"Moral Nihilism" would seem to imply "Amorality.
Thank you for answering my immoertal rhetorical question. Yes. I already threw in that word, a post or two, or a page or two, up above. Holy Cow! This elevator is going down.
Amoral. A- as a prefix before a root indicates "no, not" (neti-neti).
"NO Morals"
Yes, I suppose it is true. Morals are part of the Netzachian culture factory, and (ultimately) the vehicle must be CLEAR (Transparent, not Scoence-tologied) - so that the Will may flow through, unimpeded by preferences, strange beliefs, and morals.
Modern Conservative think-tanks usually cite Burke and the "little platoons" concept but they are distorting the original concept or context. The context he (Burke) used it in was in his critique of the dreaded French Revolution (Reflections on the Revolution in France) or , more to the point ,his condemnation of members of the French nobility who got altruistic and rolled with the Republican fervour for rights of vulgarian man (liberty, equality, fraternity). In short these aristocrats abandoned their ‘little platoons’.
The term is used quite generally:-
To be attached to the subdivision, to love the little platoon we belong to in society, is the first principle (the germ as it were) of public affections. It is the first link in the series by which we proceed towards a love to our country, and to mankind.
And Burke's point was that the bad nobility guys he was talking about weren't interested in noble causes, rather they were pursuing their personal advantage by allying with the agitators; and the irony was that it was their own profligate shenanigans that had been part of the reason for the agitation (IOW if they'd stuck to the principle of their class, noblesse oblige, i.e. if they'd acted nobly, as we say, there wouldn't have been a revolution in the first place).
the bad nobility guys he was talking about weren't interested in noble causes, rather they were pursuing their personal advantage
The Black Lodge
if they'd stuck to the principle of their class, noblesse oblige, there wouldn't have been a revolution
Members of The Black Lodge are not"noble" or any similar word used to describe their motivational qualities.Regardless of which banking or building family they were born into, they are humanoids and subject to separated self gratification. Since they are wealthy, they can buy get away with it
.
And Burke's point was that the bad nobility guys he was talking about weren't interested in noble causes, rather they were pursuing their personal advantage by allying with the agitators; and the irony was that it was their own profligate shenanigans that had been part of the reason for the agitation (IOW if they'd stuck to the principle of their class, noblesse oblige, i.e. if they'd acted nobly, as we say, there wouldn't have been a revolution in the first place).
This 'bad nobility' should have clung to the Autocracy and dug their heels in against the bourgeoise demand for democracy, a democratic ideal as inspired by the 1776 example?
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
No, his point is that they should have been (theoretical) "good nobles", not those "bad nobles" history is so full of. The solution to popular discontent with aristocracy is better, more aristocratic, aristocrats, according to this claim.
These "just-so stories" a certain poster has been telling us about politics/history/anthropology/sociology/psychology/human beings are utterly ahistorical, and ultimately just right-wing fairy-tales.
No, his point is that they should have been (theoretical) "good nobles", not those "bad nobles" history is so full of. The solution to popular discontent with aristocracy is better, more aristocratic, aristocrats, according to this claim.
These "just-so stories" a certain poster has been telling us about politics/history/anthropology/sociology/psychology/human beings are utterly ahistorical, and ultimately just right-wing fairy-tales.
Amoral nobles, right? Crowley had something to say about such things and in keeping things OT and Crowley-related I'll provide a quote which also looks pretty 'right wing' i.e. it's an example of Crowley's Social Darwinism wouldn't you say? Maybe it's beyond 'wings', as follows;
II.21 AL
The New Comment
There is a good deal of the Nietzschean standpoint in this verse. It is the evolutionary and natural view. Of what use is it to perpetuate the misery of Tuberculosis, and such diseases, as we now do? Nature's way is to weed out the weak. This is the most merciful way, too. At present all the strong are being damaged, and their progress hindered by the dead weight of the weak limbs and the missing limbs, the diseased limbs and the atrophied limbs. The Christians to the Lions!
Our humanitarianism, which is the syphilis of the mind, acts on the basis of the lie that the King must die. The King is beyond death; it is merely a pool where he dips for refreshment. We must therefore go back to Spartan ideas of education; and the worst enemies of humanity are those who wish, under the pretext of compassion, to continue its ills through the generations. The Christians to the Lions!
Let weak and wry productions go back into the melting-pot, as is done with flawed steel castings.Death will purge, reincarnation make whole, these errors and abortions.Nature herself may be trusted to do this, if only we will leave her alone. But what of those who, physically fitted to live, are tainted with rottenness of soul, cancerous with the sin-complex? For the third time I answer: The Christians to the Lions!
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
Yes.
One of the several AL passages where AC's sexual fantasies, inchoate political/social ideas, etc, are, interestingly, catered to by "Aiwass".
And i will give a point or two to the advocacy above of the Freudian idea of repression as breeding reaction: AC was born in 1875, and created Thelema, and a huge body of valuable work (and much crap), rooted in sexual repression, and consequent profound shame, at his desire to get fucked in the ass, and eat cum out of his wife's vagina.
Nowadays, he would most likely be one of the many producers of bisexual cuckold porn with PornTube channels.
II.21 AL
We have nothing with the outcast and the unfit ... etc w/ violence.
Yeah. That's about the most rightest-flapper statement in the entire Liber-ary. There may be others along this line. I see violence, caste, might is right, the strong diminishes the weak, and the protagonist does not die.
This is probably one of those lines, most likely found in Chs 2 & 3, that AC found "repugnant to my sensibilities as a Buddhist" [did I get that right?].
Maybe the outcasts and the unfitted are aliens? Cyborgs, robots, computer viruses, people on wefare, handicapped, disabled, crippled, women with PMS? Where do we draw the line? Do we kill everything that is not an armored sword-bearing King or a woman with a red "S" on her chest?
Of course, the real meaning is found in The Dominus of the Rings, where hordes of orcs are attacking. Yeah, that would be time for Ch 3. I recommend a long handled, double-edge ax.
The Christians to the Lions!
Here we see the psychological Alick, stirring up the masses to to commit his childhood fantasy.
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.
Crowley can be caught numerous times ignoring plain statements made in verses of Liber Legis that actually contradict his conclusions about a verse. In the case of the above, For they feel not quite obviously defines the outcast and unfit as those that feel not, or have no compassion, hence the statement that compassion is a vice of of kings, meaning kings are overly-compassionate and err on its side. The world saw no joy in the persecution of Jewish culture by the Nazis, but rejoiced in the defeat of the latter, just to provide one example. In the end, human beings only have one another, any other treatment of humans by humans is indeed wretched & weak. No strength or will is required to turn a blind eye to the suffering of a fellow human being, only a lack of compassion, which is truly a weakness.
Crowley can be caught numerous times ignoring plain statements made in verses of Liber Legis that actually contradict his conclusions about a verse. In the case of the above, For they feel not quite obviously defines the outcast and unfit as those that feel not, or have no compassion, hence the statement that compassion is a vice of of kings, meaning kings are overly-compassionate and err on its side.
If you read Crowley’s comment it's premise is acceptance of the metaphysical i.e. it is akin to the medieval Papal "kill them all and let God sort them out" or to the lunatic terrorist who triggers a bomb and shouts that 40 virgins await him in Heaven, no doubt they'll relieve his deep seated suicidal depression issues when he gets there. Anyway that's what Crowley’s 'Christians to the Lions' means.
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
Crowley can be caught numerous times ignoring plain statements ... a lack of compassion, which is truly a weakness.
A fine statement and analysis.
40 virgins
70. You don't get to keep 30 for yourself and your friends.
Anyway that's what Crowley’s 'Christians to the Lions' means.
Fine. And while God is sorting them out, I still maintain that we are witnessing child Edward Alexander lashing out with prejudicial antagonism, conscious and unconscious, against the Sheep of Jesus.
"Moral Nihilism" would seem to imply "Amorality.
As you cited, Amorality does not necessarily imply IMmorality.
Attaining Functional Conscience,of one's own, which I mentioned earlier, separate from external influences, cultural, genetic,and otherwise, is part of the Work, on the way of transcending "good" and "evil", "heaven" and "hell".
In my opinion.
CLEAR (Transparent, not Scoence-tologied) -
Theoretically they're the same thing, in practice, at least how the Church of Scientology does it, not really. Some of the Free Zone people seem to have figured it out though.
One of the several AL passages where AC's sexual fantasies, inchoate political/social ideas, etc, are, interestingly, catered to by "Aiwass".
"Clear channels" seem pretty rare, if they exist, most received texts tend to still get filtered through the recipient.
For they feel not quite obviously defines the outcast and unfit as those that feel not, or have no compassion,
and possibly no passion as well. Those whose lack leads them to bring others down.
hence the statement that compassion is a vice of of kings, meaning kings are overly-compassionate and err on its side.
Ideally, a balance is struck between Mercy and Severity, as each have their place. Err too far towards the former, and risk being parasitized, err too much towards the latter, descend in to needless cruelty.
If you read Crowley’s comment it's premise is acceptance of the metaphysical i.e. it is akin to the medieval Papal "kill them all and let God sort them out" or to the lunatic terrorist who triggers a bomb and shouts that 40 virgins await him in Heaven, no doubt they'll relieve his deep seated suicidal depression issues when he gets there
The Pharaoh, "King", was seen as an incarnation or vessel of the neteru. The body may die, but "Pharaoh" is immortal.
The Path is called, among other things, The Path of Liberation. This implies "freeing" one's self from these dualistic constraints that distract the mind from "getting out."
I've been meaning to ask you, in this context, what is your take on the Bodhisattva vow?
Some will be drawn to Tibetan stuff, others to The Goetia, with further others etching Enochian or rubbing Runes
or all of the above. 😉
Clear channels" seem pretty rare, if they exist, most received texts tend to still get filtered through the recipient.
This is why only a Magister Templi a Arhat, a Bodisattva, any Nemo) can be trusted to deliver a "message" - to bad he/she can't say anything due to the requirement of Silence. Everyone and anyone must wait for the next Magus to come along.
I've been meaning to ask you, in this context, what is your take on the Bodhisattva vow?
Like the 8=3 Oath, the Bodhi Oath is just a reflection of the state to which the aspirant vehicle aspires. Taking the 8=3 Oath allows one to "claim" the grade ... but it does not confer the state. Thousands (millions?) of Oriental folk have taken the Bodhi Oath, yet not one true living Bodhi has come to my attention.
There is great personal value in Oaths. I imagine most of them are broken as easily as New Year Resolutions. There are many facets of the Spiritual Con.
or all of the above.
Plus more in Santa's sack.
Yes.
One of the several AL passages where AC's sexual fantasies, inchoate political/social ideas, etc, are, interestingly, catered to by "Aiwass".
here is a good deal of the Nietzschean standpoint in this verse. It is the evolutionary and natural view. Of what use is it to perpetuate the misery of Tuberculosis, and such diseases, as we now do? Nature's way is to weed out the weak. This is the most merciful way, too. At present all the strong are being damaged, and their progress hindered by the dead weight of the weak limbs and the missing limbs, the diseased limbs and the atrophied limbs. The Christians to the Lions! ~ Crowley.
Actually the comment is too vague, he doesn't define who 'the weak' and ' the strong' actually are. Everyone's knee-jerk reaction is that 'the weak' as described are physically lame people but that not may be the case. Regarding this Nietzschean idea, what do you make of the so-called 'cancel culture'?
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
he doesn't define who 'the weak' and ' the strong' actually are.
This is a post-combat observation by the referees - The strong are the one's still walking sround, the weak are laying still.
Crowley can be caught numerous times ignoring plain statements made in verses of Liber Legis that actually contradict his conclusions about a verse.
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
But the work of the comment?
The Comment is the short warning at the end of the book (in some versions). All other musing by AC come under the category of a Commentary. AC went to great length to explain the difference between them, and how he got them confused (at first).
The Comment is not currently under discussion in this thread. It was supposed to be quick & easy, which it was. A Commentary is under discussion, right now. Comentaries are .AC's opinion(s) on things. They contradict each other from time to time, so AC was allowed to change his mind. Very human. Not inspired Aiwass-speak.
That is, Aiwass got it wrong for He predicted that AC would get it right?
No, Aiwass said "It will be Easy." It was. There is a lot to discuss (elsewhere) about the rightness of The Comment ("It is wise to destroy this book after the first reading"), but the current discussion is in relation to a Commentary, which is fallible and described above.
This is why only a Magister Templi a Arhat, a Bodisattva, any Nemo)
Interesting that you mention those together, an idea I've had too.
can be trusted to deliver a "message"
or maybe to be trusted to deliver a clearly-channeled message?
Like the 8=3 Oath, the Bodhi Oath is just a reflection of the state to which the aspirant vehicle aspires. Taking the 8=3 Oath allows one to "claim" the grade ... but it does not confer the state. Thousands (millions?) of Oriental folk have taken the Bodhi Oath, yet not one true living Bodhi has come to my attention.
There is great personal value in Oaths. I imagine most of them are broken as easily as New Year Resolutions. There are many facets of the Spiritual Con.
Of course, simply taking a vow means nothing unless it's acted upon.
And something like the Bodhisattave vow really should not be undertaken by someone with little to no experience, but some sanghas evidently ask it of people who have just begun practice.
Plus more in Santa's sack.
and much more
he doesn't define who 'the weak' and ' the strong' actually are. Everyone's knee-jerk reaction is that 'the weak' as described are physically lame people but that not may be the case.
or as I implied above, those without passion, who do not follow their will or even care to. While the Strong could be the Elect, those called to follow the path and do the Work, who do not necessarily need to be Thelemites, or even practice magick consciously.
Interesting that you mention those together, an idea I've had too.
They are all the same thing - in different lingos.
Note that A Bodhisattva is implied - not just some fellow who took the Oath.
They are all the same thing - in different lingos.
My thought as well, though are not arhats considered below the level of bodhisattvas?
Note that A Bodhisattva is implied - not just some fellow who took the Oath.
Indeed, which is why I made the distinction in my previous post between actually doing the Work associated with the vow and merely taking the vow.
This 'bad nobility' should have clung to the Autocracy and dug their heels in against the bourgeoise demand for democracy, a democratic ideal as inspired by the 1776 example?
Eh, the cause of the French Revolution was basically the breakdown of the old order in the sense that the aristocracy was increasingly swanning off to salons in Paris discussing the Rights of Man, while leaving the management of their estates to out-of-towners who were milking the peasants dry in order to support their own, and the aristocrats' profligate lifestyles.
That was effectively the breakdown of the general agreement that had held from the end of the Dark Ages through the mediaeval period ("we protect you, you feed us").
There was nothing especially nice about the liberal revolutionaries either - they became the exploiting capitalist class, after all. Meet the new boss ...
(There's an amusing slight return of that, in the way that the 60s hippy generation became the Reagan generation - the common thread being "it's all about me.")
Eh, the cause of the French Revolution was basically the breakdown of the old order in the sense that the aristocracy was increasingly swanning off to salons in Paris discussing the Rights of Man, while leaving the management of their estates to out-of-towners who were milking the peasants dry in order to support their own, and the aristocrats' profligate lifestyles.
This is just so breathtakingly stupid and wrong, it is kind of stunning.
Yes, it was those silly aristocrats "swanning off to salons in Paris discussing the Rights of Man" that "basically" caused the French Revolution, and never France's massive population increase in the 18th century, leading to mass unemployment, and then the huge increase in the price of food over the same period, resulting from a decade of bad harvests, and of course massive government debt, and an inefficient and burdensome tax system.
But none of that mattered. And of course nothing done by the vast majority of Frenchmen, the ones who were not aristocrats, or estate-managers, such as the sans cullottes, who didn't even live on an aristocrat's mismanaged estate, but rather in Paris, could possibly matter, because History is about the Noble Deeds of Great Men, and not the grubby doings of peasants and the urban poor.
Perhaps equaled in breathtakingly stupid and wrong ahistorical nonsense by
the general agreement that had held from the end of the Dark Ages through the mediaeval period ("we protect you, you feed us").
Obviously, none of this stuff has one iota of connection with the topic of this thread, or an iota of connection with the life and legacy of AC, and is just being offered as part of an ongoing series of lectures on one poster's worldview, which we are supposed to find valuable because why again?
Eh, the cause of the French Revolution was basically the breakdown of the old order in the sense that the aristocracy was increasingly swanning off to salons in Paris discussing the Rights of Man, while leaving the management of their estates to out-of-towners who were milking the peasants dry in order to support their own, and the aristocrats' profligate lifestyles.
That was effectively the breakdown of the general agreement that had held from the end of the Dark Ages through the mediaeval period ("we protect you, you feed us").
Oh, that nails that then. I always thought it was the 1776 example as inspiration, the bankruptcy derived from long foreign war-funding, a dysfunctional tax system, bad harvests causing farming- community poverty, weak leadership and of course, rising bread prices causing inner city unrest.
Posted by: @gurugeorge
There was nothing especially nice about the liberal revolutionaries either - they became the exploiting capitalist class, after all. Meet the new boss ...
(There's an amusing slight return of that, in the way that the 60s hippy generation became the Reagan generation - the common thread being "it's all about me.")
The 'hippy generation', you mean the radical politically active minority of student activists of the late 60s? There were a few notable cases where 60's radicals became 80's stockbrokers but the 'hippy' middle class comprised of the wide spectrum of all educated professionals from scientists to lawyers to medical staff who may've grew their hair long and smoked weed in the 60s but had no dumb intention of dropping out. I reckon it's also too much of a sweeping statement to say that only they specifically swung to the right. If anything Reagan appealed to the working classes. Mickey Mouse would've looked like a better alternative to Carter at the time. Reagan's campaign was superior making Carter look weak and ineffectual (as was the jogging debacle), the Iran hostage crisis was a decisive factor but most of all there was rising unemployment and inflation.
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
Mickey Mouse would've looked like a better alternative to Carter at the time.
Maybe if you were a racist or an asshole, yes. I voted in a Presidential election for the first time in 1980, having turned 18 in 1977.
Recall that St. Ronnie only got 50.8% of the vote in his "landslide"; 47.7% voted for Carter or Anderson. A bare majority was turned into a 44 state "landslide" by the magic of the Electoral College, which values the votes of rural hicks in states with more cows than humans at many times the value of the vote of a NYer or Californian.
If anything Reagan appealed to the working classes.
I was working as a short-order cook at the time, i would say that is a pretty working-class job. No one i knew voted for Reagan, but then i lived on the Lower East Side of NYC, so of course i didn't know anyone who voted for that cowboy show announcer guy.
You would be almost right about the 1984 re-election, but again NYC went hard for Mondale in '84.
Hippies very definitely did not "become the Reagan generation", BTW.
The '60s kids who hated hippies, maybe yes. And the idea that hippies, or the '60s, main idea was "it's all about me" shows the historical tin ear we have come to expect from these apparently endless uninformed pontifications
My thought as well, though are not arhats considered below the level of bodhisattvas?
I am not smart enough, or knowledgeable enough in the Buddhist hierarchy, to know the difference between them - maybe a Binah-Chokmah thing?
The essential attainment is that the aspirant gets into the zero-point, no separate mind state. Now almost anybody with more than 1.5% body mass of brain matter (the average is 2%) can "get into" this state with a cycle-delic or lots of med[itation], but it's not permanent, and does not necessarily confer an imprint, which is the same thing as "taking the grade" (for real, not just on paper)..
The Buddhist - Anybody who "attains" to nirvana (their mind and separate self is "blown out") is said to have an offer to make it permanent. If the candidate accepts, he/she is out of the game, although they may live on as a demented old person with extraordinary powers. If they reject the exit, the return to the gravity well, ideally for the purpose of "helping others" to get to Zero. They also vow to keep at it until the last lost cow has returned to the black barn.
Note; Although there are distinctions between Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, and other considerations, there is no need for anyone to care at any deep level. These states/grades/designations all exist above the great divide.
The Thelemite - Anybody who "attains" to annihilation of the separate self (their mind and individual self is "destroyed") is said (by implication) to have an offer to make it permanent. If the candidate accepts, he/she is out of the game, but "a Star is cast forh," and if they reject (the final blow-out), and retain the core of their ego, they become the dreaded Black Brothers of the Left Hand Path a title specific to Thelemic dropouts from the Collegium Supernal. Therion tells us that members of the (supernal) A.'.A.'. are bound to their Oath of reincarnating endlessly and repeatedly, as fast as possible, in order to continue cow-herding.
Note; Although there are distinctions between Magisters, Magi, and Ips, there is no need for anyone to care at any deep level. These states/grades/designations all exist above the great divide.
The Arhat - Anybody who "attains" to nirvana, but not-yet Buddhahood, is an Arhat. Different lineages prefer to disagree of some details.
Note; I have read, re-read, and considered the distinctions between titles in Oriental philosophy - in fact, I just re-perused the lore - and my only source for using Arhat as a word is because HPB did so (The Voice of the Silence), and she ends the work with A pilgrim has returned from the other shore.
I consider these three [^] tales to be the same story. There is no difference.
Obviously, none of this stuff has one iota of connection with the topic of this thread, or an iota of connection with the life and legacy of AC, and is just being offered as part of an ongoing series of lectures on one poster's worldview, which we are supposed to find valuable because why again?
I cannot answer the "why again," as it appears to be a rhetorical Zen koan. However, you analysis is particularly observant. Yes, two (2) threads got locked over Jews, Nazis, and Fascists-at-large. Whereupon, upon the locking of the second (2nd) doomed thread, this Los thread was (seemingly) immediately resurrected and moved along, zombie-like, with the same rhe same rhetoric.
This is an example of what I mean when I utter the same, lame phrase about how some poster people have an agenda. Agendas are not contraindicated by The Guidelines, as long as they get AC-correlated in some manner.
There has been a valiant attempt to mention AC recentl, but there is this constant pressure creeping in from the external political realm. It appears to be some sort of obsession. The Luscher Color Test would probably cite Increase Sensitivity to External Stimuli.
I believe the subject is Ioral Nihilism and Thelema.
Oh, that nails that then. I always thought it was the 1776 example as inspiration, the bankruptcy derived from long foreign war-funding, a dysfunctional tax system, bad harvests causing farming- community poverty, weak leadership and of course, rising bread prices causing inner city unrest.
Other causes are more like concomitant symptoms of the essential cause, which was the breakdown of the old social structures (and the causes of that go as far back the religious rebellions of the 15th century). And bear in mind that the Middle Ages had lasted far longer than our 3-century experiment in "democracy" has lasted so far - it took quite a bit of work to chip away at that 🙂
In a nutshell, the Romans left, there was a bit of chaos, the nicer bandits worked with the church to protect peasants in exchange for food and lodging, and the church mediated between peasants and nobles; and that was the stable social form that Europe developed, grew with and worked with for about 900 years. It was the breakdown of that social order that led to the great revolutions, etc.
Even if you think of 1776 as a beacon, what was that? It was basically a coup by self-important bourgeois liberals that had little support among the colonists. Check out Hutchinson's Strictures upon the Declaration of Independence (a more cogent bit of reasoning than the Declaration of Independence it comments on):-
The Acts for imposing Duties and Taxes may have accelerated the Rebellion, and if this could have been foreseen, perhaps, it might have been good policy to have omitted or deferred them; but I am of opinion, that if no Taxes or Duties had been laid upon the Colonies, other pretences would have been found for [4] exception to the authority of Parliament. The body of the people in the Colonies, I know, were easy and quiet. They felt no burdens. They were attached, indeed, in every Colony to their own particular Constitutions, but the Supremacy of Parliament over the whole gave them no concern. They had been happy under it for an hundred years past: They feared no imaginary evils for an hundred years to come.
But there were men in each of the principal Colonies, who had independence in view, before any of those Taxes were laid, or proposed, which have since been the ostensible cause of resisting the execution of Acts of Parliament. Those men have conducted the Rebellion in the several stages of it, until they have removed the constitutional powers of Government in each Colony, and have assumed to themselves, with others, a supreme authority over the whole.
It's the same story there as repeated elsewhere in the great revolutions: they weren't really idealistic revolutions - that was for the zealots, rubes and useful idiots. They were power grabs by upstarts, under cover of idealism. And Hutchinson knew it, since he'd been there.
That isn't to say that 1776 was a "bad thing" in all aspects - life evolves, society evolves, some things are lost, but some gained. But let's not be naive about it.
Obviously, none of this stuff has one iota of connection with the topic of this thread, or an iota of connection with the life and legacy of AC, and is just being offered as part of an ongoing series of lectures on one poster's worldview, which we are supposed to find valuable because why again?
If you find it "obvious" that there's no connection, maybe you're making a mistake. All of it is relevant, because history, the history of states and rebellions and all that, is relevant to the question of Thelemic governance. Obviously.
It's not just learning from the past, but it's also avoiding the current Left/Right dog & pony show, which some people here seem very attached to. One might expect people interested in Thelema to be above and beyond that sort of thing 🙂
I'm reminded of Crowley's comment in the biography somewhere about when he was a kid and his parents took him to an art gallery, and on seeing a painting of the Coliseum, he was upset that "one poor lion hadn't gotten a Christian yet." 🙂
But I think one has to pass beyond even that, one has to take more of an impartial overview. (Or pass beyond the Antithesis into a Synthesis, in that lingo.)
the current Left/Right dog & pony show, which some people here seem very attached to.
Some possible pot-kettle issues here, perhaps?
As the most frequent leftist poster here, i have not, over 16 years of posting, posted a tenth of the content advocating any left point of view that you have recently posted arguing for Putin, the true freedom of North Koreans, Fascism, "Authority", Feudalism, "Tradition", etc.
And i don't think i have ever posted anything political gratuitously, just because i felt like discussing my political/social views (as you have recently done at such very great length).
I have only ever mentioned anything political in response to various folks like you who, being muddle-headed, conflate their far-right politics with Thelema, and seem to find the need to drag their confusion into the forum.
So regarding AL 3:40.But the work of the comment? That is easy; and Hadit burning in thy heart shall make swift and secure thy pen You're saying he got it wrong? That is, Aiwass got it wrong for He predicted that AC would get it right?
In the preceding verse, III:39, Crowley is instructed to Do this quickly in regard to producing the comment, which he failed to do, having not started the task of producing it until eight years later, in an effort that dragged on for decades. Apparently Hadit did not make Crowley's pen swift, and based on the multiple commentaries Crowley produced, neither was his pen secure.
All of it is relevant
Yes, I see a monad vibrating in every set of ten posts that is linked to moral nihilism, a form of nirvana, in some remote, wandering way that centers on politics. What is missing is is "in Thelema."
Admittedly, a previously noted, a particularly relevant (to this thread) quote from AL, but that was like putting some quarters in the parking meter - while getting back to the important point ... The French Revolution.
Thelemic governance.
They/we/I tried this ...
Crowley doesn't count, in practical applications, as he never did any serious, practical governing in OTO. Governing was done at the lower level, in Caliphornia, USA. We know this to be true because AC would tell them what to do (usually send money), and then have to follow up with reprimands, accompanied by the foulest of dirty lingo, condemning some aspect of their being(s) to distress.
Agape Lodge - Was the first Thelemic org to apply "governance." We could say it started in Canada, but really got going in Holy-wood. Whatever governing was done mostly involve Lodge Master Wolfe advising seriously-ill members (about what is uncertain). No, it came up into its glory in Pasadena, when J. Parsons opened up the mansion on Orange Grove Blvd as a profess house. In the end, they got busted for "sex crimes." For those who are unaware, Agapeans played Magick Theatre - Each night, a different woman would sleep in a different man's bedroom. I don't know how many men, women, or rooms were involved - probably much less than the mansion could sustain (big house, lotsa rooms, not a LOT of members). Is this Thelemic Governance?
Cefalu - Valley of Scicily, the Island. It is my understanding that Thelemic governance in this Garden of Eden prototype for Thelemic civilization was primarily what The Master Therion said to do. He set rules, like no newpapers. People then read newspapers and terrible fights ensued.
Solar Lodge - Cutting to the chase: We had no sex problems, nor drugs. Newspapers were mandatory for the mental stability of Frater Sol. Nobody got the next grade unless they did the work and passed the A.'.A.'. test. We had a Tribunal. It was only used once. Soror Nephthys thought Guru Capricornus was treating her unfairly. Sort of like fascism vs the underdog. The underdog lost. We operated as a reflection of the Constitution of the OTO and its supplements. Right out of the book, although I had no sense of aristocratic communism - the book of Thelemic Governance.
(c)OTO - Now here is governance in action. Lots of expelling and attorneys. No work required, no recent (publick) work done.
Throughout this circus of governance, if I were called upon to institute a gov, I would select the Constitution of the OTO. Some changes would be required. A profess house would profess practical solutions rather than clandestine interludes with women members who are never named. The grade levels would reflect levels of responsibility within their profess houses of energy, justice, food, etc-thru-the-aleph-beth. There are other refinements, too numerous to extol in this short treatise ... except to say ...
Nobody gets the next grade without
doing the work and passing the tests
of the corresponding A.'.A.'. tasks
I have only ever mentioned anything political in response to various folks like you ...
Yes, this is true. As the head of The Political Police, I would have noticed if you had thrust your agendum forth as an agenda. Other people foolishly publish their agenda, sometimes covering it with philosophy or quotes from AL or some Commentary, or their importance in solving a riddle ... but underneath is a subconscious fear of Nazis, or Hippies (the two extremes), or some other force in society that might trip one's trigger.
When somebody crosses the line, politically speaking, you then reveal your true nature, much as a special agent of the FBI or an alien from Andromeda is required to do, and then proceed to counter their offensive or erroneous point of view, concluding with an admonition to keep politics out of here.
Sometimes the conclusion is long in coming. Remember the fellow who based his paradigm on a video game and hurled curses at us? Spectacular meltdowns are always spectacular on the 4th of July.
In this present undertaking, I notice your notice is contra-notified by a notification that all these political topics are related to Thelemic Governance.
"Is there a Governance? I'm Ag'in it!"
Moral Nihilism merely means to rise above cultural morals and personal ethics into a state where responses take place of their own accord, without effort or thinking. Yeah, they call it wu-wei, and so do we, even though it's not a Thelemic term. This is a hard state to maintain on a continual basis. Shorter-term encounters have been mentioned around here in conjunction with actual combat, bicycle-riding in NYC traffic, martial arts randori (multiple simultaneous attackers, and [sorry, I lost the 4th example, who is invisible].
This state, which is unique and describable, so that two persons can agree that it is true, would correspond to being one with the Tao, and other such lofty expressions that cannot be true but are spoken anyway.
In this state, there are no moral, ethical, compassionate or cruel considerations. The mind itself can come along for the ride (in neutral observation), but all actions and reactions are merely a flow in the dangerous current teeming all around. I say dangerous, because this states comes on automatically in the presence of danger. For some people. Other people unravel. So it's probably not something one can do in the comfort of their living room or office.
But none of that mattered. And of course nothing done by the vast majority of Frenchmen, the ones who were not aristocrats, or estate-managers, such as the sans cullottes, who didn't even live on an aristocrat's mismanaged estate, but rather in Paris, could possibly matter, because History is about the Noble Deeds of Great Men, and not the grubby doings of peasants and the urban poor.
Stripping away the political rhetoric, underneath all, that you're basically a Christian, right?
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
Umm, yes, david, you've found me out. That's right, i am in fact Washed In The Blood of the Lamb, leading The Christian Life, and Walking With Jesus, all because Jesus Wants Me For A Little Sunbeam.
Just for the benefit of any young people who might be reading, and might learn something thereby, can you perhaps elucidate the chain of reasoning that allowed you to reach this conclusion from this seemingly unrelated passage?
But the work of the comment?
The Comment is the short warning at the end of the book (in some versions). All other musing by AC come under the category of a Commentary. AC went to great length to explain the difference between them, and how he got them confused (at first).
The Comment is not currently under discussion in this thread. It was supposed to be quick & easy, which it was. A Commentary is under discussion, right now. Comentaries are .AC's opinion(s) on things. They contradict each other from time to time, so AC was allowed to change his mind. Very human. Not inspired Aiwass-speak.
The Tunis comment printed in most generic editions of Liber Legis is not the same "The Comment" that is mentioned in 1:36, 3:39-40 and 3:63.
The Tunis Comment is explicitly Crowley's passive aggressive response to being challenged by Frater Achad, Norman Mudd and Leah Hirsig, and with some correlation to being rejected by the Fraternitas Saturni (whom he wanted to become the German branch of the OTO).
It is a massive error of judgement to take the Tunis Comment to actually be "The Comment" - to which the closest we ever got was Liber Stellae Rubeae.
"There is none that shall be cast down or lifted up: all is ever as it was." - Liber Legis 2:58
"To Me do ye reverence! to me come ye through tribulation of ordeal, which is bliss." - Liber Legis 3:62
Umm, yes, david, you've found me out. That's right, i am in fact Washed In The Blood of the Lamb, leading The Christian Life, and Walking With Jesus, all because Jesus Wants Me For A Little Sunbeam.
Just for the benefit of any young people who might be reading, and might learn something thereby, can you perhaps elucidate the chain of reasoning that allowed you to reach this conclusion from this seemingly unrelated passage?
Well, what drives your Marxism? More to the point, what do you make of Crowley's celebration of Nietzsche?
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
elucidate the chain of reasoning that allowed you to reach this conclusion from this seemingly unrelated passage?
[break]
[break] in logical, or even gnosis, perception.
Category: "Off the Wall."
There might be a blockchain connection in the "fact" that you (sarcastically) sided with the common folk, which could be associated with the "sheeple" of the Shepherd whose name must never be pronounced, unless by paid-in-advance indulgence.
It is a massive error of judgement to take the Tunis Comment to actually be "The Comment"
Gee, according to AC himself, ge cites the Tunis Comment to be the one that is "easy," and his other observations, known as Commentaries, were just him rattling off his thoughts on the various subjects. Thus, this is "the official party line."
Your suggestion/warning presents a different perspective. Perhaps a whole new paradigm. Would you explain why (invoking because, the dog) the Tunis is not The Comment?
elucidate the chain of reasoning that allowed you to reach this conclusion from this seemingly unrelated passage?
[break]
[break] in logical, or even gnosis, perception.
Category: "Off the Wall."
There might be a blockchain connection in the "fact" that you (sarcastically) sided with the common folk, which could be associated with the "sheeple" of the Shepherd whose name must never be pronounced, unless by paid-in-advance indulgence
Do you know your Nietzsche?...If anything Crowley lapped up his Nietzsche, got off on it and thought he'd take the mantle. The entire AL Comment even when he isn't directly quoting FMN is 'Nietzschean'.
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
Do you know your Nietzsche?
No. Not at all, really.
The entire AL Comment even when he isn't directly quoting FMN is 'Nietzschean'.
Which "entire AL Comment? The Tunis Comment ("Destroy this Book ...)? Or the collection of Commentaries?
I'm not playing a word-grammar game here. AC differentiates between The Comment and The Commentaries. As stated above, this is The Official Party Line until somebody proves it to be untrue.
Yes, between Nietzsche, Rabble-ay, The Golden Dawn, and Monarch James' Book, Crowley put together his new version of Life. Nobody else, anywhere, at any time, did anything different than pick up the pieces, nearby and far, and stack or weave them into The New Aeon.
The subject has its own built poison of breeding infinite arguments and attendant bardos of because...moral nihilism in Thelema...and thus in the context of Aleister Crowley such questions all comes down to... as you seem to point out properly in so many threads.. is to bring things to The Comment, or rather which Comment?! To which sometimes the only proper comment, obliged at coming and goings, and is the proper answer relative to threads ever dangling question is...to provide the benediction and warning:
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
Law is the law, love under will.
~game, set, match!
the current Left/Right dog & pony show, which some people here seem very attached to.
Some possible pot-kettle issues here, perhaps?
As the most frequent leftist poster here, i have not, over 16 years of posting, posted a tenth of the content advocating any left point of view that you have recently posted arguing for Putin, the true freedom of North Koreans, Fascism, "Authority", Feudalism, "Tradition", etc.
And i don't think i have ever posted anything political gratuitously, just because i felt like discussing my political/social views (as you have recently done at such very great length).
I have only ever mentioned anything political in response to various folks like you who, being muddle-headed, conflate their far-right politics with Thelema, and seem to find the need to drag their confusion into the forum.
Yes, "only ever" - but there's a lot of it. Any time someone comes along and brings up the "Right-wing sounding" aspects of Thelema, here come the sheepdogs ready to chivvy them off ...
But notice what that kind of behaviour isn't? It isn't you putting your dick on the table and offering us the benefit of your wisdom or folly. How about you too take the risk of looking like a fool, instead of running around heresy-hunting and hiding behind your word counter? What's your big picture?
Yes, I'm speaking up for those ideas somewhat, true, but then again I'm also speaking up for the rights and dignity of labour, against corporate consumerism and finance capitalism, etc. - tropes that were considered Left-wing in good standing, until the bleeding edge of the Left transitioned to cutting kids' dicks off.
I'm actually trying to get a balanced, realistic picture (both of the world and of whatever Thelema might be in relation to it). But because any such picture necessarily will have to incorporate truths from both "sides," that becomes unacceptable to someone who refuses to acknowledge that there's any truth on the other side.
And then you'll get similar someones claiming that Crowley was confused or changed his position. Obviously anyone who sees truth on the other political "side" must be "muddle-headed" 🙂 Well, maybe he was confused - or maybe he only appears confused to someone who's dogmatically stuck to one side of the political spectrum. But isn't climbing out of your comfort zone one of the first things AC recommends?
Have you ever considered the possibility that you might be wrong? Like, seriously wrong?
Throughout this circus of governance, if I were called upon to institute a gov, I would select the Constitution of the OTO. Some changes would be required. A profess house would profess practical solutions rather than clandestine interludes with women members who are never named.
There seems to have been a lot of that.
As to the thing of "in Thelema" - wouldn't this type of discussion take that for granted? I mean, the topics of morality and politics are intrinsically about how groups behave, whereas what I think you're talking about is personal practice.
If everyone's doing their practices and getting enlightened, that's the ideal. But even if that happened, would group dynamics just "sort themselves out" automatically? I don't think so, I think the group level has its own logic that has to be looked at (history, politics, etc.) A group isn't a sentient being, but it is a thing of sorts, that starts to elicit systematic behaviours from its members.
The whole phenomenon of groups throwing off social restrictions and sleeping around, etc., etc., is as old as the hills though, it's not something new with just the Thelemic organizations of the 20th century. You should see what the Anabaptists got up to 🙂
Umm, yes, david, you've found me out. That's right, i am in fact Washed In The Blood of the Lamb, leading The Christian Life, and Walking With Jesus, all because Jesus Wants Me For A Little Sunbeam.
Just for the benefit of any young people who might be reading, and might learn something thereby, can you perhaps elucidate the chain of reasoning that allowed you to reach this conclusion from this seemingly unrelated passage?
Well, what drives your Marxism? More to the point, what do you make of Crowley's celebration of Nietzsche?
Three days.....no answers.
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
How about you too take the risk of looking like a fool, instead of running around heresy-hunting and hiding behind your word counter? What's your big picture?
Well, if i wanted to do that, i certainly wouldn't choose to do it here. This is not a forum for political discussion. there are many such places, but this isn't one of them.
And then you'll get similar someones claiming that Crowley was confused or changed his position. Obviously anyone who sees truth on the other political "side" must be "muddle-headed" Well, maybe he was confused - or maybe he only appears confused to someone who's dogmatically stuck to one side of the political spectrum.
That AC's politics were an incoherent, and frequently changing muddle (like his thoughts on so many topics) is not just my conclusion, but also the conclusion of the sole academic study on the topic, Pasi's Aleister Crowley and the temptation of politics, which i urge you to read. It is very very good, probably the best book i have ever read about AC or any aspect of his life or work.
I'm also speaking up for the rights and dignity of labour, against corporate consumerism and finance capitalism, etc. - tropes that were considered Left-wing in good standing, until the bleeding edge of the Left transitioned to cutting kids' dicks off.
The amount of energy on the left devoted to treating trans people decently is minute compared to the amount of energy devoted to the topics you imagine the left has abandoned. Of course, right-wing press coverage of the left emphasizes the things they think will upset people, not the truth.
FYI, no one anywhere that i'm aware of advocates transition surgery for "kids". And when they are adults, if they want to do that, surgeons don't "cut [anyone's] dick off" (to use your formulation- so tellingly redolent with castration anxiety- maybe you should see someone?). They remove the meaty bits of the penis shaft, and flip the penis inside out, such that the outside of the shaft is now the lining of the surgically constructed vulva, with the head forming a sort of sensitive cervix at the apex of that vulva. For surgery in the opposite direction, they may construct a phallus from thigh tissue.
Have you ever considered the possibility that you might be wrong? Like, seriously wrong?
Of course i have. Any sensible person routinely questions this.
I read the right-wing press daily- the (Murdoch-owned) right-wing trashy tabloid The New York Post is one of my favorite newspapers, and i read several right-wing academic and legal blogs. I used to read the late-lamented The Sun daily when in the UK.
Three days.....no answers.
Yes, david, i am ignoring your questions. Because they are a silly attempt to justify your silly claim that i am a crypto-Christer.
And i am just not that interested in discussing my politics, and certainly not here. Every thread about politics is the same here, and every thread gets locked in the end. Just no point to it.
With deep apols for triple (!?!?) post: here is the only answer you'll get, david.
I am the kind of person who just can't help diving into any one-sided fight i see, to help the person getting their ass kicked. I have failed to do so exactly once in my life, in the early '90s (because my first wife urged me not to get involved), and i still regret it. I have had the shit kicked out of me too many times not to.
Identification with the underdog, basically.
That said, i guess i am a giant hypocrite. There was that one time a Nazi band played the old LES skinhead hangout A-7. They musta missed the Rasta owner when they loaded in their gear, or, being racists, figured he was the janitor or something. Things did not go well for them. They all did live though.
infinite arguments and attendant bardos
Endless, with cats-of-nine-tails.
wouldn't this type of discussion take that for granted?
||Maybe. But not everyone knows the OTO of ~1917 was just a dictatorship that sold diplomA nd the right to sojurn for limited periods. Even if taken for grated, it won't accomplish anything 'til the changes are writ, or typed, or scrawled in the traditional Class A scribble, and set before (at least) four, dues-paying members. I am considering free membership - or perhaps paying people to join?
This is not a forum for political discussion. there are many such places, but this isn't one of them.
You could have fooled me. Maybe you did.
i am a crypto-Christer.
I am so far lost on this side-trail that I wish to Return.
I am the kind of person who just can't help diving into any one-sided fight i see, to help the person getting their ass kicked. I have failed to do so exactly once in my life, in the early '90s (because my first wife urged me not to get involved), and i still regret it. I have had the shit kicked out of me too many times not to.
Identification with the underdog, basically.
Brilliant! We're on topic!. Morality and Thelema. 'Doing the right thing.' I knew a couple of body building guys who liked to fight but they were not bullies. This looks like an excellent example of veiling (your) vices in virtuous words ~ AL 2:52. That is, to me it looks like you're secretly celebrating yourself as being one of Crowley's 'violent stars';
"... there may be some stars whose Nature is extreme violence. The collision of galaxies is a magnificent spectacle, after all” – New Comment to AL I:41
i.e. an old-time warrior-aristocrat soul who just loves to impose power on others, loves a good fight, but the outlet is veiled under modern 'social justice'. Furthermore the fact that you have boasted that one of your friends is a retired mafia hitman confirms my conclusions here. Having said that, I value human sympathy and it'd be a hard task for someone to convince me that sympathy is 'weak' whether Crowley says 'to pity a man is to insult him' or not. If anyone would like to call me out for upholding 'slave morality' then go for it.
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
one of your friends is a retired mafia hitman
He is not a current friend, having been murdered years ago by some drug dealers he had robbed. And he never worked for the Mob; he was Puerto Rican, not Italian. He worked for a large organization of Brooklyn heroin/cocaine dealers. A very nice dude, provided he wasn't working.
As to your analysis of my character, umm, yeah sure, OK. So i am a Christian bully. Got it. This thread just goes from strength to strength.
As to your analysis of my character, umm, yeah sure, OK. So i am a Christian bully. Got it. This thread just goes from strength to strength.
Ah, back to play acting at having reading comprehension issues. Ok, why not?
Do you know your Nietzsche? Posted by: @shiva No. Not at all, really.
No problem, here's a good starter pack for you. Pay no mind to the elitist bookish snobs around here, nothing wrong with the medium of Youtube;
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
from strength to strength.
From extreme to finite. We are back to where we were, those many years ago. Deem ye not of any sort of change, for all is as it ever was, the endless voice of 333 asking, asking, asking ... give me your attention so that I might seduce you away from IThe Work, splitting hairs over your split persona.
No problem, here's a good starter pack for you.
I am an elder person. I have already started my Stop Pack.
Pay no mind to ...
Have no concerns about this at all.
nothing wrong with the medium of Youtube
This is a joke you are trying to catch me in, eh? My 32-page report on the dangers and crimes of that outlet will be forthcoming, with proofs, as an Appendix in my next book. Maybe.