of the Law of Thelema, is dependent upon an oxymoron. We know each Individual to be unique, and therefore no two can logically be said to be equal. That, by the way, is a good thing not a bad one.

Democracy at present is terribly flawed, which is why most everyone hates politics and politicians, but I would not say that it is a failed system. I have yet to hear a better proposal, outside of fantasy, that could be effectively installed to replace it without seriously disrupting civilization. So, I conclude that it should be modified so as to address the objections to it.

These are the same ideas that Keith is expressing, mind you, but are a little less "in your face" in their presentation. Okay, a lot less. 🙂


ReplyQuote
Falcon
(@falcon)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 361
26/07/2011 10:03 pm  

"My enemies say that the celebration of the "Black Mass" was one of the most innocuous of my activities in Sicily and France. "Why was he thrown out of both those countries?" they ask. The explanation of why I left is quite simple and unsensational. I took a villa at Cefalu in Sicily for work and play. We began the day with family prayers; we occasionally celebrated a semi-religious ceremony known as the Gnostic Mass. Several people who were my guests at the "abbey" made imaginative copy out of their visits. Then the Fascists came to power and some foreign newspaper correspondents were asked to leave. And so was I. There was no rough turning-out. I was treated with the greatest of courtesy".

'Black Magic is Not a Myth' by Aleister Crowley 'London Sunday Despatch', 2nd July 1933 e.v.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
26/07/2011 10:59 pm  
"Camlion" wrote:
These are the same ideas that Keith is expressing, mind you, but are a little less "in your face" in their presentation. Okay, a lot less. 🙂

I see Keith expressing:

But AC says nothing about balance in his original writing in MWT. Instead, he says that the individual is all, and the clan, family, etc. is nothing. No one rooted in Judeo-Christianity, and its secularized social values, can accept this so they must moderate and adulterate Crowley's emphasis on the individual with terms like "social cohesion" and "balance." Thelema isn't a new values system that has been tried and found wanting. Instead, it's a new values system that has been found difficult... and not tried. Instead of trying it we tell ourselves it's "unbalanced," or not practical, etc. I have been hearing variations of these rationalizations ever since I joined the Thelemic community in 1987 e.v. [...]

and...

"My dislike to Atheism is principally founded on the fact that so many of its exponents are always boring me about ethics."

- Crowley

Does this wonderful observation reinforce the way that Strauss & Crowley were correct - and that most "atheists" are just Judeo-Christians in a new disguise?

and...

Is where "humanity" is now so wonderful? If we want to do better, it won't be by doing the same things we are doing now, nor by insisting on the virtue of the same values that brought us here. If Crowley wanted to overturn the status quo, why are today's Thelemites so intent on preserving it? Have they stopped being able to imagine any other alternative? How exactly did they arrive at that point?

and...

I am not surprised that the children of Fundies and Catholics resist looking at these facts and trajectories. This doesn't mean that Crowley was wrong about them and their issues.

and...

But this is my whole point. Most of the people calling themselves Thelemites think he was wrong - or strongly suspect that he was. Our larger society, informed and influenced by the Judeo-Christian tradition, insists that he was wrong. If our parents were Catholics and Evangelical Christians, or even if they were liberal-left leaning Jews, they will tell us he was wrong. Atheists will tell us he was wrong. Movies and TV will tell us he was wrong.

Isn't it better, given the track record of these characters, to suspect that he was right? I didn't get involved in Thelema to make Thelema more like the world. I got involved in Thelema to make the world more like it. It's the "New Aeon" because it's "new" - not because it's more of the same.

On a closer look, are sure that is what he is saying? (Granted, if it is, he is not saying it nowhere near as simply or as eloquently as you put it, which makes me want to question his understanding of the subject.)


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
27/07/2011 12:23 am  
"Azidonis" wrote:
On a closer look, are sure that is what he is saying? (Granted, if it is, he is not saying it nowhere near as simply or as eloquently as you put it, which makes me want to question his understanding of the subject.)

Yes, I'm pretty sure about it. This all goes back to what's between our ears. Most self-identifying Thelemites, like most people in general, do not undertake the discipline of reevaluating what's inside their heads and how it got there. There's often a lot of stuff in there of very suspicious origin, stuff that we have picked up from our environments, which Keith has elaborated upon.

Anyone who thinks they can just pick Thelema up as a young adult and run with it had best stop and clean house first. Each of us at that point in life probably has 20+ years of incompatible stuff between our ears, through no fault of our own, and Thelema isn't quite going to fit. The internal distortion and conflict that results from this oversight is what Keith is referring to.

In fact, come to think of it, this just might be the reason we see so many oddly different and disparate styles of self-identifying Thelemites around us. 😉


ReplyQuote
Keith418
(@keith418)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 127
27/07/2011 1:57 am  
"Camlion" wrote:
In fact, come to think of it, this just might be the reason we see so many oddly different and disparate styles of self-identifying Thelemites around us. 😉

Are they really all that different? I have found, over the years, that ultimately they are more alike than they are unique. Deep down, most of the people in the community (and its leaders) are very reluctant to let go of conventional morality and normative values. This is why "Crowley might have been wrong" or "Crowley WAS wrong!" is only forthcoming from them and their followers when those values are questioned, criticized, or threatened.

None of the leaders of any of the major Thelemic orders, for example, are at all adamant about ending drug laws, nor are they invested in celebrating selfishness instead of self-sacrifice, nor do they dismiss the family as an inherent enemy the way AC did, etc. No matter how much they might dislike each other personally, the basis of their enmity always ends up resembling what Freud called the "narcissism of small differences." I pointed out to one of the Thelemic leaders that every other leader was also leaning towards left-liberalism... and he didn't disagree with me. If that's the case... then how much of an authentic alternative can each competing school truly be said to offer?

On the other hand, if Thelema is - for most people - more of a fashion statement than a real mission statement, then perhaps these small differences are reassuring.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
27/07/2011 4:57 am  
"Camlion" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
On a closer look, are sure that is what he is saying? (Granted, if it is, he is not saying it nowhere near as simply or as eloquently as you put it, which makes me want to question his understanding of the subject.)

Yes, I'm pretty sure about it. This all goes back to what's between our ears. Most self-identifying Thelemites, like most people in general, do not undertake the discipline of reevaluating what's inside their heads and how it got there. There's often a lot of stuff in there of very suspicious origin, stuff that we have picked up from our environments, which Keith has elaborated upon.

Anyone who thinks they can just pick Thelema up as a young adult and run with it had best stop and clean house first. Each of us at that point in life probably has 20+ years of incompatible stuff between our ears, through no fault of our own, and Thelema isn't quite going to fit. The internal distortion and conflict that results from this oversight is what Keith is referring to.

In fact, come to think of it, this just might be the reason we see so many oddly different and disparate styles of self-identifying Thelemites around us. 😉

To use your phrase, 'This is all very elementary stuff.'

I thought we were talking about Thelemites, not fan boys.

Keith:

"Keith418" wrote:
Are they really all that different? I have found, over the years, that ultimately they are more alike than they are unique. Deep down, most of the people in the community (and its leaders) are very reluctant to let go of conventional morality and normative values. This is why "Crowley might have been wrong" or "Crowley WAS wrong!" is only forthcoming from them and their followers when those values are questioned, criticized, or threatened.

As I understand it, each individual is left to determine his/her own values. If those values include monogamy, for example, they are perfectly free to choose and practice monogamy with their partner. If they choose polygamy, they are perfectly free to practice polygamy with the partners of their choice.

The monogamists "theoretically" have no real say in whether or not the polygamists should practice polygamy, and in the same token, polygamists shouldn't go knocking on the doors of happily married couples asking them to join their "love cult".

As Initiates grow and change, and move forth through actual Initiations (not the one's some people pay fees for), those values change and fluctuate. Some of them change completely, and some do not necessarily need to change.

Thelema offers the freedom of choice to the individual, not the herd. This freedom of choice includes the freedom to embrace whatever values one sees as beneficial to oneself, true to oneself, and thus in accordance with universal application.

This goes back to what Cam, and myself, have said with it being up to each individual to search these out within themselves, and find their own answers.

"Keith418" wrote:
None of the leaders of any of the major Thelemic orders, for example, are at all adamant about ending drug laws, nor are they invested in celebrating selfishness instead of self-sacrifice, nor do they dismiss the family as an inherent enemy the way AC did, etc.

So you see these things as elements in your own life that need to be changed, and will work to make those changes in your own life. Perhaps others will feel the same way, and then you can group together and work towards these changes.

But, I don't see how you expect any of these views to be held by any other person or body of people whatsoever, and I do not see how you are seemingly so frustrated when they are not.

"Keith418" wrote:
No matter how much they might dislike each other personally, the basis of their enmity always ends up resembling what Freud called the "narcissism of small differences."

That's how you see it, and I won't disagree that it can seem that way. But instead of viewing it this way, how about trying to view them as schools of thought?

Think of how the various schools of Daoism and Confucianism evolved over time, and how the Chinese government basically evolved by using each of the various schools of thought as their background templates for almost 2,000 years, up until the early 1900's.

That there are many schools of thought in Thelema already is seen by some as a curse, but I tend to see it more of a blessing. There is more room for growth at a very crucial stage in the infancy of Thelema.

Some prefer to see it as a bane, thinking that if we could just get them all to agree on a single banner than Thelema would have more success as a movement. The question then becomes, "Which banner?"

"Keith418" wrote:
I pointed out to one of the Thelemic leaders that every other leader was also leaning towards left-liberalism... and he didn't disagree with me. If that's the case... then how much of an authentic alternative can each competing school truly be said to offer?

I've said many things to Thelemic leaders over the years, and many times I wasn't even given a response, let alone get a disagreement. Hell, sometimes I would beg for, and even try to start arguments for the sake of getting direct output. The bottom line is that it has been better overall for me to not have received such feedback. "Don't take my word for it. Find out for yourself."

So it's possible that the "Thelemic leaders" you are talking about agreed with you, or that they merely pacified you by allowing you to think on your own, and come up with your own ideas. To draw conclusions about them from that is, in my opinion, a misnomer.

"Keith418" wrote:
On the other hand, if Thelema is - for most people - more of a fashion statement than a real mission statement, then perhaps these small differences are reassuring.

How about this. In their last annual report (linked elsewhere in this thread), the O.T.O. (c) stated that it had 1,216 Active Members as of February 28, 2011. Of those 1,216 Active Members, 304 of them are Minervals, and 912 are listed as "Full Members".

Taking only this number of 1,216 and dividing it by the total world population of 6,951,564,335 we get the approximate value of 0.00000000175 percent. That is, the total number of Active Members in the O.T.O. (c) as of February 28, 2011 is a very miniscule percentage of the entire world's population. (Someone better at math than me is free to find/correct any errors or make any elaborations.)

All things considered, the O.T.O (c) is not the only "Thelemic body", and let's say just for kicks that there are 15,000 self-proclaimed Thelemites in this world... about the population of the university I attend. That is, approximately 0.0000000216 of the world's total population.

In contrast, "The Muslim population in 2011 is 1974.5 Million. = 1.97 Billion" Source

I could keep going with this. Here is another link: Major Religious Groups.

So, with Thelema, being an extremely tiny portion of the overall world's population, and still being able to influence half of the things it has, I'd say that overall Thelema is doing pretty damn well for itself, and it is also gaining ground.

The fan boys? Well, if you had a number like 15,000, and counted out all of the fan boys (which of course there would have to be a deciding criteria), you would end up with a much smaller number than 15,000. I'd go so far as to guess that perhaps not even half of the people claiming to be Thelemites are actual Thelemites.

So what do you want to do with your 7,000 people worldwide? March on a town hall and demand they change the marriage laws? Demand that they change other laws just because 7,000 out of their 28,000 citizens (that's one fourth), think they are unjust?

As I said before. This is a time for education and clarity among those who are or would like to become actual Thelemites, those who have decided to accomplish the Great Work. Thelema is still young, and it is in the process of laying a foundation broad enough to encompass many schools of thought and approaches to enlightenment, while at the same time being able to hold steady in its own message. Thus far in history, I know of very few other religions or "approaches to reality" that have accomplished such a thing without complete and total dissolution. For an example of such dissolution, look at the history of Christianity.

In my opinion, this is the prime time for us to establish said schools of thought, and to affirm and reassert the messages of those schools, not to bicker between the schools or hold cockfights about who has the prettiest wand. If Thelema is to become a widely accepted paradigm, its schools must be able to withstand the worst forms of scrutiny, bigotry, misunderstanding, and every other sort of confusion that Choronzon has to offer. Withstanding those tests, weathering those storms, and still remaining true to the Law of Thelema, is what will allow those schools of thought to gain acceptance, and eventually grow.

To run out right now and say, "Thelemites of the world unite to defeat the status quo" is a bit premature. To throw out every bit of the status quo just for the hell of it is not wise, to say the least. Some of it works just fine.

This whole thread is starting to remind me of the "nonconformist goths" on South Park, and how they all try so hard to not conform with "the norm" they have effectively created a small conformity within their own group, which they must by definition and practice also detest and not conform with.


ReplyQuote
Keith418
(@keith418)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 127
27/07/2011 5:57 am  
"Azidonis" wrote:
As I understand it, each individual is left to determine his/her own values.

That's what we tell ourselves, because no one really wants to admit they are just conforming to what everyone else is doing, thinking, and believing around them. But are they really able to be this independent? Where's the evidence?

One of the underlying questions we see come up is whether Thelema is really as easy to do as people claim it is. Is it easy? Or is it hard to escape the "bonds"/"ideals" Crowley tells us we are born into?

If it were as easy as people claim, would things look the way they did or would they look different? Let's turn the powers of our doubt and skepticism on those claims... and see what we get.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
27/07/2011 7:35 am  
"Keith418" wrote:
One of the underlying questions we see come up is whether Thelema is really as easy to do as people claim it is. Is it easy?

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.”

It’s all well and good to say, “I reject this left-wing morality!” but you’ve left the task unfinished if that’s all you reject.

The hardest cage to get out of, let’s remember, is one you’ve built yourself. If you shed all "bonds/ideals" *except* for the ones that your mind has generated in order for you to sustain your self-image as some "rebel" against the "status quo," then you're not free at all.

If you walk around telling yourself, “Yes, it’s ‘Thelemic’ to oppose gun control and civil rights legislation and to get weirdly upset at seeing a painting of MLK…I *should* do those things,” then you are trapped in a morality cage of your own making. And it will be impossible for you to get out of it because you won’t be able to see the bars. You’ll think that your self-generated morality is somehow “correct” just because it's not the morality held by the masses, and after all, you’ve come to those convictions yourself, due to all your “hard work,” damnit!, so of course you would never think to challenge those "bonds/ideals" of your mind's making.

For the zillionth time: you’re turning Thelema into just another form of morality, just another set of “thou shalts.”

Seriously, it’s getting embarrassing to watch you get trounced and then watch you make absolutely no attempt to respond to the cogent arguments offered against you. You just continue to post rhetorical question after rhetorical question, as if you’re some kind of machine designed to flood the forum.

Here’s a chance for you to start fresh. Do me the favor of answering the following question because I’m curious how you’d answer it.

The scenario: there is a Thelemite who belongs to a minority race that qualifies him – under one of those dastardly left-wing pieces of legislation you despise so much – to obtain government assistance in getting into a school and paying for school. This Thelemite decides that this piece of legislation will make it vastly easier for him to get the education that he wants, to get the career that he wants, and to fulfill his will.

The question: do you think the proper Thelemic course of action for this
individual is to support this piece of legislation?

My answer is simple: a Thelemite has the full sanction of the Law of Thelema to fulfill his will – and to support anything at all that will assist him with his will – and to “care not at all” what anyone else thinks, whether or not anyone else thinks he’s a “bad Thelemite” for doing so, whose feelings get hurt, whose will gets thwarted in the process, and who gets harmed at all by the action.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
27/07/2011 7:35 am  
"Keith418" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
As I understand it, each individual is left to determine his/her own values.

If it were as easy as people claim, would things look the way they did or would they look different? Let's turn the powers of our doubt and skepticism on those claims... and see what we get.

That would certainly distract from all this hogwash and arrogant condescension (as per this quote)

On the other hand, if Thelema is - for most people - more of a fashion statement than a real mission statement, then perhaps these small differences are reassuring.

of Thelemic "true believers" on the proper way a Thelemite should think and behave. What utter oxymoronic nonsense.

The non- issue of family vrs the individual is a false dichotomy. You can be a part of a functioning group or family of individuals. Having a family doesn't strip you of your individuality. Individuals do not spring ready made from the ground, they are birthed and raised by families. Crowley's admonition against families only means to not let family take over your whole life to the extent that you're unable to work.

Crowley also did not advocate throwing out all conventional morality. Some things he rationalized Thelemically such as the old aeon commandment, Thou Shall Not Kill.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
27/07/2011 7:40 am  
"Keith418" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
As I understand it, each individual is left to determine his/her own values.

That's what we tell ourselves, because no one really wants to admit they are just conforming to what everyone else is doing, thinking, and believing around them. But are they really able to be this independent? Where's the evidence?

Where's the evidence that your utopian anarchy would hold any weight at all in practice?

Fact of the matter is, human culture exists within some sort of structure, whether that structure be of the state or local tribe. Name me one example where this has not been the case in all of history, and the culture flourished for more than say 200 years.

One of the underlying questions we see come up is whether Thelema is really as easy to do as people claim it is. Is it easy? Or is it hard to escape the "bonds"/"ideals" Crowley tells us we are born into?

This depends on the individual, but surely you know this already... satva, rajas, tamas, etc.

If it were as easy as people claim, would things look the way they did or would they look different? Let's turn the powers of our doubt and skepticism on those claims... and see what we get.

Go ahead. Let me know how it works out for you. Go break every speed limit, and see how long it takes until your bank account goes negative. Go run around town nude, just because you feel like being nude tomorrow, and see how missing work effects your ability to actually effect change in conformity with your will, as opposed to spouting off nonsense on a forum that will simply not work in practice on a grand scale at the current time in human evolution.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
27/07/2011 9:35 am  

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?

The same sort of independence you're so worried about 'violating' by bothering to consider its relation (and relation is, after all, the only thing that "exists") to that of others?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
27/07/2011 9:47 am  

Also, Keith418, did you read my two earlier posts in this thread (in the middle of this page? I'm not trying to "change your mind" and in no way belittle what you are saying, I just think it is really very necessary to fully appreciate where Crowley was coming from, what his understanding of "family" was, when he wrote what he wrote.

I'm not dismissive of your views at all. I think you are actually very sincere and I have had to engage in this process myself. I am sure many Thelemites do. I admire your honesty.

I respect your intentions, and I do think you are serious and committed to your Work. I enjoy your posts here as well, and am particularly impressed by your integrity and conviction in stating your sincerely-held views on your understanding of Thelema and Crowley's writings on it.

I am genuinely interested in what you are saying, although I disagree with some of your conclusions. But Crowley's writings beg criticism in so many places, despite his positive qualities he is by no means an ultimate authority on anything at all as far as I'm concerned, nobody is. I am my own ultimate authority, informed by the best I can discern around me. I use Crowley, I do not obey Crowley. Or anyone else, unless I give myself that authority in appropriate circumstances for particular reasons. But it is I who authorise, not he.

I really think it's worth your while to read previous posts linked to above, I hope you enjoy doing so and that it gives you some food for thought and reflection.

Crowley was a man who wrote books, climbed mountains, and held parties.

Best regards,
N.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
27/07/2011 7:12 pm  
"Los" wrote:
The hardest cage to get out of, let’s remember, is one you’ve built yourself. If you shed all "bonds/ideals" *except* for the ones that your mind has generated in order for you to sustain your self-image as some "rebel" against the "status quo," then you're not free at all.

Yes, this what I meant by remaining ever vigilant about what's between our ears. A cage labeled "freedom" is still a cage.


ReplyQuote
Falcon
(@falcon)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 361
28/07/2011 12:25 am  

The July 2011 issue of 'Searchlight' the UK's monthly anti-fascist magazine carries an article by Alexander Gray entitled, 'Slimelight Club In London Hosts Fascist Bands', featuring a report on a controversial concert by Tony Wakeford's Neo-folk/post-Industrial band, Sol Invictus, and Freya Aswynn, a pagan High Priestess. Some of Sol Invictus' CD albums feature references to Crowley.

www.searchlightmagazine.com


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 4094
28/07/2011 12:29 am  
"Camlion" wrote:
Yes, this what I meant by remaining ever vigilant about what's between our ears. A cage labeled "freedom" is still a cage.

Well, it's certainly mis-selling.


ReplyQuote
Falcon
(@falcon)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 361
28/07/2011 12:16 pm  

The 'Searchlight' article on the Slimelight - Sol Invictus concert can be read here:

www.whomakesthenazis.com/2011/07/search ... hosts.html


ReplyQuote
Frater_HPK
(@frater_hpk)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 104
28/07/2011 2:23 pm  
"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?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
28/07/2011 2:34 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
How about this. In their last annual report (linked elsewhere in this thread), the O.T.O. (c) stated that it had 1,216 Active Members as of February 28, 2011. Of those 1,216 Active Members, 304 of them are Minervals, and 912 are listed as "Full Members".

I think you'll find that that is the report for US Grand Lodge, and thus the statistics refer to US Active Members, not worldwide. Current worldwide active membership is somewhere over 3000 I believe.

The rest of your point still stands however, and is very well made.

Rodney


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
28/07/2011 3:06 pm  
"rodneyorpheus" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
How about this. In their last annual report (linked elsewhere in this thread), the O.T.O. (c) stated that it had 1,216 Active Members as of February 28, 2011. Of those 1,216 Active Members, 304 of them are Minervals, and 912 are listed as "Full Members".

I think you'll find that that is the report for US Grand Lodge, and thus the statistics refer to US Active Members, not worldwide. Current worldwide active membership is somewhere over 3000 I believe.

The rest of your point still stands however, and is very well made.

Rodney

Thanks for the correction. I'm looking forward to the day where the choice of "Thelemite" appears on the census. That means people should start marking that "other" spot and writing in "Thelemite". 🙂


ReplyQuote
Frater_HPK
(@frater_hpk)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 104
28/07/2011 5:11 pm  

In fact, I am afraid OTO failed, I am talking locally, in mission to create thelemic society. In my country, earlier Yugoslavia, now Serbia, OTO was the biggest, after USA, in one moment. A lot of published books, tapes, original thelemic music etc. All of this was due to creative efforts of one man who is now FSR of Slovenia, with due respect to all other people who worked with him and give their contribution. After the beginning of the wars, OTO worked well even people were persecuted. Books were published, a lot of Gnostic Masses, Eleusis rituals, Initiations, Bodies in various cities, workings and good relationship between members. In the mid of ninthies there were between 120 and 130 due paying members. Now the number is maybe 20, or even 15. Maybe less, I don't know really. Of course, without any progress or results and with the loss of a lot of cities where there is no OTO anymore. Looking at present situation here, OTO serbian experiment is now not producting Thelemites but just a couple of followers. And followers are the basis of every totalitarian ideology in the history. I was born in communistic society, I was raised in such society and I know from the first hand how it works. The cure for fascism is Truth, or True Will. To discoved this, to experience this and to do this. And now, looking at the past 25 years, my impression is that magickal experiment of Zivorad Mihajlovic Slavinski is maybe one of the most impressive post-Crowley thelemic technologies. He combined Kenneth Grant ideas with Charles Berner's method of direct experience of enlightenment. Absolutely fascinating and giving results, unfortunatelly he not used sacraments in his gnostic technology. OK, sex after enlightenment...we can consider this as sacrament, but I talk about traditional sacraments. If one consumate them in the state of enlightenment - that could be interesting experience, IMO. In any way, in my opinion such technologies based on personal experience of personal divinity, ehich is same as collective divinity of course, is very good possible cure for fascism 🙂


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
28/07/2011 6:48 pm  

Frater HPK,
So, you have personal experience in working with Zivorad? I'm not the biggest fan of his Work, from what I've read in BTMZ and a couple articles on his website. Oh yeah, his terribly written and un-finishable "Dawn of Aivaz" too. Just seems like Thelema with some Scientology thrown in, and some silly Self-Help Workshop type cult to me.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
28/07/2011 6:57 pm  

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


ReplyQuote
Page 9 / 11
Share: