it (double/triple posting) looks insane and erratic
It all-so looks blogic. (blogick?)
@david-dom-lemieux Well Lottie-Da! I guess you straightened ME out.
I guess you straightened ME out.
Straight people are also welcome here ... if they follow The Guidelines. It's an updated version of Follow Me, and I will make you Fishes out of Men.
@shiva Looks like I need to re-review the Guidelines as I seem to get my foot in it on pretty consistent basis.
@shiva Looks like I need to re-review the Guidelines as I seem to get my foot in it on pretty consistent basis.
Hold my beer 🙂
@toadstoolwe
Oh, and I was going to say, re. the point you made above about communism being shitty and authoritarian (or words to that effect), you have to distinguish between communism in theory, communism in terms of its aspirations, and actually-existing things called "communism."
It's absolutely true that actually-existing things called "Communism" turned out to be really shitty (for the most part - they did have some redeeming features), ending up causing megadeaths, etc. Apologists are free to do the "not true Communism" move, but that just doesn't sit right, because most of those revolutionaries were truly great people, sincere, forceful and motivated, and prior to the actual existence of their systems, all those people wrote sweet words just like powerless Commies do now. (For example, if you read early Stalin, it's perfectly lovely - all about freedom and real democracy, etc., almost anarcho-Communist in tone. And there's no reason to think he was being insincere about it.)
The problem is that everywhere Communists got power, as soon as they got it, they found that ruling a society wasn't easy. And it was more difficult the more you tried to establish full Communism (moneyless economy, total central planning, etc.).
Which points to flaws, several flaws, in the theory. I won't go over them here, but there are two main ones that opponents (such as Ludwig von Mises) came up with at the time: the incentives argument and the economic calculation argument. The incentives argument has broad application, and is certainly a big part of it, but Communists could always say that it doesn't apply if you can somehow get everyone on the same page and pulling for the same goal (e.g. by re-education and building the New Communist Man or whatever). Which is true. But the other main problem, the economic calculation problem, is really un-getoverable no matter what Communists do. Basically it points to the fact that Communists under-estimated the complexity of the situation by orders of magnitude. Lenin famously quipped that central planning would be easy, more or less just a book-keeping exercise. But it turns out that isn't true, and for all its faults, the capitalist system is much better at economic efficiency (i.e. making stuff efficiently, leaving as much left over for the making of other stuff as possible), even despite the "anarchy of production."
Anyway, as most revolutionaries have found out (not just Communist ones) solving an economy is just a really, really difficult problem. And if you can't solve the problem, people start getting antsy, and then pissed off, and then you need authoritarianism, you start to get hysterical about "wreckers," etc. (especially if you're so wedded to the theory you can't believe it's the theory's fault that things have turned to shit). So that's why actually existing Communisms have always turned to shit. (The question of a Social Democracy or Fascist economy is different: you can have some amount of central planning, and although it does have a cost in economic efficiency, the calculus of total costs/benefits, looking outside purely economic factors, might be worth it.)
So it turns out that to even match the efficiency of capitalism, far less surpass it (as had been the promise Communists held out) you really would need something like very powerful AI. Which is, ironically, what's starting to happen under capitalism (cf. BlackRock's A.L.A.D.D.I.N. and other things of the same kind, including Facebook, the data of which is fed into these systems too). Again, doubly ironically, free markets are as pesky to big finance and big business as they are to Communists, so they've effectively been engaged these past few decades, in replacing free markets with artificial intelligence, or a primitive version of it. (The process accelerated under COVID with the lockdowns - nowadays the vast majority of trading is done by computers, not by harrassed-looking guys shouting at each other on the floor of the Stock Exchange).
But of course, instead of this kind of central planning being done for the benefit of all (as it is, theoretically, in Communism) it's for the benefit of a few, and fuck the rest.
@toadstoolwe
Oh, and I was going to say, re. the point you made above about communism being shitty and authoritarian (or words to that effect), you have to distinguish between communism in theory, communism in terms of its aspirations, and actually-existing things called "communism."
It's absolutely true that actually-existing things called "Communism" turned out to be really shitty (for the most part - they did have some redeeming features), ending up causing megadeaths, etc. Apolo gists are free to do the "not true Communism" move, but that just doesn't sit right, because most of those revolutionaries were truly great people, sincere, forceful and motivated, and prior to the actual existence of their systems, all those people wrote sweet words just like powerless Commies do now. (For example, if you read early Stalin, it's perfectly lovely - all about freedom and real democracy, etc., almost anarcho-Communist in tone. And there's no reason to think he was being insincere about it.)
The problem is that everywhere Communists got power, as soon as they got it, they found that ruling a society wasn't easy. And it was more difficult the more you tried to establish full Communism (moneyless economy, total central planning, etc.).
Which points to flaws, several flaws, in the theory. I won't go over them here, but there are two main ones that opponents (such as Ludwig von Mises) came up with at the time: the incentives argument and the economic calculation argument. The incentives argument has broad application, and is certainly a big part of it, but Communists could always say that it doesn't apply if you can somehow get everyone on the same page and pulling for the same goal (e.g. by re-education and building the New Communist Man or whatever). Which is true. But the other main problem, the economic calculation problem, is really un-getoverable no matter what Communists do. Basically it points to the fact that Communists under-estimated the complexity of the situation by orders of magnitude. Lenin famously quipped that central planning would be easy, more or less just a book-keeping exercise. But it turns out that isn't true, and for all its faults, the capitalist system is much better at economic efficiency (i.e. making stuff efficiently, leaving as much left over for the making of other stuff as possible), even despite the "anarchy of production."
Anyway, as most revolutionaries have found out (not just Communist ones) solving an economy is just a really, really difficult problem. And if you can't solve the problem, people start getting antsy, and then pissed off, and then you need authoritarianism, you start to get hysterical about "wreckers," etc. (especially if you're so wedded to the theory you can't believe it's the theory's fault that things have turned to shit). So that's why actually existing Communisms have always turned to shit. (The question of a Social Democracy or Fascist economy is different: you can have some amount of central planning, and although it does have a cost in economic efficiency, the calculus of total costs/benefits, looking outside purely economic factors, might be worth it.)
So it turns out that to even match the efficiency of capitalism, far less surpass it (as had been the promise Communists held out) you really would need something like very powerful AI. Which is, ironically, what's starting to happen under capitalism (cf. BlackRock's A.L.A.D.D.I.N. and other things of the same kind, including Facebook, the data of which is fed into these systems too). Again, doubly ironically, free markets are as pesky to big finance and big business as they are to Communists, so they've effectively been engaged these past few decades, in replacing free markets with artificial intelligence, or a primitive version of it. (The process accelerated under COVID with the lockdowns - nowadays the vast majority of trading is done by computers, not by harrassed-looking guys shouting at each other on the floor of the Stock Exchange).
But of course, instead of this kind of central planning being done for the benefit of all (as it is, theoretically, in Communism) it's for the benefit of a few, and fuck the rest.
What a well thought out dissertation! I could not agree with you more. As you point, the apologists will often speak of Communism in the mtaphor of the small "c"" "communism" which is supposed to somehow be more humane and less restrictive than big "C" Communism. You speak of revolutionaries being basically good people, who for some reasons go off the rail. You mention young Josef Dzejughashvili writing lovely poetry, so did Mao Zedong, both proved to be idealogues of the worst type. "Che" Guevara was a murderer, and fantasied a nuclear war between the Soviet Union and the U.S. The problem with Communism is not the ideology, it's the weakness of human nature. We are by nature, selfish and cruel. We have to be taught by parents, teachers, etc. NOT to be selfish and cruel, goodness and humanity has to be taught.
What a well thought out dissertation! I could not agree with you more.
Who is "you?" No context. Are you talking to yourself?
Anybody can figure out it's gg, but still just a chat with someone, who cannot be identified by the survivors. I will now cease harassing you over non-contextual matters. I have filed your report under "Hopeless," and the survivors will simply have to do it by themselves.
@gurugeorge might enjoy Francis Spufford's 2011 Red Plenty, a sort of didactic novel/series of vignettes about the Soviet Union's attempts to solve the Calculation Problem.
@ When we get back to Faith
Faith need not enter in to it
"We place no reliance On virgin or pigeon; Our Method is Science, Our Aim is Religion"
and Family
I believe that the nuclear family is of the previous Aeon. I see intentional family, intentional community, and alternative relationship and household dynamics are part of the current Aeon. Not that the nuclear family is inherently bad, if it be your Will, but it should not be viewed as the only correct model.
@katrice I appreciate your point of view. But can you agree that in a broader sense, the destruction of the nuclear family, and taking God out of the equation has caused the malaise society is in now? Even though I have been through different phases of a personal worldview, including an interest in Aleister Crowley's theory of magic(k) and, a wide variety of other subjects, ideologies, and philosophies (As much as my small mind is capable of absorbing, a shout-out to Iggy666) Objectively I can't help but feel that some of the criticism made by the Conservative Christain right (of whom I used to ridicule) that taking the importance of family and God out of schools and society in general MIGHT be a relevant point and worthy of re-examination. I am not judging, just throwing it out there.
@gurugeorge might enjoy Francis Spufford's 2011 Red Plenty, a sort of didactic novel/series of vignettes about the Soviet Union's attempts to solve the Calculation Problem.
Sounds good! I dug into the subject a fair bit years ago, but I've forgotten most of the details. I know that some Communist theoreticians were aware of the problem, took it seriously and came up with potential solutions.
the destruction of the nuclear family, and taking God out of the equation has caused the malaise society is in now?
I agree with you there @toadstoolwe, it's certainly got something to do with the problem.
I think this is why the more "individualistic" approach to Thelema, where the attempts by AC to figure out some kind of social organization and something like a religion for the masses (often he thought of it as "solar") are pooh-poohed, and the focus is put solely on individual effort, isn't quite right. You do need a main "harmonic" (or "beat," say) for society as a mass to adhere to, otherwise you simply don't have a society, and AC was right to ponder the question and worry over it.
Currently, Western societies (certainly the more Western ones) are running on fumes from Christian morality, and it's not looking good for the future. The core issue is that you can't derive a religion from rationalism or science (no "ought" from "is"), and so long as current society (and the various political ideologies) are based on rationalism and materialism, they've got nothing to offer to replace the former Christian commonality.
It would also be a problem for Communism - even suppose you ended up with a pleasant Iain Banks type of communist scenario economically speaking, it's doubtful it would be able to hang together, unless the "Minds" forced the issue, and then you're back to shitty actually existing Communisms.
There's an element of religion that's private and there's an element that's communal, and you need the communal element for a large society of relative strangers (even more so if it's multiracial). To some extent, it doesn't even matter what it is, so long as it's eugenic, pro-family, prosocial, basically moral, and gives people a sense of belonging and togetherness, a sense that their existence is justified in a bigger picture.
@gurugeorge You have hit the nail right on the head! Sometimes I think that Islam would be that replacement of Christain values. There is much to admire in Islam, hard work, family, community, the teaching of the Koran, a simple blueprint for living the Good life (In the ancient Greek sense of the term Good, that is, being balanced in body and mind, and spirit.) I believe Aleister Crowley would at least theoretically agree with that. I mean, we are still human and are flawed with weaknesses and vices.
@gurugeorge You have hit the nail right on the head! Sometimes I think that Islam would be that replacement of Christain values. There is much to admire in Islam, hard work, family, community, the teaching of the Koran, a simple blueprint for living the Good life (In the ancient Greek sense of the term Good, that is, being balanced in body and mind, and spirit.) I believe Aleister Crowley would at least theoretically agree with that. I mean, we are still human and are flawed with weaknesses and vices.
Total sobriety and drug free communities.......alright!!
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
@david-dom-lemieux Sounds good to me. Most social problems would be solved. We see how well drunkenness and drug addiction has destroyed whole communities. There is weed and smack for the urbanites, and meth and fentanyl for the country folk. And of course, out of control violence.
the destruction of the nuclear family
This is part of the evolutionary process. How can any individual unit (like you, me, or RTC) become liberated from dependence on this gravity well when one (you, me, or twiddly-dee) has "obligations" or "ties" to some undeveloped family members? In Thelemic parlance, The Family is Publick Enemy Number One.
It was my own personal experience that I had to become stern with my family. Then, with their hooks withdrawn, I was able to proceed to a certain point, undistracted by the cultural/familial pull. But, guess what? After that certain point, I was able to re-establish a reasonable relationship again.
It is not the Family, per se, that must be ruthlessly disintegrated, but the influence (control, inhibitions, etc) they exert.
and taking God out of the equation
Let's see - Homo invents "God." "God" is then a reference point for manipulating human behavior (especially obedience). Take "God" away, and humans may Do What They Want, which equals Lack of Control over People.
I dunno. Maybe a God thread should be initiated.
Even though I have been through different phases of a personal worldview, including an interest in Aleister Crowley's theory of magic(k) and, a wide variety of other subjects, ideologies, and philosophies
You have just described a summary of The Student Reading List. The question around here, sometimes, is, "Okay, now how many of the practices have you undertakem, and for how long? Doing the practices is that same as doing the work, which is not required to post and rave here, but a greater respect is usually granted to those who know what they're writing about.
@david-dom-lemieux Sounds good to me. Most social problems would be solved. We see how well drunkenness and drug addiction has destroyed whole communities. There is weed and smack for the urbanites, and meth and fentanyl for the country folk. And of course, out of control violence
Do you know where you are? This is Thelema where spiritual people are allowed to also fornicate and be out of their minds on drugs and booze.
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
@david-dom-lemieux If they choose too.
@david-dom-lemieux If they choose too.
Yo, the 40 year old virgin is in the house! People partied hard in your college days, right? How about you?
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
@david-dom-lemieux Of course I did. But that was quite a while ago. I went to Xavier University in Cincinnati, and I was also just getting interested in the occult. The University library had an extensive collection of books on Hermetic philosophy and related subjects. I majored in theology and also developed an interest in Buddhism. What about you?
@david-dom-lemieux Of course I did. But that was quite a while ago. I went to Xavier University in Cincinnati, and I was also just getting interested in the occult. The University library had an extensive collection of books on Hermetic philosophy and related subjects. I majored in theology and also developed an interest in Buddhism.
That's great. This is all you're getting from me I contemplate Liber L and verses such as the following and the like and ask myself what drives both of them?
Galatians 5:19-21
Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Romans 13:13-14
Let us walk properly as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and sensuality, not in quarreling and jealousy. But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires.
Ecclesiastes 7:1-29
A good name is better than precious ointment, and the day of death than the day of birth. It is better to go to the house of mourning than to go to the house of feasting, for this is the end of all mankind, and the living will lay it to heart. Sorrow is better than laughter, for by sadness of face the heart is made glad. The heart of the wise is in the house of mourning, but the heart of fools is in the house of mirth. It is better for a man to hear the rebuke of the wise than to hear the song of fools. ...
2 Corinthians 6:14-16
Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said,
“I will dwell in them and walk among them;
And I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
@david-dom-lemieux You are indeed a deep thinker. Given the depth of theological and Biblical complexities of these passages, their authorship, their chronological context in Biblical literature, and their meaning, and trying to understand them in contrast with Liber L The Book of the Law and what "drives them" I assume you mean what motivated the authors to write them down (including Crowley and HIS revelations) can only be attributed to the divine spark that has driven civilizations since the beginning of time.
@david-dom-lemieux You are indeed a deep thinker. Given the depth of theological and Biblical complexities of these passages, their authorship, their chronological context in Biblical literature, and their meaning, and trying to understand them in contrast with Liber L The Book of the Law and what "drives them" I assume you mean what motivated the authors to write them down (including Crowley and HIS revelations) can only be attributed to the divine spark that has driven civilizations since the beginning of time.
Was thinking more of Aeons. A new one started circa 1904 dontcha know?
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
@david-dom-lemieux If you buy the whole concept of Aeon which in my opinion is an artificial convention and not a real thing, then okay. Go for it.
David Dom Lemieux, at the beginning of this thread:
"Is there a place for Marxism in Thelema?"
There is not a place for Marxism in Aleister Crowley's Thelema, according to the latter as he during his lifetime consistently argued against social revolution:
"... Fuller[*], home on leave from India, came to see me [...]
we were absolutely opposed to any ideas of social revolution. We deplored the fact that our militant atheists were not aristocrats like Bolingbroke. We had no use for the sordid slum writers and Hyde Park ranters who had replace the aristocratic infidel of the past. We felt ourselves to be leaders; but the only troops at our disposal were either mercenaries or mobs. Like the prince of the Fronde, we found ourselves fighting by the side of a venal and ignorant parliament, disorderly banditti, a mob of bourgeois and a horde of beggars."
( Chapter 60 in Confessions. The Confessions of Aleister Crowley: An Autohagiography is a partial autobiography by the poet and occultist Aleister Crowley, covers the early years of Crowley's life up until the mid-late 1920s.)
[*] J. F. C. Fuller (1878 – 1966), was a supporter of Crowley from 1906 until 1911.
"The only city of Spain which holds its own with the rest of the world today is Barcelona, a notorious hotbed of infidelity and freemasonry. It is to the last degree unfortunate that these things should be connected in the minds of the unthinking with anarchy and other cults implying social disorder.
[...] although Spain has been torn by civil and dynastic wars, it maintains a certain rugged resistance to the forces of autocracy on the one hand, and to revolution on the other."
( Chapter 63 in Confessions.)
"The war of 1914, and its sequel of revolution and economic catastrophe, is in my eyes the culmination of its many centuries of corruption by Christianity. [...]
A sham peace succeeded the sham war and the only realities were the revolutions which reduced civilization to chaos. Such reactions as that of Fascismo are manifestly phantasmagoric and I cannot but conclude that at least for a long period anarchy will triumph in Europe."
( Chapter 75 in Confessions.)
"The revolutions and catastrophes with which history is crammed are invariably due to the rulers having failed to find fitting functions for the people. The obvious result has been social discontent ending in the refusal of the cells to perform their work in the organism."
(Chapter 87 in Confessions.)
Patriarch156: "... he [ = Aleister Crowley] wanted, first through the O.T.O., then during his fall-out with Reuss through his Order of Thelemites and then finally once he took over it., through the O.T.O. again to promote reform through the usual means (activism, reform of laws etc.). You are however correct regarding revolutionary activities. According to a letter to Norman Mudd[*] he declares that revolution is antithetical to Thelema, indicating that ordinary reform is the way to go and in fact to the extent that they are to be concerned with revolution at all, it is to assist Western governments in suppressing it."
( Source: "Thelema, a basis for human society?" - - - https://www.lashtal.com/forums/postid/59745/ )
[*] Norman Mudd (1889–1934), a Cambridge-educated mathematician, was one of Aleister Crowley’s most devoted (and critical) disciples. He denounced Crowley in the spring of 1926.
"We do progress; but how? Not by the tinkering of the meliorist; not by the crushing of initiative; not by laws and regulations which hamstring the racehorse, and handcuff the boxer; but by the innovations of the eccentric, by the phantasies of the hashish-dreamer of philosophy, by the aspirations of the idealist to the impossible, by the imagination of the revolutionary, by the perilous adventure of the pioneer. Progress is by leaps and bounds, but breaking from custom, by working on untried experiments; in short, by the follies and crimes of men of genius, only recognizable as wisdom and virtue after they have been tortured to death, and their murderers reap gloatingly the harvest of the seeds they sowed at midnight."
( Source: Chapter 69: Original Sinthout Tears, in Magick Without Tears written in 1943, 1944, and 1945.)
"I am as near seventy as makes no matter, and I am still learning with all my might. All my life I have been taught: governesses, private tutors, schools, private and public, the best of the Universities: how little I know! I have traveled all over the world in all conditions, from "grand seigneur," to "holy man;" how little I know!
What then of the ninety-and-nine, dragged by the ears through suicide examinations, and kicked out of school into factory in their teens? They have learnt only just enough to facilitate the swallowing of the gross venal lies of the radio and the Yellow Press; or, if mother wit has chanced to warn them, they learn a little --- very little --- more, getting their Science from a Shilling Handbook and so on, till they know just enough to become dangerous agitators.
No, anything like a real education demands leisure, the conversation of the wise, the means to travel, and the rest.
There is only one solution: to pick out the diamonds from the clay, cut them, polish them, and set them as they deserve. Attempt no idiot experiments with the muck of the mine! You will observe that I am advocating an aristocratic revolution. And so I am!"
( Source: CHAPTER 72 EDUCATION, in Magick Without Tears written in 1943, 1944, and 1945.)
"To even the most stupid it becomes plain at this stage that war is wholly ruinous; organization breaks down altogether; one meaningless revolution follows another; famine and pestilence complete the job.
[...] The result of any election, or for the matter of that any revolution, is an almost wholly insignificant component of those stupendous and inscrutable Magical Forces which determine the destinies of the planet."
(Source: , CHAPTER 75 THE A.'. A.'. AND THE PLANET, in Magick Without Tears written in 1943, 1944, and 1945.)
ignant666: "... it is wonderful how capitalist economies have provided "Welfare state, increased standards of living, improved health and safety at work", out of pure benevolence, and the kindness of their hearts.
That this benevolence and kindness occurred only after generations of bitter strikes, demonstrations, riots, and revolutions by the left demanding these things is surely just a coincidence."
"German chancellor Otto von [...] Bismarck was determined to undermine a party that he saw as a danger to the volatile new nation state. So the Iron Chancellor came up with a masterful plan: beat the socialists at their own game by offering health insurance to the working class." And Germany's "1883 law was the first of its kind to institute mandatory, government-monitored health insurance". [...]
The German model evolved over the 20th century, but remained effective and popular. When the system was exported to the Netherlands, Belgium and France during World War II, each of the countries kept the model, despite the fact that it was imposed under Nazi occupation.
All told, Bismarck’s system was a massive success [...]
In the United Stated "It wasn’t until the Social Security Act of 1935 that the federal government got involved in a meaningful way, and even then most health insurance was employment-based, not unlike the Bismarck system but without the government mandates."
( Source: "Bismarck Tried to End Socialism’s Grip—By Offering Government Healthcare", by Lorraine Boissoneault July 14, 2017[.] - - - https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/bismarck-tried-end-socialisms-grip-offering-government-healthcare-180964064/ )
The latter occurred under a president with saving capitalism as his agenda:
"“It was this administration which saved the system of private profit and free enterprise after it had been dragged to the brink of ruin.” President Roosevelt, on how his emergency actions in 1933 prevented a revolution and saved capitalism."
( Source: "Wikiquote:Transwiki/American history quotes New Deal [...] PRESIDENT FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT AND THE NEW DEAL" - - - https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Transwiki/American_history_quotes_New_Deal )
David Dom Lemieux, at the beginning of this thread:
"Is there a place for Marxism in Thelema?"
There is not a place for Marxism in Aleister Crowley's Thelema, according to the latter as he during his lifetime consistently argued against social revolution:
"... Fuller[*], home on leave from India, came to see me [...]
we were absolutely opposed to any ideas of social revolution. We deplored the fact that our militant atheists were not aristocrats like Bolingbroke. We had no use for the sordid slum writers and Hyde Park ranters who had replace t
etc etc etc
So what? Crowley was intellectually inconsistent. Maybe we should all think for ourselves.
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
@david-dom-lemieux Hear!, Hear!
If you buy the whole concept of Aeon
I bought it, and payed for it in various forms of blood, bleeding, and the refinement of space/time perception.
which in my opinion is an artificial convention
Your opinion is vindicated, because any and all of the concepts we discuss, ranging from digging in the dirt for gold to make a pentacle to dissolution in the infinite void ... these are all artificial conventions.
and not a real thing, then okay
Of course it's okay. The whole of Life, The Path, these Forums, and the Aeons are all seen to be mere fabrications ... from a certain point of view that is located just the other side of "reality." The aspirant tries everything, then chooses what works, and then he/she formulates his/her own paradigm.
Around here, most posters have a paradigm that includes a segment devoted to the Crowley paradigm - so we have a common reference point for communication of ideas, both practical and abstract.
The Cowley paradigm is not a "real thing." Nor are any of the others. It is a made-up representation that attempts to synchronize with the invisible spectrum of consciousness ... probably the best and most accurate version available in our crumbling western civilization
Go for it.
I did, thank you. Once or twice is enough.
There is not a place for Marxism in Aleister Crowley's Thelema, according to the latter as he during his lifetime consistently argued against social revolution:
"... Fuller[*], home on leave from India, came to see me [...] we were absolutely opposed to any ideas of social revolution.
Well, that pretty much clears up any questions. Of course, this was earlier, when Fuller 0=0 was granted a fabricated 5=6, so that the triads could be filled.
Later, AC advocated independence for Eire, and he offered "a clip on the jaw" if you disagreed ... sounds like right-wing anarchy to me. He, as BafometR, proclaimed that the OTO system, as redesigned by him, was "aristocratic communism."
I think Crowley was a King's man, a Tory, in his mind. After all, he fashioned himself among the aristocratic poets and philosophers ... and that depended on a stable gov with a leisure class, not a flaming revolution - where aristocrats get abused ... or worse.
In any case, Marxism probably needs to be carefully compared to generic communism ... with and without revolutions. I will compare them. Maybe tomorrow.
Crowley was intellectually inconsistent. Maybe we should all think for ourselves.
I believe he recommended this approach.
@shiva as always, you pierce the heart of the matter. After our "crumbling Western civilization", what comes next?
After our "crumbling Western civilization", what comes next?
Rebuilding. I am not being flippant, nor have I flipped out. Our beloved AC states, in at least two (2) places, probably more, that civilization was going to undergo an Armageddon (Al-Megiddo), or a radical karmic vision like in The Apocalypse ("revelation") of John the Sainted guy - who got in the Lost Last Word.
He explained how his works, in this case The Equinox Vol I) were crafted so as to appeal to saving, and thus they might be available when the survivors look around for the spirituality that has been stamped out.
So it was my adventure, along with a merry band, to take AC seriously. One cannot rebuild if they have something already built, so we move out into the dead-on ground zero center of absolutely nowhere ... and we started building up from scratch. The scratching usually started with a shovel.
We scavenged lumber and parts and erected a structure. This was cool. Then we violated the contract and started buying supplies. Well, there really was a Rich Man from the West among us, so he traded gold for steel ... literally. I made the gold crowns and bridges that he, the dentist, sold to patients. He then bought three steel building that we disassembled, transported, and re-built in the middle no nowhere.
So we cheated, we contracted by commerce with Gomorrah, but that's okay because AL exhorts us (well, AC) to gather goods, etc, which is hoarding, but where will you get supplies when the hammer falls?
Crowley's idea was to re-build along Thelemic lines. After the Rain.
@shiva I wish you and your future pioneers well as you build your brave new world.
@gurugeorge You have hit the nail right on the head! Sometimes I think that Islam would be that replacement of Christain values. There is much to admire in Islam, hard work, family, community, the teaching of the Koran, a simple blueprint for living the Good life (In the ancient Greek sense of the term Good, that is, being balanced in body and mind, and spirit.) I believe Aleister Crowley would at least theoretically agree with that. I mean, we are still human and are flawed with weaknesses and vices.
Total sobriety and drug free communities.......alright!!
Why not? Would you prefer your drug-taking to be boring everyday shit that everyone else does, including your granny, or a transgressive, underground thing that only you and other hipsters "in the know" do under cover of moonlight? 😉
Total sobriety and drug free communities.......alright!!
Why not? Would you prefer your drug-taking to be boring everyday shit that everyone else does, including your granny, or a transgressive, underground thing that only you and other hipsters "in the know" do under cover of moonlight? 😉
The Thatcherite anti-drug campaign had it right didn't they? Something like the higher you go the harder you fall? I'm feeling good feeling so fine, until tomorrow but that's just another time.
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
Would you prefer your drug-taking to be boring everyday shit that everyone else does, including your granny, or a transgressive, underground thing that only you and other hipsters "in the know" do under cover of moonlight?
Duh- as a regular drug-user, who used to be a daily user of illicit drugs, until the laws (mostly) caught up with me, clearly the former beats the latter all hollow.
Unless one's drug-taking is a part of donning some sort of prescribed hipster uniform, i can't imagine why anyone would rather get drugs from criminals than pharmacists.
I wish you and your future pioneers well as you build your brave new world.
I see that I have failed to provide a meaningfully-reinforced context for my tale, even though it was writ in past tense. What this means is That was yesteryear.
Let's look at the facts ...
1. Crowley pick a font, paper, style, and binding that was designed to survive The Great Changeover. The font and papers were pretty good. Anybody who's ever seen an original Vol I Equinox knows that the binding was the work of the devil in short-term obsolescence (the bindings were crumbling to dust in 1966. We rebound in leather - very nice. Designed to carry on through.
Well, that set has gone in the wind. It's a good thing Regardies got all The Equinox hard-core Libers together in Gems from The Equinox, in a fairly sturdy binding - Ten books crammed into One. The 10=1 degree. So now I don't worry about that aspect.
Anyway, the esoteric stuff won't survive without a sturdy physical foundation. I don't do foundations any more. There is no band of pioneers. All is lost and scattered and fragmented. The New world Order makes no provision for religion, or spirituality, or individual aspiration. Just technocracy. So it's that digital life ... or desolation (starting from scratch). Of course, I personally fuse (Neti-neti) either of these extremes. I am privately rooting for the Revolution ... like the one you admired so much in '76 ... where all the people (more or less) collectively picked up their pieces and started shooting Brits until there were Brits no more.
Well, today the Brits and us (US) seem to be on the same side ( UK + USA = 93), so there's no need to dwell on who was who, but rather who will the collective piece-fully descnd upon today?
I will probably not be out there with my piece. There is a reason why they retire workers at certain ages (55, 65, 70, etc) and there are ages above which the military demanders don't bother to go ... for a reason. Probably declining testosterone.
@shiva Your comments are like flowers in a field of thorns. I tread lightly and try to pick the right ones.
@katrice I appreciate your point of view
Thank you.
. But can you agree that in a broader sense, the destruction of the nuclear family,
The nuclear family not being the default for everyone in the world hardly means destruction, and it not being the default hardly means that family isn't important. I see the nuclear family as an old aeon model, but not one that has no place, simply one that is going from near-universal to one of multiple options. Families can work outside of that model.
and taking God out of the equation
If we make God the center of everything, what do we do with the people who have no religion, or who don't have the "right" religion. Westerners live in a pluralistic society.
I'd personally allow people to follow their Wills rather than impose a model on them.
God out of schools
Putting God in schools sounds like that "indoctrination" that those Conservative Christian people are talking about.
We see how well drunkenness and drug addiction has destroyed whole communities.
They have their risks, as do many other indulgences. Even used as a tool, that Path is not for everyone. Must we eliminate something entirely because some people can't use them responsibly?
@katrice I appreciate your point of view
Thank you.
. But can you agree that in a broader sense, the destruction of the nuclear family,
The nuclear family not being the default for everyone in the world hardly means destruction, and it not being the default hardly means that family isn't important. I see the nuclear family as an old aeon model, but not one that has no place, simply one that is going from near-universal to one of multiple options. Families can work outside of that model.
and taking God out of the equation
If we make God the center of everything, what do we do with the people who have no religion, or who don't have the "right" religion. Westerners live in a pluralistic society.
I'd personally allow people to follow their Wills rather than impose a model on them.
God out of schools
Putting God in schools sounds like that "indoctrination" that those Conservative Christian people are talking about.
We see how well drunkenness and drug addiction has destroyed whole communities.
They have their risks, as do many other indulgences. Even used as a tool, that Path is not for everyone. Must we eliminate something entirely because some people can't use them responsibly?
Thank you for your concise, point by point critique. When I speak of God, it is simply the acknowledgement that there is a driving force that drives the universe. We have to give it a name, we (or some people) call it "God" the theological and moral laws that were inspired by God, are universal and ancient, and takes many forms and religions. I know you like to read, let me recommend an article that is a proposal for publication by Brian J. McVeigh, The psychology of Ancient Egypt: Reconstructing a Lost Mentality. Briefly, the author uses Jaynesian psychology. As you are probably aware, Julian Jayne is the author of the Bicameral brain and the evolution of human consciousness'. In a nutshell, human's evolved different perceptions, such as hallucinations both visual and auditory which is evident in ancient religions for ex.(Ancient Egypt) or Moses "hearing the voice of God" and "seeing" a burning bush among other manifestations. Even Aleister Crowley was, in my opinion, subject to visual and auditory hallucinations, perhaps from drug use, Yoga and meditation, or even some level of mental illness. Is his revelation by Aiwass any less valid, than Joseph's interpretation of Pharoah's dream? (A perfect example of Jaynesian psychology, speaking to, or being instructed by God (or gods) through dreams. (Ancient religious literature is full of dream communications with supernatural entities.)
through dreams.
Thank you for your concise, point by point critique.
You're welcome.
We have to give it a name, we (or some people) call it "God" the theological and moral laws that were inspired by God, are universal and ancient, and takes many forms and religions.
I think "The Divine" seems like a more universal term.
And not everyone believes in religion. It would still be pushing beliefs on people.
You seem like you'd be inclined towards Traditionalism, particularly Evola's approach. I've mentioned here that I'm not a fan of his sociopolitical ideas but I greatly admire his magickal writings.
Is his revelation by Aiwass any less valid, than Joseph's interpretation of Pharoah's dream?
Not at all less valid, they're both communications from the divine, or hga, interpreted through that person's consciousness and models.
@katrice Thank you for your insights. I hope you will at least glance at the Psychology of Egypt book proposal if you get a chance. It is online and can be found on Academia website Also, I am not that familiar with Julius Evola, thanks for turning me on to him.
Also, while the older socialisms were a bit grug ..... was also understanding that the system shapes everybody. Social roles take on a life of their own, and shape us to behave in ways we otherwise might not have, and that includes capitalists.
Now this does indeed go some way along with Thelema. Think for example of the several chapters about this sort of thing in Liber Aleph - about the restriction of the individual by what society expects of them, etc. The central concern - freedom of the individual from all forms of restriction - is shared.
The difference is that Thelema goes more deeply into internal restrictions arising from internal incoherence (complexes, "folds" in the khu, that prevent the full force of light from shining out).
I was rereading the OP etc and came across this. By 'freedom of the individual' you mean the antiquated 18th or 19th century classic Liberal notion I presume? The term 'individual' needs to be redefined In the modern world some 'individuals' are actually as financially powerful or more powerful than as a small country (or for all we know a big country) and can actually function or behave like enemy states or enemy countries....but technically speaking they are 'individuals'.
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
@katrice Thank you for your insights.
You're welcome
I hope you will at least glance at the Psychology of Egypt book proposal if you get a chance. It is online and can be found on Academia website
I'll look. I am quite familiar with the bicameral mind model.
Also, I am not that familiar with Julius Evola, thanks for turning me on to him.
The Introduction to Magic books and The Hermetic Tradition (which is based on the alchemical ideas of Giuliano Kremmerz) are my favorites of his. Revolt Against the Modern World is the core of his sociopolitical ideas. It's not to my liking but sounds like something you'd find interesting. The first half of his Ride the Tiger is an extended analysis of Nietzsche while the second half is "A Survival Manual for the Aristocrats of the Soul". An associate of his, Arturo Reghini, had some connections to the Abbey of Thelema, and Evola writes on Crowley in a couple of his books. Evola also had connections with Maria de Naglowska and with Gustav Meyrink, who himself seems to have had connections with a lot of the major figures in magick in the late 19th and early 20th century.
@katrice Thank you for your insights.
You're welcome
I hope you will at least glance at the Psychology of Egypt book proposal if you get a chance. It is online and can be found on Academia website
I'll look. I am quite familiar with the bicameral mind model.
Also, I am not that familiar with Julius Evola, thanks for turning me on to him.
The Introduction to Magic books and The Hermetic Tradition (which is based on the alchemical ideas of Giuliano Kremmerz) are my favorites of his. Revolt Against the Modern World is the core of his sociopolitical ideas. It's not to my liking but sounds like something you'd find interesting. The first half of his Ride the Tiger is an extended analysis of Nietzsche while the second half is "A Survival Manual for the Aristocrats of the Soul". An associate of his, Arturo Reghini, had some connections to the Abbey of Thelema, and Evola writes on Crowley in a couple of his books. Evola also had connections with Maria de Naglowska and with Gustav Meyrink, who himself seems to have had connections with a lot of the major figures in magick in the late 19th and early 20th century.
I thought you were probably already familiar with the bicameral brain theory. Also, you have whetted my appetite to learn more about the writing of Julius Evola, and the other people you mentioned in your post. Thank you!
Would you prefer your drug-taking to be boring everyday shit that everyone else does, including your granny, or a transgressive, underground thing that only you and other hipsters "in the know" do under cover of moonlight?
Duh- as a regular drug-user, who used to be a daily user of illicit drugs, until the laws (mostly) caught up with me, clearly the former beats the latter all hollow.
Unless one's drug-taking is a part of donning some sort of prescribed hipster uniform, i can't imagine why anyone would rather get drugs from criminals than pharmacists.
Ha, you didn't know the right pharmacists then, darling 😎 😜
By 'freedom of the individual' you mean the antiquated 18th or 19th century classic Liberal notion I presume? The term 'individual' needs to be redefined In the modern world some 'individuals' are actually as financially powerful or more powerful than as a small country
The classical liberal idea of the individual as rational actor, free/constrained agent, and the fundamental unit of social analysis, yes.
It's an abstract concept that doesn't have to incorporate anything more concrete (like how much money they have relative to anyone else).
darling
darling ?