Notifications
Clear all

Can one be a Thelemite and not a Tory?

151 Posts
30 Users
0 Likes
1,638 Views
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Well, we don't do most of those they are state that our brains get into.
And I think move stuff from place to place, covers everything.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 
"Camlion" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
It's about the issues. As a Thelemite, I cannot do my Will if the conditions of the country in which I live hinder it to a certain degree. I end up fighting the establishment just to get anything accomplished.

Agreed, and since political parties are the rule, the positions taken on the issues of any party being considered must be reviewed by the voter, in relation to the voter doing his or her true Will. If no suitable party exists, a new one might be called for. Also, if the country in which the voter lives fails economically, that country will no longer be able to provide the services it has promised to the voter, so long term fiscal viability must be considered in advance. There is trouble in Greece and elsewhere currently.

93,

I agree Cam, especially in the case of, "If no suitable party exists, a new one might be called for." I've been on the look out for this for quite some time.

With the 'problems' of the world, we all know what they are. The U.S. is having severe economic problems, as an example. Every society and every household has its own issues to be dealt with. In dealing with these problems, many people are looking for a quick fix. Common sense tell us that if one has a leaky faucet, a quick fix might mean simply tossing a rag around the faucet in order to let the water leak more slowly into the sink. A long term fix would require replacing the pipes or fixtures, and only then will the leak actually stop.

For many years people have been looking for quick fixes to the problems of their lives and nations. It has cost the people of this world an immense amount of time, money, and effort in order to provide these quick fixes. Every time one replaces the rag though, the rag will absorb as much water as it can before it too begins to leak. Quite simply, when the political and economic systems begin to fail under their own weight, people are more likely to look for amendments and bailouts then to look at the system itself that is failing.

I love the U.S. Constitution on its own merit. I think it has the seeds within it for a great nation. Other countries might have similar doctrines with such seeds. The Constitution currently has 27 Amendments though, with six more on the board, for a total of 33 Amendments. These Amendments, in my opinion, are along the lines of "well, this isn't directly spelled out in the Constitution", or "this isn't a part of them at all", or "[insert conditional government control statement here]". While I don't know the laws of England and other countries and thus have a hard time speaking about them, it is quite possible that such modifications exist in those laws as well.

In learning of ancient Rome, one sees that their system of law was very unique. It focused on the governing of Rome and Roman cities, while each country or group that the legion took over was allowed to keep its customs and laws, as long as it paid heed to the Roman Empire. The Roman laws were situational at first, covering certain events that might occur in one's life either privately or in the city. Those laws proved to be futile for an empire, and so the Romans focused on the principles inherent in the existing laws, making those principles the laws themselves. In that way, they were able to enforce a broader spectrum of laws while remaining true to their original core system. In the time of Augustus, the government was changed to a more empirical one, and the Senate became more of a figurehead than anything. Regardless of this, the movement from specific to principle laws helped assist the Romans in ruling over one of the greatest empires known in history.

America, it would seem, began with a system based on the principles, and have moved more and more to the particulars, and I believe that with such an endeavor many may have lost the aptitude to grasp the essence of the original American idea. Thus, all of these Amendments, or rags, they are tossing onto the various issues of the land are merely quick fixes. Until America as a whole is able to re-grasp the essence of the original ideas inherent in the Constitution, in other words polish up the pipes and replace old fittings, America will continue to have the problems it does.

As for other countries, it is quite possibly the same way, and no political party has demonstrated the ability to see this up until this point. I posit that the ones who are eventually able to see and apply such notions are the ones who will begin a new trend of thinking or perhaps even a brand new form of government, one which may carry us for the next few hundred years in accordance with the Law of Thelema.

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"name538" wrote:
Well, we don't do most of those they are state that our brains get into.

That isn't true at all, they're verbs. Verbs indicate activity, or action, not state -- except the verb "to be", which indicates both and which is ontologically deceptive, hence the invention of "E-Prime".

Materialistic rationalistic reductionism? Just Say No!

And I think move stuff from place to place, covers everything.

😯 You "think move stuff", do you? I've been trying to do that for years, and all I get is headaches. How do you do it?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"Los" wrote:
"ianrons" wrote:
Laws do matter, obviously – and if you break them (perhaps because it's your "will" to cross the road quickly, or take drugs, or whatever) – then in those societies the state becomes your enemy.

[...] in terms of Thelema, in terms of accomplishing your will -- at least where "will" is defined as "the way you naturally act in a given environment" -- nothing is capable of restraining the will.

So, since true Will tends to overcome any obstacle in the environment, if it is true, there is no reason to bother deliberately changing the environment in such a way as to insure optimal conditions. I see. So, we can just have FAITH in true Will, without concern for taking action to correct less than optimal conditions around us. Things in our world will work out as they should, one way or another, on their own, perhaps in MYSTERIOUS WAYS, but somehow they will. So, its not our business to question or challenge or change them to better suit us. Sounds like a "pretty picture" justifying utter complacency to me, and an argument without any logical basis at all. 🙄


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"Los" wrote:
Out of curiosity, can you name something that you personally would like to do that you are literally unable to do because of your government?

I have an example for you, Los:

I have a very old friend that has what will eventually be a terminal illness, and the legal remedies for her excruciating pain and suffering for the duration of her life leave her a vegetable, while marijuana improves the quality of her life immeasurably. Marijuana is illegal in the very conservative state where she lives, is very scarce when available at all and if of very poor quality. She is unable to travel to another state and the penalties for transporting quality marijuana to her state from another are even more draconian than if she was caught acquiring it from nearer to her home. Toward the end, she plans to end her own life, when her condition becomes unbearable, which is also illegal in her state, and the medical assistance which could afford her a quick, efficient and painless death is also illegal. So, her only alternative will be a much more painful and messy illegal suicide. Complicating matters even further, she happens to be gay, also illegal as to various sexual details in her state, and the laws in her state prohibit her companion from any legal rights usually afforded to such a long term (thirty year) relationship, including being present at her death if she choose to die in a hospital, unless her biological family gives their consent.

Any thoughts, Los?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"Azidonis" wrote:
"Camlion" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
It's about the issues. As a Thelemite, I cannot do my Will if the conditions of the country in which I live hinder it to a certain degree. I end up fighting the establishment just to get anything accomplished.

Agreed, and since political parties are the rule, the positions taken on the issues of any party being considered must be reviewed by the voter, in relation to the voter doing his or her true Will. If no suitable party exists, a new one might be called for. Also, if the country in which the voter lives fails economically, that country will no longer be able to provide the services it has promised to the voter, so long term fiscal viability must be considered in advance. There is trouble in Greece and elsewhere currently.

93,

I agree Cam, especially in the case of, "If no suitable party exists, a new one might be called for." I've been on the look out for this for quite some time.

With the 'problems' of the world, we all know what they are. The U.S. is having severe economic problems, as an example. Every society and every household has its own issues to be dealt with. In dealing with these problems, many people are looking for a quick fix. Common sense tell us that if one has a leaky faucet, a quick fix might mean simply tossing a rag around the faucet in order to let the water leak more slowly into the sink. A long term fix would require replacing the pipes or fixtures, and only then will the leak actually stop.

For many years people have been looking for quick fixes to the problems of their lives and nations. It has cost the people of this world an immense amount of time, money, and effort in order to provide these quick fixes. Every time one replaces the rag though, the rag will absorb as much water as it can before it too begins to leak. Quite simply, when the political and economic systems begin to fail under their own weight, people are more likely to look for amendments and bailouts then to look at the system itself that is failing.

I love the U.S. Constitution on its own merit. I think it has the seeds within it for a great nation. Other countries might have similar doctrines with such seeds. The Constitution currently has 27 Amendments though, with six more on the board, for a total of 33 Amendments. These Amendments, in my opinion, are along the lines of "well, this isn't directly spelled out in the Constitution", or "this isn't a part of them at all", or "[insert conditional government control statement here]". While I don't know the laws of England and other countries and thus have a hard time speaking about them, it is quite possible that such modifications exist in those laws as well.

In learning of ancient Rome, one sees that their system of law was very unique. It focused on the governing of Rome and Roman cities, while each country or group that the legion took over was allowed to keep its customs and laws, as long as it paid heed to the Roman Empire. The Roman laws were situational at first, covering certain events that might occur in one's life either privately or in the city. Those laws proved to be futile for an empire, and so the Romans focused on the principles inherent in the existing laws, making those principles the laws themselves. In that way, they were able to enforce a broader spectrum of laws while remaining true to their original core system. In the time of Augustus, the government was changed to a more empirical one, and the Senate became more of a figurehead than anything. Regardless of this, the movement from specific to principle laws helped assist the Romans in ruling over one of the greatest empires known in history.

America, it would seem, began with a system based on the principles, and have moved more and more to the particulars, and I believe that with such an endeavor many may have lost the aptitude to grasp the essence of the original American idea. Thus, all of these Amendments, or rags, they are tossing onto the various issues of the land are merely quick fixes. Until America as a whole is able to re-grasp the essence of the original ideas inherent in the Constitution, in other words polish up the pipes and replace old fittings, America will continue to have the problems it does.

As for other countries, it is quite possibly the same way, and no political party has demonstrated the ability to see this up until this point. I posit that the ones who are eventually able to see and apply such notions are the ones who will begin a new trend of thinking or perhaps even a brand new form of government, one which may carry us for the next few hundred years in accordance with the Law of Thelema.

93 93/93

Great post, Az.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"Los" wrote:
I might be misreading him.

That particular text is not especially clear on the point, although we can point to:

"The problem of Government is therefore to find a scientific formula with an ethical implication."

and then:

"'Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law'...is...infinitely rigid, in that it binds every man to follow out exactly the purpose for which he is fitted by heredity, environment, experience, and self-development."

and:

"strictly scientific standards will be the sole measure by which the executive power shall order the people"

to show that Crowley is not just talking about resolving disputes, but "order[ing] the people" using an "infinitely rigid" standard which "binds every man".

But, we don't have to look very far - or to very obscure works - to discover that, despite recent erroneous claims to the contrary, Crowley absolutely was "proposing that governments give people 'tasks'" in those exact terms, and that he considered the failure of governments to do this to be responsible for most of the "revolutions and catastrophes" through history. From Chapter 87 of The Confessions (emphasis added):

"The Book of the Law anticipates this: '... the slaves shall serve...' The bulk of humanity, having no true will, will find themselves powerless. It will be for us to rule them wisely. We must secure their happiness and train them for ultimate freedom by setting them tasks for which their nature fits them...We must remember that each man and woman is a star, it is our duty to maintain the order of nature by seeing to it that his orbit is correctly calculated. The revolutions and catastrophes with which history is crammed are invariably due to the rulers having failed to find fitting functions for the people."

In his essay The Beginning of the New World Crowley also writes that:

"There must be found a formula based upon absolute common sense...a formula to which no man of intelligence can refuse assent, and which at the same time affords an absolute sanction for all laws of conduct, social and political no less than individual, so that the right or wrong of any isolated or concerted action can be determined with mathematical accuracy by any trained observer, entirely irrespective of his personal idiosyncrasies...

"'Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law'...is a most severe self-control of every individual or social unit to concentrate its whole energy performing his true proper function; and this function is to be determined by a profound, accurate calculation of the potentialities inherent in its constitution."

again proposing the Law of Thelema as a "most severe self-control...to concentrate its whole energy" to stick to a "true proper function" which "can be determined with mathematical accuracy by any trained observer." In his A Letter to Henry Ford he says that:

"We need first of all to summon a council of the acutest minds of the world, of biologists, historians, psychologists, economists...

"They must devise a scheme for measuring a man, for penetrating his inmost nature no less than for estimating the effect of his environment.

"They must be able to help him to discover the work for which he is really best fitted...

"They must train experts to be able to judge men rapidly and surely, so as to assign them their place in the social organization."

again showing this idea of "experts" gauging the wills of others not just in the case of disputes, but as a general practice in order to "assign them their place in the social organization".

Clearly these notions are utterly risible and appallingly juvenile, but the point is that Crowley's vision of a government based upon the Law of Thelema is clearly nothing like the kind of libertarianism that many people seem to mistake it for, and is much more inclined towards using the Law of Thelema as a tool to direct people, rather than liberate them, although Crowley would doubtless say that they are the same thing. However, the idea that:

"ianrons" wrote:
Crowley clearly believed TBOTL to be a political document

in the "vote Tory!" kind of sense is obviously absurd; we have comments like "Practically all those parts of the Book which deal with social matters may be considered as political in the old and proper sense of the word; of modern politics it disdains to speak" in Magick Without Tears to demonstrate that. The fact that the "principles of TBOTL would form the basis of government" no more makes The Book of the Law a "political document" than the statement "The problem of Government is therefore to find a scientific formula with an ethical implication" makes Newton's Opticks one.

Crowley was obviously interested - in a purely intellectual sense - in a way to apply the Law of Thelema to the political sphere, but to suggest that Thelema itself is a political philosophy is ridiculous, and no amount of locating the words "God", "kings" and "nations" in The Book of the Law is going to support an argument to the contrary. If The Book of the Law meant "There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt, except the law that says thou must also 'Obey my prophet!' in the process", it would say so, but it doesn't. This fact - and it is a point repeatedly made in The Book of the Law - is going to cause all such attempts to fail, every single time. Thelema, and the political system which Crowley ineffectually dreamed that one day would be based on it, are clearly not the same thing, in exactly the same way that Thelema and the religion of the O.T.O., for instance, are clearly not the same thing.

As for this:

"Camlion" wrote:
The cultivation of herd animals is far from a model society of Thelemites.

we have this refutation of Crowley's from the comment to AL II, 58:

"We should recognize the fact that the vast majority of human beings have no ambition in life beyond mere ease and animal happiness. We should allow these people to fulfil their destinies without interference. We should give every opportunity to the ambitious, and thereby establish a class of morally and intellectually superior men and women. We should have no compunction in utilizing the natural qualities of the bulk of mankind. We do not insist on trying to train sheep to hunt foxes or lecture on history; we look after their physical well being, and enjoy their wool and mutton. In this way we shall have a contented class of slaves who will accept the conditions of existence as they really are, and enjoy life with the quiet wisdom of cattle. It is our duty to see to it that this class of people lack for nothing. The patriarchal system is better for all classes than any other; the objections to it come from the abuses of it."


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2195
 

So, since true Will tends to overcome any obstacle in the environment, if it is true, there is no reason to bother deliberately changing the environment in such a way as to insure optimal conditions.

I wrote: “If your will is weak enough to be constrained by some dumb law, then your will becomes something else. If your will is such that you seek to violate and/or attempt to change that law, then you violate and/or attempt to change that law.”

[What I wrote was a little unclear. Your will doesn’t actually “become” something else – it manifests in a different way. The true will always manifests in different ways depending on the environment. Some people will naturally react to an oppressive law by obeying it or not caring; others will react by challenging it]

Obviously, I’m not advocating “complacency.” If your will is to lobby for some kind of change, then lobby for some kind of change.

Any thoughts, Los?

Well, if I were in that situation, I would probably move to another state or country where the laws are more to my liking; the government certainly doesn’t prohibit that. If I were unable to move for various reasons, I would continue to exercise my will, as defined by the limitations of that particular environment.

I might not like it, but we all know that what we like or what we want is not the same thing as the True Will.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 

93,

Good post, Erwin.

Los...

"Los" wrote:
I wrote: “If your will is weak enough to be constrained by some dumb law, then your will becomes something else. If your will is such that you seek to violate and/or attempt to change that law, then you violate and/or attempt to change that law.”

"Let my servants be few and secret..."

Los, I wonder how many time you have been arrested, or how many times you have been at your local City Hall voting on issues that need to be changed.

[What I wrote was a little unclear. Your will doesn’t actually “become” something else – it manifests in a different way. The true will always manifests in different ways depending on the environment. Some people will naturally react to an oppressive law by obeying it or not caring; others will react by challenging it]

My Will became a monster last night, rawr! 🙂

Obviously, I’m not advocating “complacency.” If your will is to lobby for some kind of change, then lobby for some kind of change.

I'm tempted to go back and read what got you into having to make this statement at all, especially in conversing with someone like Cam, lol

Well, if I were in that situation, I would probably move to another state or country where the laws are more to my liking; the government certainly doesn’t prohibit that. If I were unable to move for various reasons, I would continue to exercise my will, as defined by the limitations of that particular environment.

Cam specifically said she is unable to move. You would be unable to move too, in that predicament. With the term "vegetable" involved, it sounds to me like this person has a sickness that is getting worse by the day, and at any time can be the end of a life. The pain of each day must be excruciating, and the person is probably bedridden with a caretaker. That's how it sounds to me anyway, if I put myself in the position. If I were in so much pain I couldn't even get out of bed, I assume my Will would eventually become "to get out of bed". The body is only a vehicle after all, and if it has fulfilled its usefulness, then okay. If one is in such tremendous pain that suicide is thought to be the best option, one might have gone mad with the pain to where the pain itself is now an incurable medical condition.

I don't think you put yourself in this woman's predicament very well, but that's just me.

I might not like it, but we all know that what we like or what we want is not the same thing as the True Will.

Fluffy bunnies?

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 

you can't just say that Liber AL is to be accepted and Crowely's other writings ignored,

The man had a very comprehensive program planned out to create a whole new, social, political and religious order to replace existing religions.

Liber AL was not really revealed by gods, aliens, secret chiefs etc. The specific purpose Crowley had in writing the book and in the mythical origin of the book, was to create for his religion a "reveled holy book" for those type of people who require some supernatural faith in authority of higher powers in order to be brought into the fold of believers.

He had other means also such as writing poetry for those who like poetry, and showing science for those who base belief on science.

ALL of Thelema is the brain child of Crowley, and thus his whole system and all his writings are from one source, his mind and desire to re-shape the world. You can't say this book is true and sacred and this one is not, This is Crowley and this is Aiwass.

CRWOLEY IS AIWASS, its all the invention of his devious plot to destroy the whole world order and create a new system. Thus all his writings are to be understood as necessarily applications of exactly the same LAW as Liber AL. they are all clarifications of and applications of Liber AL.

They are not Crowely's interpretation, HE WROTE THE DAMN BOOK, so he KNEW BLOODY WELL what he meant and what he did not mean by every passage in it.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"name538" wrote:
They are not Crowely's interpretation, HE WROTE THE DAMN BOOK, so he KNEW BLOODY WELL what he meant and what he did not mean by every passage in it.

Your assertion contradicts The Book of the Law and Crowley's comments on it.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 

yeah, and my assertion that Joseph smith invented the book of Mormon in order to make himself leader of a cult and give himself the right to have 4 wives, contradicts what it says in the Book of Mormon as well.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Unless you can back it up with facts and evidence, your opinion is worthless. Writing in large caps doesn't convince anyone.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 

No, the burden of proof is on you to prove than the entities in the book of the law actually exist.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"Crowley" wrote:
"We should recognize the fact that the vast majority of human beings have no ambition in life beyond mere ease and animal happiness. We should allow these people to fulfil their destinies without interference. We should give every opportunity to the ambitious, and thereby establish a class of morally and intellectually superior men and women. We should have no compunction in utilizing the natural qualities of the bulk of mankind. We do not insist on trying to train sheep to hunt foxes or lecture on history; we look after their physical well being, and enjoy their wool and mutton. In this way we shall have a contented class of slaves who will accept the conditions of existence as they really are, and enjoy life with the quiet wisdom of cattle. It is our duty to see to it that this class of people lack for nothing. The patriarchal system is better for all classes than any other; the objections to it come from the abuses of it."

I happen to agree with Crowley's grim prognosis as to the ongoing slave nature and behavior in most men and woman. Who could not agree? Many of the factors that render what is biologically a hairless ape with tremendous potential into a cowering creature behaving like a herd animal are impossible to deny. Humans are indoctrinated from birth to be submissive to the will of imaginary gods, as interpreted by dishonest self-serving religions, to heed unqualified and oppressive human authority figures without question, and to be in constant angst over artificial self-images and the conformity or competition of these personal delusions ("pretty pictures of themselves") with those of others.

But, as indicated clearly in Liber AL, relief from the shackles of this slavery are to be offered without exception: "and to each man and woman that thou meetest, were it but to dine or to drink at them, it is the Law to give. Then they shall chance to abide in this bliss or no; it is no odds." AL: III, 39. Once the freedom and honor conferred by acceptance the Law of Thelema are rejected, the slavery of the individuals in question continues VOLUNTARILY. This slavery is not assumed until freedom from it is offered and rejected. The human race is not to be condemned outright, but only when and if each individual denies the opportunity of relief to himself or herself. Hence the necessity for promulgation of the Law.

"Erwin" wrote:
In his A Letter to Henry Ford he says that:

"We need first of all to summon a council of the acutest minds of the world, of biologists, historians, psychologists, economists...

"They must devise a scheme for measuring a man, for penetrating his inmost nature no less than for estimating the effect of his environment.

"They must be able to help him to discover the work for which he is really best fitted...

"They must train experts to be able to judge men rapidly and surely, so as to assign them their place in the social organization."

again showing this idea of "experts" gauging the wills of others not just in the case of disputes, but as a general practice in order to "assign them their place in the social organization".

Clearly these notions are utterly risible and appallingly juvenile, but the point is that Crowley's vision of a government based upon the Law of Thelema is clearly nothing like the kind of libertarianism that many people seem to mistake it for, and is much more inclined towards using the Law of Thelema as a tool to direct people, rather than liberate them, although Crowley would doubtless say that they are the same thing.

Agreed. As I noted elsewhere in the thread above, Crowley's ideas relating to the social and political application of the Law of Thelema were impatient, naive and impossible to ever put into practice. His goals were laudable, but his proposed methods came right off the top of his Victorian era head, from a mind without benefit of today's and tomorrow's political science and sociology. These ideas were a product, really, of his times and historical precedent to that date. Times when great ideas were force-feed in mass to their beneficiaries, in their own best interest, but never offered freely for voluntary consideration, to be voluntarily accepted or rejected, as prescribed by Liber AL.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 

No, the burden of proof is on you to prove that the entities in the book of the law actually exist.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 
"name538" wrote:
CRWOLEY IS AIWASS, its all the invention of his devious plot to destroy the whole world order and create a new system. Thus all his writings are to be understood as necessarily applications of exactly the same LAW as Liber AL. they are all clarifications of and applications of Liber AL.

93,

lol...

From The Holy Guardian Angel.

"It seems to me imperative for people to understand that what Crowley set out to do was new, but the material he used was not. He set out to basically strip down the religions and practices of human history and combine them into a synthesis. The "new thing" he created, if anything, was a common language which could be used to understand the underlying principles of human thought and practice since the beginnings of history. Taoism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christian Mysticism (re: Rosy Cross etc., all of the cute little Western symbols that have been prosecuted and burned by the Church), Hebrew Qabalah, Egyptian practices, etc ad nauseum.

The A:.A:. was designed to be the Rosetta Stone for religious and psychological development. "

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"name538" wrote:
No, the burden of proof is on you to prove that the entities in the book of the law actually exist.

I wasn't thinking so much on whether Aiwass exists or not, but more on your assertion that Crowley knew everything that TBOTL says. If you read TBOTL, it clearly states there are things concealed in it that will not be revealed to him. The issue of authorship of TBOTL has already been covered in detail on this forum, so do a forum search and familiarize yourself on the topic before making assertions. In terms of textual analysis, you might consider the fact the writing style is not like Crowley's, certain motifs appearing in it have never appeared in his writing before, etc. If you accept that Crowley wrote TBOTL, then you would have to ask yourself why you accept this claim, given the oddness of the text, yet disregard his other claims where he states he is not the author. This contradictions shows that YOU are the one who is picking and choosing the facts to fit your reality-perception.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 4285
 

name538,

You assertion that Crowley invented The Book of the Law, and your equation of Crowley and Aiwass, are merely your opinions. You have a disconcerting habit of parading your opinions as facts.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 

The whole idea of the third order, the A.'.A.'., the unnamed sanctuary, whatever, comes from a synthesis of Theosophy and The Cloud upon the Sanctuary.

Crowley's claim to be a "prophet" is best taken to mean the notion of "Prophet" that is described in the Cloud upon the sanctuary. Another very similar Idea to this sort of Prophet, is the initiated warrior-kings that Evola called the Kashatrya caste. Which form a link between the people and the transcendent tradition, and create the nation force and imposing the symbols and customs than ritually link the transcendent ideals into the hearts of the lower castes, thus loosening their ties to base and shallow grubbing after material things of mere survival, to the higher virtues of social order.

If you take Evola's Kashatrya and Crowley's notion that the Formula or Law has been changed (which again is very similar to the idea in Cloud upon the sanctuary than the prophet must change the rituals in order to capture the spiritual essence when the understanding of the people changes with the times)

Thus, re-establishing the Kingdom where the highest castes are connected to the transcendent directly as per say the bakhti yoga, or have crossed the abyss in Crowley's system. The symbols, rituals, gods, etc then express symbolically the formula by which the transcendent manifests as the rule of the people, the connection to the higher principle that drives the people away from their materialistic Economic concerns. Thus we have saying WILL and other rituals to remind one that all acts are "ever unto me" which is to say, that each material or pure instinctual survival behavior is dedicated to a higher purpose, to the transcendent order.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 

In at least one place Crowley set's out a list of what elements are necessary to the creation of a new spiritual system.
In which a revealed text that is proven to be revealed by "unique writing style, advanced ideas beyond the power of the author, and prophetic information about the future are criteria. All of which Crowely claims exist in his book. The intentional writing of vague and perhaps nonsensical lines that can be interpreted as prophetic, like Nostradamus quatrains, certainly can be used to make those claims appear true.

Keep in mind also that Crowley has written, "White is white is the lash of the overseer, black is white the watchword of the slave" That the leader states facts as they are the slave to assert himself must deny the facts, but the Master (Magus) does not concern himself with truth, as both facts and lies can serve his WILL.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 19 years ago
Posts: 5359
 

Sources, please, name538…

Actually, I'll help you out with your "overseer" misquote. Crowley wrote:

"White is white" is the lash of the overseer: "white is black" is the watchword of the slave.

It's from The Book Of Lies, "Chinese Music".

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"Los" wrote:
I wrote: “If your will is weak enough to be constrained by some dumb law, then your will becomes something else. If your will is such that you seek to violate and/or attempt to change that law, then you violate and/or attempt to change that law.”

Just out of interest, and because practical attitudes speak louder than theoretical concerns on this kind of question, is anyone on these forums prepared to come out and admit they they are currently incapable of following their true will solely because of government policy in the jurisdiction in which they live? Anyone happy to admit that their true will must remain forever unfulfilled until their government steps in and makes it a little easier for them?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"Los" wrote:
Obviously, I’m not advocating “complacency.” If your will is to lobby for some kind of change, then lobby for some kind of change.

On the contrary, you are obviously advocating for the most deplorable sort of complacency, the sort that renders Stars into sheep.

"Los" wrote:
"Camlion" wrote:
Any thoughts, Los?

Well, if I were in that situation, I would probably move to another state or country where the laws are more to my liking; the government certainly doesn’t prohibit that. If I were unable to move for various reasons, I would continue to exercise my will, as defined by the limitations of that particular environment.

Either becoming a slave or an outlaw, at the hands of our own elected officials. Great. 🙄

"Los" wrote:
I might not like it, but we all know that what we like or what we want is not the same thing as the True Will.

What we like or want is not same as the true Will only unless or until it is the same, and then we have no right but to do it.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Ok, I'll find sources better.

I was just trying to get the gist of it from memory, I assumed the audience would know what I was alluding to.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 

name538

Where does Crowley set out that list of elements for the creation of a new spiritual system?

"name538" wrote:
In at least one place Crowley set's out a list of what elements are necessary to the creation of a new spiritual system.
In which a revealed text that is proven to be revealed by "unique writing style, advanced ideas beyond the power of the author, and prophetic information about the future are criteria. All of which Crowely claims exist in his book..

ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Ok well here is a list from the letters between Crowley and McMurtry. It is Crowley's suggestion as to what McMurtry might do to help improve Crowley's reputation.

1. Your draft of Plan (copy returned herewith)
You have the idea quite perfectly, BUT this plan is to be shewn to dull stodgy, stupid English folks; a spark of imagination, a glint of humor, and they think you (a) a fool (b) not "serious" so all that metaphor and imagery has got to go.
Then, you write as for people who already know quite a lot about it. You have got to set forth the position fully & clearly as for those who know perhaps hardly more than my name, and 'Isn't he the fellow that -- ?' some rot or other.
There should be a list of the assets of the Machine that I have constructed since 1904 to last 2000 years or so. This sort of thing: --
1. Sacred Book, with internal proof of its prater human origin.
2. Inspired books.
3. Semi-inspired do.
4. Scholarly treatises.
5. Official instructions for self-development, acquiring mystical powers etc.
6. Books, essays, articles &c about the Law, or about a.c.'s work.
7. Ceremony for public use.
8. " ies " lodge.
9. " " " private.
10. Slogan.
11. Political, economic, social reconstruction plans{?}.
12. Greetings, saying "will" before formal meals, etc.
13. Plans for lectures.
14. Songs, national and other. Etcetera.
You must show how each item can be used (a) for publicity (b) to rake in the {?}.
This is mostly additional to your plans. Note in particular No.11, capable of inducing nervous billionaires to contribute cheques with 6 figures.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 

"There should be a list of the assets of the Machine that I have constructed since 1904 to last 2000 years or so."

Those are pretty damning words on TBOTL. Can you provide the link or scanned copy of the letter?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 

http://www.billheidrick.com/tlc1995/tlc0995.htm#ps1

This is the link I pasted from.

I see no reason why this should damn TBOTL. Since I trust the words of a known genius over those of an imaginary entity.
The fact that Crowley loved to express himself riddles, poetry and mythic symbols does not make his project any less worthy, and his work must stand on it's own, and his project for what he wanted to achieve, not because of who he was nor because of supernatural authority, Rather because it is a worthy goal, and should be achieved by HOOK or by CROOK.

There is nothing here than claims Crowley was not in an inspired state of mind or altered state of consciousness when he penned Liber AL.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"tai" wrote:
"There should be a list of the assets of the Machine that I have constructed since 1904 to last 2000 years or so."

Those are pretty damning words on TBOTL. Can you provide the link or scanned copy of the letter?

Not necessarily damning at all, tai. It's all about promulgation, which Crowley was tasked by Liber AL to do; or, rather, about his ideas regarding promulgation at the time. The contents of these letters and other Crowley correspondence have been common knowledge for some time now.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Look at that sentence carefully. “Since 1904” identifies the Machine as being based on, or in reference to, TBOTL. Most of the listed assets came after 1904, if I’m not mistaken. So TBOTL is key here. It’s the fact that Crowley would say “I have constructed” in reference TBOTL, which suggests a literary hoax.

Of course that, in and of itself, is insufficient evidence. For some time now I've been looking for a smoking gun, an irrefutable document, clearly indicating deception. I suspect Ian has come across it – hence explaining his recent volte-face on Crowley.


ReplyQuote
Palamedes
(@palamedes)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 450
 

No Tai: the reading you suggest is not the necessary one. It can as well be read as to mean: "Since the reception of Book of the Law, I have constructed the following plan ('machine')."


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 1126
Topic starter  
"tai" wrote:
Of course that, in and of itself, is insufficient evidence. For some time now I've been looking for a smoking gun, an irrefutable document, clearly indicating deception. I suspect Ian has come across it – hence explaining his recent volte-face on Crowley.

I'll take that as a compliment, but actually I haven't found a "smoking gun" regarding TBOTL, and I don't think there is one. Not being a stranger to all sorts of mind- and world-bending experiences, I believe AC has no cards to hide; my opinion being that "Aiwass" was basically a psychotic self-deception – and, in that sense, genuine. Crowley wanted all that stuff about being a great hero so badly that he tricked himself into believing it, but there was no-one around him to check his ego, nor was he honest enough with himself to give up on the fantasy. One can see the disconnect between his incredibly inflated claims of modesty – his purported lack of self-interest in his "Work" – and the fact that it was (in reality) a programme of personal world-domination.

He was the original "[child of the] Beast" claimant, but IMO he did also have some genuine experience of samadhic states, although he inflated those claims like he was reading out the shopping list from the Shiva Samhita: and there is no credible record of him actually doing enough work to get them, and his accounts don't fit with the experience of the rest of humanity when doing, e.g., yoga (I'm talking about, for instance, his claims about pain of asana, and how quickly he got the nadi sounds, and his apparent lack of awareness of the siddhis, etc.). But he was a brilliant propagandist. If he could have got past his own bullshit he might really have changed the world, but he remained up himself all his life, even when it was apparent that the prophecies in TBOTL weren't going to happen. We can all learn from that – and I hope some of us do, even the most hardcore Thelemites currently doing time in the A∴A∴. You're just doing time, boys… and you'll always be Crowley's bitch like that.

BTW, I've been scanning the recent posts but haven't found the time to respond yet. Will get back as soon as.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"ianrons" wrote:
You're just doing time, boys… and you'll always be Crowley's bitch like that

Damn that’s harsh 😉

Iskandar – you’re right about the ambiguity. “Since” could also mean “following/after 1904” instead of “as of/from 1904”. "Machine" as a choice of words seems rather odd though..


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 

The supernatural does not exist, it does not matter if Crowley believed that it did or if he just found it convenient for propaganda purposes to pretend that it does exist.

Actually it seems to me that Crowley was never sure if he believed in the supernatural or not, he tried very hard to remain skeptical despite the fact that he had psychological experiences, like visions and mystical states, which he did not have the scientific knowledge to understand. He used the jargon of religion, poetry and mysticism to explain these, but even so he did not settle with the supernatural position, using terms like Praeternatural and admitting that he can not be sure Aiwass was not his own subconscious mind, a repressed part of his own psyche or if he is a disncarnate being, but claims it makes no difference to the legitimacy of the text.

But we have modern science, we know the way the brain gives rise to visions and the type of ego distortions and seeming autonomous beings, for example dissociative identity disorder, etc. Thus we need to collapse the wave vector of Crowley's ambiguity to the naturalist side, and dismiss the supernatural as metaphor, poetry, and misunderstandings of a time ignorant of modern knowledge.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"ianrons" wrote:
But he was a brilliant propagandist.

He was good for a start. Anyway, I think the important thing is that we not lose track of the message of Thelema amongst our concerns about the messenger or the means of delivery. The message is the important thing.


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 1126
Topic starter  

Once you discredit the messenger, the message is worthless. DWTW, "Will", etc. – you don't need to buy that from him.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 

One can create a new religion, reality tunnel, or belief system; but can neither destroy nor create nothing, which is the essence of spirituality.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 

People are stupid, so you have to do what it takes to get them to listen to you.
making up a revealed text from God, has been a proven successful way to get stupid people to accept your teachings.
Nothing wrong with that.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 

No, what’s stupid is thinking that deceiving the masses to get them to do things your way somehow makes them less stupid.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Stupidity might also have something to do with making assumptions about the Unknown and getting locked into the narrow certainty of one point of view. Stupidity has also to do with forgetting the message or even acknowledging it.

Crowley actually did get past himself enough to do the work, write the books and communicate his vision. The world did change a great deal for the better because of Aleister Crowley's presence in it. I'm sorry if some people lose sight of this basic fact.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Crowley had no interest in making people less stupid.
King will be kings forever, the slaves shall serve.
Slaves don't like to serve, they don't do so willingly, You have to use violence or trickery.
Slaves are stupid heard animals which do not admit this to others or to themselves, the lowest most brain dead slave will still claim from the heart to be the greatest of men, and worthy to rule the universe.
It is for the true masters to put the slaves hubris in their place, to get them to serve their natural role, without complaint.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Rhetoric often sounds quite stupid, to me.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"name538" wrote:
The supernatural does not exist

Of course not - but then, neither does anything else 😀

And what do you mean by "supernatural"?

I think a far better word is "inexplicable". If something happens, it is part of Nature, ipso facto.

And ultimately, of course, all of Nature is inexplicable - or perhaps, supernatural.

regards
N.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Everything that exists is a natural and that means a Physical thing.
It is made of matter, ie atoms, it exists as a combination of the elements on the periodic table, There is a set and finite amount of those elements, and every thing that exists is a combination of those elements. Nothing is ever created or destroyed, only the particular arrangement of atoms is change, bonds are broken and re-formed between different types of Atoms.

All forms of energy act locally, They are Gravity, Electro-magnetism, Strong nuclear force and weak nuclear force, also the dynamic inertia of moving objects is preserved unless acted upon by an unbalanced force. The speed of light is a relative constant from all frames of reference.

Consciousness is the mechanical action between the material structures of the brain, all emotions including LOVE are bio-mechanical states than alter the way in which the brain acts and thus changes behavior.

Neither consciousness nor love nor anything else that happens in the brain is as "Universal force" which exists fundamentally everywhere. The brain does not tap into any such force or power or other world than exists beyond these laws of physics.

The astral = the imagination = brain states.

There does not exist anything spiritual or non-physical.
Everything that Exists can be explained, and done so in terms of known physical properties.

Nothing in Quantum mechanics actually defies any of these properties, it only appears so because we have no ability to measure what IS happening in a quantum system without messing it up, this we can only measure what we did to it, and we are not particularly sure what we are hitting the unknown system of atoms with. If you use an unknown to discover an unknown, the information you get is not particularly accurate, it is only large accumulation that we can understand over many trials. (Nothing strange going on then supports mystical or non-physical properties)


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"ianrons" wrote:
Once you discredit the messenger, the message is worthless. DWTW, "Will", etc. – you don't need to buy that from him.

We need to "buy" it, it doesn't matter from where, because it's the truth about our own true natures and functions. I, personally, have sometimes "sold" it without even mentioning AC initially, if the mention of AC would interfere with the "sale." Sources and intermediary means of conveyance are irrelevant to the value of the "product," if the product is received in its purest possible form, which it can be by removing the 'impurities' antagonistic to the recipient, whether these come from AC or whatever else that might deter comprehending and acting upon the facts of human nature.

I know you've got it in for old AC right now, Ian, but I'm sure you can get beyond that for a moment. No?


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 

93,

"Erwin" wrote:
Just out of interest, and because practical attitudes speak louder than theoretical concerns on this kind of question, is anyone on these forums prepared to come out and admit they they are currently incapable of following their true will solely because of government policy in the jurisdiction in which they live? Anyone happy to admit that their true will must remain forever unfulfilled until their government steps in and makes it a little easier for them?

Erwin, I really want the U.S. to legalize marijuana, or contemplate one day moving to a country that has done so.

Beyond that, they are just laws. People in this day and age seem to think backwards. They think, "Jaywalking is against the law in the U.S., and my will is to get from point A to B as quickly as possible. Therefore jaywalking hinders my will." I'm of the persuasion that if it's not an emergency, then I don't need to jaywalk, or speed, or any of that other common law crap. It's for the simple fact that I am more able to do my will if I go 55 in a 55 instead of 80 in a 55 and get incarcerated... or killed, for going 80 in a 55 like an idiot.

People don't seem to see that many of the laws we have are idiot laws. They aren't necessarily to restrain intelligent people from doing whatever they need to do, but rather to constrain and penalize idiots when they get out of line. Two words: bar fight.
________________________________________________________

Guys... On Crowley, of course its all a huge joke! Think about this...

Achilles of Mycenae: fought a huge battle against a worthy opponent, Hector. Was the son of the gods, and the gods were involved in the battle.

Odysseus of Ithaca: fought a huge battle against a worthy opponent, the suitors. Athena and other gods were involved in his story.

Apparently, in order to be a real hero you have to fight against a worthy opponent, and have the gods involved. Check this out...

Fu Hsi - worthy opponent: ? gods involved: ?

Tao Tzu - worthy opponent: Depends on the myth you choose, but common myth says that it was a short struggle with the government guard lol... no struggle really. No gods involved either. Fitting for Taoism.

It might suffice to say that Fu Hsi and Lao Tzu didn't necessarily become heroes in the traditional (Western?) manner... or perhaps their opponent was ignorance, and their gods involved were all-inclusive, working to enlighten the people cooperatively.

Siddartha Guatama - worthy opponent: the idea of God. gods involved: every last one of them.

Zerdusht (Zoroaster) - worthy opponent: Iranian polytheism. Gods involved: Ahura Mazda, and any god or goddess that wasn't Ahura Mazda.

Pythagoras - worthy opponent: the human mind. gods involved: presumably any god that didn't have a scientific basis.

Dionysus (Bacchus) - worthy opponent: a bad harvest, un-liberated souls too. gods involved: He is a god...

Osiris - worthy opponent: Set, another god. gods involved: Osiris was also a god.

Apollon - Apollon. worthy opponent: Apollon sided with the Trojans in the battle of Troy. Thus, Achilles, etc. Gods involved: All of the ones involved at the battle (read The Illiad).

Plotinus - worthy opponent: astrology and perhaps polytheism. gods involved: any that did not fit into this paradigm, or who didn't like their stars being discounted.

Jacobus Burgundus Molensis (Jacques de Molay): worthy opponent: the Church. gods involved: the Christian god of course, and any that the Templars were purported to be conspiring with.

Muhammed - worthy opponent: Jesus and the Jews. gods involved: It's all different aspects of the same god, in-fighting with himself.

Sir Edward Kelley - worthy opponent: his claim of the ability to produce gold. gods involved: those interested in the delivery of the Enochian language unto man.

Christian Rosencruetz - worthy opponent: the lack of mysticism in Christian beliefs and practices. gods involved: the Christian one, of course.
________________________________________________________

And so you have it. The list of names was taken from "The Heart of the Master" Part III, The Temple of Truth. Oh, I forgot one...

Aleister Crowley - worthy opponent: see Liber AL III:49 - 57. Gods involved: see Liber AL III: 49 - 57.

The man was a mastermind. He also know how to become a hero, obviously.

It has been said by some of you that Crowley didn't have the people skills to get into politics. Plus, one could easily argue that a man who's worthy opponent is the existing dominant religions of his era could not make many friends politically even if he wanted to. So his plot? He became a propaganda writer/spy, and worked to influence things behind the scenes so that when Thelema did have a chance to change things, it would be in a suitable position to do so. Do we not carry out this same plot now?

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"tai" wrote:
No, what’s stupid is thinking that deceiving the masses to get them to do things your way somehow makes them less stupid.

Not really deception, with that negative connotation, tai. There is truly new and improved religion in Thelema, for example, for those to whom religion is best suited by their natures at this time. But there are also much more secular paradigms of equal value, almost irreligious ones, actually, for those better suited these. Both worldviews are true, just as the Law of Thelema is true, but each is hued according to the receptivity of the individual. "For the colours are many, but the light is one." Liber LXV, 3. 🙂


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Greetings Azidonis!

It’s not really an important matter that would change the meaning of your words, but since I noticed it…. I think that Achilles wasn’t from Mycenae; he was rather connected with Thessaly and the island of Aegina. 😉

Regards
Hecate


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"name538" wrote:
Everything that exists is a natural and that means a Physical thing.
It is made of matter, ie atoms, it exists as a combination of the elements on the periodic table, There is a set and finite amount of those elements, and every thing that exists is a combination of those elements. Nothing is ever created or destroyed, only the particular arrangement of atoms is change, bonds are broken and re-formed between different types of Atoms.

name538, for Future reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_physics


ReplyQuote
Page 3 / 4
Share: