The Danger of Dogma...
 
Notifications
Clear all

The Danger of Dogma?  

Page 1 / 2
  RSS

 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
10/10/2011 12:28 am  

In 2007 a schoolboy, Diego Piniera-Villar, was murdered by one Edward Crowley (EC), a man who coincidentally shared surnames with Aleister Crowley (AC). EC was an adherent of AC's ideas. EC had a personality disorder but was not psychotic. He had become besotted with Piniera-Villar, a feeling that was ultimately nonreciprocal, and which resulted in this appalling, tragic murder. After the murder of Piniera-Villar, police found EC was carrying an inscription in Latin which read "Diego must die" and diagrams relating to sacrifices.

We know that AC's writings on child sacrifice in 'Magick in Theory and Practice' were encoded instructions on masturbatory magick, and that, as far we can reasonably know, AC did not practice or condone child sacrifice. EC clearly had mental health issues, and it might seem unfair to link him directly to AC or Thelema. Or is it?

In a previous thread on this topic, the editor of Lashtal effectively drew a line under the discussion of this case, by stating: 'Is it relevant to the life and legacy of Aleister Crowley? Only in the vaguest, most tangential way. Is it relevant to Thelema? Not in the slightest.' I, however, would disagree.

The final two segments of AC's Liber Oz - The Thelemic Declaration of the Rights of Man - state: (4) 'Man has the right to love as he will - "take your fill and will of love as ye will, when, where, and with whom ye will." —AL. I. (5) MAN HAS THE RIGHT TO KILL THOSE WHO WOULD THWART THESE RIGHTS.'

AC wrote Liber OZ “in order to convey as simply as possible the ‘O.T.O. plan in words of one syllable" broken down into "five sections: moral, bodily, mental, sexual, and the safeguard tyrannicide’..." It was written in 1941, near the end of AC's life, at a time when he seriously hoped and believed that Thelema would become a religion of nation states, and that it could be meshed into 'New Aeon' ethico-political currents.

Going by the final two tenets of Liber Oz, one could argue that EC murdered Piniera-Villar in line with Thelemic dogma; a set of principles entitled 'The Declaration of the Rights of Man' can only be described as such: dogma. EC, arguably, believed it was his right to: 'take your fill and will of love as ye will, when, where, and with whom ye will'. i.e. with Piniera-Villar. Because, arguably, as EC saw it, Piniera-Villar thwarted his will, EC, arguably, believed he had 'the right to kill those who would thwart these rights.'

Of course, EC was mentally ill, and he is in no way representative of the behaviour of Thelemites generally, the majority of whom, in my limited experience at least, are sensible, well-reasoned people. One could counter-argue that the follower of any religion might twist its tenets to their own evil ends, and we can safely say that infinitely more murders have been committed in the name of Abrahamic philosophy than ever have been or ever will be in relation with Thelemic ideas. However, the tenet: 'MAN HAS THE RIGHT TO KILL THOSE WHO WOULD THWART THESE RIGHTS' is forthright, unequivocal and in my view ridiculous. It seems to be little more than the froth and dribble of the school bully; the world isn't at the mercy of your every whim. Get over it.

Wikipedia's article on Liber Oz states, by way of disclaimer, that the final, murderous tenet: 'only allows the action: it does not prevent or excuse anyone from the consequences of any actions they partake in.' Try telling that to Diego Piniera-Villar's mother.

I'm sure this post will prove unpopular but that isn't my concern. As AC himself said: "Question everything.". That applies to Thelema as much as it applies to Christianity, Islam, Judaism or anything else. I've read a fair amount of AC, and quite a lot about Thelema in general. Some of it I find inspiring and fortifying, whilst some of it I find anachronistic and absurd. Whilst AC claims to have wiped the 'Old Aeon' away and replaced it with a new model that advocates self-determinism and free-will, it ultimately, in my opinion, merely updates it with a new set of orthodoxies, superstitions and dogma. And dogma can be dangerous.

V

“Your time is limited, so don't waste it living someone else's life. Don't be trapped by dogma - which is living with the results of other people's thinking." Steve Jobs.


Quote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
10/10/2011 1:21 am  

Your question is ridiculous.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
10/10/2011 2:02 am  
"tai" wrote:
Your question is ridiculous.

It isn't a question. And it isn't ridiculous. It's a challenge to the belief that an individual has the 'right' to kill anyone who tries to interfere with their actions. That isn't only ridiculous, it's deranged. I don't think you'll find this article enshrined in the legal statutes of too many modern democracies, although it might exist in some kind of Thelemic fantasy of a near-future. Glad I'll be dead before the unlikely event of that ever occurring. So how do you justify this to yourself? I can't wait to hear.


ReplyQuote
Markus
(@markus)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 258
10/10/2011 2:50 am  

I'm bored of people beguiled by the "Demon Crowley" and hope this thread gets locked a.s.a.p.

Markus


ReplyQuote
alysa
(@alysa)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 655
10/10/2011 3:14 am  

Your surely not alone with this boredness, Markus, and I also hope this thread shall be locked as soon as possible!


ReplyQuote
herupakraath
(@herupakraath)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 453
10/10/2011 3:43 am  
"viking41" wrote:
However, the tenet: 'MAN HAS THE RIGHT TO KILL THOSE WHO WOULD THWART THESE RIGHTS' is forthright, unequivocal and in my view ridiculous. It seems to be little more than the froth and dribble of the school bully; the world isn't at the mercy of your every whim. Get over it.

In the process of attempting a feigned legitimate discussion about the views of Aleister Crowley, you managed to pile on all the dirt you could, including elements that are irrelevant to the specific topic, the right to kill as specified in Liber OZ. The murder by Edward Crowley most certainly does not fall into the category of justified homicide as determined by Liber OZ, unless you can explain how E.C. somehow had his rights violated by his victim.

Likewise for your ridiculous statement about Liber OZ being the dribble of a school bully; bullies violate the rights of others, not vice-versa. The sanction to kill specified in Liber OZ is rooted in self-defense, not in unwarranted acts of aggression. I hope you will re-read your statement and observations and come to grips with how utterly inane they are, and take your trolling elsewhere.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
10/10/2011 6:56 am  
"viking41" wrote:
It's a challenge to the belief that an individual has the 'right' to kill anyone who tries to interfere with their actions.

“Boy everyone in this country is running around yammering about their fucking rights. ‘I have a right, you have no right, we have a right…’ Folks I hate to spoil your fun, but… there’s no such thing as rights. They’re imaginary. We made ‘em up. Like the boogie man. […] Rights are an idea. They’re just imaginary. They’re a cute idea. Cute. But that’s all. Cute…and fictional.”
--George Carlin

Liber Oz – as I’ve said before – doesn’t give anyone rights. It lists the rights (that is, abilities) that are available to those people who are strong enough to take them.

As Carlin points out in the above quote, “rights” – as commonly understood – are entirely imaginary. If, as a purely hypothetical example, you wanted to kill someone, you have the right – that is, the ability – to do that. And if you do it, other people have the right to lock you up for doing something they deem detrimental to society. Or relatives of the guy you kill have the right to hunt you down and extract vigilante vengeance, etc.

Liber Oz is nothing more than a simple statement of the facts of nature: the strong have the right to do their will.

Amusingly, Carlin’s piece ends as follows:

“Personally, when it comes to rights, I think one of two things is true. I think either we have unlimited rights, or we have no rights at all. Personally I lean towards unlimited rights. I feel for instance I have the right to do anything I please, BUT! If I do something you don’t like I think you have the right to kill me. So where are you gonna find a fairer fucking deal than that? So the next time some asshole says to you ‘I have the right to my opinion.’ You say, ‘oh yeah? Well I have the right to my opinion and my opinion is you have no right to your opinion!’ then shoot the fuck and walk away…”


ReplyQuote
Frater_HPK
(@frater_hpk)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 104
10/10/2011 7:15 am  

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

First of all, I completelly agree that first post is without sense. But the question of dogma is very good. Very recently I started similar question, ok, not so much similar, among OTO members and members of some other Thelemic groups in Croatia and Serbia. The queston was about their reaction, or better what would they do, in the case of violating Liber OZ inside the Thelemic community. OTO or some other. some members stronly advocated rebelion anf fight for thelemic rights, especialy in the cace of possible violationg women's right and right of children. Some leaders of local bodies were different opinion, to ignore this, and to "fight from he inside" traying to get as much as possible higher degree and position in the hierarchy. I don't want to comment opinios of other people, everybody has right to have his or her own opinion. I would like to ask people here how they would react in some such situation? For example in the case of violence against woman in the temple, asking the sexual favour of female members in some thelemic community or organisation, insisting that Priestess and Priest must have sex, or even, for example, hiding some case of pedophilia? My question to them was are thelemites better persons and less hipocrites than christians? Juts currious about opinion of the people here - how would (or should) Thelemites react in some Thelemic or non-thelemic organisation where some such, or similar, things would happen? To fight, to make revolution, to protest, to make some strategy for fight ... or to be silent and ignore whole situation and take care only about their own interest? Just currious about various opinions, thank you in advance.

Love is the law, love under will.

B.


ReplyQuote
Inox
 Inox
(@inox)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 5
12/10/2011 3:40 pm  

I always read it simply as "Here are the things that free people should be able to do. If someone is going to restrict your ability to partake of these basic and harmless 'rights', then you have the right to kill your oppressor (if you can)."

The main idea behind the list in the first place is that the listed things are those that maximize individual freedom of choice without trammeling someone else's.

To put it simply, victimizing people is inherently a restriction of the opportunities that the list says should exist for them.


ReplyQuote
amadan-De
(@amadan-de)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 686
12/10/2011 4:27 pm  
"Inox" wrote:
I always read it simply as "Here are the things that free people should be able to do. If someone is going to restrict your ability to partake of these basic and harmless 'rights', then you have the right to kill your oppressor (if you can)."

Basically Proudhon then.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
12/10/2011 4:33 pm  

shall make a great miss


ReplyQuote
OKontrair
(@okontrair)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 501
12/10/2011 5:47 pm  

reload and fire again then


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
12/10/2011 9:36 pm  

"MAN HAS THE RIGHT TO KILL THOSE WHO WOULD THWART THESE RIGHTS." - Liber OZ

I take this to mean that we have the obligation to persevere in doing our true Will by the most efficient means necessary to accomplishing that end, up to and including mortal combat, killing or dying, if necessary. There is no sense in living if you cannot ultimately do your true Will, the sum total of which is your sole purpose in life.

Crowley had the persistent habit of giving his readers the benefit of the doubt when it came to having common sense. Hence this thread.

There is a personal responsibility to employ logistics and strategy in life. One is to do what is necessary to accomplish each act, no more, no less. Actions have consequences which could thwart one's own goals. Common sense.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
15/10/2011 10:11 pm  

``The queston was about their reaction, or better what would they do, in the case of violating Liber OZ inside the Thelemic community. ``

Unfortunatelly, people offen take the Liber OZ such an holy scripture. It is ``Thelemic decleration of human right`` written by A.C but only exempli gratia and in poetic manner. Accordingly, if there is a conflict than :`` As brothers fight ye!`` 😉

DCLXVI , Belgrade


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
16/10/2011 12:11 am  

<span style="font-size:18px]Life & liberty are threatened everywhere. We need a watchword and a banner for the battle. Liber Oz is exactly that and not unlike the constitutions of any of the freedom based countries of our united nations. As a matter of fact, I do believe just yesterday seven al-Qaeda-linked militants, including the son of the U.S.-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, were killed in an American drone strike in southern Yemen. We generally indeed do go to war, battle or fight to preserve and uphold our freedom. In the course of these wars we do kill those who would thwart these rights and threaten our life & liberty. And if you are asking what Aleister Crowley and Thelema have to do with this, my reply is%;">


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5326
16/10/2011 1:24 am  

666TSAEB gets to the point of Liber OZ in his post. OZ was published as a 'banner for battle' during the Second World War. It was intended as a call to arms for soldiers fighting a specific threat - as such, aimed as it was at people whose duty it is to fight, the assertion of the right to kill is entirely understandable and legitimate, both morally and legally.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
16/10/2011 3:11 am  

1) Liber Oz is speaking about something who is already doing their Will.
2) This guy obviously wasn't, as he was sick in the head.
3) Crowley also stated that murder just for the hell of it is partly a case of the murderer being at odds with their own "will-to-live".
4) Context is everything. There is no such thing as a "Sunday Thelemite." Any real Thelemite can tell you that murder is quite an opposite idea of Thelema, being that murder takes the away the right for another person to uncover and execute their True Will. In the context of Liber Oz, murder would be excusable if someone was actually doing their Will and that psychopath tried to destroy their right to do so.
5) The guy was an idiot, plain and simple.

6) Are you a troll, OP?


ReplyQuote
sonofthestar
(@sonofthestar)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 375
16/10/2011 6:35 am  

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

Liber OZ
is exceedingly applicable---as "the definitive" mind-set--and resultant actions necessary for "Free Men and Women" to take "against"
all forms of Political and Religious--over-lording, horror spawned systems/governments;
---in whatever form that
tangible excrement may manifest as.

It is the code of an uttermost balanced and evolved "Human".
The Law of The Strong---!
Those who Know Not how to Will (the weak/slaves) can only make a mockery of their lives in living OZ as their failing.
Such is the example of that mockery,
made mention of in the original post.

If and when, such a government "Reigns" as One With those principles proclaimed in The Rights of Man,
it will make it Impossible for any religious or political systems to "legislate" the "false truths" which are their doctrines and dogmas.

At this early time, in the growth of "The Child"...
OZ is sometimes perfectly, and sometimes imperfectly,
manifested as "an aspect" of the inner guiding light of each particular,
and individual Star's Thelemic shining.
This developing inner Freedom as expressed as OZ, of the growing Child, can only Illumine more fiercely--as is Thine nature to do so.

Mainly though, OZ = Man Know and Rule Thyself.
For only by such Willing
shall you truly abide in Life, Light, Love and Liberty.

Love is the law, love under will.


ReplyQuote
Aleisterion
(@aleisterion)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 343
16/10/2011 3:00 pm  

The line from the verse, Liber Legis 1:51, cited in the opening post, i.e. "Also, take your fill and will of love as ye will, when, where and with whom ye will! But always unto me", applies not only to the lover but to the beloved-to-be, as well. In other words, it is wholly unlawful to force one's love on anyone who wills it not. Note too the all-important caveat: "But always unto me": for one must approach all such acts as sacraments of the Supreme Will within us, with a focus on the Universal Beloved, not strictly on the mundane object that serves in its honor.

The line in Oz, that one may kill those who thwart his rights, refers, I think, not just to the overcoming of tyrants, but also to those inferior elements of self that would thwart the True Will. It is akin to the line in L 3:44: "Let her kill her heart". As Crowley writes in L 2:17: "But 'the poor and the outcast' are the petty thoughts and the Qliphotic thoughts and the sad thoughts. These must be rooted out, or the ecstasy of Hadit is not in us. They are the weeds in the Garden that starve the Flower."

There is grave danger in approaching Thelemic doctrine without subtlety of thought. It is profound and often metaphorical, not at all points to be taken literally.


ReplyQuote
tc
 tc
(@tc)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 40
17/10/2011 3:53 pm  
"Aleisterion" wrote:
The line from the verse, Liber Legis 1:51, cited in the opening post, i.e. "Also, take your fill and will of love as ye will, when, where and with whom ye will! But always unto me", applies not only to the lover but to the beloved-to-be, as well. In other words, it is wholly unlawful to force one's love on anyone who wills it not. Note too the all-important caveat: "But always unto me": for one must approach all such acts as sacraments of the Supreme Will within us, with a focus on the Universal Beloved, not strictly on the mundane object that serves in its honor.

The line in Oz, that one may kill those who thwart his rights, refers, I think, not just to the overcoming of tyrants, but also to those inferior elements of self that would thwart the True Will. It is akin to the line in L 3:44: "Let her kill her heart". As Crowley writes in L 2:17: "But 'the poor and the outcast' are the petty thoughts and the Qliphotic thoughts and the sad thoughts. These must be rooted out, or the ecstasy of Hadit is not in us. They are the weeds in the Garden that starve the Flower."

There is grave danger in approaching Thelemic doctrine without subtlety of thought. It is profound and often metaphorical, not at all points to be taken literally.

What an insightful, thoughtful and thought provoking post. Thank you Aleisterion.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
17/10/2011 7:46 pm  
"Aleisterion" wrote:
There is grave danger in approaching Thelemic doctrine without subtlety of thought. It is profound and often metaphorical, not at all points to be taken literally.

But then again, there is much to lost by revisionism. Any given writing can be interpreted to say something other than what it's meant to say if one tries hard enough.

"Where the text is simple, straightforward English, I shall not seek, or allow, any interpretation at variance with it."

"I may admit a Qabalistic or cryptographic secondary meaning when such confirms, amplifies, deepens, intensifies, or clarifies the obvious common-sense significance; but only if it be part of the general plan of the "latent light" and self-proven by abundant witness." -AC


ReplyQuote
Walterfive
(@walterfive)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 856
17/10/2011 10:29 pm  

Our Brother in Serbia asks: "My question to them was are thelemites better persons and less hipocrites than christians?"

From the Comedies of 'Gartangual and Pantagruel': of the Lords and Ladies of the Abbey of Thelema--"In all their rules and strictest ties of their Order there was but this one clause to be observed, Do What Thou Wilt; because men that are free well-born, well-bred, and conversant in honest companies, have naturally an instinct and spur that prompteth them unto virtuous actions, and withdraws them from vice, which is called honour."

From this we may surmise that we should strive to be better persons than they, the Christians, and certainly we should all strive for a minimum of hypocritical behavior. Unfortunately, the examples we are sometimes exposed to do not show the qualities that Rabelais describes, and that Crowley similarly based his principles on (as best defined in Duty). Some of us *do* "get it" and strive for these noble principals. Some of us practice the 4th power of the Sphinx, and 'convert not, argue not overmuch.' One cannot live one's life "as a shining example", one can only live one's life to the best of one's ability-- it is not The Hermit who shines, it is the Lamp he holds that shines the guiding light. Thelema is non-dogmatic, and anti-authoritarian, but is it ethically concious? I believe it is, but some self-described Thelemites have yet to wake up and smell the coffee.

Our Brother in Serbia relates: "For example in the case of violence against woman in the temple, asking the sexual favour of female members in some thelemic community or organisation, insisting that Priestess and Priest must have sex, or even, for example, hiding some case of pedophilia?"

Unfortunately there are unenlightened Pigs who seem to think that the only place a Woman has in Thelema is naked, on an Altar, with her legs spread. ANYONE who tells you that a Novitiate Priest and Priestess or Ordained Priests and Priestesses *must* have sex is a lecher and/or a liar-- usually it's because they want to screw *your* girlfriend/wife/companion. These swine buy into the Liber Aleph bullshit that 'women have no souls' and that 'the best that a woman can hope for in this life is to die and be reincarnated as a man.'

Needless to say, the Book of the Law is quite counter-indicative of these opinions.

Asking a woman if she'll have sex with you is permitted, and so is her saying "NO." and meaning it, because "...in her is all power given." Or, as I had to kindly explain to a newcomer a year or two ago, "friend, it's the Lady's choice, not yours-- a blind mand could *smell* YOUR choice. You don't want to accept the Lady's choice? There's the door-- get your ass on the other side of it."

The other matters you mention, coeherced sex, violence, these are clear violations of Pax Templi, and as such should be reported to your Grand Inspector General (hopefully one in Europe or elsewise attached to the International Grand Lodge is reading this conversation and will get in touch with you.) In my humble opinion, a Scarlet Woman, or *any* Priestess or Sister (for that matter) of Thelema should have the right to castrate those who would try to take her by rape, by blackmail, or by cohersion-- because *these days*, with A.I.D.S. and Hep Type C, rape or unsafe sex can be a death sentence, and any "man" who tries to rape one of *my* sisters should only get the opportunity *once.*

But what do the rest of you think?


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
18/10/2011 1:16 am  
"Walterfive" wrote:
But what do the rest of you think?

Honestly, I think this is a troll thread.

But good points, Walter.


ReplyQuote
Nomad
(@nomad)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 85
18/10/2011 3:58 am  

666TSAEB wrote:

Life & liberty are threatened everywhere. We need a watchword and a banner for the battle. Liber Oz is exactly that and not unlike the constitutions of any of the freedom based countries of our united nations. As a matter of fact, I do believe just yesterday seven al-Qaeda-linked militants, including the son of the U.S.-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, were killed in an American drone strike in southern Yemen. We generally indeed do go to war, battle or fight to preserve and uphold our freedom. In the course of these wars we do kill those who would thwart these rights and threaten our life & liberty. And if you are asking what Aleister Crowley and Thelema have to do with this, my reply is: just about everything.

With respect 666TSAEB, I find it abhorrent to use such a majestic piece of writing as Liber Oz to justify the shameful, cowardly wars for oil that are currently taking place in the world.

These wars have nothing to do with 'fighting for freedom' - unless one believes the marketing, which is aimed only at the lowest common denominator of human stupidity. They are simply about greed. A decade-long slaughter of over a million innocent people is not Thelema. Thelema is recognising that every man and every woman is a star, an expression of Nuit, and thus killing even one person is only to be done in the most extreme circumstances. It is not to be done because people are living adjacent to oilfields.

That said though, the retalliation against invasion by these countries is what Liber Oz is about. That is the sort of killing it justifies. Those people's liberty is threatened, and they have every right to shoot to kill.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
18/10/2011 5:03 am  
"Nomad" wrote:
666TSAEB wrote:

Life & liberty are threatened everywhere. We need a watchword and a banner for the battle. Liber Oz is exactly that and not unlike the constitutions of any of the freedom based countries of our united nations. As a matter of fact, I do believe just yesterday seven al-Qaeda-linked militants, including the son of the U.S.-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, were killed in an American drone strike in southern Yemen. We generally indeed do go to war, battle or fight to preserve and uphold our freedom. In the course of these wars we do kill those who would thwart these rights and threaten our life & liberty. And if you are asking what Aleister Crowley and Thelema have to do with this, my reply is: just about everything.

With respect 666TSAEB, I find it abhorrent to use such a majestic piece of writing as Liber Oz to justify the shameful, cowardly wars for oil that are currently taking place in the world.

These wars have nothing to do with 'fighting for freedom' - unless one believes the marketing, which is aimed only at the lowest common denominator of human stupidity. They are simply about greed. A decade-long slaughter of over a million innocent people is not Thelema. Thelema is recognising that every man and every woman is a star, an expression of Nuit, and thus killing even one person is only to be done in the most extreme circumstances. It is not to be done because people are living adjacent to oilfields.

That said though, the retalliation against invasion by these countries is what Liber Oz is about. That is the sort of killing it justifies. Those people's liberty is threatened, and they have every right to shoot to kill.

Do you think the Muslims that are fighting, are fighting to keep their oil, or do you think they are fighting "Westernization" and influence? If the latter, do you really think they would stop fighting that cause if left alone? Do you think that the zealots among them would view global domination and implementation of Sharia Law as their ultimate goal?

If so, if you have seen that far into it and beyond, then yes, Liber Oz very much works in those ways in which you seemingly detest.

As for the oil part, I agree.


ReplyQuote
Walterfive
(@walterfive)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 856
18/10/2011 9:56 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
"Walterfive" wrote:
But what do the rest of you think?

Honestly, I think this is a troll thread.

But good points, Walter.

Thankee kindly, Azidonis, but the questions posed by our Brother in Serbia are quite real, and unfortunately, the problems he's discussing have been swept under the rug or otherwise non-addressed elsewhere in the world. Where do the vows to our bretheren end? What do we in Thelema recognize as "rape"? And what do we do about it if such a violation occurs?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
18/10/2011 10:20 pm  
"Nomad" wrote:
That said though, the retalliation against invasion by these countries is what Liber Oz is about. That is the sort of killing it justifies. Those people's liberty is threatened, and they have every right to shoot to kill.

Full agreement there Nomad, it was just to show this fellow:

and his cohorts the legal aspects in the literal sense of present day international killing. I'd hardly support those particular politics, only mentioned because they are current affairs...


ReplyQuote
mika
 mika
(@mika)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 360
19/10/2011 12:00 am  
"Walterfive" wrote:
Where do the vows to our bretheren end?

One's vows end where those vows conflict with that individual's will.

"Walterfive" wrote:
What do we in Thelema recognize as "rape"?

"We in Thelema" have a variety of perspectives.

"Walterfive" wrote:
And what do we do about it if such a violation occurs?

We do whatever actions conform to our individual will.

More specifically: Say some leaders in an organization are abusing their power by physically, emotionally or otherwise violating their members' trust. The appropriate Thelemic response is for each individual to respond to that abuse according to their own will. Some will leave the org. Some will fight back for themselves. Some will fight for others even if they weren't violated themselves. Then the people who committed the abuse may or may not be kicked out or otherwise punished. If they are not, then the other members will either choose to stay or will leave. The group will continue or die out based on these individual choices. End of story.

Power abuse in a heirarchy based on trust, and abuse against women specifically, are certainly very serious, pervasive, disgusting issues. However, a voluntary organization is not the same as, say, a society where individuals have constitutional, legally enforcable civil rights. Not only do I have no choice but to walk down my city street, I have the right to walk down my city street, and the right to do so unmolested. I do not have the right (in a constitutional, legal sense) to join a private organization and then demand that the organization change its practices based on my opinion, if those practices conform to the laws of the society in which it exists.

So, rape is illegal and even if a group finds it acceptable the perpetrator can (and should) be arrested and jailed for committing that crime (see: Warren Jeffs). Your Serbian friend should report the OTO rapist to the police asap. However, if, say, some OTO group decides the High Preist and High Priestess must have sex during some ritual, they get to make that call, and if members don't like it they are free to try to change the rule and/or leave the organization. If either of the HPs don't like it, they can step down from their role. If a member thinks another is being inappropriately pressured, they can voice their concerns. Or they can leave the group. They are free to do as they choose.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
19/10/2011 1:20 am  
"mika" wrote:
So, rape is illegal and even if a group finds it acceptable the perpetrator can (and should) be arrested and jailed for committing that crime (see: Warren Jeffs).

Even that won't always solve the problem:


ReplyQuote
Frater_HPK
(@frater_hpk)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 104
19/10/2011 2:36 am  

Wait a moment. I said hipoteticaly. Maybe I know for some such cases, maybe not, but it is not question now. My intention was to start discussion about various models of behaviour in various possible situations. What is old aeonic approach and what is new aeonic? Of course Liber Oz is not holy text, but is is very important part of Crowley's legacy and very important document in the system of teaching people how to live as Thelemites, and in this way in creating Thelemic society. The question is how Liber Oz works in practice in thelemic organisations, and I don't talk about OTO only, but about every possible Thelemic organisation. Liber Oz define some basic principles for social relationships. And , IMO; members of any organisation should be loyal to principles, not to persons. It means to principles like Liber Oz, and in my opinion Liber Oz is DOGMA if we talk about thelemic social relationships. Violating of principles defined by Liber Oz is, IMHO, very unpolite attempt to change quantitative and qualitative amount of various, for every person different, pleasant and unpleasant experiences one's soul need to undergo.
Going to police and reporting, again speaking hipoteticaly, about some criminal activities is always existing option, but in some countries like mine it means a lot of investigations and arresting and probably great problems, very possible forbidding, everything connected with Thelema, not only here but probably in arounding countries also. This means hard choice between obeying to the principles and personal feeling of responsibility for establishing the Law of Thelema and establishing the Kingdom of Crowned and Conquering Child on the Earth, or at least not sabotaging this. Also, in my opinion every Thelemic organisation, again I repeat existing or not yet existing and I am not talking about OTO particularly just to avoid possbile misunderstanding, should be able to solve such problems internally. If there is needing for some external oldeonic force, like police, it means that this organisation is not able and not ready for the task of establishing the Law of Liberty. Just some of my thoughts about this...


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
19/10/2011 5:52 am  

“In fact, whenever a cult leader sets himself up as God’s infallible wingman here on earth, lock away the kids. Which is why I’d like to tip off law enforcement to an even larger child-abusing religious cult. Its leader also has a compound, and this guy not only operates outside the bounds of the law -- he used to be a Nazi, and he wears funny hats. That’s right: the Pope is coming to America this week…and ladies, he’s single….”
--Bill Maher

"Frater_HPK" wrote:
Also, in my opinion every Thelemic organisation, again I repeat existing or not yet existing and I am not talking about OTO particularly just to avoid possbile misunderstanding, should be able to solve such problems internally.

The idea that a group – particularly a small, fringe religious group – should be able to adequately deal with criminals in its midst entirely internally is basically a fantasy. Worse, it’s the kind of fantasy that criminals in the group would love to promote: what rapist or child-abusing asshole wouldn’t take a demotion in the cult over prison, for crying out loud?

We can look to the Catholic Church as an example of what happens when a group starts valuing “handling everything internally” over concern for victims: the scumbags who perpetrate these kinds of offenses get a slap on the wrist, get shuffled into a new position, and nothing really stops them from committing these crimes again.

One could try to argue that maybe it would be different in a “Thelemic” organization, but people are people are people, and there are always going to be scumbags in any group who try to abuse their power. There are two choices: 1) try to keep everything “internal” – thereby just sweeping the issue under the rug and tacitly allowing it to continue – or 2) turn in the criminal.

Obviously, I would almost always favor the latter course of action.

Now, if one is in a position where one thinks it likely that involving the police could result in the group being closed down or even in authorities persecuting Thelemites -- and this, basically, is the position that Frater_HPK presents – then you have to make a decision. What’s more important to you: protecting victims of these crimes, or building a (largely imaginary) “Aeon of the Crowned and Conquering Child”?

The Catholic Church made its choice: they chose to value protecting their priests, their organization, their thing (la cosa nostra, if you will), their vision of “the Kingdom of God on earth”…over protecting victims (who in most cases were children).

Frankly, I find such a choice to be completely sickening, and I would feel similarly about anyone who chooses to protect any organization or group – “Thelemic” or otherwise – over real people who are being victimized by weirdos in that group.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
19/10/2011 3:07 pm  
"Los" wrote:
“In fact, whenever a cult leader sets himself up as God’s infallible wingman here on earth, lock away the kids. Which is why I’d like to tip off law enforcement to an even larger child-abusing religious cult. Its leader also has a compound, and this guy not only operates outside the bounds of the law -- he used to be a Nazi, and he wears funny hats. That’s right: the Pope is coming to America this week…and ladies, he’s single….”
--Bill Maher

"Frater_HPK" wrote:
Also, in my opinion every Thelemic organisation, again I repeat existing or not yet existing and I am not talking about OTO particularly just to avoid possbile misunderstanding, should be able to solve such problems internally.

The idea that a group – particularly a small, fringe religious group – should be able to adequately deal with criminals in its midst entirely internally is basically a fantasy. Worse, it’s the kind of fantasy that criminals in the group would love to promote: what rapist or child-abusing asshole wouldn’t take a demotion in the cult over prison, for crying out loud?

We can look to the Catholic Church as an example of what happens when a group starts valuing “handling everything internally” over concern for victims: the scumbags who perpetrate these kinds of offenses get a slap on the wrist, get shuffled into a new position, and nothing really stops them from committing these crimes again.

One could try to argue that maybe it would be different in a “Thelemic” organization, but people are people are people, and there are always going to be scumbags in any group who try to abuse their power. There are two choices: 1) try to keep everything “internal” – thereby just sweeping the issue under the rug and tacitly allowing it to continue – or 2) turn in the criminal.

Obviously, I would almost always favor the latter course of action.

Now, if one is in a position where one thinks it likely that involving the police could result in the group being closed down or even in authorities persecuting Thelemites -- and this, basically, is the position that Frater_HPK presents – then you have to make a decision. What’s more important to you: protecting victims of these crimes, or building a (largely imaginary) “Aeon of the Crowned and Conquering Child”?

The Catholic Church made its choice: they chose to value protecting their priests, their organization, their thing (la cosa nostra, if you will), their vision of “the Kingdom of God on earth”…over protecting victims (who in most cases were children).

Frankly, I find such a choice to be completely sickening, and I would feel similarly about anyone who chooses to protect any organization or group – “Thelemic” or otherwise – over real people who are being victimized by weirdos in that group.

Couldn't agree more. Instead of simply turning them in, one could always drop them off at the hospital (after a severe beating, of course) with a note attached to them, explaining what they had done. Treat garbage like garbage, imo.


ReplyQuote
mika
 mika
(@mika)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 360
19/10/2011 5:27 pm  
"Frater_HPK" wrote:
My intention was to start discussion about various models of behaviour in various possible situations. What is old aeonic approach and what is new aeonic?

The "old aeonic" approach is to impose "models of behavior" on others. The "new aeonic" is to concern yourself with your own actions and allow other people to determine for themselves how to behave.

As soon as you slip into "people should do this and should not do that", you are back in the 'old aeonic' way of thinking, even if you try to frame those rules, excuse me, "models of behavior", in a Thelemic context. Your question basically answers itself. It doesn't matter how you or anyone else thinks other people need to behave in order to achieve your ideal future utopian society. Once you start assuming what's best for other people, you are no longer practicing Thelema.


ReplyQuote
Frater_HPK
(@frater_hpk)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 104
19/10/2011 8:50 pm  

Mika, about what yuo are talking? The question is about individual reactions and choices how to react in some situations. I will give you simple example. Catholic Church has some moral values they promote. In the same time we all know about a lot of affairs and sexual scandals in the Church. Some Catholics decided to ignore this, other decided to start campaign against pedophile priests and to fight from the inside. Some decided to leave Church. In fact, according to newspappers about 181000 Germans did so last year. Decision to leave Church is individual one, as well as someone's decision to stay inside and ignore problems. All same, or very similar, individual decisions make one model of behaviour. Catholic Church, of course don't follow the Thelemic principles. If we talk about Crowley's legacy, and Crowley's vision of the world, I can't see where is the problem if Thelemites talk how they would react in some such situation?


ReplyQuote
Aleisterion
(@aleisterion)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 343
19/10/2011 9:23 pm  

93 Camlion,

"Where the text is simple, straightforward English, I shall not seek, or allow, any interpretation at variance with it." (AC)

The problem I have with your quote by Crowley is Liber Legis 1:54:

"Change not as much as the style of a letter; for behold! thou, o prophet, shalt not behold all these mysteries hidden therein."

Also, L 2:76:

"...What meaneth this, o prophet? Thou knowest not; nor shalt thou know ever. There cometh one to follow thee: he shall expound it."

There are matters left for others to clarify. Finally, 3:34 makes it clear that other prophets and oracles are to be expected. Those empowered with the Will and enlightened by the Current are clearly justified in shining light in very shady corners.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
19/10/2011 9:51 pm  
"Frater_HPK" wrote:
All same, or very similar, individual decisions make one model of behaviour.

I think Mika's point is that there isn't one model of behavior that's a "Thelemic" response to such a situation. Each Thelemite will react differently, and each Thelemite's response is equally "Thelemic."

So if you're just asking for what each individual would do, that's fine, and I provided one such answer above. If you're asking what the "Thelemic" or "New Aeon" model of behavior is...the answer is that there isn't one. Each response is equally Thelemic.


ReplyQuote
mika
 mika
(@mika)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 360
19/10/2011 10:46 pm  
"Los" wrote:
I think Mika's point is that there isn't one model of behavior that's a "Thelemic" response to such a situation. Each Thelemite will react differently, and each Thelemite's response is equally "Thelemic."

So if you're just asking for what each individual would do, that's fine, and I provided one such answer above. If you're asking what the "Thelemic" or "New Aeon" model of behavior is...the answer is that there isn't one. Each response is equally Thelemic.

Yes, that was my point.

"Frater_HPK" wrote:
Mika, about what yuo are talking? The question is about individual reactions and choices how to react in some situations.

No, your question was specifically about "models of behavior", not "individual reactions and choices...". Thelema is, by definition, a practice where an individual makes choices in the present moment purely based on her or his will at that present moment. Behaving according to a pre-determined model of how one should act is exactly contrary to the philosophy of Thelema.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
19/10/2011 11:19 pm  
"Aleisterion" wrote:
93 Camlion,

"Where the text is simple, straightforward English, I shall not seek, or allow, any interpretation at variance with it." (AC)

The problem I have with your quote by Crowley is Liber Legis 1:54:

"Change not as much as the style of a letter; for behold! thou, o prophet, shalt not behold all these mysteries hidden therein."

Also, L 2:76:

"...What meaneth this, o prophet? Thou knowest not; nor shalt thou know ever. There cometh one to follow thee: he shall expound it."

There are matters left for others to clarify. Finally, 3:34 makes it clear that other prophets and oracles are to be expected. Those empowered with the Will and enlightened by the Current are clearly justified in shining light in very shady corners.

These are either very minor or very major exceptions, Aleisterion, and are probably very 'esoteric' matters either way. They should in no way contradict the the Law of Thelema, though, and the verses you quote are not intended as a license to do so. My opinion, of course.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
19/10/2011 11:21 pm  
"mika" wrote:
"Walterfive" wrote:
Where do the vows to our bretheren end?

One's vows end where those vows conflict with that individual's will.

"Walterfive" wrote:
What do we in Thelema recognize as "rape"?

"We in Thelema" have a variety of perspectives.

"Walterfive" wrote:
And what do we do about it if such a violation occurs?

We do whatever actions conform to our individual will.

More specifically: Say some leaders in an organization are abusing their power by physically, emotionally or otherwise violating their members' trust. The appropriate Thelemic response is for each individual to respond to that abuse according to their own will. Some will leave the org. Some will fight back for themselves. Some will fight for others even if they weren't violated themselves. Then the people who committed the abuse may or may not be kicked out or otherwise punished. If they are not, then the other members will either choose to stay or will leave. The group will continue or die out based on these individual choices. End of story.

Power abuse in a heirarchy based on trust, and abuse against women specifically, are certainly very serious, pervasive, disgusting issues. However, a voluntary organization is not the same as, say, a society where individuals have constitutional, legally enforcable civil rights. Not only do I have no choice but to walk down my city street, I have the right to walk down my city street, and the right to do so unmolested. I do not have the right (in a constitutional, legal sense) to join a private organization and then demand that the organization change its practices based on my opinion, if those practices conform to the laws of the society in which it exists.

So, rape is illegal and even if a group finds it acceptable the perpetrator can (and should) be arrested and jailed for committing that crime (see: Warren Jeffs). Your Serbian friend should report the OTO rapist to the police asap. However, if, say, some OTO group decides the High Preist and High Priestess must have sex during some ritual, they get to make that call, and if members don't like it they are free to try to change the rule and/or leave the organization. If either of the HPs don't like it, they can step down from their role. If a member thinks another is being inappropriately pressured, they can voice their concerns. Or they can leave the group. They are free to do as they choose.

This makes perfect sense to me.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
20/10/2011 12:09 am  

Mike can you feel the 3rd eye ..getting warmer?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0

ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0

ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
20/10/2011 12:47 am  

Is there any way to just erase this troll from this (and other) threads?

Funny, a thread that was originally thought to be (and I still think it is) a troll thread, got trolled by another troll.

We've had this Liber Oz discussion time and time again. It's like some other topics that like to re-occur. But, without the OP participating (who only made two posts ever on these forums, and they were in this very thread), the thread itself is kind of moot. I know some of you haven't had the Liber Oz discussion here before, and that's cool, welcome to the fold. But the rest of us are just bouncing the same old ideas on it back and forth.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4059
20/10/2011 1:17 am  
"Azidonis" wrote:
Is there any way to just erase this troll from this (and other) threads?

Only when the moderator chops him off at the knees, alas. In the meantime he'll just keep gibbering inanities. Best to see him as a performing monkey, but without the intelligence.


ReplyQuote
Frater_HPK
(@frater_hpk)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 104
20/10/2011 3:43 pm  
"mika" wrote:
"Los" wrote:
I think Mika's point is that there isn't one model of behavior that's a "Thelemic" response to such a situation. Each Thelemite will react differently, and each Thelemite's response is equally "Thelemic."

So if you're just asking for what each individual would do, that's fine, and I provided one such answer above. If you're asking what the "Thelemic" or "New Aeon" model of behavior is...the answer is that there isn't one. Each response is equally Thelemic.

Yes, that was my point.

"Frater_HPK" wrote:
Mika, about what yuo are talking? The question is about individual reactions and choices how to react in some situations.

No, your question was specifically about "models of behavior", not "individual reactions and choices...". Thelema is, by definition, a practice where an individual makes choices in the present moment purely based on her or his will at that present moment. Behaving according to a pre-determined model of how one should act is exactly contrary to the philosophy of Thelema.

All our reactions can be cathegorised under some labels. People can leave one organisation closing all connections with other members, or keeping contact with them. Can leave with anthagonistic atitude, or friendly. Exposing some evidence in public or not. Going to police or still not talking
about this. Very different personal choices. And all of them we can put under the cathegory "leaving the organisation". And I consider act of leaving as model of behaviour in this situation with all possible variations connected with this leaving. If my choice of words in not appropriate I
apologise, dont forget that English is not my language and that I translate meaning of some terms from my language.
Second, the man named Aleister Crowley, writting Liber Oz, told people what to do. The values of former aeon was to be pasive, to suffer and to be victim. Crowley's message with Liber Oz is that Thelemites have to respect themselves, to figth or to escape, but not to play the victim's role like Christians. And to recognise that all other persons have same rights, of course. Did we agree about this? I suppose yes.
Talking about thelemic and non-thelemic, why do you talk about yes? We can talk about not, for example. If we accept Liber Oz as fundamental frame for definning basics of thelemic social relationships, then we can consider all violations of rights quaranted by Liber Oz as non-thelemic
behaviour. For example, in Eastern Orthodox Church there were some cases of pedophilia. It is very possible that local monks and priestes were aware of this, as well as some believers. Some children report this to the police. Only a couple of monks and nuns were ready to talk about this in police.
Their choice, in my opinio, can be consider as thelemic choice. Silence of other monks can be consider as act of support (because if they dont protest, then they agree with this) to behaviour we can consider as very unthhelemic. Are we agree about his?
We can't talk about Thelemic society, because something like this don't exist in practice. But we can talk about Thelemic organisations which we can consider as model for some hypotethical Thelemic society. For example, if there are a violation of principles of Liber Oz in a Thelemic organisation, or organisations pretending to be Thelemic, is then behaviour of members similar to one in Eastern Orthodox Church under any circumstances acceptable as thelemic? I will give you very explicite example. In my city, in another body of certain thelemic organisation, a girl was beaten by her boyfriend in the Temple. that was official meating and other people were present. Nobody reacted. That was explicite violation of her rights quaranted by Liber Oz and nothing happened. He was never expeled and body was not closed. This body, with more than 10 members in the beginning, was later closed not because of this , but because private reasons of body Master Mentioned girl (very possible with some additional bad experiences with some other people from the organisation, the nature of these bad experiencse could be sexual, but I have no reliable confirmation for this and I can't claim this) left the organisation without any willing to have anything with other members. Not even to stay and say hallo on the street. She was student of English and working partially job to make money for Crowley's books, spending her free time to translate thelemic texts in Serbian. Her ex-boyfriend moved back to his birthtown. He there make big mess burglarizing the Orthodox Church and stoling some properties from there. Act of stealing is, if we believe Crowley, not Thelemic. This person was in jail for some time because of this. I personally reported this, but of course nothing happened. Last I heard, before he is going again in jail (for drug possesing) in the beginning of this year is that he is going around asking for some contacts to become active member again. OK, this is just one example from the real life and from Thelemic communion. As it is clear from this reaction of the people present there was to not react and not to stop violence in Temple. About what we are then talking? My point is that we live Thelema 24 hours per day and that Liber Oz is not just a piece of paper. Liber Oz is something we practice, in social relationship every day of our life. Is enough that someone just call himself Thelemite to be real Thelemite? I doubt. In my opinion Thelemites are people who act as Thelemites. This year before Pope visited Croatia one Croatian Thelemite is arrested. He criticised Pope on his personal blog. Croatian police consider this as possible threat and arrested him for "maybe planng attentat on Pope". That caused a lot of vitrual facebook protest of Thelemites from Croatia and Serbia, of course with a lot of criticising Catholic Church and Catholics, with them related sex scandals with children etc. Ok, that is fine. But my question to them was about their possible reactions in some situations similar to ones connected with Catholic Church and which they used to criticise? And now I doubt how some of them are different than these Catholics they criticise. And, I will finish this long and even for me boring expose with my strong impression that it is very thelemic to suggest people, as recommended model of behaviour, that never violate anybody's rights guaranted by Liber Oz, or to support this. And I suppose you will not agree with me again 😉


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
20/10/2011 4:59 pm  
"Frater_HPK" wrote:
"mika" wrote:
"Los" wrote:
I think Mika's point is that there isn't one model of behavior that's a "Thelemic" response to such a situation. Each Thelemite will react differently, and each Thelemite's response is equally "Thelemic."

So if you're just asking for what each individual would do, that's fine, and I provided one such answer above. If you're asking what the "Thelemic" or "New Aeon" model of behavior is...the answer is that there isn't one. Each response is equally Thelemic.

Yes, that was my point.

"Frater_HPK" wrote:
Mika, about what yuo are talking? The question is about individual reactions and choices how to react in some situations.

No, your question was specifically about "models of behavior", not "individual reactions and choices...". Thelema is, by definition, a practice where an individual makes choices in the present moment purely based on her or his will at that present moment. Behaving according to a pre-determined model of how one should act is exactly contrary to the philosophy of Thelema.

All our reactions can be cathegorised under some labels. People can leave one organisation closing all connections with other members, or keeping contact with them. Can leave with anthagonistic atitude, or friendly. Exposing some evidence in public or not. Going to police or still not talking
about this. Very different personal choices. And all of them we can put under the cathegory "leaving the organisation". And I consider act of leaving as model of behaviour in this situation with all possible variations connected with this leaving. If my choice of words in not appropriate I
apologise, dont forget that English is not my language and that I translate meaning of some terms from my language.
Second, the man named Aleister Crowley, writting Liber Oz, told people what to do. The values of former aeon was to be pasive, to suffer and to be victim. Crowley's message with Liber Oz is that Thelemites have to respect themselves, to figth or to escape, but not to play the victim's role like Christians. And to recognise that all other persons have same rights, of course. Did we agree about this? I suppose yes.
Talking about thelemic and non-thelemic, why do you talk about yes? We can talk about not, for example. If we accept Liber Oz as fundamental frame for definning basics of thelemic social relationships, then we can consider all violations of rights quaranted by Liber Oz as non-thelemic
behaviour. For example, in Eastern Orthodox Church there were some cases of pedophilia. It is very possible that local monks and priestes were aware of this, as well as some believers. Some children report this to the police. Only a couple of monks and nuns were ready to talk about this in police.
Their choice, in my opinio, can be consider as thelemic choice. Silence of other monks can be consider as act of support (because if they dont protest, then they agree with this) to behaviour we can consider as very unthhelemic. Are we agree about his?
We can't talk about Thelemic society, because something like this don't exist in practice. But we can talk about Thelemic organisations which we can consider as model for some hypotethical Thelemic society. For example, if there are a violation of principles of Liber Oz in a Thelemic organisation, or organisations pretending to be Thelemic, is then behaviour of members similar to one in Eastern Orthodox Church under any circumstances acceptable as thelemic? I will give you very explicite example. In my city, in another body of certain thelemic organisation, a girl was beaten by her boyfriend in the Temple. that was official meating and other people were present. Nobody reacted. That was explicite violation of her rights quaranted by Liber Oz and nothing happened. He was never expeled and body was not closed. This body, with more than 10 members in the beginning, was later closed not because of this , but because private reasons of body Master Mentioned girl (very possible with some additional bad experiences with some other people from the organisation, the nature of these bad experiencse could be sexual, but I have no reliable confirmation for this and I can't claim this) left the organisation without any willing to have anything with other members. Not even to stay and say hallo on the street. She was student of English and working partially job to make money for Crowley's books, spending her free time to translate thelemic texts in Serbian. Her ex-boyfriend moved back to his birthtown. He there make big mess burglarizing the Orthodox Church and stoling some properties from there. Act of stealing is, if we believe Crowley, not Thelemic. This person was in jail for some time because of this. I personally reported this, but of course nothing happened. Last I heard, before he is going again in jail (for drug possesing) in the beginning of this year is that he is going around asking for some contacts to become active member again. OK, this is just one example from the real life and from Thelemic communion. As it is clear from this reaction of the people present there was to not react and not to stop violence in Temple. About what we are then talking? My point is that we live Thelema 24 hours per day and that Liber Oz is not just a piece of paper. Liber Oz is something we practice, in social relationship every day of our life. Is enough that someone just call himself Thelemite to be real Thelemite? I doubt. In my opinion Thelemites are people who act as Thelemites. This year before Pope visited Croatia one Croatian Thelemite is arrested. He criticised Pope on his personal blog. Croatian police consider this as possible threat and arrested him for "maybe planng attentat on Pope". That caused a lot of vitrual facebook protest of Thelemites from Croatia and Serbia, of course with a lot of criticising Catholic Church and Catholics, with them related sex scandals with children etc. Ok, that is fine. But my question to them was about their possible reactions in some situations similar to ones connected with Catholic Church and which they used to criticise? And now I doubt how some of them are different than these Catholics they criticise. And, I will finish this long and even for me boring expose with my strong impression that it is very thelemic to suggest people, as recommended model of behaviour, that never violate anybody's rights guaranted by Liber Oz, or to support this. And I suppose you will not agree with me again 😉

Long story short - There is a difference between "rights" and "Thou shalts".

Just because you have the right to do something, doesn't mean you necessarily should.

I was sitting in the lounge between classes the other day. Usually it isn't too noisy, and what noise there is can easily be tuned out. Except this noise... This guy, had his headphones on, and was constantly tapping his foot on the ground.

So all I hear is "tap tap - tap tap - tap tap". Fucking ANNOYING. I thought about the situation. We were sitting about 6 feet from each other. I could have got his attention and asked him to stop. He may have or not, but either way it would have created a tension in the area.

What annoyed me most wasn't the sound. It was that he had his headphones up loud enough that he didn't hear his own noise, and further didn't give a damn whether he was bothering anyone around him.

So, if we take Liber Oz by the letter, I have the right to think what I will. What was I thinking? I was thinking that I should take my Geology book, and see how much of it I could fit into this asshole's nasal cavity. That would probably stop him from tapping. But let's be honest - that's rather extreme punishment for someone who's only crime is that he has no consideration for others - or is it?

Regardless, what I ended up doing was simply going outside for a smoke, then going over to the spot where my next class was, and did my reading there. Problem solved on my end, no more tapping.

As for the guy, who knows what became of him. One could say that he had the "right" to tap his foot if he wanted to, which I agree. But he doesn't have the right to do it at the expense of six others in the lounger trying to concentrate, at least how I understand it.

Anyway, one has the right not to exercise any of the rights in Liber Oz if one so chooses.


ReplyQuote
Markus
(@markus)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 258
20/10/2011 7:20 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
Is there any way to just erase this troll from this (and other) threads?

Azidonis, to quote a simile from Douglas Adams, it's a bit like badly stuck wallpaper. You push down one bubble, and it just pops up somewhere else.

Markus


ReplyQuote
mika
 mika
(@mika)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 360
20/10/2011 11:39 pm  
"Frater_HPK" wrote:
Aleister Crowley, writting Liber Oz, told people what to do.

Not quite. He didn't "tell people what to do", he wrote his perspective of what people have the right to do. There is a significant difference. Telling people what to do is authoritative; telling people what they can do falls somewhere between instructional and philosophical.

"Frater_HPK" wrote:
The values of former aeon was to be pasive, to suffer and to be victim. Crowley's message with Liber Oz is that Thelemites have to respect themselves, to figth or to escape, but not to play the victim's role like Christians.

Actually, Thelemites can allow themselves to be victimized if they so choose, to be passive, to suffer, or have any other experience possible. There is no rule that requires fighting, escaping or any other action. Liber Oz states "Man has the right to... as he will." Don't forget the critical "as he will" condition.

"Frater_HPK" wrote:
If we accept Liber Oz as fundamental frame for definning basics of thelemic social relationships, then we can consider all violations of rights quaranted by Liber Oz as non-thelemic
behaviour.

Liber Oz is not a tool you can use to judge another's actions. You have no idea if another person is living/thinking/loving/etc according to their will or not. It may be that some person who is doing some horrific thing is actually living according to their will and is not violating Liber Oz. We don't know. All we can do is make our own choices.

"Frater_HPK" wrote:
Silence of other monks can be consider as act of support (because if they dont protest, then they agree with this) to behaviour we can consider as very unthhelemic. Are we agree about his?

Again, no. There is no way to determine if another person's behavior is Thelemic or unthelemic because only they can be aware of their own will.

"Frater_HPK" wrote:
In my city, in another body of certain thelemic organisation, a girl was beaten by her boyfriend in the Temple. that was official meating and other people were present. Nobody reacted. That was explicite violation of her rights quaranted by Liber Oz and nothing happened.

As I wrote in a previous response, while this kind of violence is horrific, it is not a "violation of her rights guaranteed by Liber Oz". The person who beat her "has the right to live by his own law—to live in the way that he wills to do" just like everyone else, and he did, and no one tried to stop him. Instead of complaining about an imagined violation of her "Thelemic rights" or some "Thelemic code of behavior", why not focus on the simple fact that people witnessed violence and stood around doing nothing? You can criticize these people as weak, vile, compassionless, misogynistic, disgusting worthless humans without making it about Thelema.

"Frater_HPK" wrote:
it is very thelemic to suggest people, as recommended model of behaviour, that never violate anybody's rights guaranted by Liber Oz, or to support this.

Aha, the heart of the matter. There is no such thing as everyone happily, peacefully following their own wills without ever experiencing conflict with each other. You and I both "have the right to play as [we] will", but what if that means we both go after the same toy? According to you, that means I'd be "violating your rights guaranteed by Liber Oz" (thus, equally, you'd be violating my rights guaranteed by Liber Oz). This is an error. We each follow our own wills. If we come in conflict, "as brothers fight ye. There is no law beyond do what thou wilt". Thelema does not guarantee freedom from conflict.


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
21/10/2011 8:30 am  

Mika, 93!

What do you make of the following (without getting too upset again about the use of the word gentleman)?

"There seems to be much misunderstanding about the True Will. In argument people are always making assumptions which imply as uncaused will. The fact of a person being a gentleman is as much an ineluctable factor as any possible spiritual experience; in fact, it is possible, even probable, that a man may be mislead by the enthusiasm of an illumination, and if he should find apparent conflict between his spiritual duty and his duty to honor, it is almost sure evidence that a trap is being laid for him and he should unhesitatingly stick to the course which ordinary decency indicates. Error on such points is precisely the 'folly' anticipated in CCXX, I, 36, and I wish to say definitely, once and for all, that people who do not understand and accept this position have utterly failed to grasp the fundamental principles of the Law of Thelema, and may be expected to get themselves into all those kinds of trouble which result from uncriticized enthusiasm about the 'revelations' which are made to them"

Doesn't that imply that following the True Will rules out certain un-gentleman-like behaviour (whereby gentleman-like behaviour would be a matter of discussion, but surely by definition doesn't include all kinds of behaviour)? And to expand this to another thread: Wouldn't that imply that there is some kind of "moral direction" of the "consecrated path of the True Will", or does it simply mean that the "blind forces of the universe" lead to completely natural actions that we then label with certain "moral direction"?

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
Frater_HPK
(@frater_hpk)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 104
21/10/2011 10:31 am  

Mika, I think you are crossing very dangerous line.I doubt Liber Oz can be used for defending activities like stealing or raping.
I don't talk about living/thinking/loving/etc. This is example of someone who punished his girlfriend for something quaranted to her by Liber Oz. This is not connected with his Will, because Crowley considered Liber Oz as a sort of manifesto for O.T.O. We know that discovering True Will is a part of A.'. A.'. not O.T.O. I think nobody expect that O.T.O. members must know their True Will. Of course, some of them can know, but this is not expected. Second, Aleister Crowley wrote in Magick Without Tears (Chapter 49): "to violate the rights of another is to forfeit one's own claim to protection in the matter involved." It means people have choice. Choice to violate someone other's rights means that we have no more rights guaranted by Liber Oz. Third, in this case we have needs for control and jealousy turned into passion. Lack of self controll which produce incident, and some later problematic behaviour, is possible sign of automatism produced by this pasion. Automatisms are out of control of conscious will. And according to Crowley automatism makes Will null. Think about this Mika. 93 93/93


ReplyQuote
Page 1 / 2
Share: