Justice and injusti...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Justice and injustice in Thelema

31 Posts
7 Users
7 Likes
563 Views
David Dom Lemieux
(@david-dom-lemieux)
Member
Joined: 7 years ago
Posts: 3692
Topic starter  

Seeing as the next or 'incoming' Aeon involves the Aeon of Maat, Goddess of Justice and Truth I was wondering how we have come to define what justice and  injustice actually are.  The implications in (the nasty parts of )  Liber AL vel Legis appear to be at odds with modern society's definition. There is a direct reference to 'the just' in 2:15 For I am perfect, being Not; and my number is nine by the fools; but with the just I am eight ~ HADIT but Crowley's comments on the matter are no more than an exercise in numerology and gematria.

The defining moment for our civilization was Plato's re evaluation of Greek/Athenian (Athena Goddess of Justice?) values in his book Republic.  It features Socrates who presses various citizens ( GlauconPolemarchus, Cephalus, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus) to define justice and what the  prevailing principle of justice is or should be. Curiously not one of them say that it is the State's armed forces capturing wrongdoers and subsequently punishing them. He receives various answers as follows;

1) being an honest tradesman and paying one's dues, this is refuted by Socrates as a narrow view as he claims there is more to society than making money.

2) the prevailing Greek custom of what the Old Testament. has as  'an eye for an eye tooth for a tooth.'  This is refuted because it does not take into account how enemies may be won over. An analogy he uses is the taming of wild horses who may then be useful to us.  Besides, are our friends always going to be our friends? 

3) giving back what you borrowed, this is refuted as we wouldn't always do this e.g. giving a madman a weapon. 

The next two definitions are two sides of the same coin and this is where Crowley's idol, Nietzsche would have gnashed his teeth no doubt; 

4) Thrasymachus the Sophist thinks that Might is Justice; if you and your cohorts can get whatever you want with force then take it and if you're successful then this defines 'justice.'

5) the reverse of 4) i.e justice defined as  the many who have no chance of becoming tyrants so they force a 'social contract' to protect them from, well, the likes of Thrasymachus with his Homeric amoral values of courage, reputation and warfare. 

Socrates refutation of Thrasymachus's definition involves attempting to appeal to consequences of behaviour (like Christ I guess) i.e. not only may there always be someone badder and bigger than you but the turmoil may ensue rendering the city-state vulnerable to invaders re the disastrous https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peloponnesian_War&source=gmail&ust=1659269707886000&usg=AOvVaw1vxXyajYG_ACj_debQwwm e">Peloponnesian War - Wikipedia.     Socrates goes on to try to explain that thus far the definitions of 'justice' are merely external and therefore lacking.  This would've been completely alien concept to Thrasymachus, he states that a ruler of a state should be like a shepherd who views his sheep as meat to be exploited for his own gratification.   Socrates refutation (which makes Thrasymachus blush) is not only an appeal to some rationality for the needs of the common good but the idea that govern-ment is a task, a profession much like that any artisan has or e.g. a Dr.   A functional Dr exercises his power over a patient in order to heal and if he knows a dysfunctional Dr is about to unknowingly harm a patient, well, he stops him, therefore why would a ruler want to usurp power from a good king?  In other words Socrates is presenting the idea that justice is a soul-quality of  a superior 'just' person.  It is the introduction of a new age which dares to demean Homeric heroism.  

Glaucon is cynical, he thinks Socrates may be engaging in mere egotistical point scoring and he tells the story of Gyges, antiquity's version The Invisible Man i..e he is a shepherd who is given the magical power of invisibility and subsequently rapes and kills who he wants and also usurps political power.  Likewise, he argues that people refrain from this because they simply don't have that magical power.   Besides the Gods can be paid off by an unjust man', unjust men may thrive whilst unjust men can be wrongly punished/falsely accused of being unjust and how do we know if Socrates's version of a just man is faking it for political power and other gain?   In other words why be just for the sake of being just, what benefit does it have? We know that health benefits the body so what does Socratic justice do if devoid of external factors he asks?        

Socrates's ingenious refutation has tow factors, the first is analogous to the eyesight test.  Imagine some short sighted men are trying to read the smaller letters on the bottom line but they do know that it i exactly the same as one of the larger lettered sentences near the top.  That is, the benefits of any given qualities of justice can only be assessed via a mean average of many men not just one sole individual, i guess this is the principle of no man is an island and it is summed up as the city.  The characters are asked to describe an Arcadian community increasing in complexity with division of labour, trade and an eventual State.  This is where Socrates proposes the concept of govern-ment as a type of Doctoring, an overseer of the mean average of 'justice' which he now views as some sort of mass soul-virtue.  Yes the guardians of a city-state would have to be fierce warriors and yes, like dogs, they tend to bark and snarl at who they don't know and likewise a dog will be friendly to someone that they do know even if that person has not necessarily been kind to them.  Basically this 'philosophical dogs' is the argument for the rulers influenced by philosopher kings who are raised, not on Homeric values but on Socratic justice and virtue and the guardians are able to snarl at invaders but love their own city-state's institutions of justice, physical fitness, a softening of gung-ho harshness via the arts but they advocate anti-Homeric censorship.  Plato did not agree with mass education but instead he proposed a rigid class system which encouraged moderation and of finding one's purpose. The philosopher kings are to be trained in the concept of viewing this physical world as a shadow world of an aspatial, timeless realm of mathematical truth where the ultimate archetypes of everything reside (realm of forms).  There is therefore a form of justice which they are to aspire to.

 

So that was the apparently rational case for justice which we in the West have accepted in varying degrees throughout the centuries.  Does it conflict with Thelema / Liber AL vel Legis?

This topic was modified 2 weeks ago by David Dom Lemieux

https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline


Quote
gurugeorge
(@gurugeorge)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 602
 
Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

So that was the apparently rational case for justice which we in the West have accepted in varying degrees throughout the centuries. 

I don't think those Socratic dialogues have had much influence on the concept of justice we have in the West, that comes more from the natural law tradition in the practice of law.

The idea of natural law arose in the Roman legal system mainly, as a result of the sudden visibility to everyone of alternative legal system, as the two great empires, first the Greek and then the Roman, started encountering and incorporating different peoples with their various legal systems.  It was observed that there were some differences and some commonalities, the commonalities were then thought to be natural law.  The general commonality of natural law is "suum cuique" - to each his own, mainly in reference to redress wrt basic rights and property. 

Hence the idea of scales or balance. For example a thief introduces an imbalance that has to be rectified by putting an equal or equivalent "weight" on the other scale (return of the property, or some kind of restitution, redress or punishment).

Side note: The Socratic dialogues were more interesting to people on account of Socrates' method - drawing things out of people by questioning them.  That was at one time called "dialectic," until Hegel changed the meaning of the term.  However, we can't really be sure that that's what Socrates did, because all the dialogues are by Plato, who to be sure was also a very clever chap - so we may be seeing more Plato and less Socrates in the dialogues. It's difficult to say (Socrates does look a bit different from Plato's version in the comments made by other people who knew him, but none of it is decisive). In fact, the idea of drawing out of people what they already know by questioning them (as exemplifed by the slave boy example in the Meno) fits in very well with Plato's idea of knowledge as "recollection" of Forms.  (That then gets filtered down to rationalism vs. empiricism; today we might think of nature vs. nurture, or imperatives from evolutionary psychology vs. social construction.)


ReplyQuote
David Dom Lemieux
(@david-dom-lemieux)
Member
Joined: 7 years ago
Posts: 3692
Topic starter  
Posted by: @gurugeorge

I don't think those Socratic dialogues have had much influence on the concept of justice we have in the West, that comes more from the natural law tradition in the practice of law.

The idea of natural law arose in the Roman legal system mainly, as a result of the sudden visibility to everyone of alternative legal system,

The OP isn't about the origins of any legal system or about the mechanics of any legal system specifically,  as I said it's about a definition of justice.   We use the term 'justice system' which is sort of linked to morality.  Moral and political theory are concerned with a definition of what it is to be 'just' and that's what Plato addresses in The Republic.  The subject arises as they discuss death and the fear of Hades and contemplate the relevance of the 'injustices' they may have done to others in their past.  Socrates then asks for a definition of justice and via dialogue the discussion blooms into a wider political theory and how an ideal society should be governed justly and then mysticism comes into it so yeah, that does all involve justice systems/legal systems but only indirectly.

It's about a re evaluation. Wouldn't you say that Plato, (although not an abolitionist) by a) asking what a just society is and b) criticising the morality of the Gods in Homer and c) introducing an aspatial, timeless form of perfect ideal justice is trying to undermine the 'Master Morality' of the Sophists?  Is this not therefore paving the way for the development of conscience and formulating a solid distinction between Good and Evil? 

https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline


ReplyQuote
gurugeorge
(@gurugeorge)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 602
 
Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

The OP isn't about the origins of any legal system or about the mechanics of any legal system specifically,  as I said it's about a definition of justice.

The development of the concept of "justice" in the legal system, and the origins of it, should be of interest, should it not?  It is after all the profession that's ostensibly concerned with the thing, therefore the operative version of the idea (the version that affects peoples' lives), regardless of our personal takes. The idiosyncratic idea of justice that Plato (Socrates?) talks about isn't all that relevant (in the sense that the concept of knowledge as recollection on which it's based isn't relevant, or was only relevant a little bit to the later Rationalist school).

But I would say that you're right about Plato (and some others roundabout the same time) being the beginning of a change from older ways of thinking.  There's an interesting French thinker, Clément Rosset, whose Joyful Cruelty is a deep read that develops Nietzsche's thinking in this area - particularly re. how the level of abstraction philosophers like Plato introduced was a fig leaf for the existential-level cruelty of the world.  (Obviously "cruelty" in this context is a stand-in for a larger concept, perhaps more like "terrifying indifference" - but if Rosset read that he'd say that's me doing an example of what he criticizes 🙂 )  The idea would be that the older ways of thinking faced that existential cruelty square-on, whereas we're living in an age influenced by philosophy where it's masked, and that masking is indeed philosophy's speciality. 

And that could be seen not as the end of master morality as such, but a softening-up, a first step on that road.

Re. the topic itself, Maat and all that, the obvious thing would be that this Aeon is rather unbalanced (Force, Fire) and the Aeon of Maat would represent a rebalancing of forces of some kind.


ReplyQuote
hadgigegenraum
(@hadgigegenraum)
Member
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 555
 

@david-dom-lemieux 

Good questions

yes Socrates was put on trail for "corrupting" the youth by the powers that be who did not want people thinking in a manner that might hurt the status quo.

Here is some extract of the subject in a larger context from this...with extract from the Republic...

https://archive.schillerinstitute.com/fid_91-96/921_footsteps_soc_plato.html

...........

"All the dialogues of Plato are a demonstration of the method with which idea-concepts are formed. At its core is the principle of hypothesis. Knowledge is not a collection of facts and predicates, it is not opinion and enumeration of definitions, but it is solving a problem, by starting out with a challenge to the assumptions and axioms which underlie our own judgments. The key is to demonstrate how man thinks, and the method by which he learns how to think. In one of his most famous dialogues, The Republic, Socrates, Glaucon, Polemarchus, Thrasymachus, and Cephalus are discussing the question, “What is just?”

Thrasymachus, one of the Athenian long-haired machos, wants to give a quick explanation:

say that just is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger. Well, why don’t you praise me?

First I must learn what you mean. You say the just is the advantage of the stronger. What do you mean by that, Thrasymachus? Surely you don’t assert such a thing as this: If Polydamas, the pancratist, is stronger than we are, and beef is advantageous for his body, then this food is also just and advantageous for we who are weaker than he is?

You are disgusting, Socrates. You twist the argument in such a way that you can do the most harm. Don’t you know, Socrates, that some cities are ruled tyrannically, some democratically, and some aristocratically. And isn’t in each city the ruling group the master? And each ruling group sets down laws for its own advantage: A democracy sets down democratic laws; a tyranny, tyrannical laws; and the others do the same. And they declare that what they have set down—their own advantage—is just for the ruled, and if a man departs from it, they punish him as a law-breaker and a doer of unjust deeds.So let us find out whether what you said is true. While I too agree that the just is something of advantage, you add to it and assert that it is the advantage of the stronger, and I don’t know whether it is so. Now tell me: Don’t you say, though, that it is just also to obey the rulers?

I do.

Are the rulers in their several cities infallible, or are they such as to make mistakes too?

By all means.

They certainly are such as to make mistakes too.When they put their hands to setting down laws, do they set some down correctly and some incorrectly?

I suppose so.

Is that law correct which sets down what is advantageous for themselves, and that one incorrect which sets down what is disadvantageous? Or how do you mean it?As you say.But whatever the rulers set down must be obeyed and carried out by those who are ruled, and this is just?

Of course.

Then according to your argument, it is just, to not only what is advantageous for the stronger, but also the opposite, what is disadvantageous.

Thrasymachus is furious.

Socrates says:

Now tell me, what do you mean by a ruler? Is a doctor, in the narrow sense, a money-maker, or one who cares for the sick?One who cares for the sick.And someone who rules over sailors? Is he not called a pilot because of sailing? And is there any advantage for each of these arts other than to be as perfect as possible? Then is it not the case that the doctor, insofar as he is a doctor, considers or commands not the doctor’s advantage, but that of the sick man?Certainly.Then also the pilot and ruler will consider or command the benefit not of the pilot, but of the man who is a sailor and is ruled. Therefore, Thrasymachus, there is not ever anyone who holds any position of rule, insofar as he is ruler, who considers or commands his own advantage, rather than that of those who are ruled, and of which he himself is the craftsman. And this is the advantage that he looks for, what is fitting for those who are ruled; and everything he says and does is to this end.

Thrasymachus does not know what to say. Socrates has demonstrated that the Hobbesian opinion that a state is ruled by egotistic interest, is wrong. If one looks for the true meaning of “ruler”, it is the art of ruling for the commonweal; and that is therefore the only criterion for justice, which sets the tone for the entire investigation Socrates is conducting. Socrates continues:

The good are not willing to rule for the sake of money and honor, but for the benefit of the others in the strictest sense. And nobody voluntarily wants to rule unless necessity dictates this responsibility to him.

Now Glaucon speaks up and says:

Let me tell you what the general opinion says about justice and injustice. They say that doing injustice is naturally good, and suffering injustice is bad. Justice historically was made possible on the basis of social convention. It is a mean between what is best—doing injustice without being caught and paying a penalty—and what is worst—suffering injustice without being able to avenge oneself. Let’s be clear: if people could, they would all like to be unjust. They all would like to go hog wild, commit adultery, corruption, stealing. That is the reality of today.

Socrates, already earlier in his discussion with Thrasymachus, had indicated that the ruler must necessarily follow what is best for the others, and not act for egotistical purposes. He now develops pedagogically the model of a republic, trying to show that in a just state there must necessarily be a reciprocal relationship between the individual citizen, between his soul, and the state. The true nature of the state must correspond to the true nature of the individual, Socrates says.

So then, he continues, let us ask ourselves, what is the human soul? It has, as an old story tells, three levels of consciousness. On the lowest level, the bronze level—man is nothing but a prisoner of his own infantile emotions and sense perceptions. (This level was best illustrated by Dante’s Commedia, in the Inferno in which he puts such people.)

But a man who sees himself as an actor upon the stage, reflecting on his state of mind, begins to act based on simple self-consciousness. He reflects upon his own emotions, which is a fundamental precondition for whoever wishes to engage in creative work. This leads to the second level of thinking, the silver souls, who are nonetheless still caught up in deductive thinking. All their assumptions and postulates are bound to one fixed set of premises, as Thrasymachus has shown.

Challenging this fixed set of beliefs, unhinges these Kantians and Aristotelians. For them there is no change, no process of thought; there is only enumeration of pre-existing thoughts. Their irrational emotions are chained, as if in a prison where they rant and rave.

On a third level of thinking—the level of reason—to which the metaphor of golden soul is attached, man makes his own thinking process the object of self-conscious thought. He makes the object of his thought, the process by which, through the course of history, a series of scientific hypotheses were successively generated, leading to true scientific discoveries. He thereby grasps the causal principle which underlies all hypothesis—the Idea of the Good and the One. A just soul, as Socrates demonstrates, looks for a harmony between reason, emotions, and his will, his virtue. In such a soul, reason should be the ruler.

Plato comes to a fundamental point in his dialogue. Socrates says:

Accordingly, we can assert that in a state presided over by reason, the concern is not for particular interests, but the well-being of each and every individual, to provide the best for the common good.

Now if that is so, who should be the ruler that embodies the idea of justice? Unless the philosophers rule as kings, or those now called kings and chiefs genuinely and adequately philosophize, and political power and philosophy coincide in the same place, the cities will have no rest from their ills, nor do I think that for mankind the regime we have now described in speech will ever come forth from nature and see the light of the sun.

::::::::::::::

Anyways compassion is the vice of kings

and 

the law for the most good

Do what thou wilt!


ReplyQuote
David Dom Lemieux
(@david-dom-lemieux)
Member
Joined: 7 years ago
Posts: 3692
Topic starter  
Posted by: @hadgigegenraum

@david-dom-lemieux 

Good questions

Thanks you simply reiterated everything I said in the OP for some reason.  What about Justice and Thelema?  Is Thelema all about Might is Right?  If not, why not? 

 

Posted by: @gurugeorge

 existential-level cruelty of the world.  (Obviously "cruelty" in this context is a stand-in for a larger concept, perhaps more like "terrifying indifference"

What is that?

Posted by: @gurugeorge

Re. the topic itself, Maat and all that, the obvious thing would be that this Aeon is rather unbalanced (Force, Fire) and the Aeon of Maat would represent a rebalancing of forces of some kind.

Yes, you mean a Socratic-Platonic-Christ like balancing of the more Dionysian and Might is Right elements of the Aeon and Liber AL Vel Legis?  

https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 19 years ago
Posts: 2145
 
Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

Is Thelema all about Might is Right? 

Is there anything in Thelema (let's rephrase that to Libel L) which could give anyone this impression?


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 7108
 
Posted by: @the_real_simon_iff

Is there anything in Thelema (let's rephrase that to Libel L) which could give anyone this impression?

Wisdom says Be Strong.

This is the Law of the Strong.

I could pull up AL and search for more, but two brief references might give some someones the impression that Thelema is playing hard-ball. Although "strong" could be debated as inner qualities, or other such things that are non-violent, Ch 3 offer no restraint when it comes to "might."

Ch 2 has its moments in hard-ball, but Ch 3 beats Ch 2 if one is a frequent patron of The Colosseum.

Ch 1 has none of this rough stuff.

So, Thelema is not all about the correctness of battlefield ethics.

 


ReplyQuote
hadgigegenraum
(@hadgigegenraum)
Member
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 555
 

@david-dom-lemieux 

Well i answered your question

 


ReplyQuote
gurugeorge
(@gurugeorge)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 602
 
Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

What is that?

Eh? What is what?  The terrifying indifference of the world is the terrifying indifference of the world 🙂

Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

Yes, you mean a Socratic-Platonic-Christ like balancing of the more Dionysian and Might is Right elements of the Aeon and Liber AL Vel Legis?  

If you mean a balancing or blend of Socratic-Platonic-Christ with Dionysian Might maketh Right, yes I should think it's something like that.  Seems impossible now (they seem at such loggerheads conceptually), but that would be why it's something in the future that we can't understand yet.

(Well, I think it's something we can understand in an individual sense, as it would be just a phase of initiation, like Tiphereth as the balance of Geburah and Gedulah, but what I mean is it's hard to see how that would manifest on a mass scale, as a common idea, common currency.)


ReplyQuote
hadgigegenraum
(@hadgigegenraum)
Member
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 555
 

@gurugeorge 

Norman O. Brown, and relevant to my post above, would demonstrate the Dionysian Christ in his book Love's Body which was his aphoristic (in the tradition of Nietzsche, though with footnotes attributions to wat might be termed a work of 'cut up' genius art) follow up to Life Against Death...

Both Socrates and Jesus, accept death, are ripe, and in the process demonstrate projected power of the so the fondi, the families, the oligarchy, and its hereditary power entrapments, entrapping their children into the karma of their inability to actual die, to have lived a full life.

Socrates and Jesus had the chance to escape, but chose not to, as the understanding found in the Trail of Socrates and the Gospels so based upon the same truth, demonstrates to the people, the chorus, all of us witnessing the horror condemning the innocent to death...a man who asked questions threatening the oligarchy and its indoctrination of its own youth (who like Buddha might go astray) and another who was a healer who upset the lawyers, the bankers and priests classes and all of their herediments (see post above 04/08/2022 1:08 am that reference Brown's Life Against Death and the person not afraid to die)...

These Tragedies, Passion plays, ever relevant theater, contain a means of the audience, whose conscience  is the chorus, that such conscience, "compassion is the vice of kings" as every individual is sovereign as "we the people" are the sovereign acknowledged in American case law: 

"...at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects...with none to govern but themselves....". CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @DALL (1793) pp471-472.

But of course Ben Franklin said "Its a Republic if you can keep it" and thus people give up their sovereignty, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law" in various ways.

The strike hard and low of both Socrates and the Gospels could be considered relative to the identification of fear of death as fear of life is the setting up of immortality projects, religion and hereditary control of land, corporations, etc, and that thus these political/religious stories serve to pollute the immortality projects, the fear of death of those who have the moola to erect tomb, stele, etc. and with notions of some justice....and showing the might makes right crowd, who love war but won't fight themselves, the cowards who thus murder Socrates and "Jesus", because they can, finds that a king is not afraid of death of uttering asjddijwermaddknv2309asddkl,(cynocephalus at the keyboard)  or by example II. 76..the fruits of the absolving... ripe...and rotting words and numbers... to the glad word!

So the theater of such perennial stories, true or not in the historical sense, speaks to the capabilities beyond the dogs of reason, mere Aristotelean/Kantian logic and categorical imperatives, to the capability to hypothesize, the law is for all, which is precisely why Socrates was attacked for, and why fact checking is run by the fondi, the families, the mafias...convincing that you are not sovereign, is exactly the fear of life which is fear of death

And my thesis thus is that, in this glimpse, that indeed Liber Legis does demonstrate a deep digestion of Nietzsche that would come face to face with a herediment of past life seeking death...

Of course the Jesus Ressurecction story, is the horror hope that Ra Hoor khuit freaks out about, eating eyeballs and the like, with merit, for the curse of immortality being that the God did not get really live as they could not die, and thus jealous of those who could die, and without regrets in the face of injustice by those classes set up to perpetuate certain undying lies....

As @Shiva has pointed out, the initiatory dramas as with oaths relayed from his experience with the Solar Lodge of the OTO ( i forgot the recent thread) speaks to all sorts of karmic challenges to aspirants, which thus might demonstrate a certain hard and low reflex at work, but it is safe to say that allegations of various secret societies, create these dramatic reenactments, which are not the real thing, but serve to bind those who take part and witness, to what is a form of collective trauma, channelled into abeyance the particular cult, thus creating the serving slave class....but to which @Shiva demonstrates, without teaching, that A.'.A.'. methodology provides a means of (by my understanding of what he is saying) of becoming progressively ripe and thus ready to die, without seeking to push the process along by veiling vices in virtuous words...

Well enough words here!

93  93/93

HG

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 7108
 
Posted by: @hadgigegenraum

Socrates and Jesus had the chance to escape, but chose not to ... [demonstrates] ... the horror condemning the innocent to death.

This is a recurring archetypal pattern. It "recurs" over and over, at certain way-points upon The Path of Initiation. Its first (earliest) appearance to a (any) candidate is found in The Judgement Hall of Osiris, Maat presiding, Thoth recording, as the (every) aspirant passes through his or her version of The Tuat.

In such a case, it is necessary (required) that the aspirant set aside all hopes and fears, literally (in his/her mind) placing themselves "at the mercy of the court."

No kidding. One is aware that they are facing a balancing point, and become willing to accept whatever comes. Generally, they are not innocent, because they have willingly taken upon themselves the collective karma of their culture, or race, or system - but that's usually up higher, beyond the Tuat.

Regarfdless of the level, if the prosecution has the "fix" in, then yes, the innocent get nailed (to the cross or the bad press on the bulletin board.

Is any of this fair? Of course not, but everything comes out in the final rinse and dry cycle. We try not to suffer along the way - this is where Buddhism comes in.

Posted by: @hadgigegenraum

a man who asked questions threatening the oligarchy

Oh, this one is different. The aspirant picked a fight with The Establishment. This comes under the specific sub-clause of universal principles titled, You can't fight city hall.

 


ReplyQuote
David Dom Lemieux
(@david-dom-lemieux)
Member
Joined: 7 years ago
Posts: 3692
Topic starter  
Posted by: @gurugeorge
Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

What is that?

Eh? What is what?  The terrifying indifference of the world is the terrifying indifference of the world 🙂

By world you mean Nature, the cosmos?

"Ah yes the cosmos , I study it regularly" ~ Richard Pryor. 

https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline


ReplyQuote
katrice
(@katrice)
Black Soror, Selfie-stick poseur
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 785
 

The Adjustment Thoth Tarot Card Meanings - Aleister Crowley | TarotX

 

😉


ReplyQuote
David Dom Lemieux
(@david-dom-lemieux)
Member
Joined: 7 years ago
Posts: 3692
Topic starter  
Posted by: @the_real_simon_iff
Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

Is Thelema all about Might is Right? 

Is there anything in Thelema (let's rephrase that to Libel L) which could give anyone this impression?

Might is right as in the stance/worldview of Thrasymachus in Plato's The Republic?  Just a few maybe, see what you think;

 

II.18.

These are dead, these fellows; they feel not. We are not for the poor and sad: the lords of the earth are our kinsfolk.

 

II.21

We have nothing with the outcast and the unfit: let them die in their misery. For they feel not. Compassion is the vice of kings: stamp down the wretched & the weak: this is the law of the strong: this is our law and the joy of the world.

II.24

Beware lest any force another, King against King! Love one another with burning hearts; on the low men trample in the fierce lust of your pride, in the day of your wrath.

II.31. 

If Power asks why, then is Power weakness.

II.48

Pity not the fallen! I never knew them. I am not for them. I console not: I hate the consoled & the consoler
 
II.52
There is a veil: that veil is black. It is the veil of the modest woman; it is the veil of sorrow, & the pall of death: this is none of me. Tear down that lying spectre of the centuries: veil not your vices in virtuous words: these vices are my service; ye do well, & I will reward you here and hereafter.
 

II.60

Therefore strike hard & low, and to hell with them, master!

 III. 11

. Trample down the Heathen; be upon them, o warrior, I will give you of their flesh to eat!”

 III,18:

“Mercy let be off: damn them who pity! Kill and torture; spare not; be upon them!”

 

III,42:

The ordeals thou shalt oversee thyself, save only the blind ones. Refuse none, but thou shalt know & destroy the traitors. I am Ra-Hoor-Khuit; and I am powerful to protect my servant. Success is thy proof: argue not; convert not; talk not overmuch! Them that seek to entrap thee, to overthrow thee, them attack without pity or quarter; & destroy them utterly. Swift as a trodden serpent turn and strike! Be thou yet deadlier than he! Drag down their souls to awful torment: laugh at their fear: spit upon them!”

III,43:

Let the Scarlet Woman beware! If pity and compassion and tenderness visit her heart; if she leave my work to toy with old sweetnesses; then shall my vengeance be known. I will slay me her child: I will alienate her heart: I will cast her out from men: as a shrinking and despised harlot shall she crawl through dusk wet streets, and die cold and an-hungered.”

 

III,55
Let Mary inviolate be torn upon wheels: for her sake let all chaste women be utterly despised among you!

https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline


ReplyQuote
gurugeorge
(@gurugeorge)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 602
 
Posted by: @hadgigegenraum

Norman O. Brown, and relevant to my post above, would demonstrate the Dionysian Christ in his book Love's Body which was his aphoristic (in the tradition of Nietzsche, though with footnotes attributions to wat might be termed a work of 'cut up' genius art) follow up to Life Against Death...

Yeah I was a big fan of him back in my hippy days - not so much now 🙂

Re. the tombs and monuments, I don't think it's fear of death.  Obviously not, since most of those people were warriors.  I think it's more that these traditionalist societies honoured people who were willing to fight and die for them by promising to keep their memory alive.  In some cases that gets distorted into some kind of mummery, without real understanding on either side, but for the most part that was the idea.

If you think about it, there's not much that you can offer to someone's self-interest, if you're asking them to potentially sacrifice their life to defend you, other than, "Your name will be remembered."  It's quite a big ask.  But promising to remember them might be an inducement to someone who loves fighting, to fight for you instead of that other bunch over the hill.  And that would have some backing if there were other monuments and tombs around, to other heroes.

(I don't really understand the rest of your post, sorry 🙁 )

Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

By world you mean Nature, the cosmos?

The universe (as we experience it anyway).  


katrice reacted
ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 19 years ago
Posts: 2145
 
Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

Famous Liber L quotes...

Ah, those. Yes. But since I think that Liber L is everything else but a manual for the masses/politics/society/etc., I don't think it is about Might is Right - it is also not that Thelemites have gained any Might over the last 120 years. I think these are all symbolic personal tasks to gain power over yourself and your life. And yes, I don't care what Crowley wrote in any Comment.


katrice reacted
ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 7108
 
Posted by: @the_real_simon_iff

these are all symbolic personal tasks to gain power over yourself and your life.

It's much easier this way. Any applying outward leads to trouble. You shall have danger and trouble.

 


ReplyQuote
David Dom Lemieux
(@david-dom-lemieux)
Member
Joined: 7 years ago
Posts: 3692
Topic starter  
Posted by: @the_real_simon_iff
Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

Famous Liber L quotes...

Ah, those. Yes. But since I think that Liber L is everything else but a manual for the masses/politics/society/etc., I don't think it is about Might is Right - it is also not that Thelemites have gained any Might over the last 120 years. I think these are all symbolic personal tasks to gain power over yourself and your life. And yes, I don't care what Crowley wrote in any Comment.

So it's all symbolic?  What then is your inner 'modest woman'?

https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline


ReplyQuote
katrice
(@katrice)
Black Soror, Selfie-stick poseur
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 785
 
Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

So it's all symbolic?  What then is your inner 'modest woman'?

 

The inhibited, limited, aspects of yourself that the veil is a defense mechanism for?

 

 


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 19 years ago
Posts: 2145
 
Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

What then is your inner 'modest woman'?

I shall show you once invited on your chosen island that you have dung about with enginery of war and show me the war-engine you were given.


ReplyQuote
David Dom Lemieux
(@david-dom-lemieux)
Member
Joined: 7 years ago
Posts: 3692
Topic starter  
Posted by: @katrice
Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

So it's all symbolic?  What then is your inner 'modest woman'?

 

The inhibited, limited, aspects of yourself that the veil is a defense mechanism for?

 

 

Refuse not 'your wife if she will'?  Wife?

https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline


ReplyQuote
katrice
(@katrice)
Black Soror, Selfie-stick poseur
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 785
 
Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

Refuse not 'your wife if she will'?  Wife?

Could you please clarify the question?


ReplyQuote
David Dom Lemieux
(@david-dom-lemieux)
Member
Joined: 7 years ago
Posts: 3692
Topic starter  
Posted by: @katrice
Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

Refuse not 'your wife if she will'?  Wife?

Could you please clarify the question?

 

Well continuing with the symbolic analysis .......what does 'wife' represent in that line...you know the line from.Liber Vel Legis? 

https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 19 years ago
Posts: 2145
 
Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

Well continuing with the symbolic analysis .......what does 'wife' represent in that line...you know the line from.Liber Vel Legis? 

You don't need to read everything symbolically. In this case, Liber L gives feasible examples for "The word of Sin is Restriction." It addresses a man (who has this "wife"), and than a lover. Quite simple actually.

 


katrice reacted
ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 7108
 
Posted by: @the_real_simon_iff

Quite simple actually.

Simplifying the Mysteries will get you into trouble. Please report to your local Tong house and apply for additional Oaths of Secrecy. No more swine-pearling under penalty of =, you know, daggers and ropes, and wells.


katrice reacted
ReplyQuote
katrice
(@katrice)
Black Soror, Selfie-stick poseur
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 785
 
Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

 

Well continuing with the symbolic analysis .......what does 'wife' represent in that line...you know the line from.Liber Vel Legis? 

 

Simon fielded this one pretty well.  "The word of Sin is Restriction.".  I'd add "Indulgence instead of (Osirian) abstinence".  Thelema characterized by, shall we say "Dionysian"? ecstasy.  

 

If you wanted to take it to a deeper level, I suppose you could make an argument for this also linking with the idea of the Chymical Wedding and union with the Daimon, and from there a broader mystical union in the yogic sense, both of which lead us back to ecstasy, but I think this one is just what it says on the surface. 

 

On that note, Happy Feast for the First Night of the Prophet and His Bride everyone! 

 


ReplyQuote
hadgigegenraum
(@hadgigegenraum)
Member
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 555
 

@katrice 

Thanks for the August 12 Feast Day send off!

While certainly Liber L  aka CCXX is filled with "Dionysian" rapture it must be noted that words of wisdom of what might be a more "Apollonian" kind serves to bring some balance to hand for:

II. 70  "There is help & hope in other spells. Wisdom says: be strong! Then canst thou bear more joy. Be not animal; refine thy rapture! If thou drink, drink by the eight and ninety rules of art: if thou love, exceed by delicacy; and if thou do aught joyous, let there be subtlety therein!"

And all ye goats note the number of the verse!

(i.e.) ....Drunk slobs tend to love like animals, without delicacy and with no subtlety...

 


ReplyQuote
katrice
(@katrice)
Black Soror, Selfie-stick poseur
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 785
 
Posted by: @hadgigegenraum

@katrice 

Thanks for the August 12 Feast Day send off!

 

😀

While certainly Liber L  aka CCXX is filled with "Dionysian" rapture it must be noted that words of wisdom of what might be a more "Apollonian" kind serves to bring some balance to hand for:

Indeed so, showing a balance between the two,which I feel is an ideal approach.  Indulgence can be a source of power, but it has its risks, and I think too many people just find excuses for hedonism without bothering to make use of their rapture. Not that having fun for its own sake is bad, but some self-awareness and self-honesty is necessary.    

 


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 7108
 
Posted by: @hadgigegenraum

CCXX is filled with "Dionysian" rapture

I might be remembered that AC, when rolling out the names of the Magi, again, referred to what we know as The Christian Dispensation (Dispensary?), as a Dionysus Magus, saying that this archetype was dispensed through several dispensaries. Think of it as International Big Pharma, but in cultural belief terms.

He cited Osiris, Dionysus, and four others, but left out Jesus of Nazareth, probably on purpose. The point is, AC equated Dionysus with a bunch of sixth-ray ("abstract ecstatic idealism") prophets that all employed concepts of the Aeon of Osiris.

 


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Elderly American druggie
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4151
 

And were all dying and reborn gods, and often associated with wine.

So, speaking of dispensaries, there is perhaps some sort of cultural/pharmacological progression inferable here:

[the sacrament of the "Aeon of Isis": beer?] -> wine -> LSD/psilocybin/mescaline [the "war engine" of Ch.III]


ReplyQuote
Share: