OK, here is my firs...
 
Notifications
Clear all

OK, here is my first question.......

Page 1 / 2

 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
Topic starter  

Keep in mind that I am still a babe.

I understand "Do what though wilt is the whole of the law".

But what does "Love is the law, love under will mean"?


Quote
Baxian
(@baxian)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 74
 

I take the words "love is the law" to mean that love is a fundamental of existence.
(Love is a loaded word, but which I will suggest can mean a feeling of understanding, caring and general compassion, beyond need fulfillment in this case. That is, the kind of love that is beyond the usual "I want this", "dont take it away" attatchment issues most people seem to have)

The other part "love under will" seems more personal. As in love whoever you want, though do this according to your level of gnosis about your divine will.

Im sure many will disagree, and will have there own takes, far more nuanced and with plenty of sexy quotes from crowley. This seems to be the "nature" of a "System" which seems to me at least, more about developing your own personal understanding/s about yourself and the world, than taking any one else ideas as gospel.
those are my two bobs worth

cheers


ReplyQuote
Baxian
(@baxian)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 74
 
"Baxian" wrote:
love whoever you want, though do this according to your level of gnosis about your divine will.

ah, I almost forgot to add after the the words "love whoever", and whaterever you want.
I would not wish to limit the words "love under will", to only refer to relationships.

cheers


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 5330
 

It's been observed, with some wisdom, that Thelema is the easiest spiritual path to understand (though not necessarily to follow!) because it can be summarised in a handful of Holy Books, concentrated in one three-chapter book of law, and crystalized into just two sentences of 11 and 7 words, respectively.

So, in essence, all one really MUST get right is just eighteen words.

And so often, we see these misquoted, as in your post:

"R15O" wrote:
I understand "Do what though wilt is the whole of the law".

It's "thou" not "though", "shall be" not "is", and "Law" not "law".

And in my opinion, this is perhaps one of the most important of the early lessons on the path.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
Topic starter  

Thank you for the replies.

I think that maybe I was trying to over analyze things. It appears to be much simpler, and I was just confusing myself.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Before the 'short comment' which typically appears with the text, Crowley wrote several longer commentaries on the Book - see for example here and here. They're long-winded in places but you may find them helpful.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

I have always seen it as...

Doing your Will, is an act of Love.
While "Do what thou wilt" is the whole of the Law, the Law is also Love, the bringing of one into union with that Will. It is "under," one first comes to Love and by Love, comes Will.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"Uni_Verse" wrote:
...It is "under," one first comes to Love and by Love, comes Will.

Hmmm? How about:

"People are always beating the drum about Love. What really counts is that one take right action (Will) and then Agape (Universal Love) manifests as the by-product of that action."
- The Principles of White Magic
A.C. also suggested that this is the case.

On the other hand:

"The outermost band of the human aura displays a background color of either pale green or black (this black is actually a deep indigo). The green color indicates a Venusian connection and suggests that the person is here on Earth to teach Love. The black color signifies a Plutonian derivation and announces that the bearer is incarnated in order to teach Higher Consciousness (Will). Thus there are two distinct schools of thought, one proclaiming Love as the primordial principle and the other declaring Will to be foremost."
- The Path of Action

"There are also many Earth-derived people (whose incarnational journey began on Terra Firma, and who have no background color in the 7th (outermost) auric band. They will have no ideas about Love or Will as they are lacking a connection with their cosmic supercharger."
- The Path of Action

Or:

"Which came first - the chicken or the egg?"
- Ancient proverbial inquiry


ReplyQuote
phthah
(@phthah)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 210
 

93,

"LAShTAL" wrote:
It's "thou" not "though", "shall be" not "is", and "Law" not "law".

And in my opinion, this is perhaps one of the most important of the early lessons on the path.

Indeed! In fact, it was this very subject that prompted me to make my first post here at LAShTAL.com after lurking for some time.... And it has probably been downhill ever since! 😆 Oh well, hopefully I shall learn something along the way!

"the main reason for "Shall" instead of "Is", is to show a dynamic (as opposed to a static) view of the Universe. Here is another way to put it, "Shall Be", not "Is", is used in Liber AL, for multiple motives, the foremost of which are: it makes the statement of the Law a "Becoming" not a "Being" proposition, a dynamic - Theurgic - not a dogmatic proposition. I hope this shall be helpful."

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
Aleisterion
(@aleisterion)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 348
 

As for "Love is the law, love under will...", I've often seen this interpreted as love being subordinate to will, but pure will is itself so fully fueled by the purple passion of impersonal love, that I myself often use the phrase, "Love is the Foundation of the Will" --- and this has been helpful in my approach to a more full understanding of the 93 Current.


ReplyQuote
IAO131
(@iao131)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 461
 

93,

I wonder what 666 himself said about this...

"The method of Magick in this—and in all—Work is: “love under will.” The word love (Agape in Greek) has the value of 93, like that of θέλημα, will. This implies that love and will are in truth one and the same, two phases of one theme. Love is thus shown as the means by which will may be brought to success." - Djeridensis Comment

"There is but one other word to explain. Elsewhere it is written-- surely for our great comfort--``Love is the law, love under will.'' This is to be taken as meaning that while Will is the Law, the nature of that Will is Love. But this Love is as it were a by-product of that Will; it does not contradict or supersede that Will; and if apparent contradiction should arise in any crisis, it is the Will that will guide us aright. Lo, while in The Book of the Law is much of Love, there is no word of Sentimentality. Hate itself is almost like Love! ``As brothers fight ye!'' All the manly races of the world understand this. The Love of Liber Legis is always bold, virile, even orgiastic. There is delicacy, but it is the delicacy of strength. Mighty and terrible and glorious as it is, however, it is but the pennon upon the sacred lance of Will, the damascened inscription upon the swords of the Knight-monks of Thelema." - Liber II

"The Universe is Change; every Change is the effect of an Act of
Love; all Acts of Love contain Pure Joy." - Heart of the Master

"IT IS WRITTEN that ``Love is the law, love under will.'' Herein is an Arcanum concealed, for in the Greek Language Agaph, Love, is of the same numerical value as Velhma, Will. By this we understand that the Universal Will is of the nature of Love.

Now Love is the enkindling in ecstacy of Two that will to become One. It is thus an Universal formula of High Magick. For see now how all things, being in sorrow caused by dividuality, must of necessity will Oneness as their medicine." - De Lege Libellum

IAO131
IAO131


ReplyQuote
Aleisterion
(@aleisterion)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 348
 

Just so we're clear, my use of the word "foundation" in no way implies a superior position to will itself.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

93

I take the meaning of "Love is the law, love under Will" as such:

Love in gematria is equal to that of Unity. Nuit and Hadit dictate almost incenssently about uniting with each other. It is unity with that which is time and space that is the Law, but the true Will before.

93s


ReplyQuote
Aleisterion
(@aleisterion)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 348
 

LuxOrientis wrote: "It is unity with that which is time and space that is the Law, but the true Will before."

Please define what you mean by "will before"...


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

From AL:I w/AC's 'The Comment Called D,' concerning Love:

29. For I am divided for love's sake, for the chance of union.

Nuit is that which is equally 0 & 2. This Equation 0=2 the Master-Key of the Understanding of the Nature of the Universe. She answered: None and Two. This also is a marvel of number, and is the Truth of the Essence of Nature of all Things, the Root of the Tree of Thought, as I shall shew elsewhere.

30. This is the creation of the world, that the pain of division is as nothing, and the joy of dissolution all.

Nuit shews the object of creating the Illusion of Duality. She said: The world exists as two, for only so can there be known the Joy of Love, whereby are Two made One. Aught that is One is alone, and has little pain in making itself two, that it may know itself, and love itself, and rejoice therein.


ReplyQuote
IAO131
(@iao131)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 461
 
"Camlion" wrote:
From AL:I w/AC's 'The Comment Called D,' concerning Love:

29. For I am divided for love's sake, for the chance of union.

Nuit is that which is equally 0 & 2. This Equation 0=2 the Master-Key of the Understanding of the Nature of the Universe. She answered: None and Two. This also is a marvel of number, and is the Truth of the Essence of Nature of all Things, the Root of the Tree of Thought, as I shall shew elsewhere.

30. This is the creation of the world, that the pain of division is as nothing, and the joy of dissolution all.

Nuit shews the object of creating the Illusion of Duality. She said: The world exists as two, for only so can there be known the Joy of Love, whereby are Two made One. Aught that is One is alone, and has little pain in making itself two, that it may know itself, and love itself, and rejoice therein.

Although many take Love in this more mystical sense of making the Two to be One (None) again, I think it can be expanded to All Experience, even each Event of dualistic awareness. I quoted the Heart of the Master above when 666 says "The Universe is Change; every Change is the effect of an Act of Love; all Acts of Love contain Pure Joy." Further, one can be "unassuaged of purpose, delivered from the lust of result" (AL I:44) while still in dualistic consciousness, although the pinnacle/ideal of one-pointedness ends in this kind of unity without consciousness (in the subject-object sense).

Love then essentially refers to all acts whatsoever, any “Change in conformity with Will,” for all actions are lawful and necessary. Crowley explains “Every event is a uniting of some one monad with one of the experiences possible to it,” (Introduction to Liber AL vel Legis, part II) and further that “Each action or motion is an act of love, the uniting with one or another part of "Nuit"; each such act must be 'under will,' chosen so as to fulfill and not to thwart the true nature of the being concerned.” (Ibid, pt.III) Therefore, while “love” may refer specifically to acts of “union” (in the sense that sex is union on the physical plane, and samadhi is union on the mental plane) all experiences are understood as acts of “love” in the more universe sense that “every event is a uniting of some one monad with one of the experiences possible to it,” including acts of what may be perceived to be acts of “division.” Then we can understand that “love under will” is essentially the assimilation of experience in accordance with the nature of the individual with its fulfillment/pinnacle in complete absorption/union.

IAO131


ReplyQuote
Aleisterion
(@aleisterion)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 348
 

True love, impersonal passion though it is, can't quite be defined as "all acts whatsoever", can it? It would have to be the foundation of true Will, and so totally exclusive of --- let's say --- the actions of the serial murderer or the abusive husband.


ReplyQuote
IAO131
(@iao131)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 461
 
"Aleisterion" wrote:
True love, impersonal passion though it is, can't quite be defined as "all acts whatsoever", can it? It would have to be the foundation of true Will, and so totally exclusive of --- let's say --- the actions of the serial murderer or the abusive husband.

If you bother to read the quotes it becomes somewhat obvious why I would say such a thing... I gave at least 3 quotes right from the Beast which would support this view. I know it hurts your moral sense to think that a serial murderer or abusive husband would be performing acts of 'love' but if it is truly impersonal all acts - however horrible you think - would be included in this category.

"Physical constraint, up to a certain point, is not so seriously wrong; for it has its roots in the original sex-conflict which we see in animals, and has often the effect of exciting Love in his highest and noblest shape. Some of the most passionate and permanent attachments have begun with rape. Rome was actually founded thereon. Similarly, murder of a faithless partner is ethically excusable, in a certain sense; for there may be some stars whose Nature is extreme violence. The collision of galaxies is a magnificent spectacle, after all. But there is nothing inspiring in a visit to one's lawyer. Of course this is merely my personal view; a star who happened to be a lawyer might see things otherwise! Yet Nature's unspeakable variety, though it admits cruelty and selfishness, offers us no example of the puritan and the prig!"

"All is Will, and yet all is Necessity. To swerve is ultimately impossible; to seek to swerve is to suffer."

"It is several times shewn in this Book that 'falling' is in truth impossible. "All is ever as it was"."

"Our minds and bodies are veils of the Light within. The uninitiate is a "Dark Star", and the Great Work for him is to make his veils transparent by 'purifying' them. This 'purification' is really 'simplification'; it is not that the veil is dirty, but that the complexity of its folds makes it opaque. The Great Work therefore consists principally in the solution of complexes. Everything in itself is perfect, but when things are muddled, they become 'evil'."

IAO131


ReplyQuote
Aleisterion
(@aleisterion)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 348
 

"I know it hurts your moral sense to think that a serial murderer or abusive husband would be performing acts of 'love' but if it is truly impersonal all acts - however horrible you think - would be included in this category."

Not at all, but I can give you quotes (though I won't) from Crowley asserting that it is a violation of his own true will to steal from an innocent, because doing so would fracture his own right not to be stolen from. And no you don't hurt any moral nerves, I'm not at all as you're suggesting, not as if it matters.


ReplyQuote
phthah
(@phthah)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 210
 

93,

"IAO131" wrote:
I think it can be expanded to All Experience, even each Event of dualistic awareness...

I agree that this should include All Experience! Each Event of dualistic awareness or "Point-Event" should be an act of "Love under will".
Our formual is 2=0 or {(-1) + (+1) =0}.
"Its essence is this: any two things unite, with a double effect; firstly, the destruction of both, accompanied by the ecstasy due to the relief of the strain of separateness; secondly, the creation of a third thing, accompanied by the ecstasy of the realisation of existence, which is Joy until with development it becomes aware of its imperfection, and loves." ...Little Essays chapter on Love.

93 93/93
phthah


ReplyQuote
Aleisterion
(@aleisterion)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 348
 

IAO131:

You wrote:

"Love then essentially refers to all acts whatsoever, any “Change in conformity with Will,” for all actions are lawful and necessary."

So you're suggesting that any mindless thug with blind, inconsequential desire to do anyone undeserving of the violence perpetrated by him any degree of violence, is doing his true will? I hardly think this is what Crowley meant. And it isn't what The Book of the Law teaches at all, unless you read it very superficially. Anyway you're free to think what you will on the matter...


ReplyQuote
Patriarch156
(@patriarch156)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 486
 
"Aleisterion" wrote:
So you're suggesting that any mindless thug with blind, inconsequential desire to do anyone undeserving of the violence perpetrated by him any degree of violence, is doing his true will? I hardly think this is what Crowley meant. And it isn't what The Book of the Law teaches at all, unless you read it very superficially. Anyway you're free to think what you will on the matter...

I am sorry you are wrong and IAO131 is correct. While a serial murderer (if not an abusive husband since that is so vague so it might mean anything from an unfaithful to a murderer) is a violation of the Law of Liberty (that is the protection of the vertebrate rights of Man which Crowley does discuss in any number of places), it is not against the Law of Love, whose only condition is that it is a strong experience (cf. the old and new comment to II:45).


ReplyQuote
Aleisterion
(@aleisterion)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 348
 

Well, we can all quote:

From the New Commentary of AL, I:41:

"Anything soever that binds the will, hinders it, or diverts it, is Sin."

Sounds like an ethic to me. If you interfere with another's true will, you invite interference yourself. Yet if someone interferes with your rights, you've every right to oppose him. Of course I realize that it is the will of many to be opposed in whatever fashion suits us best.

"The remainder of the paragraph takes a particular case as an example. There shall be no property in human flesh. The sex-instinct is one of the most deeply-seated expressions of the will; and it must not be restricted, either negatively by preventing its free function, or positively by insisting on its false function."

And it would follow logically that if there are those who would enslave us, by taking away our rights through legislation that strips us of those rights --- be it obscenity laws or slavery laws or legislation against my right to ingest substances of my choice or even laws that would deny the rights of gays to marriage --- because those things happen to offend their bigoted ideology or just because it satisfies their sadistic desire to so dominate and enslave others, have every right to be stopped cold.

"Similarly, murder of a faithless partner is ethically excusable, in a certain sense; for
there may be some stars whose Nature is extreme violence."

This seems harsh...but not when you consider the time when Crowley had his back turned to a Scarlet Woman with a mean streak, and got knifed! He might've justified in walloping her there I suppose.

"Of course this is merely my personal view; a star who happened to be a lawyer might see things otherwise!"

Not to mention the cops, and then later, hostile cellmates LOL!

Patriarch156: There are no moral absolutes, and there is no right or wrong, because everything depends on the countless variables relative to each case. Anyway I'm not pontificating, if you want to think I'm wrong and you're right, please yourself accordingly.


ReplyQuote
Patriarch156
(@patriarch156)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 486
 
"Aleisterion" wrote:
Patriarch156: There are no moral absolutes, and there is no right or wrong, because everything depends on the countless variables relative to each case. Anyway I'm not pontificating, if you want to think I'm wrong and you're right, please yourself accordingly.

It is not me who are advancing that there are moral absolutes, it is you (serial killers and wife abusive husbands). As I pointed out the Law of Love has different preoccupations than succumbing to your particular point of sentimental love.

As far as your other point is concerned, quoting without reference to the whole body of work is easy, but here goes. Crowley is describing murder from the point of view of the individual above and he is right, he makes the same argument when it comes to rape and sex in general in his commentary to AL I:52, both the old and the new. However when it comes to the governing of the actions of individuals he is clear:

"The Extenuation I:51" wrote:
"Such acts as rape, and the assault or seduction of infants, may therefore be justly regarded as offences against the Law of Liberty, and repressed in the interests of that Law. It is also excluded from "as ye will" to compromise the liberty of another person indirectly, as by taking advantage of the ignorance or good faith of another person to expose that person to the constraint of sickness, poverty, social detriment, or childbearing, unless with the well-informed and uninfluenced free will of that person."

He makes a similar distinction about murder, noting that it may be permissible in individual cases in his commentary to I:41, but dispells any such notion when it comes to matters of the State in his commentary to AL I:70.

"The Extenuation I:70" wrote:
"[...] to murder one's rich aunt affirms the right of one's poor nephew to repeat the trick, and so to go against one's own Will-to-live, which lies deeper in one's being than the mere Will-to-inherit. The judge in each case is not ideal morality, but inherent logic."

If there were any further doubt about this I call your attention to what Duty, his main document enumerating the chief rules of practical conduct (yama and niyama) that is to be observed by those who have accepted the Law of Thelema:

"Duty" wrote:
"The essence of crime is that it restricts the freedom of the individual outraged. (Thus, murder restricts his right to live; robbery, his right to enjoy the fruits of his labour; coining, his right to the guarantee of the State that he shall barter in security; etc.) It is then the common duty to prevent crime by segregating the criminal, and by the threat of reprisals; also, to teach the criminal that his acts, being analyzed, are contrary to his own True Will. "

The reason for this is also discussed in his commentary to AL when he finishes quoting Liber Oz:

"Extenuation III:60" wrote:
"This statement must not be regarded as individualism run wild. Its harmony with statecraft is demonstrated in the Chapters of Liber Aleph already quoted -- see comment on Chapter II verse 72.

This comment, which by it's own admittance refers to "the limits of individual Liberty is fully discussed in Liber CXI (Aleph)" and discusses first how Man must not only submit to voluntary bonds of self discipline but also of that of an outer force such as a trainer in order to achieve a greater freedom. This has profound implications for the ordering of the State under the aegis of the Law of Thelema:

"Liber Aleph" wrote:
Now, o my Son, do then consider deeply of these Things in thine Ordering of the World under the Law of Thelema. For every Individual in the State must be perfect in his own Function, with Contentment, respecting his own Task as necessary and holy, not envious of another's. For so only mayst thou build up a free state, whose directing Will shall be singly directed to the Welfare of all.

After declaring that this State will respect both the Will-to-Live as well as the Will-to-Die of individuals, and various social programs he wanted instituted for mothers and children and that "[e]ach case must of course be judged on its merits" I think it would be wise to quote from "De Neccessitate Communi" regarding this governing and protection of the vertebral rights of Man by the State under the Aegis of the Law of Thelema:

"Liber Aleph" wrote:
Understand first that the Disturbers of the Peace of Mankind do so by Reason of their Ignorance of their own true Wills. Therefore as this Wisdom of mine increaseth among Mankind, the false Will to Crime must become constantly more rare. Also, the Exercise of our Freedom will cause Men to be born with less and ever less Affliction from that Dis-Ease of Spirit, which breedeth these false Wills. But, in the while of waiting for this Perfection, thou must by Law assure to every Man a Means of satisfying his bodily and his mental Needs, leaving him free to develop any Super-Structure in Accordance with his Will, and protecting him from any that may seek to deprive him of these vertebral Rights. There shall be therefore a Standard of Satisfaction, though it must vary in Detail with Race, Climate, and other such Conditions. And this Standard shall be based upon a large Interpretation of Facts biological, physiological, and the like.

An example of such ording of the government of the State under the aegis of the Law of Thelema by Crowley survives in his "Considerations of an open letter to Labour" where he declares that Legislation will be rewritten so that it is in accordance with "Do what thou wilt and that:

"Considerations of An Open Letter to Labour" wrote:
The Laws shall be remodelled fundamentally on First Principles. They shall be simplified to the utmost: the only offence is to restrict the Will of another, but this may be done in many ways and degrees. Thus, murder restricts the primary Will of a man to live, while slander restricts only that to be known accurately by his fellows: the penalties must differ accordingly."

I am afraid if you take into account the totality of Crowley's work, even within a single work such as the one you quoted selectively from a comment to one verse from, it paints a completely different picture than the one you are trying to paint.

Be that as it may, even if the above comment about the Law of Liberty was not correct (which I have demonstrated that it is), my point about you being wrong was in relation to the Law of Love, where indeed you have done nothing to prove that you are right and IAO131 is wrong.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"IAO131" wrote:
"Camlion" wrote:
From AL:I w/AC's 'The Comment Called D,' concerning Love:

29. For I am divided for love's sake, for the chance of union.

Nuit is that which is equally 0 & 2. This Equation 0=2 the Master-Key of the Understanding of the Nature of the Universe. She answered: None and Two. This also is a marvel of number, and is the Truth of the Essence of Nature of all Things, the Root of the Tree of Thought, as I shall shew elsewhere.

30. This is the creation of the world, that the pain of division is as nothing, and the joy of dissolution all.

Nuit shews the object of creating the Illusion of Duality. She said: The world exists as two, for only so can there be known the Joy of Love, whereby are Two made One. Aught that is One is alone, and has little pain in making itself two, that it may know itself, and love itself, and rejoice therein.

Although many take Love in this more mystical sense of making the Two to be One (None) again, I think it can be expanded to All Experience, even each Event of dualistic awareness.

Good morning, IAO131. In view of Aleisterion's posts in reply to your own, I'm sure that you can see why I elected to take the Thelemic 'high road' as a starting point. 😆 But, yes, the core principle extends to include all possible experience whatsoever, of course.


ReplyQuote
IAO131
(@iao131)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 461
 
"Camlion" wrote:
"IAO131" wrote:
"Camlion" wrote:
From AL:I w/AC's 'The Comment Called D,' concerning Love:

29. For I am divided for love's sake, for the chance of union.

Nuit is that which is equally 0 & 2. This Equation 0=2 the Master-Key of the Understanding of the Nature of the Universe. She answered: None and Two. This also is a marvel of number, and is the Truth of the Essence of Nature of all Things, the Root of the Tree of Thought, as I shall shew elsewhere.

30. This is the creation of the world, that the pain of division is as nothing, and the joy of dissolution all.

Nuit shews the object of creating the Illusion of Duality. She said: The world exists as two, for only so can there be known the Joy of Love, whereby are Two made One. Aught that is One is alone, and has little pain in making itself two, that it may know itself, and love itself, and rejoice therein.

Although many take Love in this more mystical sense of making the Two to be One (None) again, I think it can be expanded to All Experience, even each Event of dualistic awareness.

Good morning, IAO131. In view of Aleisterion's posts in reply to your own, I'm sure that you can see why I elected to take the Thelemic 'high road' as a starting point. 😆 But, yes, the core principle extends to include all possible experience whatsoever, of course.

93,

But of course...

IAO131


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"R15O" wrote:
Keep in mind that I am still a babe.

I understand "Do what though wilt is the whole of the law".

But what does "Love is the law, love under will mean"?

93 R150, and welcome.

As you can see so far, your initial question, simple and obvious as it is to ask, has stirred some controversy. IAO131 and Patriarch156 have, IMO, addressed the inevitable indiscriminate sentimentality and muddled morality by reference to the facts and legitimate sources for clarification. Kudos to each of them, and no offense intended to Aleisterion, whose intentions are always good. 🙂

Next up in the usual sequence of confusion and distraction related to your question is the word Agape, Greek for love, which happens to have the same numerical value of 93 as does the Greek word for will, Thelema. (You will also note that the word Agape does not actually appear in Liber AL. The word Thelema does so, and does so emphatically.) Just as the usage of the word Thelema in Liber AL has meanings that differ from some of its antecedent usage, i.e., as pure or true Will vs 'do as you please,' so does the word Agape differ in its Thelemic usage from some of its own antecedent usage. I mention this because this word Agape, in its Thelemic usage, ought not to be immediately identified with its usage by the Greeks or Christians of antiquity, at least not without careful consideration. The ideas of 'unconditional love' or even of 'universal love' may or may not have Thelemic connotations, depending upon one's understanding of these ideas in reference to Thelema. (IMO, of course!)


ReplyQuote
IAO131
(@iao131)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 461
 
"Camlion" wrote:
"R15O" wrote:
Keep in mind that I am still a babe.

I understand "Do what though wilt is the whole of the law".

But what does "Love is the law, love under will mean"?

93 R150, and welcome.

As you can see so far, your initial question, simple and obvious as it is to ask, has stirred some controversy. IAO131 and Patriarch156 have, IMO, addressed the inevitable indiscriminate sentimentality and muddled morality by reference to the facts and legitimate sources for clarification. Kudos to each of them, and no offense intended to Aleisterion, whose intentions are always good. 🙂

Next up in the usual sequence of confusion and distraction related to your question is the word Agape, Greek for love, which happens to have the same numerical value of 93 as does the Greek word for will, Thelema. (You will also note that the word Agape does not actually appear in Liber AL. The word Thelema does so, and does so emphatically.) Just as the usage of the word Thelema in Liber AL has meanings that differ from some of its antecedent usage, i.e., as pure or true Will vs 'do as you please,' so does the word Agape differ in its Thelemic usage from some of its own antecedent usage. I mention this because this word Agape, in its Thelemic usage, ought not to be immediately identified with its usage by the Greeks or Christians of antiquity, at least not without careful consideration. The ideas of 'unconditional love' or even of 'universal love' may or may not have Thelemic connotations, depending upon one's understanding of these ideas in reference to Thelema. (IMO, of course!)

93,

Indeed Agape does not mean what it used to mean - primarily 'charity' and 'self-sacrifice.' In fact, if we investigate the Greek understanding of love in its trifold form (philia, eros, agape), we see that the Thelemic understanding of Agape encompasses all three of these forms: this love is TRULY universal in that it absorbs the meaning of friendship (philia), desire /appropriation (eros), and agape (self-sacrifice). The Greek/Christian understanding of agape as a sort of self-sacrificing love may only be applicable in Thelema in relation to God/HGA insofar as one sacrifices the ego to this more encompassing Self to become identified with it (" his Angel is the Unity which expresses the sum of the Elements of that Self" -Liber Samekh) and/or become its vehicle/word. ("He now asserts that he is himself the "Angel" or messenger of his Angel; that is, that he is a mind and body whose office is to receive and transmit the Word of his Angel. He hails his Angel not only as "un-nefer" the Perfection of "Asar" himself as a man, but as Ptah-Apophrasz-Ra, the identity (Hadit) wrapped in the Dragon (Nuit) and thereby manifested as a Sun (Ra-Hoor-Khuit). The "Egg" (or Heart) "girt with a Serpent" is a cognate symbol; the idea is thus expressed later in the ritual." - Liber Samekh)

The unconditional love may be said to be the fact that 'all Acts are acts of Love' - " We should indeed love all -- is not the Law "love under will"? By this I mean that we should make proper contact with all, for love means union; and the proper condition of union is determined by will. Consider the right attitude to adopt in the matter of cholera. One should love it, that is, study it intimately; not otherwise can one be sure of maintaining the right relation with it, which is, not to allow it to interfere with one's will to live. (And almost everything that is true of Cholera is true of Christians.)" - The Law is For All

Even fighting and conflict are part of this 'unconditional love' of Thelema which may confuse some coming from a Christian background with its implications of meekness, victimhood, etc. "Hate itself is almost like Love! Fighting most certainly is Love! "As brothers fight ye!" All the many races of the world understand this. The Love of Liber Legis is always bold, Virile, even orgiastic. There is delicacy, but it is the delicacy of strength. Mighty and terrible and glorious as it is, however, it is but the pennon upon the sacred lance of Will, the damascened inscription upon the swords of the knightmonks of Thelema." -Liber II

IAO131


ReplyQuote
Aleisterion
(@aleisterion)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 348
 

Patriarch156:

Forgive my generalizations, obviously the point I was trying to make got lost, not only in all the bad grammar of my last post (I was very, very sleepy) but much moreso owing to those generalizations. My main point is that love is much more focused best through the lens of human perception (just the human lens, not that of the Current or the Universal Mind which is indifferent), not by mundane personal emotions or feelings, but by true passion and in the direction of true will. If the insane actions of a shallow-headed, repressed-minded fundamentalist can be excused as true will and based on true love equal to that of the intellectually rich, liberated mind of the initiate, then in my estimation that would be a philosophy as bankrupt as those outworn ideologies that have so bitterly divided humanity as a whole and threatened its very existence like never before.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

I tend to agree with Iao131 on this, as well as Patriarch. I'd also suggest reading COmmentaries of AL on the concept. While Motta has his flaws, I tend to find he does clarify Crowley in places where one might scratch their heads.


ReplyQuote
Aleisterion
(@aleisterion)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 348
 

"The Key to this Message is this word -- Will. The first obvious meaning of this Law is confirmed
by antithesis; "The Word of Sin is Restriction."

"Again: "... thou hast no right but to do thy will. Do that, and no other shall say nay. For pure will,
unassuaged of purpose, delivered from the lust of result, is every way perfect."

"Take this carefully; it seems to imply a theory that if every man and every woman did his and her will -- the true Will -- there would be no clashing. "Every man and every woman is a star.", and each star moves in an appointed path without interference. There is plenty of room for all; it is only disorder that creates confusion.

"From these considerations it should be clear that "Do what thou wilt" does not mean "Do what
you like." It is the apotheosis of Freedom; but it is also the strictest possible bond.

"Do what thou wilt -- then do nothing else. Let nothing deflect thee from that austere and holy
task. Liberty is absolute to do thy will; but seek to do any other thing whatever, and instantly
obstacles must arise. Every act that is not in definite course of that one orbit is erratic, an
hindrance. Will must not be two, but one.

"Note further that this will is not only to be pure, that is, single, as explained above, but also
"unassuaged of purpose". This strange phrase must give us pause. It may mean that any purpose
in the will would damp ti; clearly, the "lust of result" is a thing from which it must be delivered.
But the phrase may also be interpreted as if it read "with purpose unassuaged" -- i.e. with tireless
energy. The conception is, therefore, of an eternal motion, infinite and unalterable. It is Nirvana,
only dynamic instead of static -- and this comes to the same thing in the end.

"The obvious practical task of the magician is then to discover what his will really is, so that he
may do it in this manner, and he can best accomplish this by the practices of Liber Thisarb (see
Equinox I, VII, 105) or such others as may from one time to another be appointed.

"It should not be perfectly simple for everybody to understand the Message of the Master
Therion.

"Thou must (1) Find out what is thy Will, (2) Do that Will with (a) one-pointedness, (b)
detachment, (c) peace.

"Then, and then only, art thou in harmony with the Movement of Things, thy will part of, and
therefore equal to, the Will of God. And since the will is but the dynamic aspect of the self, and
since two different selves could not possess identical wills; then, if thy will be God's will, Thou
art That.

"There is but one other word to explain. Elsewhere it is written -- surely for our great comfort --

"Love is the law, love under will."

- New Comment to AL I:40.


ReplyQuote
sonofthestar
(@sonofthestar)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 375
 

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

“Invoke me under my stars! Love is the law, love under will. Nor let
the fools mistake love; for there are love and love. There is the dove,
and there is the serpent. Choose ye well! He, my prophet, hath
chosen, knowing the law of the fortress, and the great mystery of the
House of God.”

I will not give my personal interpretation of the above, but
Consider just a few of the sparks which inflame the mind upon reading it:

More than one kind of love? Two kinds? Perhaps more?
From the perspective of who, when compared to what?

The element of Choice! Concerning ?

Does acting in accordance with ones will, imply---choice? I would think so.
If we see the word “under” as implying something subordinated unto something,
such as love---dominated, or controlled by an act of will, and will itself being love,
What is implied?

Is a man free to define “love” as it is his will to do so?
To feel it?
To express it?
To define the kinds of love, if there is more than one kind, and therefore choose to express one kind rather than the other?
To proclaim one kind of love purer than another, if such a thing can be?

Although “technically” it can be said truthfully,--that a thug murdering an individual minding their own business, is an act of love----The aspiring individual must go far beyond the technical validity of such concepts if he or she is to arrive at a valid apprehension that is useful in all ways---upon all planes.
The means he or she transcends by, might not be so hard to accomplish if the Heart Centre--Tiphareth
is fully ablaze!

So knowing full well, the meaning of will, and that There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt,
what kind of love, if there is more than one kind, or degree, or formula thereof---is to be subordinated unto will;
or chosen to be expressed, practiced, engaged in, employed, or made manifest --- through will?…..

……An impersonal process, that once approached from the realms of analytical thought---is validly defined
as a form of love; but such a kind as is made manifest at the expense of the Light, Life, and Liberty of another?
Or, does one choose to express and put into practice---some other kind of Love,
If such a thing can be? The same? Or this---now that?
And at what stage of a persons life, and under what circumstances,----do such intangibles, present themselves “real” enough to be manipulated or refined, when and where it matters?

Love is the law, love under will.


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1906
 
"Aleisterion" wrote:
If the insane actions of a shallow-headed, repressed-minded fundamentalist can be excused as true will and based on true love equal to that of the intellectually rich, liberated mind of the initiate, then in my estimation that would be a philosophy as bankrupt as those outworn ideologies that have so bitterly divided humanity as a whole and threatened its very existence like never before.

93!

I agree totally. Since there is no "true will detector" so far invented, I think it is very important to look very close at the "true" in "true will". An academic discussion about the "true will to murder" of a murderer is only interesting in so far, as one might explore the hypothetical extremes and maybe even paradoxes of the Universal Thelemic Law, but in my opinion the outcome will always be, that the following of the "true will" will never lead to these extremes. Of course they did and they will occur, but in my opinion they have nothing to do with "true will".

"IAO131" wrote:
Even fighting and conflict are part of this 'unconditional love' of Thelema which may confuse some coming from a Christian background with its implications of meekness, victimhood, etc.

I agree that some may be confused because of their Christian background, others might be confused because they apply simple common sense. In my view there is no need for confusion, since it involves only the understanding of the different forms of love, but not the social legitimation of all forms of love. Elitist Thelemites deal not differently with murderes than cowardly Christians.

Following your True Will probably leads to conflict sometimes (maybe even easier than with just following the flow of the crowd), but it is absurd in my opinion that this conflict can be the goal of that True Will.

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
Since there is no "true will detector" so far invented...

Actually, there are two "true will detector" mechanisms that readily come to mind (there may be others):

1. "Success is thy proof," - Liber AL
This is essentially subjective but can often be utilized objectively by a third party.

2. The second "meter" is completely subjective:

Synchronicity

"Synchronicity – This term, coined by Karl G. Jung, MD, enjoys common usage today. It translates as meaningful coincidence. We all know and use the term coincidence.

"Actually, everything in our lives is coincidental. Co-incident = "Same event" or happening together in time and/or space. The emphasis here, as we consider synchronicity ("same time force"), is on the word meaningful.

"Hey! If it grabs your attention, especially if it's backed up with multiple coinciding factors, and if it rings your internal bells, then it is meaningful. It is not to be lightly dismissed with the commonplace statement, "Oh, it's only a coincidence!"

"There are very few reliable guideposts on the spiritual path. People often wonder, "Is this a message from my higher self, or is it just my desire?" The answer can be difficult to obtain. However, there is a state of being that can come upon us in the midst of our daily life. It is when everything seems to coincide (synchronize) and run smoothly. Internally, we see it, and we feel it, and we proclaim it to be meaningful. The sensation is similar to the phenomenon known as Déjà vu. This is one of the only (perhaps the only) feedback mechanisms that lets us know that we are doing our Will."
- In Revelation II


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1906
 
"Sphynx" wrote:
Actually, there are two "true will detector" mechanisms that readily come to mind (there may be others):

1. "Success is thy proof," - Liber AL

93!

Well, you show me the success-o-meter, then I will start to think about will-o-meter again...

Love=Law
Lutz

P.S. Hopefully you do not wish to link "success" and "murder" (for example and because mentioned in the thread) in any way...


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
...show me the success-o-meter...

Success:
1 obsolete: outcome , result
2 a: degree or measure of succeeding b: favorable or desired outcome.

"To follow without halt, one aim; there is the secret of success. And success? What is it? I do not find it in the applause of the theater; it lies rather in the satisfaction of accomplishment."

"The distance between insanity and genius is measured only by success."

"A successful person is one who can lay a firm foundation with the bricks that others throw at him or her."

"My will shall shape the future. Whether I fail or succeed shall be no man's doing but my own. I am the force; I can clear any obstacle before me or I can be lost in the maze. My choice; my responsibility; win or lose, only I hold the key to my destiny."

"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
Hopefully you do not wish to link "success" and "murder"

see: Genghis Khan, et al.

"Don't get squeamish on me!" - Ancient Mongolian saying

"No links - Just quotes." - Sphynx


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1906
 

Okay, one more proverb/quote and I will use an emoticon! O worse: will look for my own proverb dictionary...

None of your quotes helps "measuring" success, btw...

"Don't make me yawn again!" - Ancient Bavarian saying

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
"Aleisterion" wrote:
If the insane actions of a shallow-headed, repressed-minded fundamentalist can be excused as true will and based on true love equal to that of the intellectually rich, liberated mind of the initiate, then in my estimation that would be a philosophy as bankrupt as those outworn ideologies that have so bitterly divided humanity as a whole and threatened its very existence like never before.

93!

I agree totally. Since there is no "true will detector" so far invented, I think it is very important to look very close at the "true" in "true will". An academic discussion about the "true will to murder" of a murderer is only interesting in so far, as one might explore the hypothetical extremes and maybe even paradoxes of the Universal Thelemic Law, but in my opinion the outcome will always be, that the following of the "true will" will never lead to these extremes. Of course they did and they will occur, but in my opinion they have nothing to do with "true will".

In my experience, if you show me a murderer, I can usually show you a cause related to the suppression, not the expression, of true Will. Usually a violation or series of violations or general overall theme of violation (as with Judeo-Christian-Islam) of true Will earlier in the life of the perpetrator in question.

This fear of havoc being unleashed upon humanity if true Will is granted free reign is a red herring.


ReplyQuote
Aleisterion
(@aleisterion)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 348
 

Camlion wrote: "In my experience, if you show me a murderer, I can usually show you a cause related to the suppression, not the expression, of true Will."

Actually most of them are just acting on stupidity, and usually they're acting out of other, more direct forms of childhood abuse and societal failure. How many murders have you known? I had the misfortune of knowing a few when I lived on the streets of Detroit, and in those cases it was no true will that guided them, for they were just unrefined, blind brutes that would prey for no reason on anyone at anytime. But I took the Misty Mountain Hop, you know how it goes:

"If you go down in the streets today, Baby, you better,
You better open your eyes.
Folk down there really don`t care, really don`t care,
don`t care, really don`t
Which, which way the pressure lies,
So I`ve decided what I`m gonna do now.
So I`m packing my bags for the Misty Mountains
Where the spirits go now,
Over the hills where the spirits fly..." (Led Zep)

No fear of free reign drives my Zeppelin to soar to loftier heights.... though for me, it's the joy and initiated insight --- the light of true will --- that fuels this spirit to fly rather than crawl through dusk wet streets as a dumb animal.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"Aleisterion" wrote:
Camlion wrote: "In my experience, if you show me a murderer, I can usually show you a cause related to the suppression, not the expression, of true Will."

Actually most of them are just acting on stupidity, and usually they're acting out of other, more direct forms of childhood abuse and societal failure. How many murders have you known? I had the misfortune of knowing a few when I lived on the streets of Detroit, and in those cases it was no true will that guided them, for they were just unrefined, blind brutes that would prey for no reason on anyone at anytime. But I took the Misty Mountain Hop, you know how it goes:

As you often do, my friend, you are being too quick and superficial in your observations. Each such offender is usually crippled inside, you just have to take the time and look deeper to find the damage. Also, all forms of child abuse, whether sexual, physical, emotional or spiritual (as with indoctrination into the religions of the slave gods) are violations against the true Will of the victim, in that they block access to the true Will or inhibit the natural expression thereof in the victim. It is by way of such violations that most of our monsters are made, and sometimes these are the victims of those with the best of intentions, their own parents - especially in the case of spiritual violation.


ReplyQuote
Aleisterion
(@aleisterion)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 348
 

Well forgive me, my friend, for being "too quick and superficial" in my observations. You have your Law and I have mine, that's all. BTW in reference to the Zep song quote, I just thought that while everyone was throwing around all those hefty quotes, I'd go ahead and quote something TRULY inspired! I'm no fan of Crowley's commentaries, though what's there --- the meat of it --- is on the mark alright. He just dodged way too many issues, passed them right over owing to his total ignorance as to the meaning of a great majority of the Book.

"for behold! thou, o prophet, shalt not behold all these mysteries hidden therein."


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"Aleisterion" wrote:
Well forgive me, my friend, for being "too quick and superficial" in my observations. You have your Law and I have mine, that's all. BTW in reference to the Zep song quote, I just thought that while everyone was throwing around all those hefty quotes, I'd go ahead and quote something TRULY inspired! I'm no fan of Crowley's commentaries, though what's there --- the meat of it --- is on the mark alright. He just dodged way too many issues, passed them right over owing to his total ignorance as to the meaning of a great majority of the Book.

"for behold! thou, o prophet, shalt not behold all these mysteries hidden therein."

Really? I thought that it was one Law - do what thou wilt - and one unique Will per person? Or perhaps you were just being too quick on the trigger again? 😉

[As for Zep, big fan here, saw every show here in LA in the old days, not just one show per tour but every LA show in each tour; but that is another thread in these forums today, as it should be.]

As for Crowley's understanding of Liber AL, I see it as the best place to start. Some people too quickly dismiss Crowley's understanding before they, themselves, are even familiar with it. The Book itself, as you noted, allows for further development or elaboration or extension of the core concepts, which I see as important, especially in terms of modern application and adaptation.

I am curious as to an example of Crowley's "total ignorance as to the meaning of a great majority of the Book." Can you give one?


ReplyQuote
Aleisterion
(@aleisterion)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 348
 

Way more than one, how about most of the third chapter, not to mention all the glaring ones, e.g. (just off top of head here) AL I:54-56, II:75-76, III:47...but there's much throughout the entire Book simply passed right by, if you look closely.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"Aleisterion" wrote:
Way more than one, how about most of the third chapter, not to mention all the glaring ones, e.g. (just off top of head here) AL I:54-56, II:75-76, III:47...but there's much throughout the entire Book simply passed right by, if you look closely.

So, if he left the following versus alone, as instructed by the Book itself, you conclude that "He just dodged way too many issues, passed them right over owing to his total ignorance as to the meaning of a great majority of the Book."

I have underlined the instructions that I refer to:

I:54. Change not as much as the style of a letter; for behold! thou, o prophet, shalt not behold all these mysteries hidden therein.

I:55. The child of thy bowels, he shall behold them.

I:56. Expect him not from the East, nor from the West; for from no expected house cometh that child. Aum! All words are sacred and all prophets true; save only that they understand a little; solve the first half of the equation, leave the second unattacked. But thou hast all in the clear light, and some, though not all, in the dark.

II:75. Aye! listen to the numbers & the words:

II:76. 4 6 3 8 A B K 2 4 A L G M O R 3 Y X 24 89 R P S T O V A L. What meaneth this, o prophet? Thou knowest not; nor shalt thou know ever. There cometh one to follow thee: he shall expound it. But remember, o chose none, to be me; to follow the love of Nu in the star-lit heaven; to look forth upon men, to tell them this glad word.

III: 47. This book shall be translated into all tongues: but always with the original in the writing of the Beast; for in the chance shape of the letters and their position to one another: in these are mysteries that no Beast shall divine. Let him not seek to try: but one cometh after him, whence I say not, who shall discover the Key of it all. Then this line drawn is a key: then this circle squared in its failure is a key also. And Abrahadabra. It shall be his child & that strangely. Let him not seek after this; for thereby alone can he fall from it.

Am I understanding you?


ReplyQuote
IAO131
(@iao131)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 461
 

93,

I dont tend to agree that the 'measures' of True Will are 'success' or 'synchronicity.' The former is a merely relativistic device - if your aim is X and you complete it, it is successful, but it requires an ultimately arbitrary X to measure up to. One's failure at a task can often lead to insight, can lead one to greener pastures, etc. so failure itself in this sense doesnt seem to relate much to true will. As for synchronicity, I cant help but ask how the heck this has to do with will at all...?

I think the major problem many people have is that people think of Will as digital (on or off, true or false) rather than analog (degrees of purity).

"Camlion" wrote:
In my experience, if you show me a murderer, I can usually show you a cause related to the suppression, not the expression, of true Will. Usually a violation or series of violations or general overall theme of violation (as with Judeo-Christian-Islam) of true Will earlier in the life of the perpetrator in question.

Unless, of course, its an act of self-defense or an act of war...

This fear of havoc being unleashed upon humanity if true Will is granted free reign is a red herring.

Indeed. I also think Aleisterion's notion that Crowley 'passed over' certain passages to be both wrong and a red herring as well. Just because the Thelemic notion of Love doesnt tally with one's morality doesnt mean much other than one has a morality which doesnt tally with Thelema's Love. I know it may seem 'horrible' to contemplate - for some - that murder etc. may have a place within the notion of Love and Thelema as a whole but Crowley says that even the greatest nations were founded on such acts & principles. By the way Aleisterion, one's 'common sense' - especially in moral matters - is simply the way of expressing one's underlying moral sense. Common sense belongs to common-people and its often entirely wrong in regards to morality, psychology, neurology, and many other fields, and I would say its wrong in this instance as well.

IAO131


ReplyQuote
Aleisterion
(@aleisterion)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 348
 

Whatever...I'm sorry but you're simply not going to score any points with me defending murderers, which is my own bias but I'm honest about that and don't apologize for it either (and I certainly don't apreciate being called stupid or uninformed --- anyway, the murders of the Kennedys, Martin Luther King Jr and John Lennon really impacted me in a big way. The cultural change, caused by a mentally-weak idiot (or idiots who serve the interests of the rich) who takes it upon himself to puff up his ego by killing someone important, is catastrophic and avoidable. Education is everything. And there's just a world of difference between true will and dumb animal will.


ReplyQuote
IAO131
(@iao131)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 461
 
"Aleisterion" wrote:
Whatever...I'm sorry but you're simply not going to score any points with me defending murderers, which is my own bias but I'm honest about that and don't apologize for it either (and I certainly don't apreciate being called stupid or uninformed --- anyway, the murders of the Kennedys, Martin Luther King Jr and John Lennon really impacted me in a big way. The cultural change, caused by a mentally-weak idiot (or idiots who serve the interests of the rich) who takes it upon himself to puff up his ego by killing someone important, is catastrophic and avoidable. Education is everything. And there's just a world of difference between true will and dumb animal will.

First of all, no one is trying to 'score points' unless Im not being let into some kind of game to win your approval.

Second of all, no one called you stupid or uninformed - Im not sure why you even said that except as some kind of victim complex.

Third of all, were you even alive for any of those three murders? Im not saying it was their 'true will' to commit these murders but rather that every act is an act of love, even down to molecules combining.

Fourth of all, do you really think that education is anything? What about, say, the education of the Unabomber which was quite adequate? What about the education of people like Dick Cheney? Are they not educated to the maximum yet still commit, in your view, objectionable actions? Do you simply assume that, with education, everyone will come around to your view somehow?

Fifth of all, whats with the antagonism against animals? Are they really representative of dumbness of will like you say? Humans are just a species of animal, you know... It really isnt the animal-like tendencies which lead to these occurences that you mentioned but rather mental things - ideologies that lead to actions - which lead to murder of a political figure, for instance.

IAO131


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"IAO131" wrote:
Indeed. I also think Aleisterion's notion that Crowley 'passed over' certain passages to be both wrong and a red herring as well.

Ah, you mean perhaps that some people who are not really comfortable with the Law of Thelema, as explicit in Liber AL, accept it anyway, on the hunch that the remaining mysteries will reveal a radically different meaning, perhaps even reversing our present understanding of it. (This would, I think, be the fault of not really understanding it in the first place.) Incredible. 🙄


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"Aleisterion" wrote:
Whatever...I'm sorry but you're simply not going to score any points with me defending murderers, which is my own bias but I'm honest about that and don't apologize for it either (and I certainly don't apreciate being called stupid or uninformed --- anyway, the murders of the Kennedys, Martin Luther King Jr and John Lennon really impacted me in a big way. The cultural change, caused by a mentally-weak idiot (or idiots who serve the interests of the rich) who takes it upon himself to puff up his ego by killing someone important, is catastrophic and avoidable. Education is everything. And there's just a world of difference between true will and dumb animal will.

Aleisterion, if your own peculiar political and social ideology does not fit with the principles of Liber AL, perhaps it would be wiser to find another set of principles with which it does fit? Why bother to align yourself with Thelema in the first place? Or do you, perhaps, not understand it to begin with? In any case, hoping that the meaning of Thelema is going to be radically altered by some future revelation that will better suit your own world view is ridiculous. Why waste your time trying to change Thelema?


ReplyQuote
amadan-De
(@amadan-de)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 686
 

IAO131 wrote, with reference to murder, that :

Crowley says that even the greatest nations were founded on such acts & principles

I would be interested to see evidence for this - that does not derive from AC.

Likewise, Camlion seems to be saying that 'The Law of Thelema' is currently completely and unambiguosly understood (by him at least) - a quick squint at the fora here would suggest that is not true - and that there can be no further insights into the material. So, no Einstein to Crowley's Newton then?


ReplyQuote
Page 1 / 2
Share: