Politics and Thelem...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Politics and Thelema  

Page 5 / 12
  RSS

 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
10/06/2010 5:34 pm  
"kidneyhawk" wrote:

What you think does not matter.

Is that what you think?

lol Hey Kyle, good to read you! Where you been?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
10/06/2010 5:45 pm  

In the interest of intelligible discussion, could people please use the quote function when applicable (such as when you are replying directly to another member's post), or at least begin your post by addressing the intended recipient by member name. If uncertain how to use the quote function, and not inclined to experiment, perhaps a PM (private message) to Paul (the site owner/modertor) for assistance would be helpful. Thanks.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
10/06/2010 5:53 pm  

If I were to tell people about some of my experiences, they wouldn't understand and most would think I was crazy.

I receive 100% feedback as well as 100% nonsense, every second of every day of my life.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
10/06/2010 6:07 pm  

You could say that life is a sort of near-death experience, but you could also say that most people are not in tune with the vibrations that allow them to potentially access this information. Words and perceptions are limiting and tend to screen out more than they let in.

Parting the veil, you say? 😉

"Blessed are the cracked, for they shall let in the light!" -Clifford Pickover, Strange Brains and Genius


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
10/06/2010 6:18 pm  
"name538" wrote:
It has been shown that say you are asked to press the button that matches the color that answers a question like which color begins with R. Then 2 colors are presented, a study shows that the your hand has already pressed the button for Red, before YOU decide that you will press the button.

93!

I have been reading about these experiments too and they are quite astounding. But what you deduce is not quite what the scientists deduced. They measured some activity in the brain, and saw certain patterns seven (or so) seconds before the test person pressed the button and were able to "foresee" which button would be pressed, while the test person claimed that s/he decided in the last second before action. Sounds cool so far. But - there are two things which should not be forgotten: 1) The scientists were able to "foresee" the action in 55-60 percent of the cases which to them is "quite above the average", but not really a final proof. 2) The test persons only claimed that they decided in the last second, but that is just what they "thought", a thing you obviously despise. So the overall deduction was not that there is no such thing as free will, but that the "free will" or what we experience as such is still highly unexplainable and there seems to be other processes involved, not only some measurable brain activity. It only can be said that some people (let's say 55 percent) "only think" they are deciding freely, but do not (maybe). Who would have thought that? 45 percent of the people willfully changed there mind in the last second...

Scientific research on the Free Will is quite astounding, as I said, but there is no such thing as a final result so far. Far from it. Science cannot explain everything and no scientist would claim it can. You should read sometimes those scientific reports that you don't like and which come to totally other conclusions. They are probably pretty much the same in number as the ones you prefer.

Doesn't that one belong in the "true Will" thread anyhow?

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
10/06/2010 6:59 pm  

Ring the bell, the dog salivates.

There's that damn elephant and the three blind men again. They keep popping up everywhere, almost as much as the white rabbit... dontcha think? 😉


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
10/06/2010 7:15 pm  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
Scientific research on the Free Will is quite astounding, as I said, but there is no such thing as a final result so far.

93!

One thing more. Scientists (of course, not all) believe that the parts of the brain we use for pressing a lever (however willfully we might think we do it) are not the same parts we use for a really "free will" action, which always involves some "moral/ethical" decision (like it or not). For the former thing we use the procedural memory, for the latter thing the episodical memory. Whatever exactly. What is important is to forget that "what scientists say or find out" (which are always only some scientists) is not "science" in the way you look for something to hold onto and believe in. And don't forgot, a lot of the scientists who deny "free will" think that "God only gave us the illsuion of free will, but of course we do not need it with God."

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
sonofthestar
(@sonofthestar)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 375
10/06/2010 7:33 pm  

93!

Successful Thelemic mode---is not becoming the prey to " The Fates".
It's all about Overcoming the mechanical rut the slaves have set up as shop.
Or breaking free from it, if we have been lulled into complacency
to abide it as anything other than a temporary place for our lurking.
Much can be achieved, whilst one lurks.
To lurk, does not mean to hide or give in.
You can rest up quite a bit, but be on guard---less one procrastinates.

I did not procrastinate to type the word fast: I spelled it right!
Though it took me awhile to use it.

We must never be so weak or world weary,
as to mistake the dismal state of "The way the World is now"
for "The way the World Has to be"---!!!

A successful Thelemic outcome--concerning "any" particular "event goal"...
can be achieved by going With the grain if advantageous---according to conditions,
and circumstances; as well as going Against the grain---according to conditions,
and circumstances.
One has to surmise the situation of the envisioned plan;
choosing well, the course of action; as well contingency plans.
Step by Step. Sometimes fast--sometimes slow.

93! 93! 93!


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
10/06/2010 8:11 pm  

Simon,
Those are different tests about predicting "intentionality". They are not the same as the experiments that show that, humans have reflex mechanisms that act prior to conscious awareness, and then only after the action is performed does the brain invent a story of intentionality.

Michael,
The conscious part of the mind which includes the self or "I" which becomes the protagonist of the stories we tell ourself about intentionality, Is only a tiny bubble in the much larger unconscious mind. The conscious seems to mostly involve the frontal cortex, and the assimilation of the information going in in ALL the other parts of the brain, and sends that information back to the brain, creating like a recursive vortex. Sort of like a mixing channel on a sound board. The model of the whole brain-body, appears in the conscious mind as conscious awareness or "SELF" and we are cut of from, totally unaware of, a great deal of the input information and the factors that determine our conscious awareness. The result is that the brain creates this idea that the Self-model is acting on it's own accord separate from the causal chain which it is unaware. (It is true that the conscious self, does part of the processing of intentions, but the fact is than it does not do this randomly in some indeterminate way, nor does it have any kind of disconnect from the causal chain. It is however, that the cause of behavior is the Physical mechanism of our own nervous system, so in that sense we have a WILL, it's just not that this WILL is a mysterious quality some how autonomous to external chains of causation)

Here is a lecture by Thomas Metzinger, on the self.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mthDxnFXs9k

Here is his professional level book
http://www.amazon.com/Ego-Tunnel-Science-Mind-Myth/dp/0465045677

"Being no one" is his easier to read laymen book.

Christibrani,

Astral projection is like remote viewing it does not disprove the mechanism of the mind. There have been extensive studies on Remote viewing both in the private sector and in both the US and USSR studies. The Rhine Institute has studies all these kind of paranormal claims. Though it is quite possible to produce very vivid dreams about far away places or places that you know, and even to produce lucid dreams, that mix the fantastical with the usual. However, there has not been any statistically significant evidence that one can actually see places they have never been or influence anything astrally either the physical world or the transmission of telepathic information.


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
10/06/2010 8:22 pm  
"name538" wrote:
Those are different tests about predicting "intentionality".

So how about telling us which experiments you mean? The working conditions sound similar to me, there is a lever to be pressed and "scientists" measure brain activity. Please let us know.

Or do you just accept those tests that you like and that you think "prove your point"?

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
christibrany
(@christibrany)
Yuggothian
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 2375
10/06/2010 8:22 pm  

name26345
There is such proof that out of body travel is not only possible it happens to many people willed and unwilled; and it is found in the files of the Monroe institute. though knowing your stance even though it exists, you definitely will not be swayed by it because regardless of any scientific study validating so called spiritual claims, your mind is already made up it seems.
knowledge is based largely on experience and if you haven't had any spiritual experiences you obviously wont be swayed. too bad for you!
that's all from me for this idiotic 'discussion'
take care ...
ps: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3289381/Back-from-brink-patients-prove-the-soul-exists.html
pps: http://www.monroeinstitute.org/journal/


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
11/06/2010 9:24 am  
"Patriarch156" wrote:
"Camlion" wrote:
Good to hear from you, Patriarch156, as always. I wonder if you would be willing to participate more than you have in a discussion here of some of AC's political thoughts?

As you know I am currently in the process of writing just such an article. It currently stands at roughly 30 pages in length and gives an overview over Crowley's development in his political outlook and an analysis of specific issues in his thinking.

It should come as no surprise that Crowley's thinking went between and beyond both Conservative and Liberal ideologies, progressivism and anti-modernism and so on, but to summarise some of my findings:

i. Though Crowley clearly favorised a "Patriarchal-Feudal system run by initiated Kings" with the assistance of Knight-Monks, he remains a pragmatic when it comes to just what form Thelema will manifest itself through, declaring necessity to be the Master (Tunis Diaries).

To name one such different example: he remarked in fact how the original idea of the founding fathers of the USA was based upon principles in harmony with the Law of Thelema, but reacted against the many attempts by subsequent administrations to gut the constitution.

ii. Beyond his pragmatism, Crowley believed in a sort of benign liberal totalitarianism. That is, these rights are not to due to democratic influence at all, nor were the administration of the wealth of the nation. Instead experts would be appointed that deliberated upon the absolute and undeniable rights of every citizen in the instances where there would be infractions of these rights either by individuals or corporations. That is the State would use its absolute rule to enforce the absolute freedom for every individual.

This liberal totalitarian regime then would as name538 has pointed out interfere with as little as possible in the citizens lives, but instead seek to assist them to discover their true nature through education (promoted as A.C. outlined it a rather unorthodox laizef faire education where the natural inclinations of children would guide what they would be educated in), and protect their rights when their rights have been infringed and offer a sort of very basic welfare state (directed towards Mothers in general and in children in particular, but also the concept of minimum wage, basic health care and a sort of unemployment agency that would assist one to find work one were fit for where included in this vision).

iii. This brings us to his views on legislation, which would "bear constantly in mind the first principle 'do what thou wilt'" and where the laws would "be remodeled fundamentally on First Principles. They shall 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."

As Crowley notes this is not a matter of abstract right or wrong or metaphysical concepts, but rather a matter of practical politics where "the free choice of the individual must be restricted insofar as that unhampered choice might interfere with the equal rights of others." This does not in other words depend on knowing someones Will as such and constantly watching over them ensuring that they do it, but rather leaving the flower alone to bloom in accordance with his nature and restricting others from interfering with his life.

As for how this reformation of society would go Crowley were mainly concerned with the following four areas:

a. Laws on Vice would be overturned, the libertine being punished by nature for his own infractions and serve as a lesson for others, be it for drinking, drugs, sex, self-mutilation or gambling (his examples not mine). At the same time rape, child abuse and other non-consensual actions would be punished.

b. Individual Genius should reign instead of mediocrity. This involved cultivation of a culture of free exhange of ideas in general, save for those who argued for the restriction of this rights for others, and virile exchange and criticism of each others points of views in particular.

In the Thelemic State this would be taken care of by removing the institution of democracy and replacing it with that of Initiation. These would deliberate upon the Laws of the State like a sort of Supreme Court of Thelema, make new ones and more importantly oversee the other departments that their conclusions do not conflict with this initiated insight into the Law of Thelema, where the top experts of their fields would be deciding, not elected officials: the top economicists would handle the properties of the country, the top pedagogs would handle the schooling curricullum etc. etc.

c. Education and biological aim. As I have pointed out before Crowley seperated the concept of true will as applied to initiation and what he called ones biological aim, or what one was fitted for. Consequently even basic schooling would not be mandatory.

d. Elimination of the unfit. Anyone who are unfit for work would no longer be protected by Unions and other attempts to soften the deadly blows of free competition. In practice however this meant that they would be removed from the work in question and assisted in finding work they were fit for. If no such thing were found menial work would be given to them. If they refused to work, they would have the choice of forced labour or emigration.

Hope this answered your concerns Camlion.

The main point is not that an important part of Crowley's writings on his "liberal totalitarianism", like for example chapter 87 in Confessions, is not deemed worthy by him of being contained within even the lowest class category of his writings on Thelema, thus having no official bearing on Thelema.

The main point and problem is that Crowley's writings on his "liberal totalitarianism", violates a principle he greatly avowed, that of the Tao, minding one's own business.


ReplyQuote
Patriarch156
(@patriarch156)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 486
11/06/2010 9:56 am  
"wellredwellbred" wrote:
The main point and problem is that Crowley's writings on his "liberal totalitarianism", violates a principle he greatly avowed, that of the Tao, minding one's own business.

This would be what Crowley called confusing abstract or mystical concepts with practical ethics and politics.

Minding ones own business as understood by Crowley when applied to practical ethics and action were basically understood as Justice Oliver Wendell remarked, "'The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."

That is you are at full liberty to exercise your action (ethics) and force (politics) provided that you do not use this liberty to violate the equal liberty of someone else.

Or noted in other words, if all ideals have fallen, the only one left that could be universally applicable to all would be liberty: that is a law of liberty that secured the liberty of all men and women to exercise their will i freedom.

In order to secure this for all, there needs as Crowley pointed out be a functionable State that exercised the proper use of force (politics) against those who would limit this liberty in others.

Quite simply, in order to mind your own business you need to know not only what is not your business, but also what is.

Liberal Totalitarianism is one way of securing this principle, another but largely failed due to it bringing forth mostly mediocre busybodies is a Liberal Democracy.

All this talk about the Constitution of America which Crowley recognized as embodying a great deal of the the spirit that informed the Law of Thelema being a living and breathing document shows how weak liberal democracy is when it comes to stop the onslaught of progressives to as Crowley also pointed out gut its intent and function.

Equally liberal democracy quickly devolves into a con-game where the politician who promise the people the moon is the one that wins the election, basically resulting in irresponsible caretaking of the assets of the State, which quickly will be frithered away on frivolous nonsense in order to secure the next election and noone daring to take the necessary steps to secure a financially solvent nation, which in turn can secure the liberty of all.

In other words the reason liberal democracy does not work as a proper safeguard against tyranny is because it quickly devolves into the tyranny of the mob as far as freedom is concerned and in the long run brings about the collapse of the state that guarantees this freedom.


ReplyQuote
Patriarch156
(@patriarch156)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 486
11/06/2010 9:59 am  

Speaking of ignoring evidence contrary to ones prejudices:

I suggest you read it a bit more closely as the article ends with: "That still isn't evidence of life after death," added Dr Wiseman. "It just means that we don't understand as much about the brain and the body as we thought we did."


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3950
11/06/2010 10:04 am  
"wellredwellbred" wrote:
The main point and problem is that Crowley's writings on his "liberal totalitarianism", violates a principle he greatly avowed, that of the Tao, minding one's own business.

Yes, like most people, Crowley had contradictions. The Book of the Law, the source document for Thelema, is of course itself contradictory.

Best wishes,

Michael.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
11/06/2010 10:07 am  
"synchromorph93" wrote:
Perspective. Personally, I'm visualizing the sephiroth on the Tree of Life thinking each other are a bunch of assholes, and then going out of their way to prove it. 😛

L O L

😆


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
11/06/2010 10:09 am  
"Keith418" wrote:
If we agree that the system we live in dysfunctional without Thelema guiding it, then how can we simultaneously assert the value of being functional and successful within a system we currently decry? If we do not have any grievous problems with the current system, if we disagree with Crowley about its aimlessness and general state of crisis, then we would never be motivated to establish Thelema as an any alternative. After all, you only go looking for an alternative when you are unhappy with what you currently have. Radical alternatives, like Thelema, require that you be radically dissatisfied with what you have. If people are declared to be "dysfunctional" under a non-Thelemic system, how do we know that they are at fault and not the system itself? If anyone can be "functional" and successful within the current system, why would they ever be motivated to alter that system into something in which they might no longer be as successful?

Crowley clearly wanted talented and successful people to support Thelema and to work to establish its law. But those same successful people had little motivation to seriously change a game they were already winning at. If we only have a pool of unsuccessful, alienated, and dysfunctional people to draw from, how won't their defeated mentalities, and their lack of talents, prevent us from being successful in creating a truly Thelemic society? This paradox appears to me to be as omnipresence as it is undisclosed and unexamined.

Wouldn't anyone capable of creating a truly Thelemic society also be capable of devoting their energies to successfully navigating the existing, non-Thelemic society? If we alter Thelema to appeal to the successful and competent in the non-Thelemic society, aren't we already conceding the virtues and advantages of the kind of society Crowley fought against? If we condemn the current society in the same unequivocal terms Crowley did, then won't we alienate all the "winners" - the people who have an investment in modernity and current, secular society, that we need, with their talents and abilities, to help build an alternative?

Brilliantly said, Keith418.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
11/06/2010 3:50 pm  
"Patriarch156" wrote:
"wellredwellbred" wrote:
The main point and problem is that Crowley's writings on his "liberal totalitarianism", violates a principle he greatly avowed, that of the Tao, minding one's own business.

This would be what Crowley called confusing abstract or mystical concepts with practical ethics and politics.

Minding ones own business as understood by Crowley when applied to practical ethics and action were basically understood as Justice Oliver Wendell remarked, "'The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."

That is you are at full liberty to exercise your action (ethics) and force (politics) provided that you do not use this liberty to violate the equal liberty of someone else.

Or noted in other words, if all ideals have fallen, the only one left that could be universally applicable to all would be liberty: that is a law of liberty that secured the liberty of all men and women to exercise their will i freedom.

In order to secure this for all, there needs as Crowley pointed out be a functionable State that exercised the proper use of force (politics) against those who would limit this liberty in others.

Quite simply, in order to mind your own business you need to know not only what is not your business, but also what is.

Liberal Totalitarianism is one way of securing this principle, another but largely failed due to it bringing forth mostly mediocre busybodies is a Liberal Democracy.

All this talk about the Constitution of America which Crowley recognized as embodying a great deal of the the spirit that informed the Law of Thelema being a living and breathing document shows how weak liberal democracy is when it comes to stop the onslaught of progressives to as Crowley also pointed out gut its intent and function.

Equally liberal democracy quickly devolves into a con-game where the politician who promise the people the moon is the one that wins the election, basically resulting in irresponsible caretaking of the assets of the State, which quickly will be frithered away on frivolous nonsense in order to secure the next election and noone daring to take the necessary steps to secure a financially solvent nation, which in turn can secure the liberty of all.

In other words the reason liberal democracy does not work as a proper safeguard against tyranny is because it quickly devolves into the tyranny of the mob as far as freedom is concerned and in the long run brings about the collapse of the state that guarantees this freedom.

"Patriarch156" wrote:
Crowley believed in a sort of benign liberal totalitarianism. That is, these rights are not to due to democratic influence at all, nor were the administration of the wealth of the nation. Instead experts would be appointed that deliberated upon the absolute and undeniable rights of every citizen in the instances where there would be infractions of these rights either by individuals or corporations. That is the State would use its absolute rule to enforce the absolute freedom for every individual.

Perish the thought! – but there is a chance that the so called unenlightened” and/or uninitiated majority of people under a permanent Thelemic non democratic government, could get seriously fed up with such a government based on a so called enlightened and/or initiated minority.

And the majority of people having no democratic influence at all in such a situation, would have to resort to rather brutal mechanisms for change of government.

That is why all currently existing functioning democracies in this world, are all better then the liberal totalitarianism envisioned by Crowley, because they have better mechanisms for change of government.

"Patriarch156" wrote:
In other words the reason liberal democracy does not work as a proper safeguard against tyranny is because it quickly devolves into the tyranny of the mob as far as freedom is concerned and in the long run brings about the collapse of the state that guarantees this freedom.

Unless we believe in Crowley as a supreme soothsayer with a unique and supreme insight and knowledge, we are not doomed to fail without Thelema, despite of Crowley’s expectations and/or predictions for the future.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
11/06/2010 4:42 pm  
"Patriarch156" wrote:
Equally liberal democracy quickly devolves into a con-game where the politician who promise the people the moon is the one that wins the election, basically resulting in irresponsible caretaking of the assets of the State, which quickly will be frithered away on frivolous nonsense in order to secure the next election and noone daring to take the necessary steps to secure a financially solvent nation, which in turn can secure the liberty of all.

In other words the reason liberal democracy does not work as a proper safeguard against tyranny is because it quickly devolves into the tyranny of the mob as far as freedom is concerned and in the long run brings about the collapse of the state that guarantees this freedom.

Well, this is the ’great paradox’ of democracy, as already understood by the ancients (like Plato).

"wellredwellbred" wrote:
Perish the thought! – but there is a chance that the so called unenlightened” and/or uninitiated majority of people under a permanent Thelemic non democratic government, could get seriously fed up with such a government based on a so called enlightened and/or initiated minority.

And the majority of people having no democratic influence at all in such a situation, would have to resort to rather brutal mechanisms for change of government.

That is why all currently existing functioning democracies in this world, are all better then the liberal totalitarianism envisioned by Crowley, because they have better mechanisms for change of government.

From the perspective of liberty one ought to be skeptical about any form of government that derives its power from majority rule; as such a rule tends to create a climate where short-sighted politics thrive in order to please the perceived lowest common denominator. As Crowley understood the concept of liberty, it was not something that could be bargained away by the whims of some dissatified mob – it was rather a principle that needed to be safeguarded by absolute power in order to flourish.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
12/06/2010 10:18 am  

I just came across this essay by Crowley on the "Jewish problem"
I this expresses very well Crowley's Theological and political ideals,
And comparing Crowley's framing of the "Jewish Problem" with Evola's
You can see how Crowley, Evola and Nietzsche are expressing very similar
foundation, where as Crowley's Thelemic formula of a solution, takes Evola's
Traditionalism in a new direction.

http://www.billheidrick.com/tlc1993/tlc1293.htm#cc


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
12/06/2010 11:00 am  
"wellredwellbred" wrote:
The main point and problem is that Crowley's writings on his "liberal totalitarianism", violates a principle he greatly avowed, that of the Tao, minding one's own business.
"Patriarch156" wrote:
This would be what Crowley called confusing abstract or mystical concepts with practical ethics and politics.

Minding ones own business as understood by Crowley when applied to practical ethics and action were basically understood as Justice Oliver Wendell remarked, "'The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."

That is you are at full liberty to exercise your action (ethics) and force (politics) provided that you do not use this liberty to violate the equal liberty of someone else.

Crowley greatly avowed a principle inspired by the Tao, a principle of minding one's own business.

Patriarch156 writes that Crowley's envisioned "liberal totalitarianism", where the freedom of choice to change one's government by democratic means, is permanently removed, is not in direct violation of Crowley's greatly avowed principle of minding one's own business.

The common sense among the greater majority in functioning democracies in relation to minding one's own business, most likely does does not agree with permanent removal of one's freedom of choice to change one's government by democratic means, as being in accordance with minding one's own business.

It seems that the best hope for "Politics and Thelema" as envisioned by Crowley, is a complete breakdown of most or all governments in the world, which dedicated and well placed Thelemites can take advantage of to benignly manipulate any non Thelemic survivors.

A seemingly much weaker but not totally unlikely hope for "Politics and Thelema" as envisioned by Crowley, is that successful implementation of Thelemic communes should tempt significant numbers of non Thelemites and make them malleable for benign manipulation.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
12/06/2010 12:19 pm  

Here in my own words is what it means to restore tradition in the new aeon.

Thus the cure first and foremost is to restore the vitality of the Race, where it still exists. And where it has been completely bred out, such as in there united states, we must start fresh, we must invent a new Race-Cultures based on High and immortal principles. Not on material commerce, and clamoring for modern mechanisms. We must instill a caste system and same mechanism by which to shun the distractions of industrialism in favor of an authentic way of being Unique to our people as a people, not as a melting pot of industrial waste.

This is the work of the O.T.O, (other Thelemic groups may have other methods) The Re-creation of the world on the basis of Thelema, a world whose Traditions have fallen flat, a world in which nihilism and apathy rule and only material wealth is respected as a token of virtue and social respect. A world where a great poet can't buy a bowl of soup with his art, but some guy making fart jokes on a reality show lives in a mansion. Simply because poets express the heart of tradition and higher values, of which the world no longer pays attention, instead focus is on the most trite and low brow, Those things which are not unique to any high ideals of culture/race or which require any skill or wit to understand, but are merely lowest denominator facts of biology common to even the lowest example of humanity. (They do not inspire) Let us not become an idiocracy, let us not reduce all media and all life to the level of the trailer park, But let us be inspired by higher virtues and give us examples to strive towards.

Let us not make life about Buying and Selling material goods, reducing all things to marketable commodity. Let us seek our fulfillment in our life roles, let us have inter-dependent roles, that are unique so that a feeling of pride is earned by helping out and not letting others down, rather than in selfish vanity. Let us work or the greater good, not for the pay check. Let us have strong heroes, ideals, history and leaders who inspire us as examples of our culture/race, so that we not only live for our selfish clamor for money and vain trinkets, but instead we live up to the ethical and cultural values of our ancestors as well as our living heroes. Let us work under the guide of strong and virtuous leaders, not at their whip but out of respect that we might seek to earn the respect of our superiors, in hope that they may see our potential and one day we might earn the privilege to lead as well.

In this world of apathy, mockery, irony, in these times when we need Tradition the most, let her come to us in a form which we will not forsake.
LET US HAVE SOMETHING WORTHY OF RESPECT.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
12/06/2010 6:42 pm  
"wellredwellbred" wrote:
The main point and problem is that Crowley's writings on his "liberal totalitarianism", violates a principle he greatly avowed, that of the Tao, minding one's own business.
"Patriarch156" wrote:
This would be what Crowley called confusing abstract or mystical concepts with practical ethics and politics.

lol Actually, it is Crowley who is confusing these planes by envisioning a government overseen by 'Adepts,' even with the aid of an interface with committees of scientists (or, rather, his romanticized notion of them). But, okay, I'll be ready to consider this plan when it is ready to be considered. I've been observing the OTO experiment at rather close quarters with great optimism since its resurgence under Grady.

In the mean time, though, I see no alternative to interim solutions employing existing democracies toward the same goal, that "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law."

"wellredwellbred" wrote:
It seems that the best hope for "Politics and Thelema" as envisioned by Crowley, is a complete breakdown of most or all governments in the world, which dedicated and well placed Thelemites can take advantage of to benignly manipulate any non Thelemic survivors.

A seemingly much weaker but not totally unlikely hope for "Politics and Thelema" as envisioned by Crowley, is that successful implementation of Thelemic communes should tempt significant numbers of non Thelemites and make them malleable for benign manipulation.

Right, an apocalypse of one sort or another and Abbeys of Thelema. I'm fairly well versed in both possibilities and I still foresee a protracted interim period in either case.


ReplyQuote
Patriarch156
(@patriarch156)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 486
12/06/2010 8:45 pm  
"Camlion" wrote:
lol Actually, it is Crowley who is confusing these planes by envisioning a government overseen by 'Adepts,' even with the aid of an interface with committees of scientists (or, rather, his romanticized notion of them).

Irrelevant to my point. My point was to elucidate an often missed and subtle point: that Crowley's system of practical ethics (action) and politics (force) were not really concerned with abstract right or wrong as such or similar mystical/magical concepts, but rather grounded in reality, making sure that Liberty was protected by not having it bartered away.

To give you an example. It might possibly be someones will to conduct a monstrous act against someone else without their consent. Will he be allowed to do this in a State governed by the Law of Thelema? No, because it would get in the way of securing the Liberty of every individual in that State. His system of action and force therefore is mainly concerned with the practicalities of securing the Law of Liberty not abstract right or wrong:

"Legislation shall bear constantly in mind the first principle “do what thou wilt”; its object shall be t assist each individual citizen to accomplish his will, as education has assisted him to discover his nature. It shall not restrict any man from damaging himself on the ground that he owes the state service; or even from damaging others, so long as that damage depends on their own consent. Thus, armed robbery is to be repressed. But racing and procuring are not to be made unlawful, on the theory that those who indulge in betting and wenching injure themselves. They have the right to do so; but a right to protection against alien pressure to do so."

Whether or not you think Crowley's ideas are practical is an alltogether different point of view and largely irrelevant to my point about confusing the planes in this particular instance.

I also see that you keep insisting on socalled interrim solutions, without really defining what these are and how you would like to implement them on a grand scale. You also seem to be ignoring the fact that Crowley wanted one through social activism and other means to harmonize the Laws with that of Thelema by abolishing those that are against them, so I am a bit nonplussed as to what makes your own ideas of implementing them any different than his or even what would make them more likely to be implemented.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
12/06/2010 9:19 pm  

Right, like I said before it might be that your WILL is to go on a shooting spree or to assassinate some political figure, which from the pure book of the law stand, that is what you must do. However, do not expect the Thelemic community to help you or support your actions. In fact you can expect that other Thelemite will work to stop you from doing these kinds of violent acts. It may well have been Napoleon's Will to conquer Europe, but we do not pretend that the nations he conquered should have given up without protest.

It is equally the WILL of the prey to run and live as it is the WILL of the lion to hunt and kill.
In the end, they FIGHT and this fighting is the balance of nature, not a conflict in the laws of nature.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
12/06/2010 9:38 pm  
"name538" wrote:
You can not deny the science. What you think does not matter.

Science is related to the time the scientists are living.
During the XII century, the earth was flat…
During the XVI, some people from some part of the earth had no souls…
During the XX, some scientists said that some race were superior to some other.

They were all scientists. That's how science is fabricated.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
12/06/2010 10:08 pm  

They where not scientists they were people who made stuff up to meet their prejudices and then claimed it was true.

Science is discovered in controlled tests that are repeatable and subject to peer review where people who hold various opinions must come to the some results, or else the theory is scraped.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
12/06/2010 10:22 pm  

Expect him not from the East, nor from the West; for from no expected house cometh that child. Aum! All words are sacred and all prophets true; save only that they understand a little; solve the first half of the equation, leave the second unattacked. But thou hast all in the clear light, and some, though not all, in the dark. -Liber AL, I:56


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
12/06/2010 10:24 pm  

It's called empirical evidence, name538, and you're still not getting it. You don't even realize what it is you're writing... you don't even know your own mind, let alone the process of the collective stupidity around you.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
12/06/2010 10:37 pm  

I know my own mind as much as makes any difference.
And it is not just empirical evidence, the brain creates a model, the model is all than we can know. The model is flawed, thus you can NEVER trust your own mind, your own personal direct evidence neither empirical nor intuitive introspection, You can only trust science, which is in subject to peer review, which repeated test by ones own perception as well as the perception of other minds, can either agree or disagree with previous results. Only then can an Objective model of what is really going on be trusted. It's not perfect, but there is no direct immaculate perception, of self or of the world. (Both Hadit and Nuit are unmanifest).

"Trust not the human eye, in sunlight nor in shade, the shadow show of sight and sense is the devil's masquerade."

The way things SEEM to you personally is always the MOST flawed perspective. To get at truth you have to deny your body, deny your mind and then deny your soul, Only then can you listen for the Cock to Crow it's truth.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
12/06/2010 10:50 pm  

so ypu should read -> http://bit.ly/9TTjEl for a "reality" check


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3950
12/06/2010 11:22 pm  
"name538" wrote:
Right, like I said before it might be that your WILL is to go on a shooting spree or to assassinate some political figure, which from the pure book of the law stand, that is what you must do. .

Where in The Book of the Law does it state that you must do these things?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
12/06/2010 11:47 pm  

I said, IF those things happen to be your WILL.

II:42 "...thou hast no right but to do thy will."

Society does not have to support those whose WILL is to act in a way that threaten the stability of the society itself.
A Parasite is just doing it's WILL, but the WILL of the body that it infects is to kill the parasite and save itself.

Like the body, society must act to promote the free action of those parts which support the collective good of the whole, and society must also act to protect itself from those elements which threaten it's cohesive survival.

The book of the law, does not claim that serial killers or even genocidal war lords, are impossible. In fact the book itself says if this is your WILL you must rape murder and kill without mercy and without sense of guilt.

However, you will not make yourself welcome in civil society by these actions, unless you are perhaps protecting a society from an enemy community. It any event, if your Will is to be a raving maniac, you will be outcast from most societies, either jailed, executed, or exiled.

If you want to act in this way, you can do it as an outlaw.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
13/06/2010 12:48 am  

"Anyone who looks upon an outcast breaks the law of the flock." - Johnathan Livingston Seagull


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
13/06/2010 12:53 am  

It's real simple... if the right circuits in your brain/nervous system haven't been activated, you're not even going to begin to understand the metalanguage which allows you to see beyond the illusions cast by the dream.

93


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
13/06/2010 1:08 am  

"there is no law beyond do what thou wilt"
But that does not mean I have to uphold your WILL, if you are bothering me and I can't do my WILL, I may very well smite you without mercy. Which is to say the law does not say I have to care about your WILL at all. As far as anyone is concerned all one must do is concern their own business and anyone else is just a nuisance. There is no liberal notion that I have to help others to do their WILL at all. I don't have to see others as beings with rights of any kind, not even a right to their own WILL.

However, in practical matters, My WILL is inter-dependent on other people. It would be restricting and interfering with my own Will it cut myself off from others in my community. I could live the life of an outcast hermit, but it this would greatly reduce my potential to achieve my WILL.

If However, I wanted to live like the Grinch, then I am not under any ethical obligation or under any social laws to treat the Who's with respect. I can steal their Christmas which creates the noise I can not stand, I may even Slaughter every last Who, if I so WILL and I can get away with it. (That is what black brothers do) However, I will be free only to be miserable and alone, I will have cut myself off from the very community which could have provided me with a purpose and a sense of importance and belonging. My Grinch heart will shrivel to dust.

This is not a pleasant fate, but it is one that is Lawful by the book.
The idea of creating a society is to create conditions where those who seek to give and share their light may do so, each in their unique way, with protection against these whose Will is to harm others and snuff out the light.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
13/06/2010 1:29 am  

you should contact your nearest OTO lodge. It seems that the manner that you intellectualize the law consists in finding problems where they are not. Ask them on the guardian angel… What follows will be less disturbing…


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
13/06/2010 1:37 am  

Can you be so sure that some one like say Hitler or Charles Manson did not do their TRUE WILL?
They certainly acted in a way that was against the WILL of civil society. But there is no guarantee that civil society has some special place in the world or in the "heart of God" that makes it better or worse than tearing each other apart like psychotic wolves.

There is no divine plan. There is only this world of physical matter. If you want peace and civility, you have to secure a sacred space, banish it of elements you don't want, cultivate the elements you do want. Those elements include what types of behaviors you find acceptable in your sacred space. Those with violent natures are to be excluded, certain behaviors are to be rewarded and encouraged other behaviors to be diminished.

The book of the law, is about the laws of nature, survival of the fittest, to the victor goes the spoils.
The law of society is about mutual benefits and must work within the laws of nature not opposed to them.
Wolves are not Evil, but if you let wolves enter your sheep pen, you are asking for trouble.
You may have Dogs and sheep living together, but you have to train the dogs, not to bite the sheep. (But realize dogs are not sheep and sheep are not dogs, the leaders of society must train each according to what it is, that is Thelema)


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
13/06/2010 2:21 am  
"name538" wrote:
the leaders of society must train each according to what it is, that is Thelema)

Politics, as we know it, has never been the world of care-bears… It's the domain reserved for "self-power hungry" gentlemen.
We don't need, as free people, politicians to tell us what to do. (in facts, that these people (the politicians, moguls, etc) induce us to do what they want for theirselves.) We just need discernment.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
13/06/2010 2:23 am  
"name538" wrote:
Can you be so sure that some one like say Hitler or Charles Manson did not do their TRUE WILL?

Yes, because there's no such thing as "True Will", even if you spell it in capitals. It's a THEORY. And JUST a THEORY. And an incoherent one at that. What they did was not Thelemic, because it was devoid of love, which is the law. There was no love under will, only hate under will.

There is no divine plan. There is only this world of physical matter.

Where does either Crowley or the Book of the Law say this?

To quote you, "can you be so sure"? (as opposed to just dense and attention-seeking?)

If you want peace and civility, you have to secure a sacred space, banish it of elements you don't want, cultivate the elements you do want.

But but but I thought you just said there was only this world of matter?

The book of the law, is about the laws of nature, survival of the fittest, to the victor goes the spoils.

Well I guess your arse will be kicked high and dry when the "Thelemic" Apocalypse comes, eh? I personally can't wait. Where do you live?

Wolves are not Evil, but if you let wolves enter your sheep pen, you are asking for trouble. You may have Dogs and sheep living together, but you have to train the dogs, not to bite the sheep. (But realize dogs are not sheep and sheep are not dogs, the leaders of society must train each according to what it is, that is Thelema)

Well that's fine if you're really into animals, but I think Thelema, being a set of ideas in English, is meant primarily to be understood and applied by human beings (not that you appear to know any).

You have the most imbecilic, mechanistic reading of Thelema - essentially reducing people in a literal sense to not just the level of animals, but even lower in the order of being - we're basically no better than rocks to you. If you're basing your generalisation upon yourself as the prime example, I understand why you've come to this conclusion, but thank Christ I'm not you. That's all I can say.

On behalf of the entire human race who have ever lived, live now, and ever will live, I'd like to register a personal objection to your insulting attitude towards my species.

N.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
13/06/2010 2:30 am  

What do you call the sacred sanctuary of the IXth degree if not politicians, they are practically a Roman senate.

The fair implementation of policy is to test it out in practice and base the final decisions at least in part of the popular response to the policy and also on the actual effectiveness of the policy.

The work of the Lovers triad in the community would be like the managers in Walden 2, while the work of the Hermit triad is analogous to the planners.

The policy is not the creation of statutes and rules, it is rather to shape the environment of the community such as the "voluntary" behavior of each member will be appropriate to the good of the community, without need to impose written laws or threaten penalties for transgressions.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
13/06/2010 2:52 am  

All things are just things.
Humans are different from Rocks only in the same way that a clock in different from the metal than makes the gears and springs in the clock.

In a very real sense a human is made of Rocks, of rocks that have been broken down in very very small parts and each part arranged into a system, like gears in a clock. A chunk of scrap iron can be formed into a clock in the same way about 3lbs of rock and 6 pounds of water can be formed into a human infant.

The fact is that Iron has different properties from wood, if you build a compass with a wooden needle, it will not work to guide the direction north. (this is a mis-application of the method or Thelema)

To use each according to it's unique properties, is Thelema.

That each individual and each race can express it's true nature and purpose, then each cog will fit into place and the whole will work well. If we use pressure to secure a Jew to do work more suited to an Irishman or as in the past we forced the negro to do the work appropriate to a mule or machine. Then we can expect the system to break down, the grumbling of the parts is an indication of their mis-placement. Much as the pain of one part of the body, is an indication of something amiss that may threaten the operation of the whole.

"For wert thou to summon the Gnomes to pander to thy avarice, thou wouldst no longer command them, but they would command thee. Wouldst thou abuse the pure creatures of God’s creation to fill thy coffers and to satisfy thy lust for Gold? Wouldst thou defile the Spirits of driving Fire to serve thy wrath and hatred? Wouldst thou violate the purity of the Souls of the Water to pander to thy lust and debauchery? Wouldst thou force the Spirits of the evening breeze to minister to thy folly and caprice?

Know that with such desires thou canst but attract the evil and not the good, and in that can the evil will have power over thee."

Thus it is that greater authority comes with learning the lessons of initiation, with transcending selfish desires of these kinds.


ReplyQuote
soz
 soz
(@soz)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 88
13/06/2010 8:45 am  
"name538" wrote:
...each race can express it's[sic] true nature and purpose, then each cog will fit into place

Your theories fascinate me. Each race has its true nature and purpose...

"name538" wrote:
If we use pressure to secure a Jew to do work more suited to an Irishman

Could you go into more detail about the sorts of work that are most suited to the various races and ethnicities? What work is best suited to Irishmen? What about Jews?

"name538" wrote:
...we forced the negro to do the work appropriate to a mule or machine....

Surely it is not Thelemic to force the Negro man to do the work of the Mule! What then would you consider to be the "true nature and purpose" of the "Negro"?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
13/06/2010 9:13 am  

Well, ultimately I can not discern what is the True WILL of other races.
But we can assume that the Identity of the Jew is tied in with a strong history of legalism and financial adeptness. (But the Jews as a people need to find themselves, before their highest expression of their culture's purpose can be known and achieved)
The Negro has links to strong community ties and openness to sharing, for example the Ubuntu linux as a high expression of the Open source philosophy to make software cheap/free and compatible to all languages, platforms and easy to use for all levels of education, is a Negro expression, most especially the Ethiopian.
But ultimately it will be the Magus of each race that will express the Word of it's purpose and WILL.
Read the article I posted a few back, that is Crowley's stance an "the Jewish problem".


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0

ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
13/06/2010 10:29 am  

the production of brain states is irrelevant, the thought, feelings and brain states of people simply do not matter, what matters is what people do, large scale events in space time.

The only extent to which mystical feeilngs and states matter, is in so much as it shapes behaviors of those who are suited to rule over and lead others. Ie to shape the effects of large scale space-time events.

To hell with feelings, I am only concerned that the actual bodies in the world are moving in space-time according to the proper and most efficient laws of motion. I don't care if YOU are miserable, so long as you are doing what you are supposed to be doing.

" In the body every cell is subordinated to the general physiological control, and we who will that control do not ask whether each individual unit of that structure be consciously happy. Be we do care that each shall fulfill its function, and the failure of even a few cells, or their revolt, may involve the death of the whole organism."


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
13/06/2010 10:46 am  

Noctifer,

Let me put this another way, as far as how I treat people vs animals vs things.

"Nature is not Humane, she treats all things like straw dogs, The sage likewise treats all people like straw dogs"
To paraphrase the Tao teh ching.

A straw dog, is a bundle of straw that is tied up to look like a dog, that the Chinese burn as a sacrifice. It's only purpose is to be used up, and once it is used up in the purpose of the ritual it's ashes are discarded. Nature sees all things as raw material to burn up, wear out and use up then discard without a second thought.

The sage or Wise man, is like nature, seeing all things, animals and people as Straw dogs to use up and cast away, without a second thought.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3950
13/06/2010 11:02 am  
"name538" wrote:
"Nature is not Humane, she treats all things like straw dogs, The sage likewise treats all people like straw dogs"
To paraphrase the Tao teh ching

Could you give a reference please for the part of the Tao Teh Ching which you are paraphrasing?


ReplyQuote
OKontrair
(@okontrair)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 501
13/06/2010 12:44 pm  

Please Sir, me Sir I know this one.

Part one chapter five.

Here is Legge:

Heaven and earth do not act from (the impulse of) any wish to be
benevolent; they deal with all things as the dogs of grass are dealt
with. The sages do not act from (any wish to be) benevolent; they
deal with the people as the dogs of grass are dealt with.

Crowley makes this:

Heaven and earth proceed without motive, but casually in their order of nature, dealing with all things like used talismans. So also the sages deal with their people, not excercising benevolence, but allowing the nature of all to move without friction.

Translations giving "Straw dogs" are quite common (e.g. John C.H.Wu and Robrt G. Hendicks) and name538's explanation is a good one

OK


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
13/06/2010 1:28 pm  

"...every man is "determined" so that every action is merely the
passive resultant of the sum-total of the forces which have acted upon him from
eternity, so that his own Will is only the echo of the Will of the Universe..." (From ABA)

This backs up determinism, not that I need Crowley's sanction on it, others have proven it before him and after.


ReplyQuote
Page 5 / 12
Share: