Look at the definitions of the word (noun and verb), cry, at the bottom of this post. They are descriptive of an unpleasant process which involves anguish, pain, lament, sorrow, desperation and upset. Apply that to the following from Liber Al and we can perhaps shed more light on what it is to not do our True Will;
Now a curse upon Because and his kin!
May Because be accursed for ever!
If Will stops and cries Why, invoking Because, then Will stops & does nought.
(II:28-30)
In Chapter 54 of the Confessions, AC references the Cabbalistic parts of the soul to describe the anguish, frustration and self-agitation of a (hu)man, who, being "uninitiated" (disconnected from his True Will) is "crying Why";
Up to this point, I have been able to interweave the strands of my three lives; the lives of the soul, the mind and the body; or, more accurately, in the language of the Cabbala, the Neschamah, the Ruach and the Nephesch. The Hebrew sages have made an admirably simple, significant and accurate classification..............
The Ruach lastly is the machine of the mind converging on a central consciousness, which appears to be the ego. The true ego is, however, above Neschamah, whose occasional messages to the Ruach warn the human ego of the existence of his superior. Such communications may be welcomed or resented, encouraged or stifled. Initiation consists in identifying the human self with the divine, and the man who does not strain constantly to this end is simply a brute made wretched and ashamed by the fact of self consciousness
Here's another interesting little idea that occurred to me about the aforementioned section on Because, as quoted from Al. Note here, how the writer of Al uses personalization, a technique in literature whereby an inanimate object or abstract "thing" is endowed with human personality. In this case "Because" is personalized and identified as a person who has "kin". That's curious, as, if we check a definition of the word "kin" the term "relative" consistently crops up;
KIN, noun
1.
a person's relatives collectively; kinfolk.
2.
family relationship or kinship.
3.
a group of persons descended from a common ancestor or constituting a people, clan, tribe, or family.
4.
a relative or kinsman.
5.
someone or something of the same or similar kind:
philosophy and its kin, theology.
adjective
6.
of the same family; related; akin.
7.
of the same kind or nature; having affinity.
Idioms
8.
of kin, of the same family; related; akin:
Although their surnames are identical they are not of kin.
So we are informed of Because and "his" kin. This indicates that there is a veritable choir of inner voices (a mass of should-statements) that wish to pull us away from our True Will. Seeing as "kin" is "relative" (albeit usually used in the context of a family member), does this also indicate that "Because" i.e. the deceptive inner- dialogue of moral should- statements, also ties in with the falsity of, not only moralism, but moral relativism also? That is, moral relativism, forcing one's behaviour in relation or in accord with some external societal judgement about conduct. True Will OTOH is in fact, wholly internal and has nothing to do with social debates or the judgements of others, let alone of self. The passage quoted from Al, then (which urges us to curse "Because and his kin") , is perhaps a clever coded lesson in informing us that Thelema is only correctly aligned to moral nihilism i.e. a mind freed up from any judgements (this state is attained anyway during meditation).
CRY ;verb
1.
shed tears in distress, pain, or sorrow.
"don't cry—it'll be all right"
synonyms: weep, shed tears, sob, wail, be in tears, cry one's eyes out, cry one's heart out, cry as if one's heart would break, bawl, howl, snivel, whimper, whine, squall, mewl, bleat; More
lament, grieve, mourn, keen;
greet;
informalboohoo, blub, blubber, turn on the waterworks;
informalgrizzle;
literarypule, plain
"Mandy's face crumpled and she started to cry"
antonyms: laugh
2.
shout or scream in fear, pain, or grief.
"the little girl fell down and cried for mummy"
synonyms: call, shout, exclaim, sing out, yell, shriek, scream, screech, bawl, bellow, roar, whoop; More
yowl, squeal, yelp, yawp;
informalholler, yoo-hoo, cooee;
rareejaculate, vociferate, ululate
"‘Wait!’ he cried"
antonyms: whisper
•say something loudly in an excited or anguished tone of voice.
"‘Where will it end?’ he cried out"
•(of a hawker) proclaim (wares) for sale in the street.
3.
(of a bird or other animal) make a loud characteristic call.
"the wild birds cried out over the water"
noun
noun: cry; plural noun: cries
1.
a loud inarticulate shout or scream expressing a powerful feeling or emotion.
"a cry of despair"
synonyms: call, shout, exclamation, yell, shriek, scream, screech, bawl, bellow, roar, whoop; More
howl, yowl, squeal, yelp, yawp;
ejaculation, interjection;
informalholler;
rarevociferation, ululation
"a cry of despair"
•a loud excited utterance of a word or words.
"there was a cry of ‘Silence!’"
•the call of a hawker selling wares on the street.
"street cries"
•an urgent appeal or entreaty.
"fund-raisers have issued a cry for help"
synonyms: appeal, plea, entreaty, urgent request, cry from the heart; cri de cœur
"fundraisers have issued a cry for help"
•a demand or opinion expressed by many people.
"peace became the popular cry"
2.
the loud characteristic call of a bird or other animal.
"the harsh cries of magpies"
This is not necessarily the case at all, as the wealth of possible meanings you list goes on to aver. The mediaeval town crier, for example, who not unpleasantly used to cry in all the local townsfolk on the latest news in the absence of viral tweets & the like, being a case in point.
I am particularly puzzled by the comment:
What inner choir is this? I imagine you must be referring to the normal interior monologue which goes on in everyone’s mind, unless its ongoing babble has been stilled by some form of meditation. But then in which case that is a problem with the dualistic nature of language and consciousness altogether, and the question should then be: why is a special case being made out for “Because and his kin”? For the ‘personalization’, as you put it, is indeed something of a curious feature.
Could the mention of "moral nihilism" (in italics no less) somehow be some sort of a brazen effort to link in this thread with the one of the same name initiated by Los in a byegone age?
It would be useful to get some clarity & tautness about what this thread is meant to be about exactly, if not just a woolgathering exercise for you, david. Relatively speaking,
& Fer cryin’ out loud! ;D
Norma N Joy Conquest
Thank you for pointing out some of the many problems with this convoluted reading of AL; i just couldn't even figure out where to start.
Another key problem is that "moral relativism" does not mean "forcing one's behaviour in relation or in accord with some external societal judgement about conduct", or anything like it. As we know david is familiar with wikipedia, it is surprising he has not bothered to look this term up, since it is central to his interpretation, which utterly collapses when one knows what "moral relativism" actually means:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism
Of course, "moral nihilism" is repugnant to Thelema, as anyone familiar with AC's work surely knows. When "Los" posts his expected post(s) to the contrary, i won't be posting to argue with his nonsense, as i already have at some length three years ago. I was unable to continue debating this topic after the Sandy Hook massacre took place a short drive from where my son was attending elementary school. I'm sure "Los" counted it up as a "win" for his mighty intellect when I ceased to post in that thread. Actually, i concluded that "conversations" with persons who see no difference between shooting down 20 small children, and eating a cheeseburger, were not a profitable use of my time. Anyone interested in the topic could do worse than to review "Duty", and discussions of the "Star Sponge Vision". No one possessed of the "reading comprehension" skills our "skeptical" pals are so proud of could possibly argue that AC advocated "moral nihilism" after reading "Duty", unless of course he was not arguing in good faith.
I too (with Jamie) wonder if these recent rather transparent attempts by david to restore his former status as the chief sidekick of "Los" will work, after david's recent headlong dive into "Space Migration"-era Leary-ism, and all the rather loony posts that have landed him back in pre-moderation? Can it really be that "Los" is so desperate for followers that he will accept david back into "Thelemic skepticism after all that?
I noticed that it was “moral relativism” which was in italics not nihilism (which was the impression given to me), & was the actual title of Los’s old thread and hobby horse of the time. I was going to add also that it didn’t really matter that much, but then after reading ignant666’s post it occurs that maybe there was something more in it and was perhaps of deeper synchronistic significance than I had first thought.
I don’t think Los's hubris would ever allow or admit to his being “desperate” for followers! But david will undoubtedly have to do a lot of – what’s that phrase again? Ah yes! Back peddling! – to cover his arse, and to curry back favour from his erstwhile guru once again ::)...
N Joy!
I am sure Jamie will not take exception to me pointing out (as a cycling obsessive, and pedant) that what young david will have to do to get back in the good graces of his Goo-Roo is lots of "back-pedaling", rather than "back-peddling".
"Back-pedaling" refers to turning the pedals on a fixed-gear bicycle backwards, which results in retrograde motion:
Nothing is being sold ("peddled"). Most modern bikes have freewheels, not fixed cogs, so you can't ride them backwards.
Yeah the OP of http://www.lashtal.com/forum/http://www.lashtal.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8 is bang on the money with regard to moral positions and their relation to True Will.
Wrong, a "town crier" is squawking, emulating someone who is agitated and anxious so that he (the town crier) can catch the attention of the public and make a dramatic point. The modern version of the town crier, the media, continue this tradition of emotional engineering don't they?
Crowley appeared to be a moral nihilist. He said that the freshly spilled blood of a bull injured by a matador was one of the most beautiful sights anyone could see but he noted that hardly anyone has ever seen a bullfight. The hint was that emotionalism distorts what is. If you were to deduce that Crowley therefore must've enjoyed stabbing bulls for sadistic pleasure then you would be missing the point. I'd say that your comment about cheeseburgers etc are an example of this emotional misapprehension. You were appealing to emotion to dispute a point. In "the absolute calm of the laboratory" there is no place for distortion.
Incidentally, on the subject of blood, do you know where chemists got the name of the colour magenta from? There is a town in Italy called Magenta and during the 1859 Second Italian War of Independence, hundreds of soldiers were massacred there. The scene was a gigantic bloodbath and appeared to be a mass of purple red hue. Some historians tell this story. On the subject of paint and pigmentation, Andy Warhol seemed to have nailed the moral nihilism factor as do many artists. Check out his catalogue.
You don't seem to realize that asteroids don't care where they hit or which species they make extinct. This is cosmic consciousness i.e. consciousness of the cosmos. Cosmic consciousness and Thelema, kind of the same thing. During Resh we salute the Sun as a "supreme and terrible god". The Sun is terrible. Ask any pet dog who was locked in a family car during a heatwave and forgotten about. Seriously, do you know how much damage that solar storms do and have done? Some say that if we don't control CO2 then the Sun will annihilate life on earth altogether and we will go the way of Mercury and Venus. . In fact the earth doesn't care where tsunamis go and who they terminate and likewise, the True Will is perfectly neutral. Controversial stuff eh? Crowley and Liber Al controversial!??! Imagine that.
Psychiatrist and Thelemite, David Shoemaker has stated that the path of Ayin must be handled by completely eliminating the notion that evil exists, otherwise the aspirant fails to access Tipareth and his magickal power i.e. True Will. See here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6dIsaH24G4
True will springs from internal sources doesn't it? If this was a TV game show you could chose which moral position is most conducive to realizing that;
A. Moral absolutism (non neutral and derived from a posteriori/external conditioning) .
B. Moral relativism (meanderings of the ruach and it's deductions )
C. Moral nihilism (neutral, pure and in every way perfect)
You won't get this joke as you're not British, but "come and see what you woudda won".
"Back-pedaling" refers to turning the pedals on a fixed-gear bicycle backwards, which results in retrograde motion:
No, I don't mind at all. One learns something new every day - or at least, ideally one should! “Back pedaling” now manages to evoke the feeling in me that it’s something a bit like a wheelie version of moonwalking...
I would suggest maybe it’s time to “return to topic”, except that the topic is “Crying” and “Relatives”, and I (for one) am still waiting to discover what the heck it’s all meant to be about. So far david seems to be unwilling to expand. The title could refer to the lachrymose scene at a graveyard burial service, possibly (but not very convincingly)?
Incidentally, we don't know how old "young" david is, as he has shown unwilling to clue us in on his age for some reason - I can't imagine what... (Perhaps he's in his eighties - although I rather think not.)
Having now within the past week reached the ripe old age of 56 myself (please send no cards):
N Joy
Jamie: Happy birthday! Now we are the same age for a few months til my "Heinz varieties" birthday (57).
david: Your recent word-salad makes no more sense of your proposed AL interpretation than your OP. "Cry" does not necessarily connote distress or pain; it can (as in the AL verse you quote) simply mean "yell". Once again, "moral relativism" does not mean ''forcing one's behaviour in relation or in accord with some external societal judgement about conduct"; it means the position that there are no absolute morals, but that the moral judgements that arise within different societies and cultures are appropriate or justifiable for those societies and cultures. Note that in the Confessions (and elsewhere), AC often takes this position with regard to "native" mores encountered in his travels outside Europe.
While I don't think it's a very useful classification, the moral position of AC's Thelema is much closer to "moral absolutism" than "moral nihilism". Thelema has two absolute moral standards, embodied in moral "Laws": one's behavior should be loving, and under Will. Review AC's "Duty" for a very clear expression of Thelemic "moral absolutism", and rejection of the "moral nihilism" of Los-ianity. It would be a serious mistake to read AC's polemics against particular aspects of morality in his society, particularly those around sexual expression, as a rejection of the idea that some actions are more worthy than others.
You must still be in pre-mod, david, hence the dizzying spectacle of reading posts from you which hadn’t yet then appeared when Replies had been posted.
Wrong - no, a town crier is not necessarily someone who squawketh. He – and it is nearly always a he, for the following reason - merely needs to have a loud and clear voice which can PROJECT.
The modern version of the town crier, the media, continue this tradition of emotional engineering don't they?
I assume this was is a rhetorical question, which doesn’t really need a reply? I have never thought of the humble town crier as having been an “emotional engineer” though. It would look interesting on his c.v.
However, david’s Reply #5 seems to reveal the ulterior motive behind this thread, that it’s not really going to form a proper discussion at all but, as I thought, appears to be nothing less than a transparent attempt to shoehorn in Los's "Moral Nihilism" concept through the back door:
The question is, wouldn’t it have been simpler to have just carried on where that thread left off, in a similar necromantic fashion to that which you’ve perpetrated in the past though david? Or is there really actually some other point to this OP?
Looking for the old HA57 :D,
N Joy
If Will stops and cries "why?" Contextually, this implies danger! Alert! However, to be frank, taken as part of that whole sentence, it is a whining, a crying as Will has stopped, fallen by the wayside like a child who rebels against continuing a tedious journey. The child is crying "why?!!" The result is that he has now been infested with "Because and his is kin".
Yes, "relative" to a particular time, situation and culture. It can be from an external directive though. I think Stalin's order to have deserters instantly shot dead during WW2, in the campaign to push back the Nazis, is an example of this.
I think you're mistaken to think that Love under Will means "be loving to each other"?
In terms of Crowley's view, you were provided with citations in the other thread;
“There are no "standards of Right." Ethics is balderdash. Each Star must go on its orbit. To hell with 'moral Principle;' there is no such thing; that is a herd-delusion, and makes men cattle.” – New Comment to AL II:28
“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!” – New Comment to AL I:41
“There is no grace, there is no guilt
This is the law: Do what thou wilt.” – Liber 333
“One can never be sure what is right and what is wrong, until one appreciates that "wrong" is equally "right."” – MWT, XVI
I added to this explanation in my reply#5 above. As I said there, during Resh, a major part of Thelemic practice, we are basically praying and saying to the Sun "Father, I want to be more like You as You are a great heavenly body who just does His Will and doesn't care about entanglements in morality and furthermore, You don't get tripped up by your own interfering reasoning and should-statements, You don't stop, crying "Why??!!" You just do your Will." This is why during Resh we say to Ra, DWTWSBTWOTL.
I don't understand how you can dispute all of this. Ra, as it were, has no morality other than DWTWSBTWOTL. Ra does not get befuddled sometimes and stop, saying, "ok I don't want to emit any more energy this month, it's all superfluous and seeing as there's so much CO2 build up over there on Earth, I could ruin the atmosphere of Earth and send all those life-forms down the way of the dinosaur." Ra doesn't think "hmm I seem to be giving that person skin cancer, maybe I should lay off with these destructive ray emissions".
My view of Leary and how it relates to what you name Los-ianity is expressed here; http://www.lashtal.com/forum/http://www.lashtal.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=72.msg92117;topicseen#new
SMI2LE? It's not happening at the moment is it? Leary's predictions were way off target, however perhaps the S.M. movement was not ephemeral and only future generations may fully realize his vision. Until then, it's all about attending to our authentic inclinations.
I'm having difficulty following the point of the OP, but even the OP is less embarrassing than ignant666's transparent pleas for me to pay attention to him.
It depends on exactly what you mean by "morality."
There are specific criteria for practicing Thelema: discovering and carrying out the True Will. If you want to call such criteria "moral standards," then fine, Thelema has "morality" in this sense. Similarly, if you want to call any position about morality to be a "moral system," then fine, Thelema is a "moral system" in this sense.
But if we take the word "morality" to mean "that which ought to be done, regardless of what a person truly wants," then Thelema does not endorse this kind of morality, and it in fact repudiates this kind of morality.
As Jamie says, this thread seems to be an effort at necromantic brown-nosing, raising the "moral nihilism" topic from the grave in order for david to grovel his way back into the good graces of "The Great And Powerful Los".
I can't really add more to what I've said in that thread and above. To deny that AC's Thelema is a system that includes ethical and moral judgement seems to me as silly as ever- that the ethics and morality are individual, and concern Love and Will, rather than adherence to societal codes, does not mean that any act is equal to any other. Thelema is pre-eminently expounded in a "Book of the Law". Some comments by AC on Thelemic ethics (" the chief rules of practical conduct to be observed by those who accept the Law of Thelema") that make clear he rejected "moral nihilism":
Crime being a direct spiritual violation of the Law of Thelema, it should not be tolerated in the community.
One will not have to look far to find the very judgmental AC condemning others for their many faults that he perceived; he even on occasion is capable of self-criticism as to his behavior. Cherry-picked quotes can't deny that Thelema is a system that tells we ought to do some things (acts of Love and Will), and not do others (anything else).
Also, i'm pretty sure the "Love" in "Love is the law, love under will" means love in the sense of agape and eros- can you (david) explain where I'm confused here, and what is actually meant by "Love is the law, love under will"?
Ah, my day is made, i am fulfilled!! "The Great And Powerful Los" has acknowledged my "transparent pleas for [him] to pay attention" to me with his usual back-pedaling, drivel, knocking down of absurd straw-men, etc. Sad really.
Yep. Your weird desperation for my attention is pretty sad, all things considered.
Yep. Your weird desperation for my attention is pretty sad, all things considered.
One who squirts an antibiotic ointment into a wound is not most reasonably described as "desperate for the attention" of septic organisms (though it doubtless seems that way to any sentient bacillus or spirochete), nor is one who ridicules a charlatan and/or troll most likely to be motivated by a desire for the attention of the butt of his ridicule.
Before "Los" replies with "but i thought you weren't going to reply to me", note that i said that i would not be replying to any further defense of the now-abandoned "Thelema=moral nihilism" claim. I think it wholly appropriate to make fun of the rapidity with which "Los" has abandoned that argument in this thread.
For those keeping score at home, note that "Los" has just (in post 11 above) conceded that all that "Thelema=moral nihilism" nonsense that he argued for at such length a few years back is a bunch of hooey (unless we define "moral" in a ludicrously tendentious manner), after also recently admitting that, oh fine, Thelema is primarily a mystical system/activity/entity, explaining that his previous claims to the contrary were so correct if we adopt a ludicrously tendentious definition of "mystical".
A bit of a pattern here? "Holy back-pedaling, Batman!"
As to who is "desperate for attention" here: the contrast between my 505 posts over 9 1/2 years, vs. "Los", with 2,202 posts over a little less than 7 years, offers an interesting data point.
As I see the context here, this particular phrase has nothing to do with danger or alert or whining or a rebellious child. The "cry" here is akin to the "cry of the aethyrs" or the cry of the goetia. It is a magical invocation, called a "cry" because of its similarity to the cry of a raptor. It pierces through the sky as it calls a particular angel or demon (in this case, "invoking Because") from the worlds beyond. Read from that point of view, it appears that what is trying to be conveyed is that, once Will is in motion, once the proper direction has been discovered and the individual is traveling along it, stopping that motion to perform the magical invocation "Why?" (which can only summon the demon "Because") arrests the Will and stagnates the motion. Once Will has been discovered, invocations of this nature are no longer necessary or advisable.
I have never read Liber Resh to be a supplication to a Father-figure. Is this how it is commonly read/performed? I see it as a ritual of identification rather than of aspiration: "I and the sun are the same thing" rather than "I wish I could just be more like the sun." Am I wrong in this? That read just seems so contrary to what I've come to understand Thelema to mean.
Also, the last sentence... unless I've got a different copy of Liber Resh, there is no instruction to those ends.
I'm not really seeing anyone dispute any of this but, as it does tie in with your previous:
...it appears as though you are presuming that there is something that "we" (ignant? jamie? all of us? all of humanity?) "don't seem to realize." I can't speak for anybody else (certainly not for all of humanity) but I don't find anything in the above to be in the least controversial, surprising, or tough to deal with. The best analysis of this thread that I can offer is that you are searching for straw men to tear down where none exist.
Not surprisingly, your recent PM to me about the gold atom/solar system comparison that I offered you 8 months ago treads the same ground. This stuff isn't controversial. It isn't resistance to it that is causing others to question your arguments. It's the fact that all of this stuff is the basics. Its the foundation on which the actual work of penetrating the mysteries of existence are built.
There are specific criteria for practicing Thelema: discovering and carrying out the True Will. If you want to call such criteria "moral standards," then fine, Thelema has "morality" in this sense. Similarly, if you want to call any position about morality to be a "moral system," then fine, Thelema is a "moral system" in this sense.
This does seem to describe what philosophers understand when they use the term "morality".
This, on the other hand, seems to describe a particular critique of a particular flavour of morality (witnessed by the phrase "this kind of morality"). This is often confused for the overarching study of morality by those who attempt to conflate normative ethics into descriptive ethics, often unwittingly. To provide the counter-example: Ethical hedonism is a flavour of morality which encourages one to do what one truly wants. As such, the descriptor "that which ought to be done, regardless of what a person truly wants," loses all meaning and undermines this use of the term "morality".
Thank you, Tao, for gently pointing out the value in "conversation" of using words in the senses in which they are normally understood by educated persons, rather than building arguments around tendentious private definitions and strawman oppositions.
I had not considered the possibility that "Los" simply does not understand the difference between normative and descriptive ethics (and this despite the fact that the "Los Transmissions" provide ample evidence that he lacks much formal education!), and that he was thus not consciously engaged in equivocation, but simply confused.
I wonder if others share the "Los-ian" view that one who obeys the ethical precept offered in the latter half of AL III: 57 thereby shows that he/she is "desperate for the attention" of the "fool" in question?
"Love is the law, love under will", is an interpretation of the general law of Will" ~ AC in the New Comment
A decontextualized quotation that does not actually respond to my query is not much of an explanation, david.
Here's a decontextualized snippet for you:
So "why?" is a form of invoking? In don't see it that way. The notion of "invoking Because and his kin" is a mockery, a false way of invoking. The "why?" we are discussing, in that context, carries with it the sub-text of the way I described it, that of rebellion and whining and not doing magick.
Well, Ignant , for one, seems to be struggling with the fact that the Will and nature of planets and suns is concomitant with True Will per se and moral nihilism.
Note to david: Your Goo-Roo has abandoned "moral nihilism"; espousing it will not serve to curry favor but only to embarrass him by mentioning his now-abandoned views.
One thing i do "struggle" with is understanding what on earth you are trying to say.
Here's a decontextualized snippet for you:
Love is union and yoga is union. In my own words, as someone does their Will, then the uniting of the individual with the appropriated nodal point in space-time is Love. This is coterminous with that which we define as experience.
So "why?" is a form of invoking? In don't see it that way.
That is, of course, your right, but one must then ask how you interpret the phrase: "If Will stops and cries Why, invoking Because..." It seems quite plain to me that the syntax here means to convey that the crying "Why" invokes "Because". How do you read this syntax?
I don't see the original from which you are quoting "invoking Because and his kin." I believe you might be conflating two different ideas here and that conflation is leading to your confusion.
I await your answer to my first question above to see if this holds true. As it stands, I don't think you've made a case for it.
I have to say, I'm struggling with comprehension of this sentence. I think it hinges on your misuse of the word "concomitant". Can you please rephrase so that we can determine whether ignant really is in need of assistance. I'd hate to toss my last life-vest into the waves only to discover that it should have been saved for your own recovery.
Reply #9 by david on: Yesterday at 07:49:10 pm:
This is why during Resh we say to Ra, DWTWSBTWOTL.
Where does this appear mentioned anywhere in or near Resh, pray? Or even implied? Unless it’s part of the adoration “taught thee by thy Superior” (and if that’s so, what do you consider the rest of is to mean, david:
5. And after each of these invocations thou shalt give the sign of silence and afterwards thou shalt perform the adoration that is taught thee by thy Superior. And then do thou commence Thyself to holy mediation.
Getting back to business, it might be interesting to read your impressions and conclusions about this whole aspect, taking into account the capitalisations and lower cases.
Reply #11 by Los on: Yesterday at 08:15:03 pm:
I'm having difficulty following the point of the OP, but even the OP is less embarrassing than ignant666's transparent pleas for me to pay attention to him.
This is rather a pathetic argument isn’t it? Compounded by the fact that it is now trotted out regularly whenever ignant666 teases los 2.0 (or even more often with 1.0) . Los never mentions that I could be doing the same thing with him though, does he? Odd isn’t it – particularly when I freely own up to it, raise my hands high and say “You got me bang to rights there Los boy, you dun me up good and proper like a right kipper.” Or words to that effect. I find there are few pleasures more deliciously hilarious and cheering than banging against the bars of his cage from time to time and rattling it (him)to see if Loss has bothered to pay any real attention yet to my counter-revelations (-will let the accidental typo ‘stet’)
I think that the hidden thread behind the thread – the putative aspect of moral nihilism being within Thelema – if not actually a fundamental, overriding aspect of it – could be very productive for further discussion. Better than ragging Los anyway – but ‘pity not the fallen’, eh! GR One thing I will say for the fellow, though, he knows when he’s beaten. No contest!
The whole debate can all be boiled down, I think, to the following question: is it possible for an ostensibly psychotic serial killer to be following their True Will? It would, of course, imply that this supposedly unfortunate victim would, on their deepest level, gladly acquiesce in their own assassination as being the true vector of their own Truer Will. “Do that, and no other shall say nay.”
This question was also touched upon in replies #63 and #66 etc of the “Liber Oz – still relevant after all these years?” thread (apologies I cannot link to it directly – it’s on page 5 of the Thelema board) which predictably rather fizzled out in mid-air without getting to the point of any sort of resolution to the discussion, and in which I had participated and proceeded with a rather more ‘pro-nihilist’ position. However- maybe I’ve just moved the ring to a different finger – I find I’m more “undecided” about the matter although I’d like to feel a bit more certain again one way or the other, and so I will take a back seat for the moment but be very interested to see if the positions can be taken further on either side of the argument. (SMALL PRINT: Naturally I can retract my stance at any time, and/or just decide to flit in and out as I will in the noble precedent set by our poster, Shiva, and subject only to the almighty dictate and considered opinion of Our Supreme and terrible Lord, LA-ShT-AL, who premoderateth as He Will.)
The quotes supplied by david (cherry-picked though they might be) nonetheless do present a compelling case for at least a cosmically amoral approach, if that is sufficient in itself to be termed nihilistic. They counterbalance the point of view manifest e.g. in Duty], which is equally worthy of pondering, careful consideration and evaluation.
I think my previous sign-off seems to have been rather obscure, even by my standard, and may have flummoxed a fair few. Congratulations if you happened to “get it” without resorting to googlification. You get tonight’s speedboat. For everyone else, it referred to the longevity drug, an anti-aging pill called “HA 57” (If I were Kenneth Grant I could make cabbalistic hay out of that one! Ha, the solar breath and terminus of Heru-ra-ha, combined with the number of Nuit, six and fifty – plus don ‘t forget to add on the old “one for Unity”!). This featured in a rather good children’s sci-fi tv series of 26 half-hourly episodes from when I was 11 called Timeslip.
http://www.timeslip.org.uk/slippers/viewtopic.php?p=23980&sid=028b3753652ade8a046170dcf8c79def
Although a few aspects have now not dated well, it was quite far ahead of its time in 1970, dealing with the ecological issue of global warming; secret naval intelligence laser technology & biological cloning of people, and as far as those aspects of it goes, it still stands up very well indeed, and easily on a par with the best Dr Who from the period. In the sub-serial “TheTime of the Ice Box”, it featured a villain, Morgan CDevereaux who was one of the clones mentioned and played with a chilly mien of menace by none other than C. “I didn’t get where I am today by…” J. of Reginald Perrin/Leonard Rossiter fame (another very drollishly funny series from the 1970s).
A bit before your time, perhaps, david!? Incidentally, there is one other reference to the word “cry” in The Book of the Law which you overlooked, and where it occurs in II:54
Nor shall they who cry aloud their folly that thou meanest nought avail: thou shall reveal it: thou availest: they are the slaves of because [sic]: they are none of me. […] [My highlights – j.b.]
it is, ironically, ideally far more in line with the “universal” meaning of the word (which regardless of the dictionary ‘padding’ provided) you were nonetheless trying to shoehorn every specific mention of cry by you into.
Reply #7 by ignant666 on: Yesterday at 03:59:44 pm:
Jamie: Happy birthday! Now we are the same age for a few months til my "Heinz varieties" birthday (57).
Coming up behind ya! 😉
N Joy
And then do thou commence Thyself to holy mediation.
or medication, whichever is more appropriate.
And then do thou commence Thyself to holy mediation.
or medication, whichever is more appropriate.
That’s quite funny, I hadn’t thought of that one before!
There were a lot more than usual typos & error in the reply I made earlier (#25) as, because of circumstances & reasons too tedious to explain, I only had a total of 59 minutes in which to read all the posts, think about which bits to respond to, type it out and then give it a quick proofread. So inevitably I couldn’t catch everything – the GR for example in
wasn’t a short flurry of temper but to remind me to think about maybe insert a silly grinning emoticon in there. Which I then forgot to do. Hopefully some sort of a norma service will be resumed at some point but I’m sorry if it’s not all quite as clear as it should be in the meanwhile.
david, can you clarify if you’re still a little delayed out there in premod limboland? Or maybe, can it be you just don’t wish to address the issue of DwtwsbtwotL in Resh plus what might be called your apparent father fixation with the sun?
(With any possible ‘backpedaling’ meant to be going on with moral nihilism, don’t forget that this should be always be done as Los said: "furiously" ! >:()
Reply #11 by Los on: Yesterday at 08:15:03 pm:
It depends on exactly what you mean by "morality."
There are specific criteria for practicing Thelema: discovering and carrying out the True Will. If you want to call such criteria "moral standards," then fine, Thelema has "morality" in this sense. Similarly, if you want to call any position about morality to be a "moral system," then fine, Thelema is a "moral system" in this sense.
But if we take the word "morality" to mean "that which ought to be done, regardless of what a person truly wants," then Thelema does not endorse this kind of morality, and it in fact repudiates this kind of morality.
Take note readers: Our next word for today is: Morality. Yes, MORE – RALL – IT - TEA. You will now all debate – I mean discuss – I mean “converse”, real friendly like, about the semantics of it in an approximately circular fashion. Do you hear me now?! (Loz The Omnipotent has spoken… ;D)
(Sorry, I just couldn’t resist that one Los old chap!)
Hmm, *thinks* : maybe could do with some more of that there holy medication as of right this minute after all,
N Joy
"We may then dismiss Yama and Niyama with this advice: let the student decide for himself what form of life, what moral code, will least tend to excite his mind; but once he has formulated it, let him stick to it, avoiding opportunism; and let him be very careful to take no credit for what he does or refrains from doing -- it is a purely practical code, of no value in itself." - Book Four, Part I
End of debate, discussion, conversation. Unless you just wanna talk and pontificate and dictate 😀
I don't have a problem with your demonstration however the proposal within the stated context, that a magician would cry "Why" as a form of invocation seems to me, to be disjointed.
What's with the bizarre and stilted language in recent posts, david? I thought you were a native speaker of English? Recent posts read like something from wellread-wellbread or others struggling with posting in a second language.
Who is this magician you mention? To "invoke" does not necessarily connote calling up spacemen or goblins; it can also mean "mention" or "refer to" (as i am sure a dictionary fan like yourself must be aware).
Ignant you must've missed this hence your confusion;
.
Allow me to elucidate. When "Will" stops then the Great Work has stopped i.e. has undergone neglect. Why would "Will" be (goetically) crying "Why" if "Will" has stopped? That doesn't ring true for me. This is why I read the "crying" as a kind of whining and not as you proposed, part of a sort of goetic howling.
Anyway to address an overlooked part of the OP, I think it's curious that "Because" is personalized as having "kin" i.e. relatives. Who and what are this "kin"?
That clarifies slightly what you are talking about, but there is still no magician. I think Tao's explication is correct but makes things more complicated than they need be.
Hadit is speaking and explaining a "great danger" of those who misunderstand AL falling "down into the pit called Because" where they "shall perish with the dogs of Reason".
Asking "Why?" "invokes" "Because", because (see what i did there?) answers to questions like "Why am I [doing x]?" often begin "Because you...": asking "Why?" in everyday life "invokes" "Because". There is no need for any poetic flights of fancy here.
Some of the kin of "Because" would be "Thus", Therefor", "However"- words of logical reasoning.
"Because" is "damned for a dog!" because "reason is a lie"- it causes Will to stop. An analogy might be to music or sports: if, when i am playing my guitar, i am thinking about what i am doing, it will not result in good music; if, when riding my bicycle fast down the middle of Fifth Avenue in heavy traffic at 5pm, i am thinking at all, i am likely to die.
Logical reasoning is some great stuff and has paid my bills for many years, but AL tells us it is toxic to doing one's Will.
Not only that, david seems to have regressed to the old four-steps forward, three-steps-back again method of overall progress in which he simply copies Los’s method of dealing with posts he doesn’t like by Tao, myself or ignant666 by the marvellously simple expedient of just ignoring them, despite the fact that (a) he himself initiated the thread and (b) encouraged conversation, discussion, debate and the like to take place. I put it down to traumatic stress disorder caused by a lack of validation or encouragement and being abandoned by his onetime former guru, myself. Now it’s just about conceivable that david is still intending to answer outstanding points and has just been delayed by the side-effects of Lashtal’s premoderation, but unfortunately because of past showings I retain my scepticism!
I see the use of “kin” as just a way of representing similar related words in language which, after the manner of Choronzon, signify a mental idea or concept which is false or confusing or self-limiting in some way. I did make a list of some of them which occurred to me in a workbook twenty odd years ago now: they included such non-relativistic items as “Absolutely”, “Totally”, “Impossible”, “Undoubtedly”, “Definitely”, etc. That sort of thing. I suppose someone of a more organizational frame or bent could maybe put together a more representative list to which we could all then add our input with suggestions and twocentsworth. But that would all be too much like hard work for somebody wouldn’t it... 🙁 ?
N Joy
jamie: To continue the "meta" discussion- I have been on the "Ignore" list (as publicly announced in these forums) of "The Great And Powerful Los" several times. It is simple enough to get him to stop ignoring you; of course it is admittedly often difficult to get a substantive reply, rather than accusations of drunkenness, etc. "Los" is quite vain, and convinced (despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary) that he is very clever and skilled at logical reasoning (perhaps this is about the OT after all?). His vanity compels him to reply when it is pointed out that he continues to "hide his light under a bushel" in this regard (this is a reference to Matthew 5:15, which i will quote in full translated into an idiom that "Los" can comprehend: "emos dont frendslock lj posts. tehy post public 4 all teh internetz.*"
david is admittedly a protean force that we all struggle to comprehend.
__________
* To the extent i understand "LOL-cat", this strikes me as rather missing the point as a translation- this is why we should read the Bible in the original language (KJV).
Protean? How so? Are you referring to my interests in Los's blog, Leary, Mckenna and radical honesty? Where did I ever dispute anything Los had said? He's a good writer on Thelema. I recommend the blog.
pro·te·an adjective "tending or able to change frequently or easily."
Yes I know.
Wherever, indeed?! 😮 ::) ;D
N Joy
Back to the OT, and why asking "Why?" paralyzes Will: consider the Roadrunner cartoons. When the Roadrunner runs off a cliff, he is able to continue running in mid-air, provided he never looks down (when he does, he falls into the pit of Because, there to perish with the Coyote of Reason).
Asking "Why?" "invokes" "Because", because (see what i did there?) answers to questions like "Why am I [doing x]?" often begin "Because you...": asking "Why?" in everyday life "invokes" "Because". There is no need for any poetic flights of fancy here.
Some of the kin of "Because" would be "Thus", Therefor", "However"- words of logical reasoning.
"Because" is "damned for a dog!" because "reason is a lie"- it causes Will to stop. An analogy might be to music or sports: if, when i am playing my guitar, i am thinking about what i am doing, it will not result in good music; if, when riding my bicycle fast down the middle of Fifth Avenue in heavy traffic at 5pm, i am thinking at all, i am likely to die.
Logical reasoning is some great stuff and has paid my bills for many years, but AL tells us it is toxic to doing one's Will.
Good points here.
An interesting argument that when AL want to confine "the dogs of Reason" to their appropriate kennels ("It should be remarked that this [the expulsion of rationality through the systematic contradiction of every proposition] does not destroy the validity of reasonings on their own plane." (AC, "Postcards for Probationers"; emphasis added)), it in fact intends to allow them full dominion. I wonder where he gets all this stuff about "faith" and "belief" in relation to Thelema?
While i think Erwin has "ma[d]e a great miss", it is refreshing to read these ideas (so often advocated in these forums) as presented by an educated person who writes well.
Nice to see david agreeing with folk again (and Los still hailing his guru Erwin), but I wonder if there is any possibility of his (david's) answering outstanding points e.g. from Tao in Reply #23, etc, (even if I seem to have joined the blacklist once more & am not having my own replies replied to? :'()
Forumistically yours
N Joy
If I may ask, what is your definition of educated? Are there certain levels of IQ or education that are needed for someone (anyone) to be doing their Will? Bear in mind that certain illustrious Zen masters were completely illiterate.
If I may ask, what is your definition of educated? Are there certain levels of IQ or education that are needed for someone (anyone) to be doing their Will? Bear in mind that certain illustrious Zen masters were completely illiterate.
david, ignant is not maintaining that a certain level of education, intelligence or IQ is needed for the discoverey and implementation of True Will. He is simply saying that he likes to read material which he considers well-written, that's all.
Ignant, do you see love and affection, of the caring variety, to be the same "Love" that we read in Al where "Love under Will" is asserted?
As I said above, i think "love" in AL means what it sound like: agape and eros. As "love and affection (of the caring kind)" is clearly an aspect of agape, the answer to your question is yes, though we are told "Nor let the fools mistake love; for there are love and love. There is the dove, and there is the serpent." AC comments that "Lo, while in the Book of the Law is much Love, there is no word of Sentimentality." (New Comment)
I don't think AC approved of the Fraternitas Saturni reformulation of the words of Nuit as "Love is the law, compassionless love", which sounds like "love" without "affection (of the caring kind)".
See also The Book of Lies, "The Pole-Star", and "The Southern Cross". AC says "little hint is given of anything except physical love" as to the former; perhaps.
Note that it is customary to eschew use of the word we are defining in definitions.
I don't think AC approved of the Fraternitas Saturni reformulation of the words of Nuit as "Love is the law, compassionless love", which sounds like "love" without "affection (of the caring kind)".
See also The Book of Lies, "The Pole-Star", and "The Southern Cross". AC says "little hint is given of anything except physical love" as to the former; perhaps.
Note that it is customary to eschew use of the word we are defining in definitions.
..and what of 59. Beware therefore! Love all, lest perchance is a King concealed! Say you so? Fool! If he be a King, thou canst not hurt him.
60. Therefore strike hard & low, and to hell with them, master! ?
I mean, it's easy to see how this could be interpreted as pure hard-assed, cold hearted, outta my way, fascist nastiness.