Appropriate Thelemi...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Appropriate Thelemic Justice  

  RSS

 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
29/03/2011 8:33 am  

Having watched on our local news last night film footage taken of indviduals battering an old circus elephant that they were supposed to be looking after with iron bars and pitch forks and finding myself incandescent with inpotent rage at these acts, I wondered upon the views of others as to what form thelemic justice would take in such instances.

Kindest regards,

RTh


Quote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
29/03/2011 10:02 am  

Don't know if a particularly Thelemic perspective would be much different from most others. The circus should be fined and the people doing the beating prosecuted, and banned from working with animals for several years. If the cruelty is endemic, perhaps the circus should have all their animals taken from them and be banned from having animals for several years.

On the other hand, if the circus has lions the guilty parties could always be fed to them.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
29/03/2011 10:13 am  

Make them learn all of wellredwellbred's posts by rote. And then, the elephant can trample them.

Firm, but fair.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
29/03/2011 1:47 pm  

That would be way to harsh, Noctifer.
The wellreadwellbred part I mean.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
29/03/2011 1:55 pm  
"FraterLucius" wrote:
That would be way too harsh, Noctifer.
The wellredwellbred part I mean.

Quite. Hence the elephant-trampling, which I introduced as a Merciful afterthought. No need for barbarism, after all.


ReplyQuote
OKontrair
(@okontrair)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 501
29/03/2011 2:10 pm  

I like elephants. I wish there were more of them and that each and every one was well fed, comfortable and happy.

But I know what Aleister would have done, he'd have shot it up the ass with a triple barrelled super hollow nosed express double magnum haggis reduction device.

OK


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
29/03/2011 3:07 pm  

Thank you all for your responses, entertaining and apt. I agree perhaps Noctifer is going too far with his wellreadwellbred comment ;), but would come down particularily on the side of the trampling justice in view of my personal opinion that a fine and banning order in a case of this seriousness would justify that the weak trample, rather than being trampled upon.
Regards to all who made me smile.
RTh


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
29/03/2011 5:12 pm  

What exactly is “Thelemic Justice”? That’s like going into a pizza parlor and asking for a “Thelemic Pie.”

If society wants to punish people for harming animals, then these people will be punished, and that’s all there is to it. The first response in the thread offered a reasonable enough punishment, given the circumstances. There’s nothing specifically “Thelemic” about it.

It’s odd that you chose animal cruelty as the issue to ask this question about, though. As another poster pointed out, Crowley’s record is far from spotless as far as animal rights are concerned. Not only did he hunt animals for sport, there are all the animals he killed in the name of “magick”: several doves, a cat (whose throat he slit), and a frog that was crucified, stabbed through the heart, and eaten. I can’t remember if he killed the goat or not – I think so. And then, unrelated to magick, there was the cat he tortured as a boy so that he could figure out whether it really did have “nine lives” or not. (Did I miss any?)

Do you think that Crowley ought to have faced a form of “Thelemic Justice” for the things he did to animals?

To be clear, I’m not saying that I like what Crowley did to animals, but if you’re going to suggest that there should be a specifically Thelemic punishment for animal cruelty, then surely you have to condemn Crowley equally, if not more, by those same standards.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
29/03/2011 6:14 pm  

I thought Thelemic justice was observing proper equilibrium. I know it isn't Thelma per se, but I think Qabalistic allegory still plays a role in Thelema proper "Unbalanced Power is the ebbing away of Life. Unbalanced Mercy is weakness and the fading out of the Will. Unbalanced Severity is cruelty and the barrenness of Mind."
I'm not so well versed in Thelemic Holy Books, can anyone point out any verse that describes this manner of equillibrium? I kow Crowley stresses the idea in several places in Magick in Theory and Practice.

WHen a crime such as the one above takes place, it is a crime against society. WHen a crime against society has occured, it throws the balance of society out of equilibrium. It is to the supposed Justice system that we look to see to it that this balance is restored to proper equilibrium. That's how it is supposed to work ideally anyway.
From a Thelemic perspective, I think it would be much more appropriate for judges to be women and men of a higher level of spiritual initiation than what we see in the average judge today. A judge should be a person of a high level of wisdom and understanding, capable of applying both strength and severity in a balanced fashion. Anytime I've stood before a judge, they have nearly lacked these faculties and abilities entirely.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
29/03/2011 6:47 pm  

Gentle people,

I believe that Crowley will be judged for his behaviour by others yes both for the positive aspect and the negative. I do not believe my balance of proportinate justice is as it should be, perhaps. I was interested in perspective comment on views of members purely for my own interest and did not wish to kindle argumentative coflagration.
As an update the creature has been advised as being taken into care by Whipsnade zoo, Brian Blessed has appeared to say he is equally enflammmed as to this incident and the perpatrator has gone missing, I for one hope that it is euphamistically so.

Kindest regards,
Rth


ReplyQuote
OKontrair
(@okontrair)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 501
29/03/2011 6:55 pm  

Ill treating Jumbo is a very bad thing and I hope this behaviour diminishes.

But how can this alleged crime be a crime against society? The now fled immigrant, probably on sub minimum pay and probably with no training, is not part of the society in which he struggles to survive and the elephant is not part of society - not human society anyway.

I had to move a big log today; I could really have used an elephant. I would have happily given her some buns.

OK


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
29/03/2011 7:02 pm  

In my opinion it is a crime against society as it deminishes it. By the way try bran flakes and save your buns and the poor arthritic riddled elephants legs 😉


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
29/03/2011 7:37 pm  

In Crowley's day, animals were held in much lower regard and blasting an Elephant away with a very large rifle wasn't considered a crime of any sort. Neither was kicking your dog or beating your wife and children. The superiority of the white race was also a very common view. Heroine and cocaine were socailly acceptable medical treatments....the list goes on and on. My point is, it's a bit inappropriate to judge a erson who lived a century ago by the standards and values of society today. Sure, it sucks that that was how things were, but that's how things were.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
29/03/2011 8:58 pm  

I too think it is a very odd example to be used as a demonstration of 'Thelemic Justice,' probably better left for when individual humans have their own shit together enough to be in a position to think clearly about much of anything.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
29/03/2011 9:48 pm  

PS TO MY LAST: Of course, if one knows one's true Will to be saving the elephants, which are endangered, one should do so. Since their habitat will probably soon be gone, zoological efforts are far preferable to circuses, obviously. There are fine circuses today that keep no animals at all.


ReplyQuote
OKontrair
(@okontrair)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 501
29/03/2011 9:52 pm  

But what if your true Will is for Jumbo to get off your toe and all you have to hand is a stick?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
29/03/2011 9:59 pm  

Part D of Aleister Crowley's DUTY seems to address this:

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


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
29/03/2011 10:42 pm  
"Camlion" wrote:
PS TO MY LAST: Of course, if one knows one's true Will to be saving the elephants, which are endangered, one should do so. Since their habitat will probably soon be gone, zoological efforts are far preferable to circuses, obviously. There are fine circuses today that keep no animals at all.

In some way, I don't think that the Will, or the True WIll quite works in this way. I find it hard to believe that one would awaken to the realization that their true Will was to save the Elephants. That seems to me more like something driven by an egotistical drive. That may be what one choses to do with their life work, and of course their true Will would be the informing agent that allowed them to conceive of some ingenious way to implement this, but I find it hard to believe that this is the sort of thing Crowley had in mind when he was coining the term. Of course I could be wrong, it's just my opinion.
As for your other comment, the habitat of the ELephant is rather large, I don't think it is at risk of being gone "soon."


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
29/03/2011 10:51 pm  

Perhaps if some of the commentators had seen the actual footage it would be seen to be quite inappropriate to make light of the situation, we are not refering to hunting for whatever reason or a poor underpaid immigrant trying to get jumbo off his foot but outright and sustained cruelty of a quite staggering level. Quite why anyone would make such comment and more so from persons of a hoped for higher level of conciousness to have such level of negative empathy for another being beyond the initial witicisms expressed, which did make me at least feel better, surprises me greatly, however as I say I take it that that not experienced or witnessed would be a very good excuse for comments posted. I live and learn!


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
29/03/2011 10:53 pm  
"RemeaviThantos" wrote:
Perhaps if some of the commentators had seen the actual footage it would be seen to be quite inappropriate to make light of the situation, we are not refering to hunting for whatever reason or a poor underpaid immigrant trying to get jumbo off his foot but outright and sustained cruelty of a quite staggering level. Quite why anyone would make such comment and more so from persons of a hoped for higher level of conciousness to have such level of negative empathy for another being beyond the initial witicisms expressed, which did make me at least feel better, surprises me greatly, however as I say I take it that that not experienced or witnessed would be a very good excuse for comments posted. I live and learn!

You should use the quote function to clarify what you are referring too.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
29/03/2011 10:55 pm  
"AEternitas" wrote:
"Camlion" wrote:
PS TO MY LAST: Of course, if one knows one's true Will to be saving the elephants, which are endangered, one should do so. Since their habitat will probably soon be gone, zoological efforts are far preferable to circuses, obviously. There are fine circuses today that keep no animals at all.

In some way, I don't think that the Will, or the True WIll quite works in this way. I find it hard to believe that one would awaken to the realization that their true Will was to save the Elephants. That seems to me more like something driven by an egotistical drive. That may be what one choses to do with their life work, and of course their true Will would be the informing agent that allowed them to conceive of some ingenious way to implement this, but I find it hard to believe that this is the sort of thing Crowley had in mind when he was coining the term. Of course I could be wrong, it's just my opinion.
As for your other comment, the habitat of the ELephant is rather large, I don't think it is at risk of being gone "soon."

When you are reasonable certain that the accretions to the true Self from environment or ego are not being mistaken for true Will, then you are reasonably certain. The test then is success, one's innate affinity for the thing, one's aptitude for it, and so on. There is no sudden awakening, in most cases, it's a process - unless one has been raised from early childhood with an emphasis on true Will, which is obviously preferable and would negate the necessity for this discussion entirely. 🙂


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
29/03/2011 10:56 pm  

Do I really need to. Really?


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
29/03/2011 11:20 pm  
"RemeaviThantos" wrote:
Quite why anyone would make such comment and more so from persons of a hoped for higher level of conciousness to have such level of negative empathy for another being beyond the initial witicisms expressed, which did make me at least feel better, surprises me greatly

It’s worth noting that Crowley warns the student against the emotions and "sympathy" and their ability to cloud one’s perception. From Book 4 Part II (The Sword):

"The perceptions are meaningless in themselves; but the emotions are worse, for they delude their victim into supposing them significant and true.

"Every emotion is an obsession […]

"Let him avoid the imaginative interpretation of any facts. Let him not put himself in the place of the people of whom the facts are related, or if he does so, let it be done only for the purpose of comprehension. Sympathy, indignation, praise and blame, are out of place in the observer. […]

[He goes on to list several examples, including the following:]

"Very few people have ever "seen" a bull-fight. One set of people goes for excitement, another set for the perverse excitement which real or simulated horror affords. Very few people know that blood freshly spilled in the sunlight is perhaps the most beautiful colour that is to be found in nature."

Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m not arguing in favor of animal cruelty or anything like that, but your reaction to seeing something that has upset you – to the point that you want to make a post about animal cruelty on, of all places, a forum to talk about Aleister Crowley’s life and works -- is a good example of the ways that the emotions push and pull a person’s mind around like a plaything.

Part of the goal of “attainment’ – or whatever you want to call it – is perceiving on wider and grander levels. You experience your emotions, but you don’t let them push you around. After all, in the big picture, this is a pretty minor story.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
29/03/2011 11:46 pm  

Thank you Los I appreciate that, however with reference to Crowleys perceived,evident, point of view of empathy to other beings, he is merely one eye and his mind merely the eyes' focal point, like any eyes focal point it has a blind spot, a relatively small point of actual perception, and the mind has to fill in the blanks to see beyond the actual image. He is therefore not an authority on every subject known to mankind, simply most in my opinion hence I am a member of Lashtal.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
29/03/2011 11:54 pm  
"RemeaviThantos" wrote:
Thank you Los I appreciate that, however with reference to Crowleys perceived,evident, point of view of empathy to other beings, he is merely one eye and his mind merely the eyes' focal point, like any eyes focal point it has a blind spot, a relatively small point of actual perception, and the mind has to fill in the blanks to see beyond the actual image. He is therefore not an authority on every subject known to mankind, simply most in my opinion hence I am a member of Lashtal.

Nevertheless, I would agree with Crowley and Los on this point regarding the emotions and keeping them in proper perspective, lest they distract, distort, and so on.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
30/03/2011 12:01 am  

Camlion,

And would one therefore remain balanced as a result? I view the act of balance to be a slight swaying from side to side and as appropriate up/down etc. I was angered by cruelty to a creature and I will remain angered until such time as I regain balanced equilibrium and see no reason to feel that this in any way compromises my way forward.

Kindest regards,


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
30/03/2011 12:25 am  

93 possibly helping spin the wheel of karma, without getting anyone else's hands dirty. perhaps the elephant beater's punishment could be having to castrate those monsters in cleveland, texas that raped that poor little girl. 93


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
30/03/2011 12:39 am  
"RemeaviThantos" wrote:
Camlion,

And would one therefore remain balanced as a result? I view the act of balance to be a slight swaying from side to side and as appropriate up/down etc. I was angered by cruelty to a creature and I will remain angered until such time as I regain balanced equilibrium and see no reason to feel that this in any way compromises my way forward.

Kindest regards,

It's all a question of degree, RemeaviThantos, as I see it. We probably all know people who spend most of their time and energy (precious resources) running around hysterical most of the time about one thing or another, utterly consumed by emotion. This condition, which is not uncommon, makes it impossible for an individual to recognize priorities.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
30/03/2011 3:07 am  

Emotions, properly handled and understood are a physical phenonema that inform us of how we should respond to certain situations. This is not to say that one should simply react at the first tinge of emotion in the belly. All I am saying is that emotions are a perfectly natural faculty, and when properly perceived and understood serve a beneficial porpose.
Likewise, you can feel sympathy towards a dying animal and still appreciate the sight of blood glimmering in the sunlight.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
30/03/2011 4:58 pm  
"AEternitas" wrote:
Emotions, properly handled and understood are a physical phenonema that inform us of how we should respond to certain situations.

While you can certainly think this, what you’re talking about here isn’t Thelema. Thelema puts an individual’s will – and not the emotions – completely in control of his or her actions.

The reason for this is that, according to Thelemic cosmology, every Khabs (star, individual) has woven a “false self,” a Khu (roughly, “spirit” or the consciousness and sense-of-self). The Khu makes self-consciousness and experience possible, but it does so at the price of leading one to identify with it and think that its thoughts, emotions, and stories are somehow true.

Attainment – that is, consistently shifting one’s attention from the Khu to the Khabs – cannot, if it is to mean anything at all, entail following the promptings of the Khu. It’s not for nothing that Crowley remarks that the True Self (also known as the HGA) should be experienced as an “other” – because from the perspective of the Khu, the True Self is utterly Other.

To go around doing things that already seem “right” to your little self/Khu, things that flatter your emotions, is to get caught up in the prison of your mind. Crowley writes in The Confessions:

“the average man’s senses are deceived by his emotions. He gets things out of proportion and he exaggerates them even when he is able to appreciate them at all. I made up my mind that it should be an essential part of my system of initiation to force my pupils to be familiar with just those things which excite or upset them, until they have acquired the power of perceiving them accurately without interference from the emotions”

And this idea, of course, is a restatement of the practices outlined in Book 4, part II that I quoted earlier on this thread.

It’s not true that emotions necessarily serve a “beneficial purpose.” Emotions like fear, for example, served a beneficial purpose at one time to our ancient ancestors, who had to fight or flee at a moment’s notice. But today, in the modern world, when most people in first world countries aren’t facing life or death situations every day, the same instincts of fear are downright detrimental. The same goes with pretty much all other emotions.

“Sympathy” may have helped early communities of social animals (like humans) bond with each other to increase the chances for survival, but nowadays “sympathy” for its own sake can lead people to think that something must be done about the starving children in Africa or the victims of the recent tsunami. In other words, it can lead you to do things that are not in line with your true will (see Crowley’s comment to AL I:31 for more on this).

There’s been some talk on these forums before about certain practices – namely, imagining having sex with creepy giant insects -- being a way to accomplish the goal of achieving “familiar[ity] with just those things which excite or upset [students]” in Crowley’s quote, but it seems to me that acclimating yourself to things that you are dreaming up could never be nearly as effective as acclimating yourself to real things that are utterly other to you, things that you actually have a real distaste for, like animal cruelty.


ReplyQuote
sonofthestar
(@sonofthestar)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 375
30/03/2011 7:21 pm  

93!

RemeaviThantos,
first, this topic of animal cruelty, has just as much pertinence to Thelema, as any and all topics have pertinence to Thelema.
It brings up the practicality of Thelema in dealing with such incidents; the practicality of the personal, and
the practicality of the non personal.

I've not looked at this video, as the video I watched of cats and dogs being skinned alive by illegal fur traders,
has left me with more than enough seething hatred for those engaged in such actions---as to last several lifetimes. Does this mean that I have allowed myself to become unbalanced? Does it mean that "Thelema" is not doing for me--what it is supposed to be doing?

Ever since I was a child, I have felt the same upon witnessing or hearing of such outrages; my practice and progression of Thelema has not diminished my feelings in the slightest.
What has changed is my absolute resolve to redress the balance of such actions by all possible means, starting with my personal relationships with animals.

So my advice to you, so far as regaining a balanced equilibrium after seeing such a validly upsetting thing,
is to adopt a puppy!
....or a cat, that has been abused and mistreated,
and shower it with as much love and kindhearted attention as you can.

That will go one half of the way to restoring your composure.

Then you will be left with the other half of the equation: the wanton acts of cruelty taking place on a daily basis which you feel are beyond your power to stop.
Search yourself, in and from all aspects of your Thelemic sphere of being, and the answer is indeed there to be found.
You might have to literally invoke Ganesh if the answer you eventually arrive at, dictates the necessity of such.

93! 93! 93!


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
30/03/2011 7:39 pm  
"sonofthestar" wrote:
Search yourself, in and from all aspects of your Thelemic sphere of being, and the answer is indeed there to be found.

93 sonofthestar. Can you please define what you mean by "your Thelemic sphere of being," in this context? Thanks.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
30/03/2011 8:13 pm  

Sometimes when one casts stones in a still pond it is stimulating to observe the pattern of waves is it not? In conjunction with mine HGA a mighty spell of Thelemic Justice has been cast. We laughed together and once more as when a child I was cleansed as though by my mother chiding me for playing in the dirt, and I was told regardless of emotional imbalance that this was why I was loved.

Sonofthestar 93.

Regards and thanks to all,

RTH


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
30/03/2011 9:39 pm  
"Camlion" wrote:
"RemeaviThantos" wrote:
Thank you Los I appreciate that, however with reference to Crowleys perceived,evident, point of view of empathy to other beings, he is merely one eye and his mind merely the eyes' focal point, like any eyes focal point it has a blind spot, a relatively small point of actual perception, and the mind has to fill in the blanks to see beyond the actual image. He is therefore not an authority on every subject known to mankind, simply most in my opinion hence I am a member of Lashtal.

Nevertheless, I would agree with Crowley and Los on this point regarding the emotions and keeping them in proper perspective, lest they distract, distort, and so on.

I agree, but to write off emotions as a useful faculty completely is, in my opinion, pure folly, and not with a capital F.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
30/03/2011 10:45 pm  
"AEternitas" wrote:
I agree, but to write off emotions as a useful faculty completely is, in my opinion, pure folly, and not with a capital F.

We had a similar discussion some time ago here concerning imagination, rather than emotion. The point is that not that these things have no rightful place within us, but that in Thelema these things are subordinate to true Will - and never the other way round. With most people today, the other way round is still the norm, and this is self-defeating to the true Will.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
31/03/2011 4:37 am  

"Thelemic justice".

"Thelemic".

Rumination:

Animals do the most dreadful things imaginable to eachother and, when they get the chance, sometimes - actually reasonably often - to us as well. Sometimes it is out of necessity for food, or for protection/from threat, but also, sometimes, just because they can.

They don't always do it nobly for survival. One hornet can dismember thousands of bees in an hour for no reason at all. Wolverines and foxes kill for sport. Mynah birds team up against isolated individual birds on whims. Cats ! If you want the definition of callousness, watch a well-fed housecat slowly tear apart a baby sparrow.

The actions of African mercenaries imported by Gaddaffi in Libya during the last month, for application to his own citizens, include instances of extreme torture whose kind I had hoped were relegated to the vaults of history, but sadly they are absolutely current, right now.

There is no difference between this and that, except in degree.

We protect animals against cruelty from humans not so much because we care about them (we don't: we eat them and wear them), but perhaps largely because the human behaviour involved indicates a psychopathy which is a small step away from application to vulnerable humans (children, infirm, elderly, other vulnerable adults) for satisfaction of similar ego-functions. As such, it is socially unacceptable, for if I accept it in another, I implicitly accept the victim's role for myself. Forgive me for stating the obvious, but real torture is something that nobody in their right mind ever signs up for.

There is the instant instinctive outrage which we may feel as a witness, if we've been conditioned in our upbringing to feel such things. Many people aren't. How 'natural' this is is up for debate, given the historical record. If outrage and sympathy are natural, evidently at least equally so are their opposites.

Torture (a form of Rape) of anything, in any way : of animals by people; of civilians by mercenaries (or soldiers), of alleged whistleblowers by their guilty, petrified targets; or whatever - for sadistic gratification of stunted egos, power-tripping, or whatever other sick motive, creates ONLY a destructive conflict and divides rather than unites: is ayoga, and therefore the antithesis of anything that could possibly be said to have anything at all to do with The Great Work, Thelema, the Will of the True Self, (or the "True Will" if we insist). As such, it is spiritually unacceptable. It is not Magick, nor is it Thelema, but their opposites.

And this, from a purely selfish viewpoint, without the usual considerations of sympathy or empathy for the victim.

Apart from it being demeaning to the victim, it asserts the inferiority of the aggressor. Within the heart and mind of the torturer is a kernel of white-hot fear.

The cultivation of sensitivity (but not sentimentality) towards the experience of other life forms is contingent upon the cultivation of awareness, or consciousness, which constitutes the Path of Thelema, and which therefore entails acceptance of the responsibility of benificent stewardship of those less powerful creatures with whom we share our situation.

This applies to prosecutors as much as it applies to perpetrators.

"Justice":

Protection.
Societies produce legislation ostensibly to protect the vulnerable members from unjust exploitation by the psychopathic and predatory. Where it does not, it is inevitably changed, sooner or later, to do so.

'Punishment' as Deterrant.
Cruelty as punishment for crime is done either to

i) deter by example of harsh consequence, or to
ii) deliver pain that the criminal 'deserves' according to the emotional outrage of the prosecutors, or iii) according to some theoretical abstract ideology such as the strictures of an inherited religious dogma.

The last iii) may be dismissed without comment, as ipso facto false, without reality or relevance of any kind to human affairs.

The first i) has some functional merit except in severe cases of psychosis where it is possibly a lure.

The second ii) has the dubious value of providing superficial and temporary satisfaction to victims' (or society's) frayed feelings of vengeance, inspired by the outrage provoked by the crime. But this is perhaps a mistake, for it continues the unacceptable framework established by the crime, the inferior party. It is certainly “justified” (Newton's First Law) as a reaction, but so what? In some cases, the rapist/torturer were themselves the recipient of an extensive inheritance of abuse, of which their crime is simply the exploding pustule, alerting the rest of the organism (society) to deeper-rooted troubles. Beating a savage dog or man who was raised brutally themselves simply compounds the injury.

By way of analogy (only): injuries must be treated, not punished for being injuries. The treatment may mean amputation (in cases where this is the only thing which will protect the life of the organism). This means cutting off the criminal from the rest of Society, to protect Society (which includes animals with whom we share our world) from the dis-ease of spirit which they are the unfortunate victims.

Laws against cruelty to animals are not new, nor are they news. Those who do it know it's illegal, apart from its immorality. So why do they do it? Why engage in a disgusting cruel activity which has precisely zero plusses for anyone, including the doer? It's mental illness. Whether they are aware of it or not, it's a cry for help. There's more behind the act itself.

I am the crankiest bastard I know. I can't stand even hearing about things like this, let alone watch the actual footage. I adore animals, even the poor, habit-encased ones who want to torture me to death, including the human ones. So what do I think is Thelemic Justice?

Punish to protect by deterrence (preserve the healthy organ from the infected). Study and investigate the disease. But despite my sadness and outrage at this sort of thing, I don't think it's a good long-term policy to perpetuate the pain, to punish equally cruelly dictated by the reasonable fear which we may have of the aggressors, themselves often victims, who commit these terrible acts. As much as we might wish terrible things upon them at first sight, as I did earlier in this thread.

That doesn't mean leniency, either. I can't come up with a specific “justice” to be served for this particular act right now. I would imagine that, as someone said earlier, most Western countries have pretty good legislation for this (although Guantanamo Bay and the present Bradley Manning case seem to be exceptions to this general rule).


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
31/03/2011 5:41 am  

Damn. It's not Newton's first law, but his third, that I intended to cobble in above, as a (admittedly) tired analogy. "Automatic Reaction" would have done.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
31/03/2011 4:27 pm  

93,

"666TSAEB" wrote:
Part D of Aleister Crowley's DUTY seems to address this:

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

Agreed.

I've been much into Buddhist thought recently. In one way, I am separate from the elephant beatings because I am simply nowhere around when that happens. I am not involved in any sort of venture that would cause me to have contact or interaction with elephants or their beaters.

In another sense, all is one. The elephant beatings can be seen as a misalignment of parts of my own "Sense of Self" (but not necessarily), in which case they should be handled as any other distraction, or break.

To go through one's mind attempting to fight every last break is ultimately futile. It is sometimes best to see them as they are, and allow them to move on. You see a sunflower on the road and think "what a nice sunflower", and move on. You see a dead dog on the side of the road, and think it to be some atrocity to life, and let it hang with you. People should move on.

If I were in a sphere of influence that had to do with this elephant, I would probably watch him get poked and prodded (you know that's how they train them, right?), and then smile when I see the elephants and his friends bust through some guarding and maul a few "trainers" to death. Poetic justice, in my opinion.

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
31/03/2011 6:24 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
93,

"666TSAEB" wrote:
Part D of Aleister Crowley's DUTY seems to address this:

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

Agreed.

Indeed, I appreciate AC's DUTY even more than usual at this moment.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
31/03/2011 6:50 pm  
"Noctifer" wrote:
In some cases, the rapist/torturer were themselves the recipient of an extensive inheritance of abuse, of which their crime is simply the exploding pustule, alerting the rest of the organism (society) to deeper-rooted troubles.

I wonder, Noc, if such "deeper-rooted troubles" might not be traced to some variation of artificial violation, repression, etc. of the criminal's own nature, natural function, true Will (pardon the expression, dear) much of the time, often during the developmental years of the criminal's life? In other words, do violations of the Law of Thelema (by which I mean true Will) create these monsters?


ReplyQuote
Walterfive
(@walterfive)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 856
31/03/2011 9:33 pm  

My son spent seven years as an elephant handler for The Great American Circus and the Clyde Beatty/Cole Brothers Big Top Circus and two years handling Big Cats for Tammi Wallenda (formerly of the Flying Wallenda Family) at Shriner's Circuses around the country. I've met a number of his fellow circus folks, had them as guests in my home, been shown around their winter quarters where the animals are housed in the off-season. So I have an opinion on this.

First: here are reserves in several places here in America where retired Elephants and Big Cats can be humanely retired without euthanasia. These reserves are largely funded by private donations and annual pledges from the animals former trainers and the circuses they used to work for. My son used to volunteer during the off-season for an Elephant reserve in Florida, for nothing more than his room and board, he loves working with Elephants, and he's a BIG boy-- 6'5 & 350+ lbs, so the Elephants apparently respect his size and his calm in handling them, he's quite sensitive to their body language.

Big professional circuses treat their animals very humanely, and often have vetrenarians on staff who monitor the animals health day to day. You will likely never hear of animal abuse or neglect by the big-name circuses, if for no other reason than that would be *very* bad publicity and financially devastating to their bottom line. It is sadly true that smaller circuses do struggle to keep competent staff and handlers, and that sometimes animals are needlessly and cruelly mistreated, neglected, and abused.

Thelemically, one ought to analyze one's possible actions, and determine what one's True Will is in the matter. The options I have come up with are these:
1. You can choose to give your money to the big circuses that properly care for their animals.
2. You can choose to go to circuses like Cirque De Soleil that don't use animal acts at all, or
3. You can choose to patronize the smaller and struggling circuses, and report any suspected incidents of animal cruelty and/or neglect to your local animal control authorities. Many of the Mexican-based circuses I see here in Texas only use more common animals, like horses and trained dog acts, as an exotic, like a Tiger cub, starts at $15,000, and then requires at least two years work and training before it is ready for performance in front of an audience. All of these exotic performance animals are now bred and raised domestically, and are never taken out of the wild.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
01/04/2011 12:25 am  
"Camlion" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
93,

"666TSAEB" wrote:
Part D of Aleister Crowley's DUTY seems to address this:

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

Agreed.

Indeed, I appreciate AC's DUTY even more than usual at this moment.

A similar statement found in Liber CI:

28. Members of the Order are to regard those without its pale as possessing no rights of any kind, since they have not accepted the Law, and are therefore, as it were, troglodytes, survivals of a past civilisation, and to be treated accordingly. Kindness should be shown towards them, as towards any other animal, and every effort should be made to bring them into Freedom.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
01/04/2011 7:45 am  
"Camlion" wrote:
"Noctifer" wrote:
In some cases, the rapist/torturer were themselves the recipient of an extensive inheritance of abuse, of which their crime is simply the exploding pustule, alerting the rest of the organism (society) to deeper-rooted troubles.

I wonder, Noc, if such "deeper-rooted troubles" might not be traced to some variation of artificial violation, repression, etc. of the criminal's own nature, natural function, true Will (pardon the expression, dear) much of the time, often during the developmental years of the criminal's life? In other words, do violations of the Law of Thelema (by which I mean true Will) create these monsters?

Yes, Cam, I would agree that the "deep-rooted troubles" (i.e. extending beyond the scope and life - temporally - of the individual who just happens to be their visible expression) which I suggest as being ultimately behind this kind of psychotic behaviour would very likely be the result of a violation of the criminal's own nature (through neglect, or active mistreatment) during formative years, producing a habit of thought, belief, ego-motive and behaviour that carries this distorted form onwards.

In other words, I would accept (secondarily) the re-formulation of this generally commonsense view in unnecessarily technical language as the notion that violations of The Law of Thelema (by which I, along with Aiwass, mean to wholly consist of " Do What Thou Wilt", regardless of artificial conceptual constructs such as Crowley's Victorian "True Will') contributes to this sort of behaviour.


ReplyQuote
Walterfive
(@walterfive)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 856
01/04/2011 9:06 pm  

You feel that True Will is an 'artificial Victorian conceptual construct'?

What then is the purpose of Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel, if not to have one's Gnosis and/or True Will revealed?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
01/04/2011 11:23 pm  
"Walterfive" wrote:
You feel that True Will is an 'artificial Victorian conceptual construct'?

What then is the purpose of Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel, if not to have one's Gnosis and/or True Will revealed?

Hi Walter,

You are at liberty to find the terms which you feel best sum up that experience for yourself, based on the inheritance and our own lights - as are we all.

Abramelin never knew the expression "True Will", because he didn't speak English. Had he known Crowley's writing it's hard to tell what he would have made of it.

The Golden Dawn, whose whole raison d'etre was the K&CHGA (under the terms of "Higher Genius" or "Higher Self", which are its synonyms) taught as much long before Crowley became a member, and longer before his Thelema became known, and longer still before any mention of "True Will" was ever penned.

The HGA, or Higher Genius, or True Self, or any of the other quasi-Theosophical synonyms which were in parlance around the turn of the 20th century to which Crowley was introduced during his studies in the Golden Dawn of Mathers, is and was an idea quite well understood before Crowley's various sketchings of "True Will" were ever written, or published. It is therefore independent from it.

I know what Crowley was getting at with his True Will model, but it's still just a model, and it's still just his model. He was reasonably desperate for attention. To me, in some ways his True Will is very much a re-packaging of the doctrines regarding the Higher Self which the Golden Dawn taught, so in that respect I totally understand your remark above, but it's the other way round for me. Crowley clearly thought that "revealing True Will" was what his HGA was for, but that's just his pet phrase. For the reasons I've extensively outlined elsewhere, I think the term "True Will" is silly. One reason I choose to consciously avoid parrotting him on this particular issue is because I find his articulation of it, although often inspiring and illuminating and poetic, smacks too much of unnecessary mechanistic contrivances typical of the egoistic scientism of that period. The way in which the issue is explored in his 28 theorems of Magick, in particular, I find inconsistent.

Horses (preferably unflogged and alive) for courses I suppose.

Best regards
N


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
01/04/2011 11:43 pm  
"Noctifer" wrote:
"Walterfive" wrote:
You feel that True Will is an 'artificial Victorian conceptual construct'?

What then is the purpose of Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel, if not to have one's Gnosis and/or True Will revealed?

Hi Walter,

You are at liberty to find the terms which you feel best sum up that experience for yourself, based on the inheritance and our own lights - as are we all.

Abramelin never knew the expression "True Will", because he didn't speak English. Had he known Crowley's writing it's hard to tell what he would have made of it.

The Golden Dawn, whose whole raison d'etre was the K&CHGA (under the terms of "Higher Genius" or "Higher Self", which are its synonyms) taught as much long before Crowley became a member, and longer before his Thelema became known, and longer still before any mention of "True Will" was ever penned.

The HGA, or Higher Genius, or True Self, or any of the other quasi-Theosophical synonyms which were in parlance around the turn of the 20th century to which Crowley was introduced during his studies in the Golden Dawn of Mathers, is and was an idea quite well understood before Crowley's various sketchings of "True Will" were ever written, or published. It is therefore independent from it.

I know what Crowley was getting at with his True Will model, but it's still just a model, and it's still just his model. He was reasonably desperate for attention. To me, in some ways his True Will is very much a re-packaging of the doctrines regarding the Higher Self which the Golden Dawn taught, so in that respect I totally understand your remark above, but it's the other way round for me. Crowley clearly thought that "revealing True Will" was what his HGA was for, but that's just his pet phrase. For the reasons I've extensively outlined elsewhere, I think the term "True Will" is silly. One reason I choose to consciously avoid parrotting him on this particular issue is because I find his articulation of it, although often inspiring and illuminating and poetic, smacks too much of unnecessary mechanistic contrivances typical of the egoistic scientism of that period. The way in which the issue is explored in his 28 theorems of Magick, in particular, I find inconsistent.

Horses (preferably unflogged and alive) for courses I suppose.

Best regards
N

It's quite clear that you dislike the term because it is identified with AC, Noc. But it's not the term that really matters, (assuming we have no need at all to communicate with one another,) it's the idea represented by the term that matters, which is obscured by the games with semantics that you insist on playing.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
01/04/2011 11:49 pm  
"Camlion" wrote:
"Noctifer" wrote:
"Walterfive" wrote:
You feel that True Will is an 'artificial Victorian conceptual construct'?

What then is the purpose of Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel, if not to have one's Gnosis and/or True Will revealed?

Hi Walter,

You are at liberty to find the terms which you feel best sum up that experience for yourself, based on the inheritance and our own lights - as are we all.

Abramelin never knew the expression "True Will", because he didn't speak English. Had he known Crowley's writing it's hard to tell what he would have made of it.

The Golden Dawn, whose whole raison d'etre was the K&CHGA (under the terms of "Higher Genius" or "Higher Self", which are its synonyms) taught as much long before Crowley became a member, and longer before his Thelema became known, and longer still before any mention of "True Will" was ever penned.

The HGA, or Higher Genius, or True Self, or any of the other quasi-Theosophical synonyms which were in parlance around the turn of the 20th century to which Crowley was introduced during his studies in the Golden Dawn of Mathers, is and was an idea quite well understood before Crowley's various sketchings of "True Will" were ever written, or published. It is therefore independent from it.

I know what Crowley was getting at with his True Will model, but it's still just a model, and it's still just his model. He was reasonably desperate for attention. To me, in some ways his True Will is very much a re-packaging of the doctrines regarding the Higher Self which the Golden Dawn taught, so in that respect I totally understand your remark above, but it's the other way round for me. Crowley clearly thought that "revealing True Will" was what his HGA was for, but that's just his pet phrase. For the reasons I've extensively outlined elsewhere, I think the term "True Will" is silly. One reason I choose to consciously avoid parrotting him on this particular issue is because I find his articulation of it, although often inspiring and illuminating and poetic, smacks too much of unnecessary mechanistic contrivances typical of the egoistic scientism of that period. The way in which the issue is explored in his 28 theorems of Magick, in particular, I find inconsistent.

Horses (preferably unflogged and alive) for courses I suppose.

Best regards
N

It's quite clear that you dislike the term because it is identified with AC, Noc. But it's not the term that really matters, (assuming we have no need at all to communicate with one another,) it's the idea represented by the term that matters, which is obscured by the games with semantics that you insist on playing.

Camlion, if I "hated the term because it's identified with A.C.", believe me, I would give that exact reason. Please don't put words in my mouth. You're welcome to think independently on this issue, as are we all.

As you say, it's the idea represented by the term that matters. And it's Crowley's particular articulations of the idea which, as I have mentioned above, and elsewhere, I find to be unsatisfactory in a "final" sense (although, as I have remarked, I also find much in them which is inspiring and illuminating) for the reasons I've mentioned.

Please don't derail yet another thread to turn it into your private witch-burning arena over this instance of independent critical thought on my part, if you have a lot invested in the term that's your affair. Walter asked a good question, and I have given a selection of excellent responses, which show that "True Will" and the Augoeides experience may be considered independently. They may also be considered together, but as one was around for millennia before the other they are, quite clearly, independent (though related) ideas.

Meanwhile, back to the topic...

N.


ReplyQuote
Share: