Crowley and Nietzsc...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Crowley and Nietzsche


 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
Topic starter  
"Mahakala77" wrote:
There is a quote from Nietzsche that seems a good supplementary comment on the Thelemic perspective as outlined by Los in his above post:

The reverse side of Christian compassion for the suffering of one's neighbor is a profound suspicion of all the joy of one's neighbor, of his joy in all that he wants to do and can.

(from Nietzsche's Daybreaks, 80, R.J. Hollingdale translation).

There is certainly room for a study outlining Nietzschean-Thelemic parallels.

I started a new thread for this.

I've been reading through some Nietzsche lately. Twilight of Idols, Gay Science, Zarathustra. I'm starting to read Beyond Good and Evil for the second time with, what seems, a nice guide from Laurence Lampert (he also has a guide for Zarathustra).

So, while reading, I naturally saw many parallels with Crowley's thought, as have other people.

Concerning Crowley, he's written an essay called "Vindication of Nietzsche". Parts of it seemed more like "Promotion of Crowley" (he's quoting Liber AL instead of Nietzsche in his vindication, for instance), but it clearly shows Crowley felt his philosophy was akin to Nietzsche's.

In Magick without Tears, Crowley writes:

"(Nietzsche may be regarded as one of our prophets; to a much less extent, de Gobineau.) Hitler's "Herrenvolk" is a not too dissimilar idea; but there is no volk about it; and if there were, it would certainly not be the routine-loving, uniformed-obsessed, law-abiding, refuge-seeking German; the Briton, especially the Celt, a natural anarchist, is much nearer the mark. Britons will never get together about anything unless and until each one of them feels himself directly threatened."

Nietzsche's one of the prophets in the Gnostic Mass.

I'm interested in hearing of other references from Crowley of Nietzsche.

As for Nietzsche's ideas, here's one.

"Nietzsche" wrote:
Thus Zarathustra had spoken to his heart when the sun stood at noon, then he gazed at the sky with questioning look, for bove him he heard the sharp cry of a bird. And behold! An eagle cut broad circles through the air, and upon it hung a snake, not as prey but as a friend, for the snake curled itself around the eagle's neck.

"It is my animals!" said Zarathustra, and his heart was delighted.

"The proudest animal under the sun and the wisest animal under the sun - they have gone forth to scout.

-- Thus Spoke Zarathustra (translation by Adrian Del Caro)

A proud eagle and a snake, with the snake curled around the eagle's neck - these seem quite Thelemic animals to me.


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

Also, concerning the political systems, concern these:

"Nietzsche" wrote:
. The superior caste—I call it the fewest—has, as the most perfect, the privileges of the few: it stands for happiness, for beauty, for everything good upon earth. Only the most intellectual of men have any right to beauty, to the beautiful; only in them can goodness escape being weakness. Pulchrum est paucorum hominum:[30] goodness is a privilege. Nothing could be more unbecoming to them than uncouth manners or a pessimistic look, or an eye that sees ugliness—or indignation against the general aspect of things. Indigna tion is the privilege of the Chandala; so is pessimism. “The world is perfect”—so prompts the instinct of the intellectual, the instinct of the man who says yes to life. “Imperfection, whatever is inferior to us, distance, the pathos of distance, even the Chandala themselves are parts of this perfection.” The most intelligent men, like the strongest, find their happiness where others would find only disaster: in the labyrinth, in being hard with themselves and with others, in effort; their delight is in self-mastery; in them asceticism becomes second nature, a necessity, an instinct. They regard a difficult task as a privilege; it is to them a recreation to play with burdens that would crush all others.... Knowledge—a form of asceticism.—They are the most honourable kind of men: but that does not prevent them being the most cheerful and most amiable. They rule, not because they want to, but because they are; they are not at liberty to play second.

From The Antichrist, chapter 57.

"Crowley" wrote:
The only solution of the Social Problem is the creation of a class with the true patriarchal feeling, and the manners and obligations of chivalry.

Book of Lies, chapter 172.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

I just read something last night, commentary on Maslow by Gary Lachman. He discussed that Maslow as well had similar views. A class of enlightened intellectuals and such. The discussion reminded me of Crowley, and I wondered how long such beliefs have been around.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
Topic starter  
"VirginiaWoolf" wrote:
I just read something last night, commentary on Maslow by Gary Lachman. He discussed that Maslow as well had similar views. A class of enlightened intellectuals and such. The discussion reminded me of Crowley, and I wondered how long such beliefs have been around.

The earliest similar idea that I know of is that of Plato. He had the idea of "Philosopher Kings" ruling the state. This is somewhat interesting and even ironic, since it's so close to Nietzsche's view, yet Nietzsche constantly mocked Plato.


ReplyQuote
einDoppelganger
(@eindoppelganger)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 915
 
"anpi" wrote:
yet Nietzsche constantly mocked Plato.

He pulled no punches mocking his teacher as well 😀

"Monstrum in fontre, monstrum in animo..." 😉


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

In Thus Spoke Zarathustra ("On the Three Metamorphoses"), Nietzsche describes three metamorphoses of the spirit.

"Nietzsche" wrote:
Three metamorphoses of the spirit I name for you: how the spirit becomes a camel, and the camel a lion, and finally the lion a child.

..

But in the loneliest desert the second metamorphoses occurs. Here the spirit becomes a lion, it wants to hunt down its freedom and be master in its own desert.

Here it seeks its last master, and wants to fight him and its last god. For victory it wants to battle the great dragon.

Who is the great dragon whom the spirit no longer wants to call master and god? "Thou shalt" is the name of the great dragon. But the spirit of the lion says "I will."

"Thou shalt" stands in its way, gleaming golden, a scaly animal, any upon every scale "Thou shalt! gleams like gold.

The values of millennia gleam on these scales, and thus speaks the most powerful of all dragons: "the value of all things - it gleams in me.

All value has already been created, and the value of all created things - that am I. Indeed, there shall be no more 'I will!'" Thus speaks the dragon.

..

But tell me, my brothers, of what is the child capable that even the lion is not? Why myst the preying lion still become a child?

The child is innocence and forgetting, a new beginning, a game, a wheel rolling out of itself, a first movement, a sacred yes-saying.

Yes, for the game of creating my brothers a sacred yes-saying is required. The spirit wants its will, the one lost to the world now wins its own world.

Three metamorphoses of the spirit I named for you: how the spirit becomes a camel, and the camel a lion, and finally the lion a child. -

(tranlation by Adrian Del Caro)

I see parallels with Crowley and Thelema in this, from the "I will" of the lion to the creating child, similar to Crowned and Conquering Child.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
 

There are a number of interesting comparisons that can be drawn between Crowley's thoughts and Nietzsche's.

In particular, it is useful to compare Nietzsche and Crowley on the idea of morality -- both conceive of morality as nothing more than an expression of values, and both detest "slave morality," though Nietzsche gives a much more throrough genealogy of what he sees as the history of morals. [See Crowley's description of the Five of Swords in the Book of Thoth, where he gives a very brief and very rough summary of Nietzsche's ideas on this, without specifically crediting him]

Overall, Nietzsche sees the universe as "the will to power, and nothing besides." To him, this idea means not merely the dominion of one person or group over another (though it certainly includes this), but an individual's ability to "overcome himself," to master his impulses -- rather than disown them, as the Christian does -- and sublimate them toward other ends than the mere fulfillment of immediate impulse. After all, as Nietzsche reminds us, man is the animal that esteems and values, and man is the animal that overcomes himself, that gives himself morality.

There are a number of interesting passages in Nietzsche where he proposes that the self is not a unity but a collection of conflicting drives vying for dominance. From this insight, he extrapolates a number of other ideas, including the notion that it is "grammar" that produces the illusion of a unified "I" -- that is, that the mind divides reality into subject and verb for the ease of communication and that people mistake this convention for "reality." He also suggests that people project this false sense of subjectivity out into the world and conclude that there are really "things," rather than the flux that he calls "The Innocence of Becoming." Further, he follows Hume in calling into question the notion of "causality," which exists in minds as an inference from the relationship of the "things" it constructs for the ease of communication.

Obviously, these ideas can be compared to Thelemic metaphysics, whereby the Khu (the body and the mind, roughly) drape the Khabs in the "illusion" of separateness so as to enable experience. There is much in Nietzsche, particularly the idea of Amor Fati ("Love of fate," that an individual should not merely endure his life, but love it), that resonates with the Thelemic idea of experience as a sacrament. Further, much of Nietzsche's ideas about pity -- and the tendency of pity to arise from resentment of life and to distract one from one's own path -- maps very well onto the way Thelema looks down on pity/compassion.

Of course, nowhere does Nietzsche articulate the idea that there is a "true" will that the body/mind complex can thwart. Rather, he sees the will to power operating inexorably and deterministically in everyone, such that those exhibiting slave morality illustrate "declining life" that is ineffectually reaching out for more power over life. For Nietzsche, slave morality is a symptom of an almost physical sickness, a weariness with life that reaches its apex in the Buddhist desire to end desire, a desire to obtain what these slaves see as the ultimate power over life -- its denial.


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

Thanks for the post, Los.

"Los" wrote:
Obviously, these ideas can be compared to Thelemic metaphysics, whereby the Khu (the body and the mind, roughly) drape the Khabs in the "illusion" of separateness so as to enable experience. There is much in Nietzsche, particularly the idea of Amor Fati ("Love of fate," that an individual should not merely endure his life, but love it), that resonates with the Thelemic idea of experience as a sacrament. Further, much of Nietzsche's ideas about pity -- and the tendency of pity to arise from resentment of life and to distract one from one's own path -- maps very well onto the way Thelema looks down on pity/compassion.

Yes, I was thinking about Amor Fati and the idea of eternal recurrence one day. It seems to be, at least to me, in some ways similar to Crowley's teaching of taking every experience as a sacrament, or the oath of taking every phenomenon as a particular dealing of God with one's soul.

"Los" wrote:
Of course, nowhere does Nietzsche articulate the idea that there is a "true" will that the body/mind complex can thwart. Rather, he sees the will to power operating inexorably and deterministically in everyone, such that those exhibiting slave morality illustrate "declining life" that is ineffectually reaching out for more power over life. For Nietzsche, slave morality is a symptom of an almost physical sickness, a weariness with life that reaches its apex in the Buddhist desire to end desire, a desire to obtain what these slaves see as the ultimate power over life -- its denial.

However, Nietzsche does talk even favourably about Buddhism, in comparison to Christianity, in Anti-Christ and Ecce Homo, I think.

About Nietzsche being one of the prophets of Gnostic Mass, I'm not sure he would have appreciated the attribution. See the following from Ecce Homo:

"Nietzsche" wrote:
I know my fate. One day my name will be associated with the memory of something tremendous—a crisis without equal on earth, the most profound collision of conscience, a decision that was conjured up against everything that had been believed, demanded, hallowed so far. I am no man, I am dynamite.— Yet for all that, there is nothing in me of a founder of a religion—religions are affairs of the rabble; I find it necessary to wash my hands after I have come into contact with religious people.— I want no "believers"; I think I am too malicious to believe in myself; I never speak to masses.— I have a terrible fear that one day I will be pronounced holy: you will guess why I publish this book before; it shall prevent people from doing mischief with me.

I do not want to be a holy man; sooner even a buffoon.— Perhaps I am a buffoon.— Yet in spite of that—or rather not in spite of it, because so far nobody has been more mendacious than holy men—the truth speaks out of me.— But my truth is terrible; for so far one has called lies truth.

Crowley had some indulgences with ecstatic states of mind and such, and they seem to find parallels in Nietzsche's ideas of the Dionysian.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
 
"anpi" wrote:
Yes, I was thinking about Amor Fati and the idea of eternal recurrence one day. It seems to be, at least to me, in some ways similar to Crowley's teaching of taking every experience as a sacrament, or the oath of taking every phenomenon as a particular dealing of God with one's soul.

For those who don't know who may be reading this, Nietzsche's idea of the eternal recurrence is a kind of thought experiment whereby you consider the possibility that you have lived the life you are living right now before and that you will live this exact life again, down to the minutest detail, over and over and over.

[Digression: It's not really clear whether Nietzsche actually thought this idea was literally true. I believe in some of his notebooks he played around with the concept: if there is a finite amount of matter in the universe and an infinite amount of time, then, he reasoned, it's certain that -- eventually -- matter would rework itself into exactly the same pattern again...of course, this is totally wrong. We now know that there won't be "infinite time" for matter to recombine because the universe is headed for a heat death billions of years hence; further, quantum mechanics -- which, incidentally, does not suggest that the universe is "conscious," as a bunch of new age quacks like to misinterpret it -- casts doubt on the possibility of identical patterns repeating themselves]

Anyway, the point of the thought experiment is this: if you learned that you would one day live this exact life that you are living now once again -- and that, in fact, you would continuously live it over and over and over, sort of like a version of the movie Groundhog's Day, without consciously knowing that that was what was happening -- how would you react? Would you consider that a fate worse than death? Or would you fall to your knees in thanksgiving and celebrate the possibility of living this exact life again?

Nietzsche, obviously, thinks that the "higher" type of person would do the latter, would celebrate the living of life again, and would find joy in the idea that all he does "wants eternity -- deep, deep eternity."

The moral of the story, for Nietzsche, is "live your life as if everything you do you will experience again."

This notion is supplemented by the idea of Amor Fati, that one should not merely *endure* the events of one's life...but love them.

These ideas -- and Nietzsche's embrace of them -- become all the more fantastic in the context of Nietzsche's life, which was filled with physical suffering (due to what was probably a brain tumor) and a desire to continue to work, to continue to think and write, despite the extreme pain that reading and writing caused him. Nietzsche was a man who lived with a great deal of regular pain, and he advocated a philosophy of loving life, loving what you do, and wanting eternity in all things.

As you note, these ideas resonate very strongly with the Thelemic idea of "taking every experience as a sacrament."

There is some vague resonance with the idea of "taking every phenomenon as a particular dealing of God with one's soul," but probably not in the way that people would think. People tend to misunderstand this point of Thelemic practice, so a little explanation is in order: "taking every phenomenon as a particular dealing of God with one's soul" does not mean to sit around and to try to find "messages" in everything. You don't say, "Gee, here's a cup of coffee; this is a message from God that I should wake up," or "Gee, here's a creamer; this is a message from God that we're all connected to the milk of the stars," etc. No, "taking every phenomenon as a particular dealing of God with one's soul" means literally just taking every phenomenon as having no more or less significance than just that, just what it is. To put it in more explicitly Thelemic terms, it means that everything that happens -- no matter what -- is equally a "play of Nuit," equally a manifestation of possibility that is no more "good" or "bad" than anything else, objectively speaking. In other words, it's a practice that makes possible the injunction of AL I:22: "Let there be no difference made between any one thing & any other thing." Once you actually realize -- on a day-to-day basis -- that no one thing is "better" than any other thing -- that there is no course of action that is objectively "better" than any other course -- the only sensible ground for action becomes the individual's nature.

Nietzsche would certainly agree that there is no objective standard to measure "good" or "bad" -- in fact, as Beyond Good and Evil affirms (it's in the title, for crying out loud!), the entire concept of "opposites" is an invention of the mind, an idea that cries out for comparison to both the first chapter of the Tao Teh Ching and the traditional idea of the "coincidence of contraries," strongly reflected in Crowley's idea of every idea containing its opposite above the abyss.

In fact, Nietzsche saw quite clearly that in the wake of the "death of God," there could be no objective standards or meanings and that man either had to "give himself values" or accept Nihilism.

However, Nietzsche nowhere articulates the notion of a "true will" as a standard of action, even though we could argue that the idea is *consistent* with much of what he says. The idea of "giving oneself values" could actually be interpreted as the opposite of Thelemic practice: the Thelemite does not consciously attempt to embrace any particular set of values, but rather observes his own being in conjunction with the environment and acts from that basis.

However, Nietzsche does talk even favourably about Buddhism, in comparison to Christianity, in Anti-Christ and Ecce Homo, I think.

For Nietzsche, Buddhism is a manifestation of nihilism, the desire to resign from desire (and from life). In The Anti-Christ, he suggests that Christ had taught a kind of Westernized Buddhism but that the teachings of Christ had been perverted and corrupted into its current form by Paul.

About Nietzsche being one of the prophets of Gnostic Mass, I'm not sure he would have appreciated the attribution.

He would have hated being a "saint" in some guy's "religion" almost as much as he would have hated being portrayed as the poster boy for fascism and nationalism (he absolutely detested nationalism and most certainly did not think that the German people were any kind of "master race").


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
Topic starter  
"Los" wrote:
[Digression: It's not really clear whether Nietzsche actually thought this idea was literally true. I believe in some of his notebooks he played around with the concept: if there is a finite amount of matter in the universe and an infinite amount of time, then, he reasoned, it's certain that -- eventually -- matter would rework itself into exactly the same pattern again...of course, this is totally wrong. We now know that there won't be "infinite time" for matter to recombine because the universe is headed for a heat death billions of years hence; further, quantum mechanics -- which, incidentally, does not suggest that the universe is "conscious," as a bunch of new age quacks like to misinterpret it -- casts doubt on the possibility of identical patterns repeating themselves]

Well, yes. Even with infinite time, it would seem that there are an infinite number of ways for the matter to arrange and rearrange itself.

But I see Nietzsche's idea more as a psychological exercise of a kind.

"Nietzsche" wrote:
Oh how then could I not lust for eternity and for the nuptial ring of rings - the ring of recurrence!

Never yet have I found the woman from whom I wanted children, unless it were this woman whom I love. For I love you, oh eternity!

For I love you, oh eternity!

"Los" wrote:
There is some vague resonance with the idea of "taking every phenomenon as a particular dealing of God with one's soul," but probably not in the way that people would think. People tend to misunderstand this point of Thelemic practice, so a little explanation is in order: "taking every phenomenon as a particular dealing of God with one's soul" does not mean to sit around and to try to find "messages" in everything. You don't say, "Gee, here's a cup of coffee; this is a message from God that I should wake up," or "Gee, here's a creamer; this is a message from God that we're all connected to the milk of the stars," etc. No, "taking every phenomenon as a particular dealing of God with one's soul" means literally just taking every phenomenon as having no more or less significance than just that, just what it is. To put it in more explicitly Thelemic terms, it means that everything that happens -- no matter what -- is equally a "play of Nuit," equally a manifestation of possibility that is no more "good" or "bad" than anything else, objectively speaking. In other words, it's a practice that makes possible the injunction of AL I:22: "Let there be no difference made between any one thing & any other thing." Once you actually realize -- on a day-to-day basis -- that no one thing is "better" than any other thing -- that there is no course of action that is objectively "better" than any other course -- the only sensible ground for action becomes the individual's nature.

Yes, but as a magical or psychological exercise I see similarities between the idea of eternal recurrence and "taking every phenomenon as a particular dealing of God with one's soul". You psychologically take note of each of your experiences and try to make them "gold" or god-like. Or, making every act a sacrament. The idea of eternal recurrence is like a test to see whether your soul is strong or god-like enough. One could perhaps make a magick exercise of it.

"Los" wrote:
However, Nietzsche nowhere articulates the notion of a "true will" as a standard of action, even though we could argue that the idea is *consistent* with much of what he says. The idea of "giving oneself values" could actually be interpreted as the opposite of Thelemic practice: the Thelemite does not consciously attempt to embrace any particular set of values, but rather observes his own being in conjunction with the environment and acts from that basis.

Nietzsche had the idea of the overman being a person who destroys the old morality (a tablet of values) and then gives a birth to a new tablet of values. Is it so that an ultimate Thelemite would prefer to just stay "Beyond Good and Evil"? 🙂

"Los" wrote:

However, Nietzsche does talk even favourably about Buddhism, in comparison to Christianity, in Anti-Christ and Ecce Homo, I think.

For Nietzsche, Buddhism is a manifestation of nihilism, the desire to resign from desire (and from life). In The Anti-Christ, he suggests that Christ had taught a kind of Westernized Buddhism but that the teachings of Christ had been perverted and corrupted into its current form by Paul.

This idea of Buddhism sounds like that of Schopenhauer, from what I know of him. As I understand it, Schopenhauer's will was something close to desire of Buddhism, and he thought the will was something that should be diminished. Nietzsche attacked against this idea.

But I think Nietzsche is suprisingly favourable about Buddhism in his later texts. Earlier I had the conception that Nietzsche didn't have a good enough grasp of Buddhism, but now I've stumbled into some of his positive ideas of it. See the following excerpt from The Anti-Christ:

I hope that my condemnation of Christianity has not involved me in any injustice to a related religion with an even larger number of adherents: Buddhism. Both belong together as nihilistic religions—they are religions of decadence—but they differ most remarkably. For being in a position now to compare them, the critic of Christianity is profoundly grateful to the students of India.

Buddhism is a hundred times more realistic than Christianity: posing problems objectively and coolly is part of its inheritance, for Buddhism comes after a philosophic movement which spanned centuries. The concept of "God" had long been disposed of when it arrived. Buddhism is the only genuinely positivistic religion in history. This applies even to its theory of knowledge (a strict phenomenalism): it no longer says "struggle against sin" but, duly respectful of reality, "struggle against suffering." Buddhism is profoundly distinguished from Christianity by the fact that the self-deception of the moral concepts lies far behind it. In my terms, it stands beyond good and evil.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
 
"anpi" wrote:
Well, yes. Even with infinite time, it would seem that there are an infinite number of ways for the matter to arrange and rearrange itself.

Yes, it would seem that way.

But I see Nietzsche's idea more as a psychological exercise of a kind.

And I agree. I was just pointing out -- in what I properly labeled as a "digression" -- that Nietzsche did play around with the idea in his notebooks, seeing if he could get it to work. So he at least toyed with the idea of it actually being true, even though we now know that it is not.

I just thought it was useful to point out that "eternal recurrence" isn't literally true, even though Nietzsche seemed to want to demonstrate it at times.

Yes, but as a magical or psychological exercise I see similarities between the idea of eternal recurrence and "taking every phenomenon as a particular dealing of God with one's soul". You psychologically take note of each of your experiences and try to make them "gold" or god-like.

Right, but as I was indicating, it's far more useful to accept your experiences as what they are. Most of the time, a sense of "gold" or "god-like" will be right there waiting for you if you practice mindfulness: there's no need to "try" to make your experiences anything in particular.

Nietzsche had the idea of the overman being a person who destroys the old morality (a tablet of values) and then gives a birth to a new tablet of values. Is it so that an ultimate Thelemite would prefer to just stay "Beyond Good and Evil"? 🙂

Well, a Thelemite would ideally recognize that there is no good or evil, even though there are certain actions that are "lawful" or "unlawful" for a specific individual.

From Liber Aleph:
"Praise then or blame aught, as seemeth good unto thee; but with this reflection, that thy judgment is relative to thine own condition, and not absolute. This also is a point of tolerance, whereby thy shalt avoid indeed those things that are hateful or noxious to thee, unless thou canst (in our mode) win them by love, by withdrawing thine attention from them; but thou shalt not destroy them, for that they are without doubt the desire of another."

But I think Nietzsche is suprisingly favourable about Buddhism in his later texts.

Well, as he points out, Christianity promises the world and delivers nothing; Buddhism promises very little and delivers it.

I agree that Nietzsche treats Buddhism better than he does Christianity, but he certainly does not endorse its position of withdrawal from life.


ReplyQuote
Falcon
(@falcon)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 361
 

Crowley's 'Vindication of Nietzsche' has been reprinted by the Sorcerer's Apprentice co of Leeds, England:

www.sorcerers-apprentice.co.uk


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
Topic starter  
"Falcon" wrote:
Crowley's 'Vindication of Nietzsche' has been reprinted by the Sorcerer's Apprentice co of Leeds, England:

www.sorcerers-apprentice.co.uk

Here's "Vindication of Nietzsche" in two parts online, unfortunately I didn't find any single document.

http://www.billheidrick.com/tlc1996/tlc0496.htm#cc
http://www.billheidrick.com/tlc1996/tlc0596.htm#cc


ReplyQuote
gurugeorge
(@gurugeorge)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 456
 
"Los" wrote:
There is some vague resonance with the idea of "taking every phenomenon as a particular dealing of God with one's soul," but probably not in the way that people would think. People tend to misunderstand this point of Thelemic practice, so a little explanation is in order: "taking every phenomenon as a particular dealing of God with one's soul" does not mean to sit around and to try to find "messages" in everything. You don't say, "Gee, here's a cup of coffee; this is a message from God that I should wake up," or "Gee, here's a creamer; this is a message from God that we're all connected to the milk of the stars," etc. No, "taking every phenomenon as a particular dealing of God with one's soul" means literally just taking every phenomenon as having no more or less significance than just that, just what it is. To put it in more explicitly Thelemic terms, it means that everything that happens -- no matter what -- is equally a "play of Nuit," equally a manifestation of possibility that is no more "good" or "bad" than anything else, objectively speaking. In other words, it's a practice that makes possible the injunction of AL I:22: "Let there be no difference made between any one thing & any other thing." Once you actually realize -- on a day-to-day basis -- that no one thing is "better" than any other thing -- that there is no course of action that is objectively "better" than any other course -- the only sensible ground for action becomes the individual's nature.

Great post and I agree with your thoughts on the Nietzsche parallels in general, but I think maybe you're going too far in the direction of dismissing coffee creamer messages.

Why can't we have both Dzogchen and a message from God in the coffee creamer? 🙂


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

The Website of the Friedrich Nietzsche Society:

https://fns.org.uk


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"Los" wrote:
For those who don't know who may be reading this, Nietzsche's idea of the eternal recurrence is a kind of thought experiment whereby you consider the possibility that you have lived the life you are living right now before and that you will live this exact life again, down to the minutest detail, over and over and over.

so that's where Groundhog Day comes from...and I heard that movie was influenced by Buddhism?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Thus Spake Zarathustra strikes me as being like a recieved work, something beyond Nietzsche's other oeuvres, brilliant as those may be. A kind of John the Baptist to the Aeon of Horus, perhaps?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"anpi" wrote:
The earliest similar idea that I know of is that of Plato. He had the idea of "Philosopher Kings" ruling the state. This is somewhat interesting and even ironic, since it's so close to Nietzsche's view, yet Nietzsche constantly mocked Plato.

It is not really that ironic, as Nietzsche did not mock Plato because the latter believed in caste.

Nietzsche taught that caste was the natural and only proper order of human affairs, and he believed that seperation into human types according to lamarckian evolutionism was a given constant in any kind of human society.


ReplyQuote
P472
 P472
(@p472)
Member
Joined: 5 years ago
Posts: 1
 

And I agree. I was just pointing out — in what I properly labeled as a “digression” — that Nietzsche did play around with the idea in his notebooks, seeing if he could get it to work. So he at least toyed with the idea of it actually being true, even though we now know that it is not.

I just thought it was useful to point out that “eternal recurrence” isn’t literally true, even though Nietzsche seemed to want to demonstrate it at times.

What is this 'WE' shit and how do you know it is not true?

Ha, sorry for the necro-hissy, I am looking for any reference to Eternal Recurrence by Crowley. Didn't see anything in "vindication of Nietzsche"

How would such a human being even think of the eternal recurrence?
Nietzsche, WtP 55


ReplyQuote
Share: