gurugeorge: "Even if we have our Thelemically-desired situation of (what Leff there calls) a bunch of "godlets" merrily pursuing their True Wills, it's still not clear what's to be done at the collective level. [...] there still has to be some "we" thing going on."
Yes, the core basis of that "we" thing is official protection from what Aleister Crowley defines as evil: "... that which hinders one from fulfilling his true Will".
This is in line with what Crowley states in an unpublished paper titled "Considerations of an Open Letter to Labour":
"The laws shall be remodeled fundamentally on First Principles. They shal be simplified to the utmost: the only offence is to restrict the Will of another, but this may be done in many ways and degrees."
(Source: Crowley's unpublished paper titled "Considerations of an Open Letter to Labour", quoted by Patriarch156 on page 2 in the thread Thelema a basis for human society ) - - - https://www.lashtal.com/forums/biography/thelema-a-basis-for-human-society/paged/2/#post-59783 )
Clearly meaning that what that can be done at the collective leve among those in support of Aleister Crowley's Thelema, is to support any form of state or officialdom that can facilitate official protection from "... that which hinders one from fulfilling his [or her, or one's (to be gender neutral)] true Will".
For the anarchist ignant666, to support any form of state or officialdom that can facilitate official protection from "... that which hinders one from fulfilling his [or her, or one's (to be gender neutral)] true Will"., I guess would be something akin to him holding his nose and voting for Biden. 😉
As with AL, I don't think Nietzsche is particularly stuck in thinking of any of those phases or transitions as absolutely "boo" or absolutely "hooray" things. There's beauty and nobility in the Master morality, but also cruelty; there's cruelty and resentment against the healthy and strong in slave morality, but there's also the strength of the weak fighting back against their oppressors, turning the tables, and finding new forms of strength, new dimensions to grow in.
According to Nietzsche the consequences of that (defeat of Master Morality) is Nihilism i.e. good for nothing society. Ally that with (the then) Fraser's (Golden Bough) and Darwin's obliteration of the mythos of Occidental civilization and what you have is 'death of God' i.e. the horror of having no metaphysical crutches anywhere. This reality principle calls for another shocking re-evaluation of values (the last one being way back i.e. Plato's Republic) and for Nietzsche, in effect, this meant a reigniting of pre-Socratic Age of War-honour where citizens lived more fully with the help of Tragedy - Wikipedia ( Catharsis - Wikipedia). Is this defeating Liber AL's 'the dogs of Reason', in fact were Plato and Socrates both 'dogs of reason'?
But more generally, regardless of the above, and to the point, I don't think Nietzsche would have said that his (ahem, hypothetical of course 🙂 ) poisoning of the native European culture by Jewish priestly/slave morality is the only example of that kind of thing in the history of humanity. It seems to me he's talking about syndromes that have always been around (at least so long as there's been a priestly class, say), and not just in history, but also contemporarily (ongoingly), and also as a struggle within the individual (between parts or aspects of the individual); it's just that he sees the Jewish example as particularly relevant (as background) to an analysis of our civilization and our times.
Yes he calls it 'asceticism' in his writings and of course that was/is multicultural.
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
gurugeorge: "poor Shiva, how he suffers!"
Shiva: "Sure. I was glad to see WellRead's contribution. That solved the puzzle."
gurugeorge: "I'm not sure that it's possible to solve the puzzle that kind of Gordian-knot-cutting way. It's quite a bit more knotty than that."
With respect to what it is and what it is not, concerning what it stands for and what it does not stand for (or stands against), it is possible to do the work of defining Aleister Crowley's Thelema as he understood it, based on quotes from what he defined to be its core text, and based on quotes from his writings about this Thelema and its core text.
In doing this I have found that "Los 8=3"'s statement at the beginning if this thread that "... moral nihilism [= "If there is nothing that is morally wrong then we can do anything we like"] is a clear position of Crowley’s and an integral part of Thelema", is wrong.
Wrong in the sense that Crowley clearly rejects that we can do anything we like with respect to what he defines as evil, "... that which hinders one from fulfilling his true Will", and wrong in the sense that he also clearly rejects that we can do anything we like with respect to what he calls "the only offence" = "to restrict the Will of another".
On the firts page og this thread "Los 8=3" also states "... that moral nihilism can be considered a logical extension of [moral] relativism".
I have also found that Aleister Crowley's Thelema as he understood it, contradicts and rejects moral relativism = "the idea that there are no absolute rules to determine whether something is right or wrong."
This means that Aleister Crowley's Thelema as he understood it does not represent what the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche warned against, namely nihilism = "... the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated."
(Source: The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP)[.] A Peer-Reviewed Academic Resource - - - Nihilism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (utm.edu))
Thank you for your important post, rescuing Thelema from moral narcissism and nihilism of bragging about whether one got laid or not, and how much pipe was laid in how many ditches.
In doing this I have found that "Los 8=3"'s statement at the beginning if this thread that "... moral nihilism [= "If there is nothing that is morally wrong then we can do anything we like"] is a clear position of Crowley’s and an integral part of Thelema", is wrong.
Wrong in the sense that Crowley clearly rejects that we can do anything we like with respect to what he defines as evil, "... that which hinders one from fulfilling his true Will", and wrong in the sense that he also clearly rejects that we can do anything we like with respect to what he calls "the only offence" = "to restrict the Will of another".
Yes that's very clear and, and disposes of Los' misunderstanding. But the problem is at the collective level (godlets doing their True Will), this:-
"The laws shall be remodeled fundamentally on First Principles. They shal be simplified to the utmost: the only offence is to restrict the Will of another, but this may be done in many ways and degrees."
Isn't really good enough. I mean it could be said that's already what laws are trying to do (certainly laws on the model of right to x, private property, etc.).
"The only offence is to restrict the will of another" is equivalent, in terms of vagueness, to, "Why can't we all just get along?" Well sure, that's the result we want, but how do we get to that result, particularly when doing so requires some sort of collective agreement - and a collective agreement that includes the provision for the overriding of individual wills now and then (e.g. the criminal's).
The problem is that it's either Pollyannaish or (ahem) magical thinking.
Somehow it'll all work itself out. Really?
Another way of looking at it is: is there any reason why it couldn't be someone's True Will to abrogate the True Will of another? It happens in nature all the time (things eat other things that were merrily going their own way), and it happens with human beings (human beings try out all sorts of non-co-operative strategies to gain addvantage).
Is it not possible for there to be an enlightened bastard? 🙂
But if a rule leaves everything as it is, then it isn't a rule, it's just a lever spinning, unconnected to anything. If the proposal is just to let whatever "red in tooth and claw" stuff happens keep happening, then all that's been done is that some hot air has been emitted.
But on the other hand, if the claim is that there's going to be some automagical harmony between wills, that needs explanation, or at least some acknowledgement that it's a problem that smart people are going to zero in on, that has to be dealt with somehow.
, rather than spending his life moping around drawing rooms, and writing books full of wish-compensation for being a hapless dweeb.
In this politically correct world we're not allowed to use terms such as 'dweeb' rather we say things like 'on the autistic spectrum', 'may have asperger's syndrome' or 'has social anxiety disorder' etc.
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
gurugeorge: "... if the claim is that there's going to be some automagical harmony between wills ...".
That does not appear to be the claim, from what was discussed in the thread titled Thelema, a basis for human society?
gurugeorge:""The only offence is to restrict the will of another" [...] Well sure, that's the result we want, but how do we get to that result, particularly when doing so requires some sort of collective agreement - and a collective agreement that includes the provision for the overriding of individual wills now and then (e.g. the criminal's)."
Here is a more complete quote from Crowley's unpublished paper titled Considerations of an Open Letter to Labour, quoted from by me earlier in this thread:
" "The laws shall be remodeled fundamentally on First Principles. They shal be simplified to the utmost: the only offence is to restrict the Will of another, but this may be done in many ways and degrees. Thus, murder restricts the primary will of a man to live, while slander restricts only that to be known accurately by his fellows: the penalties must differ accordingly."
The same paper makes it clear that threats of violence is also included. And here is one from the same paper covering the function of the Police in his Thelemic state:
"The police shall interfere with civil liberty in two cases only: firstly, when any individual demands redress against aggression of any sort – including the bullying of boys and girls by fanatical parents. Secondly, when the peace is menaced by bands of persons associated for the purpose of imposing their ideas by force upon their neighbours."
The State as founded on the Law of Thelema as understood by Crowley therefore has largely the function of a Nightwatchman state. It is there to protect our rights in the case where others attempts to suppress the liberty of an individual without his acceptance of the same."
(Source: Posting by Patriarch156, page 2 in the thread titled Thelema, a basis for human society? --- https://www.lashtal.com/forums/postid/59783/ )
I think the contemporary term is "incel".
I guess Socrates was a dweeb and Kant, not incel but not so cool.
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
Socrates was married twice, and had three kids in his 50s.
I don't think the sex lives of philosophers are probably generally so interesting, unless their philosophy consists of "Conan The Barbarian" fantasies of rampant male power, and cruelty toward women and poor folks.
Then, however, i think the fact that said philosopher is a sickly nebbish, and an incel, becomes worthy of comment.
This system will only work if combined with The Tasks of the Grades of the A.'.A.'., or some similar form of doing the work.
Which I've always seen as essential for Thelema in general, and it surprises me that so many don't seem to do it.
Yes. Ken Wibur puts it in words. I paraphrase it: Do the touch and go regularly for a period of time, usually around twenty year
oh, ten years to go for me.
I am reminded of the old Richard Pryor line, "Who you gon' believe [archaic term for female person], me, or your own two lyin' eyes?"
Originally Chico Marx in Duck Soup
Ancient Egyptian religious literary examples that I referenced that don't appear to be examples of harsh Master Morality but quite the opposite?
I've always seen the tyranny aspect of the Aeon of Osiris as a degenerated manifestation, with its increase as showing that the Aeon was on its way out. The Father instills the discipline needed to provide structure after the Mother's nurturing, with the initial phase of the Child symbolizing the rebellion needed to create their own identity. The initial manifestation of Horus has a little bit of edgelord to him, which could explain some of the tone of Chapter 3. Ideally, the antinomianism of this phase is directed to practical ends, but we have people like the "333 Current" folks and the O9A, who take it to a horrific degree and see it as the entire message instead of just a tool, preferring immorality for its own sake rather than amorality.
to found a community on the principles of The Book of the Law, to form an archetype of a new society."
Which is something I'm definitely for, though in a non hierarchal model.
a rediscovery of one's internal virtue (or True Will in Thelemic terms). IOW, one overcomes the priest-critic by "revaluing" his external (and weakening) criticism as an internal (and strengthening) drive to self-overcoming and self-perfection. So you (the putatively healthy, overflowing-with-life entity) are back in the driver's seat as the evaluating source.
Which is an extension of what I've been referring to in this thread as functional conscience.
AC was definitely more of an all-round man's man,
In addition to being a man's man in the sense that some men are "ladies' men", though I suppose Crowley was more of a "people's man". 😉
Socrates was married twice, and had three kids in his 50s.
I don't think the sex lives of philosophers are probably generally so interesting, unless their philosophy consists of "Conan The Barbarian" fantasies of rampant male power, and cruelty toward women and poor folks.
Then, however, i think the fact that said philosopher is a sickly nebbish, and an incel, becomes worthy of comment.
New Comment
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
poisoning of the native European culture by Jewish priestly/slave morality
This thread is locked - the post quoted has been taken by at least one member of the site to be anti-semitic and I can see why.
@gurugeorge - This is not the first time that I have been asked to intervene as the result of your posts. Please treat this as your final written warning: next step will be deletion of your account and all its posts.
Owner and Editor
LAShTAL