Do what thou what?
 
Notifications
Clear all

Do what thou what?  

Page 1 / 2
  RSS

 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
19/10/2008 3:45 am  

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

HA! Indeed, I have been chastised for having an incomplete understanding of this sentence, which is regularly, nay innumerably, regurgitated. So I endeavor to dissect, in my own blasphemous and incredulous manner, the ‘whole’ of the phrase, to the bemusement of this body.

Do, do… doo doo. Do implies action, the external phenomenon of your creative origin, expressed through the faculties of your earthly manifestation.

WHAT!? Do what? Yes what, not whom, or how, or where. I interpret this as it is meant to be an ongoing process, not limited by temporal factors, but a continued endeavor.

Thou, thou… Who? Me? Not Crowley, not Aiwass, not Nuit, or Haddit, or Jesus, or Buddha. No, thou, the highest self, which is all of these, and essentially none. If you’re constantly seeking some ones approval, you’re betraying thou, if your clutching onto the Libers, you’re betraying your higher self, if you take this as the gospel truth how do you ever expect to reach that which is beyond words, transcending truth?

Wilt, as a rose past its prime. Wilt with all your powers of transformation, Will It, or be willed by it, the choice is yours, that most Sublime Apathy which keeps and completes all things regardless, and will bend to you as a cat at the hand of a trusted companion. Here we find the alignment of human will (base desire, self preservation) with that of Gods Will. As in the Bhagavad-Gita, the Field, and the Knower of the Field. In Taoism we call it wu wei, non-doing, sublime action that “Does nothing, yet leaves nothing undone.”

Shall, not may, not might, not probably will be, but a definitive affirmation of the truth behind the statement. There is no room for addition, like the snake, tail in mouth, constantly creating itself.

Be, to be or not to be? For surely when one embraces this statement to the fullest, through the earnest endeavor of the Great Work, there will be an inevitable and indefinite loss of the ego identity. Therefore through ‘Be’ this statement enters existence, so that by it we should leave that state of individuality.

The, articles aren’t necessary, but do add to the flow and intelligible continuity of a statement.

Whole… So wait, not just part? What about adding and subtracting to the work, isn’t that a ‘law’? Are there no other laws I need to follow? So I can be a murdering rapist if I ‘Do what thou wilt’? Preposterous, when one yokes ones baseness, surrendering completely to the will of that highest self, one can do naught but express the purest love possible, originating from the very soul of the universe, incapable of acting inharmoniously in any way. Surrender and be sanctified!

Of The, I’m not going to pull a Bill Clinton here, but it is important to interject humor, because this is a joyous occasion! There is not room for the conceited, pedantic hermetic to nit pick the coming forth of pure compassion, because it is beyond all words, all understanding of the mind. I say omit if that is Thy Will, because Thy Will is perfect, being not of thyself, but of The Self, the universal self that pervades and permeates all existence, and can do no wrong no matter what Aiwass says!

Law, not voted on by parliament, not the decrees of some fallible earthly king, but an ineffable, unstoppable, universal principal that sets the stars in motion as the electrons orbit the nucleus, and the quarks give evidence to the infinitely small, infinitely large, in all directions, forever, and ever. Amen.

I most humbly submit my gross and uneducated interpretation of this Supreme statement to be amended by the notably wise and superior entities which inhabit this domain. May your beratement be lethal, your cunning tear asunder the slightest inconsistencies, your loyalties lie with the originator and not this impudent dog of a man who grovels at your feet and begs for the crack of your whip!

Because as we all know…

LOVE is the LAW, love UNDER will.

Or do we?..

a.t.

(P.S. Please forgive the hyperbolic sarcasm a meditation in Teth, which is exceedingly difficult for an Orphic, who even now cannot post this without the disclaimer that I mean no ill will, and meant to express the often undue severity of Hermetic practitioners whose piety sours to zeal, and rots to cruelty. Also, and however, I must express boundless gratitude to a severe mentor who, perhaps unwittingly, in so little time, and with so few words, has taught me the importance of cautious communication, the value of Geburah, and to defend the truth in the light of Love. I trust you know who you are. *wink* )


Quote
priestofal
(@priestofal)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 147
19/10/2008 4:26 am  

Bravo!... your spelling is perfect! ;). (Grabs you by the back of the neck and gives you a big Bill-Murray-style Noogie! 🙂 ).


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
19/10/2008 4:16 pm  

Hey! You're messing up my hair...


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
24/12/2008 2:26 am  

Great work 🙂
inspiring

93/93


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
24/12/2008 2:40 am  

Do What Thou Willteth Shall Be the Loop-Hole in the Law!


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
01/03/2009 5:55 pm  

93,

I found this quite interesting and very well-thought out.
But I have to disagree with the notion that being a "murdering rapist" must by necessity be outside of Will. It's a slippery slope to make any exceptions to Will, though one I'm sure most are happy to go skiing off of. All things are necessary, and if the murdering rapist does their Will, they will harm none, just as any other, and instead be the necessary instrument for their counterpart to achieve their Will. Though, I do suspect that in the majority of cases such actions are an aberration rather than an act of unity, I think it is dangerous to rule out any particular action altogether, because such morality would seem counter to the Law.

I would say this is in answer to your request, but do not presume to be either your superior or wise (Though, we can have a contest to see which of us is the most humble, perhaps. 🙂 j/k), and I haven't been lethal. I think your post was actually quite brilliant... And I'm quite aware that the one likely to feel the "whip" here, is me, but I must welcome it, as well. 😯

93 93/93

P.S. I know this post is a bit old, but I felt compelled nonetheless. Hope it is still relevant.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
03/03/2009 2:29 pm  

Gosh darnit!
I was going to nit pick on that point, Yathaniel, you beat me to it! 🙂


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
04/03/2009 11:31 pm  

Draconuit, Then you're a brave man.
I'll probably be forced to name you the the inquisitors now, upon pain of torture, before being burned at the stake... At least I will not fear dying alone. 😛


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
16/04/2009 10:18 pm  
"tesorthena" wrote:
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
[...]
WHAT!? Do what? Yes what, not whom, or how, or where.

Whom, where, when (and possibly how) are covered by Liber Oz 🙂

I'm irresistibly reminded of the limerick "...who had the right/ to do what and with what and to whom".

"Yygdrasilian" wrote:
Do What Thou Willteth Shall Be the Loop-Hole in the Law!

The Loop [see under Tzaddi] and the magickal practice of producing something by tying a [k]not in a [w]hole (when is a knot not a knot? When does a knot at each end of the loop net out into a net not-knot?) is another big subject altogether.

For "wilt" see under "droop down mine head" [AL II:26]. I've been thinking in that context of Nut's neglected (conventional Egyptian) spouse Geb.

"James Joyce" wrote:
O here here how hoth sprowled met the duskt the father of fornicationists but, (O my shining stars and body!) how hath fanespanned most high heaven the skysign of soft advertisement!

This may have something to do with the reason why Crowley attributes the "Man of Earth" (last syllable of The-le-ma) to the [Blasted] Tower"

"James Joyce" wrote:
Phall if you but will, rise you must

(my emphasis).

This is called a fugue, I think. Now I can't remember what I was looking for when I found this perpetuated old thread....

OP


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
17/04/2009 5:13 pm  

There is an amount of gratification in knowing that my words of spurred worthwhile thoughts. I agree that the will of the murdering rapist cannot be set apart, that will is all inclusive, the point being that one dose not automatically give in to animalism simply because they have discovered the arbitrary nature of mental constructs.

thanks,
mat


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
17/04/2009 5:35 pm  

'of', that's right, semantic nonsense is the only conclusion I have been arriving at, 'truth' evades logic and exists only as the idea of truth, when the dog catches its tail, then what? It usually wanders off, scratches, licks, hits itself in the face with its tail again and the chase continues. Beyond the vale, or more so when the vale is no longer the vale, and you just go on, in life there are flickers of amusement, when your subjectivity ebbs like the tide, you care, you don't care, you're you, you're everything, you're an oscillation, a solvent, if it wasn't this it would be something else, and yet it is no thing at all. No one can tell you how to deal with the dissolution of anti enlightenment, there is no container for that realization, and once attained is a conundrum in itself, because nothing has been attained, everything has been lost. It's not even one, I have no idea to hold on to, I read my words and I think, "What pretense...", and that thought turns in on itself infinitely, as do all things, and loses all meaning, meaning loses meaning, loses, nothing can be lost, commas...

it's here and then it's gone, we all have, and for instances we seem to know, then comes the tail, beautiful, tragic, words. Why is it so easy, and yet so difficult, how can it be peace and turmoil all at once. This organic entity lacks the syntax, i've confused my way to understanding and lost it all, I don't understand anything, and I'm not very sure there is anything to understand, just word vomit as an act of living.

My I Ching this morning, 59 K'an over Sun, dissolution brings success, all I know is that dissolution negates success, every line changing, I can't even hold on to dissolution, and when I get tired of swimming, I'll drown.

love,
matthew


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
17/04/2009 5:57 pm  
"tesorthena" wrote:
I agree that the will of the murdering rapist cannot be set apart, that will is all inclusive, the point being that one dose not automatically give in to animalism simply because they have discovered the arbitrary nature of mental constructs.

The "will of the murdering rapist" is almost always the result of the suppression of the true Will, twisting the violated individual into behavior that is an aberration unnatural to him otherwise, no?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
17/04/2009 6:44 pm  

The murdering rapist has went along with the suppression of the true Will that his twisted him to aberrational behaviour though... a whinging slave.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
17/04/2009 6:49 pm  
"alrah" wrote:
The murdering rapist has went along with the suppression of the true Will that his twisted him to aberrational behaviour though... a whinging slave.

And what choice did he have a helpless and trusting child?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
17/04/2009 6:57 pm  

Most children know that this behaviour by parents or other adults is not normal. The level of anger and upset at the betrayal of trust and the pain inflicted is enough to affirm that these things should not have happened to him; that they are aberrations. Many people suffer childhood abuse but do not - *choose not* to perpetuate a cycle of abuse.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
17/04/2009 7:12 pm  

Yes, only a few here and there become monsters in their behavior towards others. I only brought it up because these few are so often sited as the "danger with Thelema," as if the course of prevention of such aberrations would actually be a license for them to run amuck.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
17/04/2009 7:40 pm  

Well - from what the professionals in the feild say - about a third of all paedophiles have been sexually abused themselves in childhood. It's a very misunderstood area because of the taboo - the abuse does not happen because of sex, but because the abuser seeks a feeling of power over someone percieved to be weaker than themselves, whether that is a little old lady, a timid female adult or a child. Muggers, wife beaters and paedophiles all fit in the same catagory. They are people who feel unempowered, and they see saw from feelings of inferiority to abuse for the twisted feelings of empowerment it temporarily gives them, until they are overcome by shame - worsening the feelings of inferiority, making excuses for why it isn't really wrong to abuse someone else, planning it, choosing the times, abusing alcohol to lessen the internal restrictions, and then repeating the cycle by abusing someone all over again.

But at the end of the day it is always a choice. There are always professional people out there that are trained to assist people to manage their harmful behaviour, address their abusive tendancies (in whatever aspect it may manifest), and return to more natural behaviours.

I'm glad you brought up that the formula of Thelema actually promotes more natural and non abusive behaviours, and your points are very well made.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
17/04/2009 9:14 pm  

shrouding the world in subjective definitions is abuse, the only thing unnatural is perspective, to even allow the notion of unnatural.

I could have said used car salesman, they're right up there with murdering rapists, but again with the subjective nonsense;)

Mental health often equates successful indoctrination, i.e. wearing a coat in summer, pushing a shopping cart full of dead cats, when truly examined how much of our own daily lives are just as ridiculous.

Can someone validate my parking?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
17/04/2009 9:55 pm  

Man has no right to sell used cars if he Will?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
17/04/2009 10:05 pm  

Intellectual relativism doesn't sucessfully reflect the commonalities of human experience.

Park 'Love Under Will' for me? 🙂


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
17/04/2009 10:51 pm  

To throw the whole thing into sharp relief...

Shylock says;

"Hath
not a Jew eyes? hath not a Jew hands, organs,
dimensions, senses, affections, passions? fed with
the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject
to the same diseases, healed by the same means,
warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as
a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed?
if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison
us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not
revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will
resemble you in that. If a Jew wrong a Christian,
what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian
wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by
Christian example? Why, revenge. The villany you
teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard but I
will better the instruction."


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
18/04/2009 2:07 am  
"alrah" wrote:
To throw the whole thing into sharp relief...

Shylock says;

"Hath
not a Jew eyes? ... and it shall go hard but I
will better the instruction."

A curious and ironic citation; Shylock cites the

"alrah" wrote:
commonalities of human experince

to justify the antithesis (IMO) of True Will, the satifaction of a "bond" for its own sake. It profits him nothing to have his "pound of flesh", but he (in an instinct he claims to have learned from Christianity) sees revenge as an end in itself.

This is the fallacious view of life as a zero-sum game. We all value the same things Therefore, if I win, the Other must lose.

Therefore (1) if the Other loses then I "win", no matter the pointlessness of the victory.

and therefore (2) if I lose; if I suffer, then the Other must win – the absurd logic of the Christian “redemption”.*

Is this not what Thelema is supposed to liberate us from? We are not all connected by rigid beams of some imaginary balance of justice; there is no complete nor consistent version of common human experience.

It was once, and somethimes still is in certain circumstances considered permissible (or at least excusable) to kill and rape. It was certainly once considered permissible to desire sexual intercourse with, and even marry, someone well under the modern "age of consent" without being labelled a "pedophile".

Relativism in moral standards is a fact of life.

Perhaps in (more often) holding such conduct reprehensible today, we are progressing towards something better - or perhaps we're just "chasing our tail". We might also ask: what things do we tolerate today that we abominated 100 or 500 years ago (the charging of excessive rates of interest, perhaps - a topical and at the same time a Shylockian reference).

One of the most pithy repudiations of "common" human standards and the Christian "Golden Rule" is G K Chesterton's "do not do unto others as you would have them do unto you; their tastes may not be the same."

Crowley said something very similar, to my (vague) recollection, referring to the preferences of celebrated homosexual poet John Addington Symonds [not to be confused with John Alexander Symonds, AC's biographer, as Google persistently does :-); that's one reason I can't confirm the quote.]

But surely an important lesson of Thelema is that there is plenty of room between "stars"; don't seek, across space or down time, for universal standards or a progression towards them.

Respect (love?) the Other, but do not fool yourself that you can stand in his/her shoes or he/she in yours. Do what thou (singular) wilt.

OP

* Another version of this I like is the story of the peasant who is offered two choices: "I will give you one cow and your neighbour two; or I will take one cow from you and two from your neighbour". He unhesitatingly chooses the second offer. Unfortunately, that's all too human.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
18/04/2009 1:36 pm  

It's seems, also, that in seeking the common denominator in our perspectives, we often end up creating it, not sharing anything but the belief that there are objects and subjects to act upon them. And while this isn't necessarily a premise of Thelema, I still use the philosophy to arrive at something beyond understanding.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
18/04/2009 2:09 pm  

In rejecting the moral and intellectual certitudes of societies cultural mythos, is the only other course of action to embrace moral and intellectual relativism? Though the commonalities of human experience may not provide a basis for an exoteric set of morals and standards that can be applied across the board, nevertheless, intellectual and/or moral relativism does not make these commonalities disappear. "If you prick us, do we not bleed? if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison us, do we not die?" The formula of Thelema (imo) is not inherently relativistic, but asserts there are two commonalities of human experience that stem from the absolute and are applied to the relative world - simple Love under Will. Whenever one does the true Will then Love is present in the doing.

Does the murdering rapist express love in accordnace with his true Will? Or does he expressed a need to dominate, control, his ego completly eclipsing his higher self, like a malicious little dwarf trying to sit in the throne of the king and raging that he is never going to have the stature to fill the position?

Complete relativism is a gaudy plastic scepter of the ego.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
18/04/2009 4:42 pm  
"alrah" wrote:
In rejecting the moral and intellectual certitudes of societies cultural mythos, is the only other course of action to embrace moral and intellectual relativism? Though the commonalities of human experience may not provide a basis for an exoteric set of morals and standards that can be applied across the board, nevertheless, intellectual and/or moral relativism does not make these commonalities disappear. "If you prick us, do we not bleed? if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison us, do we not die?" The formula of Thelema (imo) is not inherently relativistic, but asserts there are two commonalities of human experience that stem from the absolute and are applied to the relative world - simple Love under Will. Whenever one does the true Will then Love is present in the doing.

Does the murdering rapist express love in accordnace with his true Will? Or does he expressed a need to dominate, control, his ego completly eclipsing his higher self, like a malicious little dwarf trying to sit in the throne of the king and raging that he is never going to have the stature to fill the position?

Complete relativism is a gaudy plastic scepter of the ego.

Perhaps the murderer had a 'higher self' like Krishna in the Gita who repeatedly insists on killing others because there is no slayer or slain?

There might not be an instant reversion to relativism after you reject moral absolutism but that would only be because various relativisms happen to be similar, i.e. we still both bleed when cut adn so presumably well both need band aids at some point. Either that only means that relativism of morals doesnt inherently lead to absolute chaos and conflict.

IAO131


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
18/04/2009 6:06 pm  

Yeeees, well... when the next murdering rapist in the papers turns out to have 16,108 wives and glows blue in the dark then we'll know something unusual is going on, won't we? heheheh.

There are various periods in history where the prevailing cultural mythos of the time was failing and giving way to a rise of intellecual and moral relativism. It's not a new phenomenon, and it would be unusual if we did not witness it happening now in this transition between Aeons. It's just part of the course. The Law of Love under Will is the only certitude, which is why it will eventually supplant those flimsy and restrictive exoteric ideas and mores of the old Aeon, and the result should be an outpouring of creativity as the shackles are eventually removed.

We just have to make sure that Power does not trump Love this time, and that Thelema is not watered down and used by power hungry dogs to back their repressive regimes.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
18/04/2009 7:06 pm  
"alrah" wrote:
We just have to make sure that Power does not trump Love this time, and that Thelema is not watered down and used by power hungry dogs to back their repressive regimes.

Can you give an example of these forces of evil abusing a Thelemic system that you caution against, alrah?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
18/04/2009 7:47 pm  

Forces of evil? 😀

Think about what Emperor Constantine did (First council of Nicaea) when a slave religion, previously having a jolly good Love up and dropping pantherina mushrooms as a holy sacrament, got out of hand 2,000 years ago.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
18/04/2009 8:32 pm  
"alrah" wrote:
Forces of evil? 😀

Think about what Emperor Constantine did (First council of Nicaea) when a slave religion, previously having a jolly good Love up and dropping pantherina mushrooms as a holy sacrament, got out of hand 2,000 years ago.

Nice example. So you anticipate that at some point someone will look around them at the state of Thelema and propose that "in the interest of its successful growth and longevity, it should be pared of its tangential meanderings and streamlined to focus on its core principles." It that the concern? 🙂


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
18/04/2009 8:50 pm  
"alrah" wrote:
In rejecting the moral and intellectual certitudes of societies cultural mythos, is the only other course of action to embrace moral and intellectual relativism? ... The formula of Thelema (imo) is not inherently relativistic, but asserts there are two commonalities of human experience that stem from the absolute and are applied to the relative world - simple Love under Will. Whenever one does the true Will then Love is present in the doing.

So what are we progressing towards; are there, timewise, “targets” of ideal moral behaviour to which we can all aspire – the way the progress of science narrows in on reality [??] Is there a “true” consistent morality which exercise of “Love under Will” will teach us?

In other words, is there a grand “Will of the Universe” with which our little True Wills will, when discovered. be “in tune”? Or are we each on our own? Even when we “check” ourselves repeatedly [in both senses of “limit our behaviour” and “reconsider available information”] by the criterion “is this our True Will or gratifying our base instincts?” will we still each come up with different answers?

And are we permitted (indeed instructed) to “exceed, exceed” (I read that as, to use the modern cliché, “get outside your comfort zone”) in order to learn from it, even though we may trespass (temporarily and in a small way) on our neighbour’s True Will?

I am not countenancing acts such as murder and rape that obviously do transgress in this way, but acts that may or may not do so (the Pater Noster of my Catholic childhood comes back on the question of mutual forgiveness for such trespass); and where “we won’t know until we try”?

Sorry for those convoluted sentences; I hope my meaning is coming across.

And where does the ordinary "secular" law fit into this picture? It seems to me the question will sometimes arise: "I think I may have to break this slave-god's law in order to further my True Will; but, if I do that and I'm caught, I may end up in jail or with a seriously depleted reputation and bank account, which will handicap my long-term ability to do my True Will..."

So are we bound nevertheless by the laws of an old Aeon?

OP


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
18/04/2009 9:10 pm  

All subjectivity is a product of cognition, "I" don't exist premature to manifestation, but as a result of being a living organism. Understanding this isn't important in our glorified survival scheme, that is why so few do, and out of those that have the "inkling" even fewer are capable of NOT intellectualizing it into abstraction. That which I seek to rekindle is an inherent part of myself, the higher self as you've said, that has been over shadowed by subjective reenforcement, dualistic thinking, perpetually putting some measure of separation between yourself and that which you experience, this is definitely a dangerous mixture and perhaps even leads to things like sadism, the "murdering rapist".

(Off topic, but, is it just me, or has "The Murdering Rapist" became our "Joe The Plumber" 😉

Does that make pain any less real? I'd say this point of view may create even a deeper sense of pain, but not in the subjective sense that "I am being hurt." "He hurt ME!", I experience it, but I don't try to own it, and it leaves almost as soon as it comes. If I wanted to continue to identify wholly with the organic manifestation of this infinite manifold microcosm, and all of its instincts and survivalism, rape, murder, gene perpetuation, we wouldn't be having this conversation, let's see, I think The Price is Right might be on. But, Willing or unwilling, either out of egomania, or an innate longing to fulfill the potential of this wave of energy that has been the framework for all "understanding", it really boils down to Do what thou will? Whether it is to build a brick house of subjectivity, and once inside call that the world, or renounce it, or transform it, whatever.

In this infinite spectrum, who can claim to have the valid reference point? It is either every individual, or no one, maybe both at once, which means absolutely nothing.

What's that line...err, "No man is your friend, no one your enemy. All, alike, are your teachers." I cannot claim that the murdering rapist, however he may negatively afflict the human condition, is not a necessary part of this collective experience, so how may I hold him accountable for performing a divine function?

On the contrary, perhaps the universe is so inept as to make 'mistakes', and the ultimate power of man to classify, rationalize, define, and analogize is paramount. I'm not being sarcastic, I'm allowing for the, I think, slim possibility that we are the ultimate source of reason, or more so that we ARE the ultimate source of reason, but reason also has subversive applications, within ones own mind even, that it cannot support mans ultimate understanding, which cannot be quantified through any experience, making it a difficult, and in many ways futile, endeavor. But hey, it's the Great Work after all, and it's a great workout. I'm sure the reasons for pursuing it are as varied as the individual.

Thanks for the good discussion, please continue.

Sincerely,
maty


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
18/04/2009 9:17 pm  
"Camlion" wrote:
"alrah" wrote:
Forces of evil? 😀

Think about what Emperor Constantine did (First council of Nicaea) when a slave religion, previously having a jolly good Love up and dropping pantherina mushrooms as a holy sacrament, got out of hand 2,000 years ago.

Nice example. So you anticipate that at some point someone will look around them at the state of Thelema and propose that "in the interest of its successful growth and longevity, it should be pared of its tangential meanderings and streamlined to focus on its core principles." It that the concern? 🙂

I think there are area's that are under explored in regards to Thelemic thought, and these need to be addressed. Specifically - those regarding institutionalised Power. If I was 'working for the forces of evil' then I assure you that I would have no problem in incorporating/spinning Thelema to the masses under the guise of centralised and restrictive mechanisms of control that most people are so used and indoctrinated to they don't even acknowledge they exist.

So yes - how to empower the people and relinquish the old aeon strangleholds is a concern. The systems and structures we build together are meant to serve us, not enslave us.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
18/04/2009 9:44 pm  
"OliverP" wrote:
"alrah" wrote:
In rejecting the moral and intellectual certitudes of societies cultural mythos, is the only other course of action to embrace moral and intellectual relativism? ... The formula of Thelema (imo) is not inherently relativistic, but asserts there are two commonalities of human experience that stem from the absolute and are applied to the relative world - simple Love under Will. Whenever one does the true Will then Love is present in the doing.

So what are we progressing towards; are there, timewise, “targets” of ideal moral behaviour to which we can all aspire – the way the progress of science narrows in on reality [??] Is there a “true” consistent morality which exercise of “Love under Will” will teach us?

In other words, is there a grand “Will of the Universe” with which our little True Wills will, when discovered. be “in tune”? Or are we each on our own? Even when we “check” ourselves repeatedly [in both senses of “limit our behaviour” and “reconsider available information”] by the criterion “is this our True Will or gratifying our base instincts?” will we still each come up with different answers?

And are we permitted (indeed instructed) to “exceed, exceed” (I read that as, to use the modern cliché, “get outside your comfort zone”) in order to learn from it, even though we may trespass (temporarily and in a small way) on our neighbour’s True Will?

I am not countenancing acts such as murder and rape that obviously do transgress in this way, but acts that may or may not do so (the Pater Noster of my Catholic childhood comes back on the question of mutual forgiveness for such trespass); and where “we won’t know until we try”?

Sorry for those convoluted sentences; I hope my meaning is coming across.

And where does the ordinary "secular" law fit into this picture? It seems to me the question will sometimes arise: "I think I may have to break this slave-god's law in order to further my True Will; but, if I do that and I'm caught, I may end up in jail or with a seriously depleted reputation and bank account, which will handicap my long-term ability to do my True Will..."

So are we bound nevertheless by the laws of an old Aeon?

OP

You are never alone and are always loved.
No knowledge will ever be withheld from you if you ask.

And if in doubt - whistle;-)


"And what is good, Phaedrus,
And what is not good -
Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?"


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
18/04/2009 9:57 pm  
"tesorthena" wrote:
All subjectivity is a product of cognition, "I" don't exist premature to manifestation, but as a result of being a living organism. Understanding this isn't important in our glorified survival scheme, that is why so few do, and out of those that have the "inkling" even fewer are capable of NOT intellectualizing it into abstraction. That which I seek to rekindle is an inherent part of myself, the higher self as you've said, that has been over shadowed by subjective reenforcement, dualistic thinking, perpetually putting some measure of separation between yourself and that which you experience, this is definitely a dangerous mixture and perhaps even leads to things like sadism, the "murdering rapist".

(Off topic, but, is it just me, or has "The Murdering Rapist" became our "Joe The Plumber" 😉

Does that make pain any less real? I'd say this point of view may create even a deeper sense of pain, but not in the subjective sense that "I am being hurt." "He hurt ME!", I experience it, but I don't try to own it, and it leaves almost as soon as it comes. If I wanted to continue to identify wholly with the organic manifestation of this infinite manifold microcosm, and all of its instincts and survivalism, rape, murder, gene perpetuation, we wouldn't be having this conversation, let's see, I think The Price is Right might be on. But, Willing or unwilling, either out of egomania, or an innate longing to fulfill the potential of this wave of energy that has been the framework for all "understanding", it really boils down to Do what thou will? Whether it is to build a brick house of subjectivity, and once inside call that the world, or renounce it, or transform it, whatever.

In this infinite spectrum, who can claim to have the valid reference point? It is either every individual, or no one, maybe both at once, which means absolutely nothing.

What's that line...err, "No man is your friend, no one your enemy. All, alike, are your teachers." I cannot claim that the murdering rapist, however he may negatively afflict the human condition, is not a necessary part of this collective experience, so how may I hold him accountable for performing a divine function?

On the contrary, perhaps the universe is so inept as to make 'mistakes', and the ultimate power of man to classify, rationalize, define, and analogize is paramount. I'm not being sarcastic, I'm allowing for the, I think, slim possibility that we are the ultimate source of reason, or more so that we ARE the ultimate source of reason, but reason also has subversive applications, within ones own mind even, that it cannot support mans ultimate understanding, which cannot be quantified through any experience, making it a difficult, and in many ways futile, endeavor. But hey, it's the Great Work after all, and it's a great workout. I'm sure the reasons for pursuing it are as varied as the individual.

Thanks for the good discussion, please continue.

Sincerely,
maty

It's a pain in the ass when your work pays off enough to grant you a glimpse of the absolute, but then you come back and realise you're the same (almost, apart from this stunning revelation that's knocked your socks off) arsehole with all the same faults as before.

That's what the other grades and the abyss is for... and listen! Lots of energy to your chatterbox self and you drown out the real self. Be quiet! 😀


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
19/04/2009 2:19 am  

Before enlightenment - chopping wood ,carrying water, after enlightenment -chopping wood, carrying water.
Head in the clouds, feet on the ground. After ascending the heights of thee holy mountain, one can choose whether to come back own and live amongst the people with the gifts received, or remain in thy holy ivory tower protecting their sacred cows/chaos.
The glimpse of the absolute is just a glimpse of your greater self, you are the same, nothing has changed, just ones own sight is more limitless and infinite-faults and all. Monkeys.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
19/04/2009 5:33 am  

Indeed! And well put. Is silence our nature? Isn't there something essential taking place here? All life merely an oscillation between extremes, that only exist as a means of perceiving some infinite amalgamation? God experiencing itself, cells experiencing harmony, but confused by everything past a grunt, raw emotion?

The great master gos "shhhh", and so does not heed his own admonition, the pupil goes "shhhh" and gets thwacked on the head. After so much meaning, so much importance, such a bipolar existence, now everything seems silly, one cannot die, he who has not been born. And I think my refusal to acknowledge most poeples seriousness puts me at odds with many scholars, which is unfortunate, because I love lapping up peoples word vomit, even more so if they do me the honor. A well placed word is a slap in the face, everything else seems like trying to validate ones confused perspective with so many this's and that's.

*sssslllluuuurrrpp*

It's funny, the smaller ego game, I see it all the time. Who plays the smaller penis game? Isn't it the same, ego a tool for perpetuation? Cleverness for cum, and it smells if you don't wash it. Yet, I wouldn't put my penis through nearly the same amount of torture as my ego. No, I don't think the ego is without it's utility, nay necessity, just misunderstood, like the penis to a five year old.

There's plenty more of my savory logic lost hand tossed soliloquies at the salad bar. Enjoy!

maty


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
19/04/2009 5:36 am  

I just worked a double, don't hold it against me.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
19/04/2009 7:48 am  

Lol. I overindulged on the brandy last night. Don't hold that against me either. 🙂


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
19/04/2009 2:37 pm  
"tesorthena" wrote:
God experiencing itself, cells experiencing harmony, but confused by everything past a grunt, raw emotion?

What did one mirror say to the other?

It's all done with people... 😀


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
19/04/2009 5:20 pm  
"alrah" wrote:
"Camlion" wrote:
"alrah" wrote:
Forces of evil? 😀

Think about what Emperor Constantine did (First council of Nicaea) when a slave religion, previously having a jolly good Love up and dropping pantherina mushrooms as a holy sacrament, got out of hand 2,000 years ago.

Nice example. So you anticipate that at some point someone will look around them at the state of Thelema and propose that "in the interest of its successful growth and longevity, it should be pared of its tangential meanderings and streamlined to focus on its core principles." It that the concern? 🙂

I think there are area's that are under explored in regards to Thelemic thought, and these need to be addressed. Specifically - those regarding institutionalised Power. If I was 'working for the forces of evil' then I assure you that I would have no problem in incorporating/spinning Thelema to the masses under the guise of centralised and restrictive mechanisms of control that most people are so used and indoctrinated to they don't even acknowledge they exist.

So yes - how to empower the people and relinquish the old aeon strangleholds is a concern. The systems and structures we build together are meant to serve us, not enslave us.

(I would say 'empower the individual,' rather than "empower the people.")

So how, if you were 'working for the forces of evil,' would you spin Thelema to the masses so as to control them?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
19/04/2009 9:12 pm  

Well - if you empower enough individuals then you 'empower the people'. 🙂

As for the other - it looks like a typical alcohol fuelled distortion of reality, but I'll think about it the next time I've have one too many and I'll let you know;-)


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 2195
19/04/2009 9:59 pm  

93

"OliverP" wrote:
Is there a “true” consistent morality which exercise of “Love under Will” will teach us?

No, there's not.

I'm fond of Nietzsche's aphorism: "There are no moral phenomena, only moral interpretation of phenomena."

This thread appears to me, in places, to be haunted by the specter of morality, possibly informed by Crowley's questionable idea that true wills cannot conflict (an idea found nowhere in Liber AL, and an idea that Crowley equivocated on in a number of places).

It's impossible to know the will of another -- to start making statements like, "actions X, Y, or Z are not someone's True Will" is to begin to go down a path that leads to a scary place...to Crowley's appointed body of government "experts" who will tell you what's best for you.

Is it possible that it could be someone's will to rape someone else? Maybe. I can't say, and it doesn't particularly matter to me. Given my will, I certainly want to live in a society in which such actions are prohibited.

I can't speak for anyone else here, but the reason that I don't go around raping people is not that I think rape is "wrong" in some ultimate "moral" sense -- it's because I have absolutely no desire to do anything like that. It would never even occur to me to do such a thing in the course of my daily life. And those people who *do* have a desire to do something like that and decide to *act* on that desire -- I want them locked up. True will or no.

Really, is it the case that there are many people walking around just bursting with the desire to rape others, held back only by this fragile idea that the act is somehow "wrong" and "you really shouldn't do that"? If so, then those people -- along with those of us who do not have such criminal desires -- have a lot more to worry about than their "true will."

George Carlin once remarked that we could always outlaw religion and thus make such sexual crimes practically disappear in a generation or two. But, then again, as he hastily added, "we don't have time for rational solutions."

93, 93/93


ReplyQuote
Aleisterion
(@aleisterion)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 319
19/04/2009 11:13 pm  

"Is it possible that it could be someone's will to rape someone else? Maybe."

If you do something to someone against their will then, ipso facto, you abnegate your own right to not have your will interfered with.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
19/04/2009 11:46 pm  
"Los" wrote:
This thread appears to me, in places, to be haunted by the specter of morality, possibly informed by Crowley's questionable idea that true wills cannot conflict (an idea found nowhere in Liber AL, and an idea that Crowley equivocated on in a number of places).

It's impossible to know the will of another -- to start making statements like, "actions X, Y, or Z are not someone's True Will" is to begin to go down a path that leads to a scary place...to Crowley's appointed body of government "experts" who will tell you what's best for you.

Not only do I recall a large part of this as taken almost verbatim from Hessle, in which case you should probably acknowledge him, but what exactly is "Crowley's appointed body of government "experts" who will tell you what's best for you?" What does this mean and why do you attribute the idea to Crowley? Hessle's interpretation of Crowley causes conflict from the moment he opens his yap, so of course he anticipates conflict. His understanding of Crowley is about half-formed, as is that of any strict rationalist. Crowley saw reason as one of a half dozen other tools in necessary balance. Personally, I anticipate occasional conflict as being inevitable, and for it to be settled as elsewhere in nature. Anyway, what exactly is "Crowley's appointed body of government "experts" who will tell you what's best for you?"


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
20/04/2009 12:48 am  
"Los" wrote:
I can't speak for anyone else here, but the reason that I don't go around raping people is not that I think rape is "wrong" in some ultimate "moral" sense -- it's because I have absolutely no desire to do anything like that. It would never even occur to me to do such a thing in the course of my daily life. And those people who *do* have a desire to do something like that and decide to *act* on that desire -- I want them locked up. True will or no.

You seem to think the ultimate is somewhere far away from the here and now. If you don't think something is wrong in the ultimate sense you should have absolutely no problem with it in your daily life. But you do, and therefore your reasoning is in bad faith.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 2195
20/04/2009 12:48 am  

Hi, Camlion.

First, you're right -- I did not cite the fact that I was taking the "body of experts" idea from Crowley's essay "The Scientific Solution to the Problem of Government." I'm sorry for not citing it; I honestly thought it was common knowledge. The relevant passage:

"Let this formula be accepted by every government. Experts will immediately be appointed to work out, when need arises, the details of the True Will of every individual, and even that of every corporate body whether social or commercial, while a judiciary will arise to determine the equity in the case of apparently conflicting claims."

Frankly, that passage always bothered me, and I can think of few ideas more totalitarian than a government appointing a body of experts to tell me what my will is and what I'm allowed to do.

The point I was making in my post was that the assumption that we can know the will of others is the beginning of a slippery slope that might lead a thinker (eventually) to the scary position where such a body of experts seems feasible. And yes, I think Erwin made a similar point in one of his essays, too.

Regarding your point about my post coming "almost verbatim from Hessle" -- it's quite true that Erwin wrote an essay (or two or three) that touched on the fact that there is no such thing as morality. But such a position is certainly not unique to Erwin. Thinkers throughout the last two centuries -- including Nietzsche, whom I cited above -- have held the exact same position. In fact, Nietzsche says explicitly in Zarathustra: "By all means, do what you will; but first, be as such who are able to will."

And as far as Thelema is concerned, Liber AL similarly details no system of "morals" in terms of specific rules to follow -- in fact, it explicitly says "There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt."

Crowley, it is true, proposed the idea that true wills could not conflict with each other. However, I find that idea questionable. And Crowley himself equivocated on the point. In his New Comment, for example:

"Some of the most passionate and permanent attachments have begun with rape. Rome was actually founded thereon. Similarly, murder of a faithless partner is ethically excusable, in a certain sense; for there may be some stars whose Nature is extreme violence." (New Comment to AL I:41)

Now, it's indeed true that Crowley later says that "Such acts as rape [...] may therefore be justly regarded as offences against the Law of Liberty, and repressed in the interests of that Law." (New Comment to AL I:51)

But then Crowley later notes that "consent is not always explicit. There are cases when seduction or rape may be emancipation or initiation to another. Such acts can only be judged by their results." (New Comment to AL I:52)

So, apparently, Crowley at least thought it was possible that it could be one's true will to commit rape. Hell, he even went as far as saying that it could be "emancipation or initiation" for the victim.

Honestly, I don't know whether it could be someone's will to commit such an act or not (though I don't think it's anyone's will to be a victim of anything) -- all I do know is that it's not my will to do such a thing and that I'm in favor of stopping people from doing it, whether it's their will or not (which is a fact I can never know anyway). Whether the action is "good" or "bad" in a moral sense doesn't enter into the question; whether it would be disastrous for society to allow rape might enter the question.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 2195
20/04/2009 1:38 am  

Hi Tai,

"tai" wrote:
If you don't think something is wrong in the ultimate sense you should have absolutely no problem with it in your daily life. But you do, and therefore your reasoning is in bad faith.

Just because an action isn't "wrong" in an ultimate sense doesn't mean that I'll have no problems with it in specific situations.

I don't think it's "wrong in the ultimate sense" for kids to talk loudly and have fun. But I think it's a good idea to prohibit them from doing it in a lot of places (such as a library).

"Aleisterion" wrote:
If you do something to someone against their will then, ipso facto, you abnegate your own right to not have your will interfered with.

Hi, Aleisterion. Yeah, Crowley mentions that at one point (a person who commits theft magically declares that property does not exist, etc.). I think that could work as a basis on which to make laws. It seems sort of like the basic social contract ("I don't want to be killed, and I don't want my stuff stolen -- so let me get together and make an agreement with a bunch of other people who don't want to be killed and have their stuff stolen")

But then questions arise -- what if it's your will to do X? (where "X" is an action that violates the law or the social contract)

Are you saying that a True Will can never violate the social contract? That's a pretty bold assertion. In most cases, practically speaking, I suppose that general observaion would hold true, but I'd be very hesitant to make a hard and fast rule out of it. How about a father of ten stealing bread to feed his starving family?

Anyway, since Camlion was encouraging me to advertise Erwin's site, I think I will. Erwin's essay "The Ethics of Thelema" shares several ideas with my posts in this thread, but it goes much further in depth than my brief comments. Specifically, it gives some excellent readings of Liber AL and Crowley in support of its thesis: http://www.erwinhessle.com/writings/theleth.php

I'll try to be back tonight to talk some more, but if not -- see you all tomorrow.


ReplyQuote
IAO131
(@iao131)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 461
20/04/2009 5:11 am  
"Camlion" wrote:
"Los" wrote:
This thread appears to me, in places, to be haunted by the specter of morality, possibly informed by Crowley's questionable idea that true wills cannot conflict (an idea found nowhere in Liber AL, and an idea that Crowley equivocated on in a number of places).

It's impossible to know the will of another -- to start making statements like, "actions X, Y, or Z are not someone's True Will" is to begin to go down a path that leads to a scary place...to Crowley's appointed body of government "experts" who will tell you what's best for you.

Not only do I recall a large part of this as taken almost verbatim from Hessle, in which case you should probably acknowledge him, but what exactly is "Crowley's appointed body of government "experts" who will tell you what's best for you?" What does this mean and why do you attribute the idea to Crowley? Hessle's interpretation of Crowley causes conflict from the moment he opens his yap, so of course he anticipates conflict. His understanding of Crowley is about half-formed, as is that of any strict rationalist. Crowley saw reason as one of a half dozen other tools in necessary balance. Personally, I anticipate occasional conflict as being inevitable, and for it to be settled as elsewhere in nature. Anyway, what exactly is "Crowley's appointed body of government "experts" who will tell you what's best for you?"

So both the ideas of Amorality and Logical Fallacies are automatically from Erwin?

The body of experts is explained in the Scientific Solution to the Problem of Government and Crowley says elsewhere that he would like Feudalism and Aristocracy, both of which do not represent full freedom for 'the masses.' The idae of a body of experts knowing your True Will is repugnant, and I think that is what Los was touching upon.

IAO131


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
20/04/2009 5:21 am  
"Los" wrote:
Hi, Camlion.

First, you're right -- I did not cite the fact that I was taking the "body of experts" idea from Crowley's essay "The Scientific Solution to the Problem of Government." I'm sorry for not citing it; I honestly thought it was common knowledge. The relevant passage:

"Let this formula be accepted by every government. Experts will immediately be appointed to work out, when need arises, the details of the True Will of every individual, and even that of every corporate body whether social or commercial, while a judiciary will arise to determine the equity in the case of apparently conflicting claims."

Frankly, that passage always bothered me, and I can think of few ideas more totalitarian than a government appointing a body of experts to tell me what my will is and what I'm allowed to do.

The point I was making in my post was that the assumption that we can know the will of others is the beginning of a slippery slope that might lead a thinker (eventually) to the scary position where such a body of experts seems feasible. And yes, I think Erwin made a similar point in one of his essays, too.

Regarding your point about my post coming "almost verbatim from Hessle" -- it's quite true that Erwin wrote an essay (or two or three) that touched on the fact that there is no such thing as morality. But such a position is certainly not unique to Erwin. Thinkers throughout the last two centuries -- including Nietzsche, whom I cited above -- have held the exact same position. In fact, Nietzsche says explicitly in Zarathustra: "By all means, do what you will; but first, be as such who are able to will."

And as far as Thelema is concerned, Liber AL similarly details no system of "morals" in terms of specific rules to follow -- in fact, it explicitly says "There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt."

Crowley, it is true, proposed the idea that true wills could not conflict with each other. However, I find that idea questionable. And Crowley himself equivocated on the point. In his New Comment, for example:

"Some of the most passionate and permanent attachments have begun with rape. Rome was actually founded thereon. Similarly, murder of a faithless partner is ethically excusable, in a certain sense; for there may be some stars whose Nature is extreme violence." (New Comment to AL I:41)

Now, it's indeed true that Crowley later says that "Such acts as rape [...] may therefore be justly regarded as offences against the Law of Liberty, and repressed in the interests of that Law." (New Comment to AL I:51)

But then Crowley later notes that "consent is not always explicit. There are cases when seduction or rape may be emancipation or initiation to another. Such acts can only be judged by their results." (New Comment to AL I:52)

So, apparently, Crowley at least thought it was possible that it could be one's true will to commit rape. Hell, he even went as far as saying that it could be "emancipation or initiation" for the victim.

Honestly, I don't know whether it could be someone's will to commit such an act or not (though I don't think it's anyone's will to be a victim of anything) -- all I do know is that it's not my will to do such a thing and that I'm in favor of stopping people from doing it, whether it's their will or not (which is a fact I can never know anyway). Whether the action is "good" or "bad" in a moral sense doesn't enter into the question; whether it would be disastrous for society to allow rape might enter the question.

It is rather ironic, Los, that you are quoting from The Scientific Solution of the Problem of Government. I was just arguing again last week with someone who is going to publish something I've been working on for many years, something that is, in effect, intended to be a suggested continuation of this particular and rather uniquely incomplete paper of Crowley's. It will be my first and, hopefully, last print-published work, apparently happening next year. My effort begins with the final line of item eight of 'DEMONSTRATION,' the item that you are quoting from above: "The absolute rule of the state shall be a function of the absolute liberty of each individual will." This begs the question left unanswered by Crowley in this paper or elsewhere in terms relevant to our time: How is the state to function by this absolute rule? I have endeavored to apply my personal background in political and social science as well as business to suggesting a governmental support platform for what Crowley termed, 'the details of the True Will of every individual, and even that of every corporate body whether social or commercial..."

You are certainly not alone is being bothered, as you say, by the suggestion of a sound Thelemic political and social construct. In fact, my first encounter with "Erwin Hessle, 8=3" on these forums was his objection to my making just such a suggestion in a post. He had a bit if a fit, which I have considered very encouraging ever since. In any case, thank you for the irresistible opportunity for shameless self-promotion, albeit a bit prematurely.

To address your immediate concern, however, that being:

"Let this formula be accepted by every government. Experts will immediately be appointed to work out, when need arises, the details of the True Will of every individual, and even that of every corporate body whether social or commercial, while a judiciary will arise to determine the equity in the case of apparently conflicting claims." - AC

Frankly, that passage always bothered me, and I can think of few ideas more totalitarian than a government appointing a body of experts to tell me what my will is and what I'm allowed to do. -Los

I am rather surprised to learn that you are unaware that such tribunals are being convened daily at present all over the world, for the sole purpose of telling you and I and the rest what we are allowed to do! Surely you are aware of this? The only difference between what Crowley suggests be done under the sole auspices of the Law of Thelema and what is already occurring now is the arbitrary insanity that prevails in modern profane justice and law, political construct and social convention. In The Scientific Solution of the Problem of Government Crowley really went only so far as to decry "The theories of Divine Right, aristocratic superiority, the moral order of Nature," ideas that we all find absurd today, but really, he barely scratched the surface of Thelema applied to our rather appalling modern realities.

If you don't mind, I will refrain from addressing the difference between seduction and rape. Those familiar with the dynamics of seduction will already understand the intricacies involved.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
20/04/2009 9:55 am  
"IAO131" wrote:
The body of experts is explained in the Scientific Solution to the Problem of Government and Crowley says elsewhere that he would like Feudalism and Aristocracy, both of which do not represent full freedom for 'the masses.' The idae of a body of experts knowing your True Will is repugnant, and I think that is what Los was touching upon.
IAO131

To reiterate a bit, there are "bodies of experts" dictating what individuals can and cannot do, right now. This is the status quo. What is truly repugnant is the present basis of those judgments. It is a bit late to object to the idea of government itself, and not a good idea at that. You can have any Will at all, at present, it is only your doing it that might be restricted. No one really cares what you think, provided that you do not act upon it beyond a hodge-podge of arbitrarily prescribed parameters.

No one can or need know the true Will of another, and I do not believe that Crowley was suggesting anything of the sort. The solution to the problem of government is to begin to make it realistic (scientific) and, thus, effective and productive toward the best interests of the individuals being governed. Government should serve those interests as effectively and as efficiently as possible. Its function is solely one of service to that end. Again, governments already rule over their subjects, the only realistic change foreseeable is how they do so, upon what basis they prescribe vulgar (common) law. Anarchy is not a realistic option.

Progress towards this goal of reclamation of individual human rights can only begin with its rather shameful present and proceed gradually towards its improved future. This would logically seem to imply that we take the existing models of common justice and law, political construct and social convention as our raw material and sculpt from this incredibly incongruous, artificial and self-defeating mass something that begins to approximate the Law of Thelema. Something that will begin to facilitate the freedom and independence that are prerequisite to "Do what thou wilt."

As for this misconception of "Feudalism and Aristocracy," versus "full freedom for the masses," this is the most ignorant sort of nonsense, and not at all what Crowley intended, as I read him. The individual is the prime unit of government under Thelemic principles. There are no "masses" and there are no "people" and there is no privilege beyond what is naturally dictated by the actual inherent requirements of each individual. The sole exception to this rule would be those individuals who VOLUNTARILY opt out of this freedom and independence in favor of the unfortunate alternatives.


ReplyQuote
Page 1 / 2
Share: