The Danger of Dogma...
 
Notifications
Clear all

The Danger of Dogma?  

Page 2 / 2
  RSS

Walterfive
(@walterfive)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 856
21/10/2011 2:15 pm  
"Frater_HPK" wrote:
Mika, I think you are crossing very dangerous line.I doubt Liber Oz can be used for defending activities like stealing or raping.

Crowley's "Duty" makes it quite clear that it cannot. Mika, as she Will, may ignore it at her own peril. There's a lot of Thelemites sitting in prison for crossing that 'very dangerous line.' Having done Prison Ministry for them in the past, I've heard their weak and lame justifications and excuses. They made me sick to my stomach to listen to them. Con Logic, like Junkie Logic exists soley to assauge the guilt of the perpetrator, who refuses to accept responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

Again, "Ex Pristina Fons"-- 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." Great mirth, and great wisdom are to be found therein.

There's no honour in thievery or rape. No defense for violating the rights of others as listed in Liber Oz. To violate their rights makes abrograte one's own right claim to them. Two boys *can* eat the same apple-- it's a simple kindness called "sharing." The way I was raised, that's what brothers and sisters *do* for each other, and as for "as brothers fight ye" where I come from brothers fight back-to-back, against those who would harm one or the other, not face-to-face to harm each other -- that's what communication is for-- to discuss and settle petty grievances before they turn into big resentments.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
21/10/2011 5:34 pm  

As usual, Mika is spot-on here. I'd even go a step farther and suggest that a silly fear of "hindering another's will" is actually something that *prevents* Thelemites from speaking up about destructive things that their fellows are doing.

Now Thelemic groups certainly don't have a monopoly on people doing shitty things and then others not reporting them for a variety of reasons. But Thelemic groups alone have a a point of doctrine held by some members -- we might even say as a point of Dogma, to bring us full circle to the title of this thread -- that it's "wrong" to hiner the will of another. So, when a Thelemite sees another person behaving in a destructive way, the Thelemite might be more likely than others to turn a blind eye to it, even if the Thelemite *wants* to do something about it. He or she wouldn't want to be a "bad Thelemite" after all and get in the way of someone's true will....

However, despite what some people think, there's absolutely nothing in the Book of the Law that indicates that individuals should "respect the wills of others" and "not oppose the wills of others." In fact, there's quite a lot to the opposite: the Book explicitly says that if, in the process of doing your will, you have to hurt someone, then you have to hurt someone, and if, in the process of doing your will, you have to get in the way of someone else's will, you get in the way of someone else's will.

The Book explicitly instructs us to "care not at all" for the "woes" of others, to "stamp down the wretched & the weak," to consider compassion a "vice" (and not "vice" in the sense that "these vices are my service"), to "spare not" others, and -- perhaps most hysterically of all -- the text of the Book makes fun of the idea that one should "love all" on the grounds that another person might be a "King" (i.e. might be doing his or her will). We thus read, "Say you so? Fool! If he be a King, thou canst not hurt him. Therefore strike hard & low, and to hell with them, master!"

In other words, one cannot know whether another person is really doing his or her will or not. And, more importantly, it's irrelevant. The only duty a Thelemite has is to his or her own will.

A reading of the entire Book -- one that takes all of it into account consistently, rather than trying to cherry-pick and explain away a couple of passages that one just randomly decides one doesn't like -- firmly supports the case that the only "right" a Thelemite has at all is the the "right" to do his or her will (ahem, "thou hast no right but to do thy will"). A Thelemite is freed from having to care about any other considerations, including the question of whether or not his or her actions will hurt others or interfere with other wills.

This means, then, that it may not be a violation of the Law of Thelema for a schmuck to beat up his girlfriend. But, by the same token, it may not be a violation of the Law of Thelema for that girlfriend to call the cops, leave that douchebag of a boyfriend, or even arrange to have him beaten as an act of revenge. And it certainly might not be a violation of the Law of Thelema for others who witness the beating to turn the bastard in to the cops.

Thelema just is not about the kind of "morality" that the Old Aeon was. Liber OZ isn't a list of rules, and neither is duty. They are, at best, documents that list the abilities that the strong can claim and a bunch of suggestions for applying the Law. That's it.

You notice, of course, that "Liber OZ" doesn't say, "Man has the right to not get beat up."


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
21/10/2011 5:47 pm  
"Frater_HPK" wrote:
I doubt Liber Oz can be used for defending activities like stealing or raping.

There are cases, maybe the ratio is extremely small, where people have had to steal food in order to live. At that point it's not a question of morals, but a question of survival. Whether or not it falls within the realms of Liber Oz is kind of moot, as I highly doubt the starving person is worried about some sort of karmic rebound at the time. Or let's say you are in some kind of p.o.w. camp for years, being tortured on a daily basis, and you see a chance to escape, but the escape involves stealing the weapons, clothing, and vehicle of one of your captors. In such a scenario, where it is absolutely necessary for survival I can see someone validating a reason to steal.

As a general rule though, I view liars and thieves and the two worst type of humans. In the above scenarios though, I would probably overlook the offenses.

I don't see there ever being a reason to rape. At all.

"Frater_HPK" wrote:
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.

I'm kind of confused about what you said, but I think I know what you meant. There is a line, however fine, between doing your Will and impeding the Will of another. Abuse is abuse. Abuse damages people in many ways, which can effectively hinder their ability to do their Will. I don't see where any sort of abuse falls in line with Thelema, in a common setting, except perhaps in the case of torturing enemy captives or some such thing. Real war has the ability to blur the lines a bit.

"Frater_HPK" wrote:
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.

Actually, Crowley said that a member of O.T.O. can become a full 5=6 with its system, achieving the Knowledge and Conversation, and further learning one's True Will. Whether that is a goal or a by-product is something for O.T.O. members to discuss I'm sure, especially since every time we start talking about the O.T.O. system on these boards we get 85 posts of people asking us not to talk about it.

"Frater_HPK" wrote:
I think nobody expect that O.T.O. members must know their True Will.

Maybe not. But that doesn't mean the system isn't designed to bring that out of people. If it didn't do that in some way, how could it consider itself to be a true Thelemic body?

"Frater_HPK" wrote:
Of course, some of them can know, but this is not expected.

What is expected of them then, that they pay their dues? Is there no spiritual benefit to being aligned with the O.T.O.? If not, it's just a worthless social organization.

"Frater_HPK" wrote:
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.

I see what you are saying here, and I agree. As above, with the fine line, once someone crosses a certain threshold they sort of give up their rights in regards to the current course of actions. But it is a very situational scenario, and I'm not sure that such a scenario is a blanket surrender of rights, nor am I sure that it is permanent.

"Frater_HPK" wrote:
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.

We were talking about this yesterday actually, how Socrates (Plato) divided reason and desire into two separate things and functions. I made the remark about how one must use reason to control desire, and vice-versa.

One learns of one's True Will by exercising such paradigms in a balanced manner according to one's own nature. The continued exercise of the same is necessary in order to perform one's Will. Technically, the Adept is supposed to be able to control himself/herself to a degree in which these things are barely a consideration to the manifested world.

I talk about this often. There is no such thing as a "Sunday Thelemite". The very definition of Thelemite, simply put is, "One who knows and does his/her True Will". If Thelema means Will, Thelemite means "Will-ite", a practitioner, or follower, of the Will.

The suffix -ite means, "a follower or adherent of a specified person". That "person" is the Holy Guardian Angel.

Until the Knowledge and Conversation is achieved at 5=6, the person is not a Thelemite proper. Since Liber Oz is directed at Thelemites, and not every Tom, Dick, and Harry on the planet (unless they are all Thelemites), I hardly see how any of this comes into consideration.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
21/10/2011 5:54 pm  
"Frater_HPK" wrote:
I doubt Liber Oz can be used for defending activities like stealing or raping.

Liber Oz isn't about "defending activities." It's an informational document stating some rights (i.e. abilities) granted by Nature to anyone strong enough to step up and take them.

It's not a list of "rights" in the sense of entitlements that can be violated by someone. "Man has the right to write what he will" merely means that a strong individual has the ability to discern what he wills to write and the ability to actually write it.

Believe it or not, there are wackaloos who think that the above phrase means that copyright -- or even moderating web forums! -- is somehow a violation of the Law of Thelema! "How dare I get banned for trolling!" one of these idiots might say. "They're violating my Thelemic rights!"

There are no "Thelemic rights" in this sense. One is either strong enough to do something or one isn't. If one posts in a forum, either one is perceptive enough to play by the rules and not get tossed out, or one is not. It doesn't matter if it's one's "will" to post there or not -- nobody, not even other Thelemites, has to respect the individual or not get in the individual's way merely because that individual claims he or she is "doing my will."

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.

It's not necessary to expect others to know their wills.

This dumbass who beat up his girlfriend probably would say, "I was doing my will!" and it's both impossible for us to know whether that's true and completely irrelevant. Our only duty is to respond to the situation authentically (i.e. according to the true will of each one of us). If we are, for example, horrified and want to get this individual kicked out of the group, then we do so. If we are horrified and want to get this individual kicked out of the group but hesitate because of a belief in "not getting involved with someone else's will or hesitate out of a misguided sense of "fraternity" and not wanting to anger others by "blowing the whistle" on a fellow "brother", then we are acting in violation to the Law of Thelema.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
21/10/2011 6:06 pm  
"Los" wrote:
As usual, Mika is spot-on here. I'd even go a step farther and suggest that a silly fear of "hindering another's will" is actually something that *prevents* Thelemites from speaking up about destructive things that their fellows are doing.

Now Thelemic groups certainly don't have a monopoly on people doing shitty things and then others not reporting them for a variety of reasons. But Thelemic groups alone have a a point of doctrine held by some members -- we might even say as a point of Dogma, to bring us full circle to the title of this thread -- that it's "wrong" to hiner the will of another. So, when a Thelemite sees another person behaving in a destructive way, the Thelemite might be more likely than others to turn a blind eye to it, even if the Thelemite *wants* to do something about it. He or she wouldn't want to be a "bad Thelemite" after all and get in the way of someone's true will....

However, despite what some people think, there's absolutely nothing in the Book of the Law that indicates that individuals should "respect the wills of others" and "not oppose the wills of others." In fact, there's quite a lot to the opposite: the Book explicitly says that if, in the process of doing your will, you have to hurt someone, then you have to hurt someone, and if, in the process of doing your will, you have to get in the way of someone else's will, you get in the way of someone else's will.

The Book explicitly instructs us to "care not at all" for the "woes" of others, to "stamp down the wretched & the weak," to consider compassion a "vice" (and not "vice" in the sense that "these vices are my service"), to "spare not" others, and -- perhaps most hysterically of all -- the text of the Book makes fun of the idea that one should "love all" on the grounds that another person might be a "King" (i.e. might be doing his or her will). We thus read, "Say you so? Fool! If he be a King, thou canst not hurt him. Therefore strike hard & low, and to hell with them, master!"

In other words, one cannot know whether another person is really doing his or her will or not. And, more importantly, it's irrelevant. The only duty a Thelemite has is to his or her own will.

A reading of the entire Book -- one that takes all of it into account consistently, rather than trying to cherry-pick and explain away a couple of passages that one just randomly decides one doesn't like -- firmly supports the case that the only "right" a Thelemite has at all is the the "right" to do his or her will (ahem, "thou hast no right but to do thy will"). A Thelemite is freed from having to care about any other considerations, including the question of whether or not his or her actions will hurt others or interfere with other wills.

This means, then, that it may not be a violation of the Law of Thelema for a schmuck to beat up his girlfriend. But, by the same token, it may not be a violation of the Law of Thelema for that girlfriend to call the cops, leave that douchebag of a boyfriend, or even arrange to have him beaten as an act of revenge. And it certainly might not be a violation of the Law of Thelema for others who witness the beating to turn the bastard in to the cops.

Thelema just is not about the kind of "morality" that the Old Aeon was. Liber OZ isn't a list of rules, and neither is duty. They are, at best, documents that list the abilities that the strong can claim and a bunch of suggestions for applying the Law. That's it.

You notice, of course, that "Liber OZ" doesn't say, "Man has the right to not get beat up."

I agree with you, Los, believe it or not. To further expand on one of your points...

One of the things I find lacking in many of these threads about something like Liber Oz is the lack of comparison between other schools of enlightenment. When I look at say, the Buddhist view of this. Love is at the very core of Buddhism. Love is like a sort of gravity for the mind. So the Buddhist, I think would enjoy the Thelemic idea of "Love all, lest perchance is a King concealed!" stated in Liber Al. It seems to me that a goal of Buddhism is to look past all of the little karmic dust bunnies that hop onto an Ego, and look through to one's Buddha Nature, in an effort to bring that out. See Vipassanā.

Thelema, on the other hand, acknowledges that too. But it also acknowledges that change is stability, and some things need to get destroyed and rebuilt before they are able to be in alignment. In pursuing the True Will, for example, there is a very large amount of one's own persona that has to be broken down, perhaps destroyed, or otherwise beaten into submission, before the Aspirant can even begin to handle the huge responsibilities given to him/her at 5=6. It's a very grueling process, as anyone who has undergone it will know. It's not all peaches and light. I remember an old remark made to me by a former Superior, when I was a wee lad, and was talking to him about how there are some things that are very hard to express at times, and when one does find a way to express them, more often than not the general passerby will be completely puzzled and unable to connect. He responded with a smile, saying, "It's a lonely, desolate Path."

The only point I'm trying to make is that creation and destruction go hand in hand, in word, thought, and deed. They are a part of the toolbox of the magickian, and we would be amiss to overlook this, even and perhaps especially in a consideration of Liber Oz.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
21/10/2011 8:09 pm  

[Moderator's Note: Infantile troll post deleted.]


ReplyQuote
mika
 mika
(@mika)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 360
24/10/2011 6:25 pm  
"Walterfive" wrote:
There's a lot of Thelemites sitting in prison for crossing that 'very dangerous line.'

The right to act as one will does not include the right to escape any resulting consequences.

It may be one's will to act in a way that violates the rules of the society in which one lives, and according to Liber Oz and Thelema in general, we each have the right to choose those actions. That is all - the right to act. Not the right to avoid punishment.

"Walterfive" wrote:
Two boys *can* eat the same apple-- it's a simple kindness called "sharing."

There is nothing in Liber Oz, or Thelema in general, that requires sharing. Or even kindness. If it is my will to eat the whole apple, I have the right. And if I choose that path, it also means I am willing to accept the consequences (which may include anything from someone physically fighting me for a piece, to some guy on the internet labeling me a selfish bastard for not sharing).

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

Jesus, simon, any intelligent person can tell the difference between quoting someone who understandably used the word gentlemen in a historically appropriate manner (which I did not critique), and carelessly addressing a modern, diverse group of people as "gentlemen" knowing that there are also women who participate here (which I did critique). But it's good to know I and any other women here can count on you to tell us when we're getting "too upset" and when our emotional responses are within acceptable levels. Whatever would I do if there weren't men around to tell me how to feel?

Now on to your question:

"the_real_simon_iff " wrote:
Doesn't that imply that following the True Will rules out certain un-gentleman-like behaviour

Nope. "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law", remember? "The whole of the law" excludes imposing arbitrary restrictions based on personal, social, religious or other subjective qualifications.

"the_real_simon_iff " wrote:
(whereby gentleman-like behaviour would be a matter of discussion,

Precisely. One's will is not "a matter of discussion".

"the_real_simon_iff " wrote:
does it simply mean that the "blind forces of the universe" lead to completely natural actions that we then label with certain "moral direction"?

Yes, that. Of course, some of us choose to stop at the 'completely natural actions' without adding the unnecessary 'labeling with certain moral direction'. The whole question of morals and appropriate behavior is irrelevant to, and contradictory of, practicing Thelema.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
24/10/2011 10:06 pm  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
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"?

I like to use the words "natural" and "artificial," as they apply to the individual. We are still conditioned, most of us, to distrust our natural tendencies - assuming that we can even distinguish between what is truly natural to us and what is not, which most still can't - and that is the trouble.

Frankly, I don't think there is sufficient self-awareness and individualism for Thelema to work on too broad a basis yet. People don't know themselves very well, don't trust themselves with too much freedom and independence, and are content to argue about which set of rules we should all agree to follow.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
25/10/2011 12:27 am  
"Camlion" wrote:
I like to use the words "natural" and "artificial," as they apply to the individual. We are still conditioned, most of us, to distrust our natural tendencies - assuming that we can even distinguish between what is truly natural to us and what is not, which most still can't - and that is the trouble.

Pretty sure there has always been varying stages in human evolution, and there always will be. It's just part of who we are. Some people are ready for it, and some aren't. There's no harm in that, I don't think.

"Camlion" wrote:
Frankly, I don't think there is sufficient self-awareness and individualism for Thelema to work on too broad a basis yet. People don't know themselves very well, don't trust themselves with too much freedom and independence, and are content to argue about which set of rules we should all agree to follow.

We have to follow rules?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
25/10/2011 12:57 am  
"Azidonis" wrote:
Pretty sure there has always been varying stages in human evolution, and there always will be. It's just part of who we are. Some people are ready for it, and some aren't. There's no harm in that, I don't think.

But, for the most part, necessity is the mother of evolution. 😉

"Azidonis" wrote:
We have to follow rules?

We just have to be our Selves, or we'll never really have been at all.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
25/10/2011 1:26 am  
"Camlion" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
Pretty sure there has always been varying stages in human evolution, and there always will be. It's just part of who we are. Some people are ready for it, and some aren't. There's no harm in that, I don't think.

But, for the most part, necessity is the mother of evolution. 😉

I'm currently taking a course on Ancient Greek Philosophy. Right now we are discussing Socrates/Plato, and he makes the distinction between various stages of human evolution/incarnations.

One thing we discussed today is the capability for enlightenment. Surely, everyone is capable, but not all of them are aware of it in their current incarnations. Take, for example, Jessica Simpson's show The Price of Beauty. No, I don't/didn't really watch the show, but I do remember flipping channels at one point, and seeing her flip out when in contact with customs of another culture. One could argue that she has every right to flip out, etc. whatever. But simply put, she didn't open up to the idea or the culture at all. It's an example of closure, on purpose or accident, of one or more avenues that could help pave the way for enlightenment. This sort of closure eventually forms a sort of web that we commonly call the Ego, and is a bar to enlightenment. So whether or not she has the capability - of course overall she has the capability, but whether or not the capability will be realized, or even whether it can be realized, in her current lifetime is another story.

If you say that some people just aren't capable of enlightenment, then they are quite simply duds. It brings up the idea of reincarnation, in which eventually they will evolve to a point in which the capability is realized, and therefore they are not duds, but seeds that have yet to take root and grow.

There is no magical way to instantly make everyone realize their capability or becoming enlightened. It happens, gradually, over the course of time and experience. So unless it becomes a vital necessity that everyone is enlightened all at once within a certain human time frame, evolution would continue to take its course.

Humanity is very young in the overall course of evolution, anyway. It may take another 2,000 years or more before the goal of enlightenment is even remotely a consideration on the broad scale, as in everyone.

"Camlion" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
We have to follow rules?

We just have to be our Selves, or we'll never really have been at all.

"People don't know themselves very well [...] and are content to argue about which set of rules we should all agree to follow."

I assume you were being facetious then?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
25/10/2011 2:01 am  
"Azidonis" wrote:
I assume you were being facetious then?

Yes, I was, Az.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
25/10/2011 2:09 am  
"Camlion" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
I assume you were being facetious then?

Yes, I was, Az.

Thought so. I was looking for the 🙂 🙂 🙂

lol


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
25/10/2011 8:07 am  
"mika" wrote:
The whole question of morals and appropriate behavior is irrelevant to, and contradictory of, practicing Thelema.
"Aleister Crowley" wrote:
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

93, Mika!

So, in short, you would say that AC is wrong here?

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
mika
 mika
(@mika)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 360
25/10/2011 7:08 pm  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
"mika" wrote:
The whole question of morals and appropriate behavior is irrelevant to, and contradictory of, practicing Thelema.
"Aleister Crowley" wrote:
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

So, in short, you would say that AC is wrong here?

No. In short, I'd say there are errors in your interpretation of the quoted text.


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
25/10/2011 7:56 pm  
"mika" wrote:
I'd say there are errors in your interpretation of the quoted text.

93, Mika!

Do you care to point these errors out to me? The passage in question is quite difficult for me to translate. AC speaks of CCXX, I, 36 which seems to me that his authority as scribe can "overrule" somebody's True Will (or what this someone thinks his True Will is). At least he says it is a fundamental principle of Thelema. And he talks about gentleman-like behaviour which surely is a kind of moralistic categorization, isn't it? Thanks in advance if you try to clear this up.

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
mika
 mika
(@mika)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 360
26/10/2011 1:12 am  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
Do you care to point these errors out to me?

Sure.
First, I posted comments about how practicing Thelema requires acting according to one's will rather than according to one's beliefs about what constitues "decent" or "gentlemanly" behavior.

Then in response, you posted a quote from Crowley that recommends acting according to one's sense of "ordinary decency" when experiencing conflict due to lack of understanding of one's will and/or of Liber Legis.

To put it simply: acting according to will trumps "decency" (my statements), "decency" trumps acting according to assumptions/confusion/ignorance (Crowley's quote).

"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
The passage in question is quite difficult for me to translate. AC speaks of CCXX, I, 36 which seems to me that his authority as scribe can "overrule" somebody's True Will (or what this someone thinks his True Will is).

Here's the Liber Legis quote:
"My scribe Ankh-af-na-khonsu, the priest of the princes, shall not in one letter change this book; but lest there be folly, he shall comment thereupon by the wisdom of Ra-Hoor-Khuit."

Crowley-as-scribe is instructed that he must write the book as received without any editing. Then he is told if he has any confusion over what has been written, he is free to add his own comments. Which he did. It seems to me that Crowley referenced this passage not to assert the authority of Liber Legis but simply to reference the "folly" that results from lack of understanding (of Liber Legis in I 36, of one's will in the context of the passage you quoted).

I'm going to parse this out as simply as possible. Hopefully my summary won't lead to further confusion:

"(1)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, (2) 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. (3)Error on such points is precisely the 'folly' anticipated in CCXX, I, 36, (4)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."

My interpretation: (1) Understanding one's will can be confusing, particularly due to intellectual assumptions and emotional excitement from spiritual experiences. (2) If a person experiences conflict between acting according to will ("spiritual duty") and acting according to other influences ("the fact of a person being a gentleman", "duty to honor"), it's probably a trap, so in that case just follow the customs of ordinary decency. (3) Falling for this trap, wasting energy trying to resolve this perceived conflict, is the same kind of folly referred to in CCXX I 36. (4) People who don't understand the nature of this trap (attempting to determine one's will through intellectual analysis and emotional/spiritual validation) don't really get Thelema and will fall further into confusion.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
31/10/2011 8:29 pm  

I consider projection that which attracts the fetishists to sign Crowley’s name to their behavior, as well as the kind of social condemnation of the Thelemic tradition such fetishists inspire.

I think Crowley to some extent disadvantaged the psyches of his immediate following, discipleship, he held during his own life. I consider the impact of his writings apart from that more positive than negative as a whole, and every major social impactor likely to trigger negative and positive butterfly affect.

Consciousness expansion, a scientific approach to spirituality, authentic techniques for and traditions of ego transcendence, a reduction in dogma and guru worship. The general Thelemic attitude is anti-follower.

I suspect that Crowley overcorrected in concern to taboo because as a cocaine addicted junky identified with intellectual spiritual and physical conquest, non conformist, perhaps to some extent disassociated by excess and ritual intensity, he projected an accurate assessment of the damaging impact of social taboo as a whole upon taboos rooted in rational behavioral aversion. That is probably what attracts sexual perverts and serial killers the most, extreme introverts desperate to find someone “like them” to cope with their deficiency in self esteem.

The worst that could possibly have happened, within a historical context, would be if such people were somehow smarter as a result of the identification. The identification could have easily landed upon the shoulders of various other historical villains:

The archetypal myth of Satan as occurring within Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and various world mythologies: An evil sadist in charge of a torturous underworld.

Pirate Blackbeard, the Green Goblin, or Elmer Fud

History’s actual villainous introverted intellectuals

The Marquis de Sade – whom, although I consider censoring history ethically atrocious, I consider 51% likely to have negatively impacted it. He is the one writer I have ever suspected, leaned on that, history would have been better without. Intuiting the possible butterfly effects which may have occurred . . .

Edward Crowley: the name makes me think of Edward Cayce. I suspect he may have been brainwashed, by a Crowley fetishist or an exploiter of their existence for some unguessed purpose.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
31/10/2011 8:54 pm  

Greetings

"Vishnu27in2012" wrote:
Edward Crowley: the name makes me think of Edward Cayce. I suspect he may have been brainwashed, by a Crowley fetishist or an exploiter of their existence for some unguessed purpose.

Are you referring to Edgar Cayce?


ReplyQuote
OKontrair
(@okontrair)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 501
31/10/2011 10:49 pm  

Come off it Vish this is just flaky rambling.

The butterfly effect is infantile bunk. You could drench South America a foot deep in insecticide and there would still be hurricanes in the North. An inch to the left or right perhaps but how could any one tell.

De Sade spent years in prison persecuted by his mother-in-law and her pal the local bishop. No great wonder he became a little unhinged. Notwithstanding his problems his political writings are a beacon to humanity. His rather quirky sexual writings only categorise and document what happens anyway. Try reading him or at least his life story.

In the 19th century 3% of males in the English speaking world were called Edward. And anyway, as Hecate points out, Edgar Cayce wasn't one of them.

You seem to regard yourself as greater than the subjects you comment on and that you have some sort of overview. How fortunate not to have deficiencies in your self esteem.

OK


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
31/10/2011 11:14 pm  
"Vishnu27in2012" wrote:
Edward Crowley: the name makes me think of Edward Cayce. I suspect he may have been brainwashed, by a Crowley fetishist or an exploiter of their existence for some unguessed purpose.

Big fan of Edgar Cayce here. I even have his "What I Believe" 1st ed. One can dismiss his "predictions" as him just being in touch with the gestalt of the time (i.e. his "prediction" of WWII) but its hard to deny that he had some "ability" with his diagnosis of diseases and such without being a medical professional or even literate. But I digress, what makes you think he was "brainwashed by a Crowley fetishist....."?


ReplyQuote
gurugeorge
(@gurugeorge)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 456
04/11/2011 12:21 am  
"viking41" wrote:
And dogma can be dangerous.

That's certainly true, but of all "system builders" and people trying to codify truth, AC is one of the least dogmatic, and constantly inveighs against dogmatism. But of course people will make a dogma out of the thinnest gruel. Nietzsche foresaw the same problem with his own philosophy - as indeed did AC.

The proscription in Liber OZ gives one the right to kill anyone who would thwart the RIGHTS to love, etc., how you will; i.e. it justifies Tyrannicide.

It does not give one the right to kill anyone who is refusing your love in any given INSTANCE - obviously not, because they, too, are covered by the Law of Thelema, they too have the right to "take their fill ... etc." It is a universal Law, it covers everybody equally. And because it is universal, it means that human relations are a matter of mutual adjustment, give and take, coming to accommodation, to understanding, even if that means agreeing to disagree and go separate ways.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
04/11/2011 5:44 pm  
"gurugeorge" wrote:
"viking41" wrote:
And dogma can be dangerous.

That's certainly true, but of all "system builders" and people trying to codify truth, AC is one of the least dogmatic, and constantly inveighs against dogmatism. But of course people will make a dogma out of the thinnest gruel. Nietzsche foresaw the same problem with his own philosophy - as indeed did AC.

The proscription in Liber OZ gives one the right to kill anyone who would thwart the RIGHTS to love, etc., how you will; i.e. it justifies Tyrannicide.

It does not give one the right to kill anyone who is refusing your love in any given INSTANCE - obviously not, because they, too, are covered by the Law of Thelema, they too have the right to "take their fill ... etc." It is a universal Law, it covers everybody equally. And because it is universal, it means that human relations are a matter of mutual adjustment, give and take, coming to accommodation, to understanding, even if that means agreeing to disagree and go separate ways.

Well put. There are degrees of "dogma" by which we arrive at mutual accommodation. To say, "all dogma is bad," just because some dogma has been bad, when taken beyond the point of reason, is a rather childish conclusion. "Dogma" such as Liber OZ, that does no more than grant personal freedom, independence and responsibly to all, is good "dogma."


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
04/11/2011 6:03 pm  
"Camlion" wrote:
"gurugeorge" wrote:
"viking41" wrote:
And dogma can be dangerous.

That's certainly true, but of all "system builders" and people trying to codify truth, AC is one of the least dogmatic, and constantly inveighs against dogmatism. But of course people will make a dogma out of the thinnest gruel. Nietzsche foresaw the same problem with his own philosophy - as indeed did AC.

The proscription in Liber OZ gives one the right to kill anyone who would thwart the RIGHTS to love, etc., how you will; i.e. it justifies Tyrannicide.

It does not give one the right to kill anyone who is refusing your love in any given INSTANCE - obviously not, because they, too, are covered by the Law of Thelema, they too have the right to "take their fill ... etc." It is a universal Law, it covers everybody equally. And because it is universal, it means that human relations are a matter of mutual adjustment, give and take, coming to accommodation, to understanding, even if that means agreeing to disagree and go separate ways.

Well put. There are degrees of "dogma" by which we arrive at mutual accommodation. To say, "all dogma is bad," just because some dogma has been bad, when taken beyond the point of reason, is a rather childish conclusion. "Dogma" such as Liber OZ, that does no more than grant personal freedom, independence and responsibly to all, is good "dogma."

I think we can take against the principle of dogma per se while accepting that for all practical intents and purposes, some dogma may appear to be equitable or even beneficial, at least on the surface of the case. A dogmatic perspective is one that does not allow for exceptions to any general rule and so it involves a special kind of mind blindness and disassociation from very liberal and open forms of communication.

The dogmatic argument for the status quo is really just a fear of change and transformation. Growth is painful, and life is an ongoing and deepening process of incarnation.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
07/11/2011 12:28 am  

Standing off at a distance, attempting to ascertain weather one is mentally ill or not, doing their "True Will" - especially in view of mundane society / morals / ethics is "the Great Miss". AC had no problem using lower slaves as slaves are wont to be used. He also did clearly perform sacrifices of living animal-beings, which psychologically leads to the next step in graduating victims. This is standard profiling. So, if AC could raise the power of the sacrificed "being" by using it magically in a way that (he thought) was superior to the native condition of the animal-being, whats the difference between animal beings on that level? The amount of power released? (laff)

The problem with Thelemic metaphysics is that there are no guidelines, no moral ethos, and no other Being can possibly ascertain weather one is "morally" doing the Great Work, True Will in the eyes of their individual, personal or invented G.'.D. The problem is not with the moral considerations - the problem is that people left to their own stupidity tend to follow creeds and directions from people they believe, for whatever reason, are in positions of absolute authority. This just isnt the case. One does not need Liber Oz to live free. Nor would a psychopath hesitate top be a psychopath with or without access to Thelemic materials.

In the end, you must simply strive for right-living in the Way you understand. Period. There is no judgement outside of your own mental processes.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
23/11/2011 8:40 pm  
"viking41" wrote:
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.

In all fairness, this is a great read!
I personally don't like Aleister Crowley, but I won't be holding that against his teachings, I have plucked out the truths that resonate with me, try find the wizdom inside and discard the rest.
Thanks for sharing.
fee3


ReplyQuote
Page 2 / 2
Share: