JB: You are of course correct as to what you said; in the context of the full paragraph form which Los snipped the quote, it is indeed clear that you are not arguing for a "Thelema-Lite" where all the numerous references to killing, blood, and eyeball-pecking in AL (and in the liber we are discussing now) are hand-waved way as mere metaphors for overcoming inner spiritual deficiencies.
As so often happens with primates,  we are perhaps here being distracted by shiny objects (the "twinkles") and missing the "big picture" (the "nothingness"); AC sympathized: "But what Twinkles!" (New Comment to I:59)
I think JB may have been having another little joke in proposing a poll here?

I think it depends upon where the 'pinnacle' of Thelema is placed.

No, I wasn't arguing for "Thelema-Lite" here!

I was only half joking, in that I wasn't particularly expecting the suggestion to be taken up.  Still, it may not be a bad idea - who knows?  It might be interesting to see the lie of the land (although in view of the 44 turnout of the last one, I'll not be holding my breath regarding any conclusions.)

I'm not quite sure what you mean by pinnacle here.  Thelema, as the dynamic principle of interactivity between Nuit and Hadit, would be presumably "placed" and intimately connected with the inner core of the star and its motion through time-space.

N. Joy

Okay. If you want to place it there - do you think that type of interaction has anything at all to do with human intent, which is largely based in the Ruach (ie. Intellect)?

Without wishing to indulge in Twenty Questions, Az - “Largely”, as in seven-elevenths of the deal, hm?  I would have thought it would have to involve human intent by percolating “down” through from the Supernal realms into the Ruach and then all the way down to Malkuth (down, down all the way!)  Wouldn’t it?

N. Joy

Does this mean I should rush out to sell any gold that I bought 20 years ago at $395 per oz?  ???

My free advice (well worth the cost) was for the long haul. Of course, the prudent buyer will watch the ebb and flow, and attempt to buy at the lowest price. Others will attempt to buy low and sell high, thus making a quick profit - this is no different from the games played with pork bellys, barrels of oil, and other (paper [digital] stocks) commodities. It is legalized gambling and it probably will never be forbidden, because gov employees play that game and human nature (in general) is addicted to it just as surely as alcoholic beverages.

I agree with Michael, who agrees with Los on this point.  I am composing my list currently.

I suspect that there will be a little red light flashing somewhere in Cheltenham GCHQ about anytime now.

Or if not, there will be now that you have alerted them, Satan's!

N. Joy

Er, anyone remember when there was a topic to this thread?

As usual, you miss the point, which is that intent has nothing to do with the Supernals, and neither does Liber Oz.

"And in the word CHAOS let the Book be sealed; yea, let the Book be sealed." - Liber B

Lashtal: Is it actually possible to go off-topic here, given the rather expansive topic (Liber Oz)?
Shiva: At $395/oz, still looking even better than .22 ammo as an investment. I will not quote Keynes on what happens if the haul is long enough.
Others: If GCHQ/NSA spent their time reading lashtal.com instead of snooping, the world might be a much better place (or not, see Charles Stross' brilliant "Laundry" series (about a UK occult espionage agency) for why I might say this).

I have been meaning to read the Laundry series!  I've heard great things about it!  There is also a tabletop RPG based on that series coming out soon, if I'm not mistaken (it could already be out)!

Charlie Stross is to now what cyberpunk was to the 80s, at least; any lashtalian with some geek/tech background, or who has ever worked for any governmental agency, & who thinks equal doses of Len Deighton, Ian Fleming, HP Lovecraft, & PG Wodehouse (or perhaps Woody Allen) sound like fun, should check out the the "Laundry" series; very funny, very clever, has done his homework (perhaps literally at home,  as his Mrs. may be a tad bit wiccan).
He is also a very nice man who likes his pint at least as much as the next man.
As humanity may have "the right to recommend book series [in addition to writing] as [one may] will", i assume not OT but Oz?
Can any comment as to the influence not merely of the war (as our host mentioned), but of the release of the Judy Garland vehicle "The Wizard of Oz" (from the 1900 Baum novel) two years before AC issued the liber under discussion, on at least the title? Hard to imagine it was a coincidence AC picked this title just at this time?
Or would we all rather discuss killing,  rather than Judy Garland? The former is concededly much more butch, of of course.

Most likely a coincidence, in my opinion.

You were the one who mentioned intent.  I was saying Thelema was the dynamic activity bound up with the core of the star.  It can percolate outwards of course (or as I mentioned downwards through the seph), at which point it may line up with conscious intent (since they are not always the same thing, naturally.)  More interesting I thought was the discussion around how much each individual will may all each be a part of the “One True Will” and how much the individual will may be adaptable to circumstances, as for example when that will is apparently thwarted for whatever reason.

And “as usual”, I do not miss the point.

Why yes, we seem to have been discussing killing, filling & Judy G, and whilst not a not a fag hag or a “Dorothy” I seem to have checked her lyrics at least a couple of times recently (see “the Trolley Song” under Chris Johnson’s Noise) in addition to The Wizard of Oz itself (it’s a charming film, is it not - and I imagine well engrained in the collective subconscious of most ‘westerners’ alive on the planet.)  In the UK, don't forget only just recently at Margaret Thatcher’s funeral there was also the furore over whether to play “Ding Dong The Witch Is dead” (- “she’s gone where the goblins go, below, below, below”)

Didn’t A.C. see it at the cinema? I thought I saw a reference somewhere to him having seen the film at one point, or at least making reference to it, but I may be mistaken.  (- No old Odeon ticket stubs retained at the Warburg, perhaps?!)

Not in Kansas,
N. Joy

Look at it again.

You were very clearly the first one to mention intent, to which my point still stands - that intent has nothing to do with those higher spheres of which you pointed when I asked where you would place the 'pinnacle' of Thelema, ie. the farthest reach of applicable Thelema.

Sorry, but this is poetic nonsense. Where is the core? Have you seen it? Can you show it to me?

Even if I gave you the above "core" poetry, you are saying that the "core energy" does some little dance in which it may line up with conscious intent.

You have it backwards. In Thelema, if there is a "core", the conscious intent is suppose to align itself with that "core". This is the very definition of doing one's True Will.

And when this occurs, the union is a dissolution of division, meaning that intent does not exist there, as stated.

There is no such thing as an individual will. There is no such thing as a cosmic will either. Both concepts are bullshit, born out of the necessity of the cognitive mind to try and organize the exquisite chaos of nature, in order to function within it while maintaining the continuity of the sense of self.

There is no individual will. Thinking ourselves (as human individuals) apart from the whole is what created the neurosis in the first place. 

Yes, you do.

This is evidenced by the fact that any time you and I have a discussion, I have to explain things to you as though you were a little child. Maybe you should have played "20 questions" instead.

Oh, dear!  Rather than - what may or may not be your desire - my replying to each of your points in equal or greater detail in order to answer them properly (which, regarding the “Twenty Questions” aspect, have now multiplied from your original query to a further seven): since they may only be of marginal interest to everyone else reading the thread, I will refrain unless someone else “seconds” your particular request to a particular point.  Let me add further though that “any time you and I have a discussion”, in order to clarify your meaning I often have to ask you to (re)define your terms, put them in (a broader) context, or answer a specific question yourself (to which you may then enclose a lengthy quotation, video clip or something similar in lieu of your own words).  I will not bother to give chapter and verse, but I am sure you know very well, as others who are reading will do likewise, that the evidence is there aplenty.

And is there anything wrong, incidentally, with having to answer “as though to a little child”?  It marvellously concentrates the mind a-plenty, and don’t forget not everybody reading will have your learned knowledge or resources.  Luckily I am not the sort of Lashtalian to take umbrage at such an apparent condescending display of implied superiority on your part (and as I have previously remarked, your seeming to wish to then either illustrate your own greater, or your fellow poster’s lesser, learning), however (the tone of) your remark seems a little unnecessary and, well, time-wasting & wearisome for an intelligent male to indulge in in the circumstances, wouldn’t you think?

Somewhere over the rainbow,
N. Joy