Notifications
Clear all

Crowley Against Abortion  

Page 3 / 3
  RSS

the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
01/04/2012 9:35 pm  
"selfseeker" wrote:
Azidonis, I just find it astonishing, frankly, that you would say something like 'best to leave Thelema out of this'.

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

93!

Since Azidonis just agreed with my asertion to "best leave Thelema out of this" I think he did understand - as would anyone who has common sense - that I said it is best to handle this careless what any self-styled explainer of Thelema says what to do "as a Thelemite". Aside from the fact that neither I nor Azidonis will ever get pregnant, there is no way do determine if a woman *really* has the True Will to abort or bear a child. A decision will be made, hopefully based on common sense of the involved parties, reason will be applied, alternatives might be considered, advices might be heard, help might be sought. The short "discussion" here already showed that there is no general Thelemic rule what to do - thank God! It is my true will to not bear a child is as valid as I think kids suck or I just want to party on or I want to keep my job even if it is a shitty job I hate.

"selfseeker" wrote:
Or perhaps you prefer reason? As it would seem is the case.

Now, we all love AL II. 27-33, these verses sound really cool, the poetic imagery is fantastic. But to interpret them so superficially and literally AND accusing others of not understanding Thelema at all is quite ridiculous. As is the final discussion-ender "Do what thou wilt". Just imagine: It is my will to keep Thelema out of it! By the way, equally ridiculous: Males allegedly speaking for females saying males cannot discuss female matters. And vice versa, of course.

The only thing worth (well, even that is debatable) discussing is what Crowley might have meant when he wrote what he wrote. Neither you nor I nor Los nor Azidonis can say. But discussing things can be interesting sometimes. Trying to win discussions mostly sucks.

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
01/04/2012 10:44 pm  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
there is no way do determine if a woman *really* has the True Will to abort or bear a child.

There is a way for the woman in question to determine if it is her True Will to abort or bear a child (at least, according to the philosophy of Thelema there is). That's the point.

It is my true will to not bear a child is as valid as I think kids suck or I just want to party on or I want to keep my job even if it is a shitty job I hate.

All of those are indeed ideas that might motivate actions, but according to Thelema, only one of those is a valid motivating factor behind a decision.

I'm pretty sure I recall Lutz saying that he doesn't consider himself a Thelemite, and I have no idea what Azidonis is, besides someone who just repeats any spiritual idea that strikes him as cool, so perhaps the problem we're having in our discussion is that not everyone here is a Thelemite and not everyone here agrees that Thelema is a coherent, workable philosophy of individual action.


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
01/04/2012 11:42 pm  
"Los" wrote:
There is a way for the woman in question to determine if it is her True Will to abort or bear a child (at least, according to the philosophy of Thelema there is). That's the point.

93, Los.

Even if there is a way for her to determine her True Will (I guess it will be some personal preference thing), there is no way for an outsider to check. So ...

"Los" wrote:
Thelema is a coherent, workable philosophy of individual action.

But obviously not a coherent, workable philosophy to build a society on. Which is at least not what Crowley had in mind. You classify motivating factors behind decisions as "valid" and therefore also as possibly "non-valid" (even if nobody can tell what is what), but the decisions are made anyhow and have to be accepted, which makes Thelema either a banality or undistinguishable from "Do what you like". Or as Kyle has put it undistinguishable from "fuck the rest". Of course that it is an acceptable world-view and its even preferrable to some other world-views currently "en vogue", but I wouldn't consider it as "coherent" and "workable". And it is not what I take from The Book of the Law and other Thelemic writings.

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
02/04/2012 12:02 am  

Some of you seem to believe that a "magickal being" called an "HGA" is going to one day show up, and give you a handy-dandy guidebook for every situation you will be in for the rest of your lives.

This is impossible, as each and every situation is different, as it is composed of different variables.

To say, "I will always do X in Y circumstance, because it is my Will to do so," is no more pathetic than thinking that the psychic down the street can tell you whether or not you have met your "soul mate".

Each situation is different, even though they may be similar (ie. driving to work each day). The fact is, you have absolutely no idea if you will even wake up tomorrow morning, let alone what your drive to work will be like.

The best you can know, is what you have done, and what the outcomes of those actions were, and then go from there. Sure, you may find where "you" fits in with the "grand puzzle", but the puzzle itself is constantly changing, and there is no way to know how you will react to those changes until you react to them.

So in the end, "There is no law beyond do what thou wilt", at any given time, in any given situation. It requires a bit more effort than the silly, "It is my Will to be a fireman" thrown around so often here.

It is up to each of us to write our own "books of life" by living our lives. When it comes down to it, it is not "what did the Book of the Law say I should do here", but rather, "What should I do based on the current situation, all possible variables considered".

If you want to turn Liber AL into a dogma, go right ahead. But don't expect everyone to follow you, or even agree.


ReplyQuote
einDoppelganger
(@eindoppelganger)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 915
02/04/2012 12:03 am  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
Males allegedly speaking for females saying males cannot discuss female matters. And vice versa, of course.

Hey Lutz,

I'm not speaking for women at all, I'm speaking to men and the male attitude  that *ALWAYS* seems to emerge when this discussion comes up

Its fucking presumptuous to have such strong opinions on a biology you do not share. Its part of the problem in many countries right now, the USA in particular. Lots of male bodied people are busy legislating their opinions over the bodies and rights of women.

Sorry if that gets your pants in a knot but this is that whole privilege thing we talked about in the other thread. No need to continue this particular tangent I just wanted to make damn sure you didn't continue this fantasy that I imagined I was speaking for anyone else. I'm speaking to a shitty trend that crops up when one group discusses issues which have a real impact on another group to which group A does not belong or share the same impact...

Carry on with your regularly scheduled multiplication of zero.


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
02/04/2012 12:44 am  

Scott, 93!

Apart from the fact that there will always be some male who belongs to the group of "potential parents" as well as to the group of "persons who are responsible for your current condition" I think nobody's legislating here anything over anyone. Mr. Crowley seems to have had a quite strong opinion, not me. He was a clever guy and it is interesting to discuss why he wrote what he wrote. I simply don't like these discussion stoppers like "do what thou wilt", "reason is a lie" or - quite universally - "you're not involved, you can't discuss it". I did not detect any shitty trend here. I am just trying to understand the arguments.

My pants are quite free of knots but I am too not-English to understand "Carry on with your regularly scheduled multiplication of zero" but it sounds quite condescending... I must have hit a nerve. Sorry.

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
einDoppelganger
(@eindoppelganger)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 915
02/04/2012 1:49 am  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
My pants are quite free of knots but I am too not-English to understand "Carry on with your regularly scheduled multiplication of zero" but it sounds quite condescending...

sorry- multiplication of zero...
not intended to be a slight at you but a slight against the whole "online debate of X" practice. An existential howl into the abyss of online forum futility.

Still carry much respect for you and your posts Lutz. I just wanted to make sure it was clear who I was speaking for and to.

back to the rest of the debate though - I'm out of this one now.

Gonna go play with trans-yuggothian kittens.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
02/04/2012 4:17 am  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
But [Thelema is] obviously not a coherent, workable philosophy to build a society on.

Obviously, which is why all attempts to create "Thelemic Utopias" are utterly stupid.

Which is at least not what Crowley had in mind.

Yeah, he had a go at trying to make Thelema into a foundation for society. He was wrong.

which makes Thelema either a banality or undistinguishable from "Do what you like".

Not from the perspective of the individual, which is the whole point. It's an entirely individual philosophy.

Azidonis:

there is no way to know how you will react to those changes until you react to them.

Correct, and how an individual is authentically inclined to react in that future moment -- which that individual can't know right now -- is what that individual's True Will will be in that moment.

You seem to think that I -- or others here -- are arguing that True Will is some set-in-stone, now-and-forever guide to action. It is not. It's not a conscious guide, it's not a solid set of principles, it's not a master plan. It's whatever an individual is inclined to do in the moment when that individual stops paying attention to the distorting influences of the mind.

Do you even read anything I write? I know you've confessed before that you don't really read my posts and just respond to whatever your imagination cooks up, but here is a practical example of a situation where trusty that spiffy little "intuition" of yours is really hampering you and preventing you from having a real conversation.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
02/04/2012 4:40 am  
"Los" wrote:
Azidonis:

there is no way to know how you will react to those changes until you react to them.

Correct, and how an individual is authentically inclined to react in that future moment -- which that individual can't know right now -- is what that individual's True Will will be in that moment.

You seem to think that I -- or others here -- are arguing that True Will is some set-in-stone, now-and-forever guide to action.

Yes, and the debate on what someone "should or should not do to be in accordance with Thelema" continues on...

"Los" wrote:
It is not. It's not a conscious guide, it's not a solid set of principles, it's not a master plan. It's whatever an individual is inclined to do in the moment when that individual stops paying attention to the distorting influences of the mind.

Thanks for stating the obvious.

"Los" wrote:
Do you even read anything I write?

Not particularly.

"Los" wrote:
I know you've confessed before that you don't really read my posts and just respond to whatever your imagination cooks up, but here is a practical example of a situation where trusty that spiffy little "intuition" of yours is really hampering you and preventing you from having a real conversation.

What are you talking about? (And you wonder why I don't read your posts thoroughly sometimes.)


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
02/04/2012 6:13 am  
"Azidonis" wrote:
"Los" wrote:
I know you've confessed before that you don't really read my posts and just respond to whatever your imagination cooks up, but here is a practical example of a situation where trusty that spiffy little "intuition" of yours is really hampering you and preventing you from having a real conversation.

What are you talking about? (And you wonder why I don't read your posts thoroughly sometimes.)

I'm talking about this extract:

"Azidonis" wrote:
"Los" wrote:
Are you even reading what I write?

Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. [...] It's almost like my intuition is telling me what you wrote before I read it

From this post of yours: http://www.lashtal.com/forum/index.php/topic,5368.msg66760.html#msg66760

Look, if you don't want to read what I write, then don't read what I write. But if you're not going to try to read me and if you're *still* going to try to respond to what I say, you're going to look completely foolish, as if you're just having half a conversation with yourself and totally missing the point every single time. And that's exactly what you look like. Spare yourself the embarassment.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
02/04/2012 8:09 am  
"Los" wrote:
Look, if you don't want to read what I write, then don't read what I write. But if you're not going to try to read me and if you're *still* going to try to respond to what I say, you're going to look completely foolish, as if you're just having half a conversation with yourself and totally missing the point every single time. And that's exactly what you look like. Spare yourself the embarassment.

If I recall correctly, Mr. Judge, the post you are questioning did not quote anyone. You just chimed in afterwards with a, "Do you read anything I say".

When you are finished playing with your straw men, let me know.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 4094
02/04/2012 6:12 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
When you are finished playing with your straw men, let me know.

Don't hold your breath, Az.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
02/04/2012 8:02 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
If I recall correctly, Mr. Judge, the post you are questioning did not quote anyone. You just chimed in afterwards with a, "Do you read anything I say".

So, just so we're clear, when you started that post you made last page with "Some of you seem to believe that a "magickal being" called an "HGA" is going to one day show up, and give you a handy-dandy guidebook for every situation you will be in for the rest of your lives," to whom were you referring when you said "some of you"?

You weren't directly quoting anyone, but you were certainly referring to a position that you detected in "some" others. If you weren't referring to me, then to whom? There were only a few people participating in the thread at that point....


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 4094
02/04/2012 8:29 pm  
"Los" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
If I recall correctly, Mr. Judge, the post you are questioning did not quote anyone. You just chimed in afterwards with a, "Do you read anything I say".

So, just so we're clear, when you started that post you made last page with "Some of you seem to believe that a "magickal being" called an "HGA" is going to one day show up, and give you a handy-dandy guidebook for every situation you will be in for the rest of your lives," to whom were you referring when you said "some of you"?

You weren't directly quoting anyone, but you were certainly referring to a position that you detected in "some" others. If you weren't referring to me, then to whom? There were only a few people participating in the thread at that point....

I think we're all clear, Los. Why don't you just get on with your arguments?


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
03/04/2012 2:11 am  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
"Los" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
If I recall correctly, Mr. Judge, the post you are questioning did not quote anyone. You just chimed in afterwards with a, "Do you read anything I say".

So, just so we're clear, when you started that post you made last page with "Some of you seem to believe that a "magickal being" called an "HGA" is going to one day show up, and give you a handy-dandy guidebook for every situation you will be in for the rest of your lives," to whom were you referring when you said "some of you"?

You weren't directly quoting anyone, but you were certainly referring to a position that you detected in "some" others. If you weren't referring to me, then to whom? There were only a few people participating in the thread at that point....

I think we're all clear, Los. Why don't you just get on with your arguments?

Pretty much.

Los, if you insist on arguing semantics, you can imagine it read, "some people" (ie. "some of you", as in, some of the possible thousands that read these threads, or may ever read them in the future), a general statement.

You almost remind me of an evangelist.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
22/04/2013 6:24 pm  
"Los" wrote:
Unfortunately, Crowley’s opinions on this topic appear painfully dated, since abortion is much safer now than in his day; far fewer abortions are now motivated by “our social system” creating “shame” (though admittedly, quite a few result from a desire to avoid what Crowley calls the “punishment” of poverty); and his language is colored by the sexist notion that a woman always should “fulfill her function.”

Abortions are safer today? You might want to take a look at the case of Doctor Kermit Gosnell. His case is not the least bit isolated. And as far as Crowley's view being sexist, I'm sure if he were alive today, he would say his view is elementarily evolutionary, not sexist. He was also quite prophetic in suggesting that single motherhood is punished with poverty. It is quite often the case, as anyone who is intellectually honest about it would agree.


ReplyQuote
Page 3 / 3
Share: