Thelema-like qualit...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Thelema-like qualities of Thelema?

324 Posts
21 Users
0 Likes
1,939 Views
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Ok, if you do not accept Thelema as crowley presents it, nor it's application to the world.

Then, here is a list of problems, what are your solutions, and how does it relate to what you think thelema means.

1) limited resources
2) deforestation and species extinction that results
3) destruction of Top soil and the expansion of deserts that results
4) Expansion of markets by use of war,
5) out sourcing of all jobs.
6) the unfulfilling and alienating nature of industrial jobs
7) the collapse of the economy.
8 ) the degrading nature of pop culture.
9) the self debasing foundation of modern society (secular Christianity)
10) corporate waste and toxic waste products
11) unfordable health care + Doctors not living to heal, but "just doing a job"
12) the abuse of livestock such that they poison our food with artificial drugs and hormones and diseases, (mad cow)
13) the ensure that no future oil spills happen / recover from the current one.
14) pork barrel spending
15) politeness police and political correctness people, turning everyone into little girls.
16) abuses of Pharmaceutical companies to invent mental illness and drug the population.
17) food additives and general unhealthiness of food available.

And many more issues, that need to be addressed.
I would address them by applying the Law of Fitness.
What are your solutions


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 1126
 
"name538" wrote:
Ok, if you do not accept Thelema as crowley presents it, nor it's application to the world.

This is just a weird interpretation of what has been said, and inaccurate. Nevertheless, I'm sure you *believe* that your 17 ideas are relevant. Hey, go wild... after all, it's just what Crowley said, isn't it? 😆


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 

93,

I don't mind accepting Thelema as Crowley presents it.

I do mind accepting it as name538 presents it.

Yes, there is a difference.

However, I applaud you, name538, for being so bold or brash as to lay your views on the line in this thread like you have. Your efforts are commendable, though your method is questionable, and your delivery is at times deplorable. Nonetheless, you have balls, which makes you okay in my book.

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 

limited resources: use each element for it's proper purpose, do not waste resources on frivolous things

deforestation: Don't use up all the trees, use something more feasible like hemp to make paper.

loss of top soil: use farming techniques that support and rebuilt the soil, plant the right plant in the right soil

Market expansion: Reduce big business by return to craftsman ship and local production, for need not greed

out sourcing: employ members of the local community, each according to his True WILL.

bad economics: Put an end to credit and banking scams, other forms of usury, base the wealth physical production

pop culture: Social support for local artists that supports community values, artist not in it for the money

I can go down the list. The cause of each problem is abusing the natural qualities of something and not putting each thing to use according to it's proper function.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Azidonis,

Can you show exactly where what I have presented deviates from Crowley?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"ianrons" wrote:
On the whole, the overwhelming response I've had from people who understand why I've changed my views has been very supportive, but I have had one or two people say they want to pray for me, or wish me back in the fold. This is not an unnatural view, and in a sense I am quite flattered, but I really do have solid views about Thelema, and whilst I am not interested in arbitrarily dismissing Crowley or what he did for occultism – anymore than I am interested in dismissing my own very valuable life-experience up to this point – at the same time I am beyond the pale.

I meant no disrespect, Ian, far from it, and I won't offer to pray for you, but I might try to persuade you that the message of Thelema remains sound, regardless of the flaws of it's messenger.


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 1126
 

Thanks, I'll bear your comments in mind.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"zardoz" wrote:
I'm glad to hear this because it means that you clearly don't accept AC as the sole authority on all things Thelemic. If you did, then you'd have to unquestioningly accept his statement that Aiwass dictated Liber Al

There is no logic whatsoever in this statement, presuming that "all things Thelemic" means anything at all. Thelema is a philosophy of individual conduct which holds that the sole valid guide to conduct is the individual's own nature. Whether anyone or anything did or did not dictate The Book of the Law has absolutely no connection with this philosophy, and thus we can quite happily disregard an enormous number of things that Crowley said that have no bearing on that philosophy without having to bring his "authority" into question. These notions we've seen recently that you either accept Crowley's "prophet status" and if you don't "follow his rules" then "that's not 'Thelema'" are utterly absurd, because while these things may have a bearing on Crowley's attempts to create a cult-like religion, they have no bearing at all on Thelema itself.

It constantly surprises me that I seem to have to repeatedly point this out, but Crowley's "authority" in the subject of Thelema derives from the fact that he invented it. When you invent something, you get to decide what it is, and if anyone else disagrees, they're just wrong. Thus, to unnecessarily drag an innocent bystander into this, when someone like Michael Staley says something like "True Will is cosmic, not individual", we can demonstrate him to be unambiguously wrong, because "True Will" in this context is a term that Crowley invented and very definitely defined in terms of the individual. I suppose there is no law against someone hijacking Crowley's terms and misleadingly employing them in a directly opposite sense, but at the very least it has nothing to do with the "Thelema" that just about everybody else talks about.

This "authority" does, however, only extend to a relatively broad definition of what "Thelema" actually is, and not to the working details of it. This is no different from any other field of study. We may say that Darwin (and Wallace), for instance, invented the theory of evolution, but we clearly know far more about evolution now than Darwin ever did, because although Darwin defined the overall framework, there were many details he wasn't able to fill in, not least because the existence of genes was not known at the time. It is quite possible, therefore, to question and correct some of Crowley's ideas about how the "true will" actually functions, or some of his ideas about how to discover it, for instance, and if people didn't insist on thinking of Thelema a religion we'd positively expect this to happen all the time, but we can do this without calling into question Crowley's authority to define what Thelema actually is as a simple result of the fact that he invented the term, and therefore gets to decide what it means. If someone wants to say that "true will" is something altogether different - such as something "cosmic" and not individual - then they're at liberty to do so, but if they do they're simply not talking about Thelema, but about something else entirely. Of course, we can also question the very notion of "true will" itself and therefore also Thelema, but that's an altogether separate subject.

The point is that contrary to what some people would like to claim, we aren't faced with a choice between unquestioningly believing absolutely everything Crowley ever said under the sun, or accepting that some folks must legitimately be at complete liberty to talk about something altogether different and misdescribe it as "Thelema".

"zardoz" wrote:
Imo, he did say so. "There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt" establishes this as the most important law. That there is no law beyond Do what thou wilt implies other laws. Otherwise, it would read "There is no law except Do what thou wilt.

Or, alternatively, it might give a separate clarifying statement, such as "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law" that completely nullifies such an "interpretation". Which it does.

"zardoz" wrote:
Actually, you're quite wrong. I hope you can learn from what you write in the last quote because it applies to you, not to me.

This is your argument? Look at your own quote, but simply reverse the emphasis:

"There are of course lesser laws than this, details, particular cases of the Law."

In the quote that you yourself presented, we have Crowley saying that there is only one law, and all other "lesser laws" are merely "particular cases" of it, just "details" that are merely practical manifestations of the single law, as opposed to actual, honest-to-goodness different laws. This quote doesn't support your position - it contradicts it.

"zardoz" wrote:
Well, it's very straight forward, he is claiming the authority on deciding interpretations of Liber Al. That doesn't mean he is the sole authority on all things Thelemic, nor is it demanding absolute obedience to his every command.

The Book of the Law is the source for "all things Thelemic" as far as Crowley was concerned, so he absolutely is claiming to be "the sole authority on all things Thelemic", and no about of quibbling over phrasing is going to change this. The bulk of his teachings on the subject comes from his commentaries to that book. As for "demanding absolute obedience to his every command", The Book of the Law itself directly contradicts that when it says that "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law". These folks who think that "Obey my prophet!" requires Thelemites to slavishly follow every whim of a guy who's been dead for over sixty years or "that's not 'Thelema'" have clearly lost the plot. When they go on to talk about others "ignor[ing] the bits they don't like" it turns into pure comedy.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 
"name538" wrote:
Azidonis,

Can you show exactly where what I have presented deviates from Crowley?

93,

I spent a considerable amount of time earlier chasing down Patriarch156's posts, and his are much easier to read.

Needless to say, I'm not going to do that for you. You can reiterate or rephrase Crowley's words until you are blue in the face for all I care. It won't make you Crowley.

Before you try to put words into my mouth again, what I said was,"I don't mind accepting Thelema as Crowley presents it. I do mind accepting it as name538 presents it. "

In other words, it could be a simple matter of packaging. Either way, it's a personal opinion, one which I happen to hold, and one which you most likely will not change.

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 

I don't have to rephrase Crowley. what he says is clear.

Do I have to present quotes again.

What Crowley means by WILL is closer to Schopenhauer's WILL. There is no universal ethics because you have to apply the ethical situation to the specific individual case, Not because any individual can just arbitrarily decide what it's WILL is.

You don't decide what your WILL is at all, it's not your choice, it is what your are. You have to discover what your WILL is and then constrain your desires and thoughts to do what your body is going to do anyway, (it's not that strict but basically the idea)

Let's put it this was, a skillet is hot, do you decide that it will burn your or not? No, but if you grab it it will burn you. You don't decide what you are, who you are, or where you fit into the world. You have to accept it and come to terms with it. And stop wanting to be other than you are, or to do what you are not set up to do.

You can find the best way to be what you are and use the elements you have power over to achieve your WILL. (use magick as defined in the postulate).

The Master of temple in crossing the abyss has totally removed that personality that wants things which are not the WILL that can not be altered. The Master is totally in harmony with the movement of nature, that is to say has no inner desire to do other than what he is causally determined to do.

Thus the master who is one with the world, has every ability to discern the what is the WILL and course of each individual and what is the cause of conflicts in the social system, thus has the ability to smooth out these problems.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"name538" wrote:
The Master of temple in crossing the abyss has totally removed that personality that wants things which are not the WILL that can not be altered. The Master is totally in harmony with the movement of nature, that is to say has no inner desire to do other than what he is causally determined to do.

Thus the master who is one with the world, has every ability to discern the what is the WILL and course of each individual and what is the cause of conflicts in the social system, thus has the ability to smooth out these problems.

How will we know these Masters who are to correct our wayward individual courses, name538?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 

The have attained 8=3 in the A.'.A.'.

Of course the leaders over the O.T.O are meant to be 7=4 Adeptus exmptus, thus to have put forth their thesis.

They don't correct your wayward course anyway.

You are to find your own HGA.

Like the ugly duckling found out on it's own that it was a swan.
The master then works with "OK so you are a swan, and he is a fox, and that one is a an apple tree, how can we make a society out of you all"

And even those who do not know what they are, all will be used according to what they are.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"zardoz" wrote:
Thank you Erwin and wellredwellbred for the location of the quote, ... "

You're Welcome

"Camlion" wrote:
"ianrons" wrote:
Camlion,I am troubled by your recent comments about "fascism" and "right wing extremism". Despite the fact that those terms are hardly interchangeable (fascism is essentially a left-wing philosophy, with adjustments to allow a degree of "free market" incentivism and -- crucially -- admittance to a political elite for business leaders rather than solely party members), I don't see anything in what name538 has been saying to justify such remarks: the political philosophy of Thelema, although somewhat unpalatable for a modern audience, is certainly distinct from fascism, and inasmuch as you call it "right wing" this seems to be merely a glyph to sanitize a personal hatred of aristocracy. You're aware of Godwin's Law, no doubt....

Ian, I should really wait until name538 and I complete this latest exchange of posts, but I suspect that he advocates that the true Will of individuals be legislated and enforced by the state. I consider this to be a "right wing extremist" interpretation of Thelema. Capisci?

As for name538 having "a "right wing extremist" interpretation of Thelema", for advocating "that the true Will of individuals be legislated and enforced by the state", this is also advocted by Crowley in "Scientific Solution to the problem of Government", in chapter 87 of Confessions, and in The Old and New Commentaries to Liber AL containing the following:

"We should recognize the fact that the vast majority of human beings have no ambition in life beyond mere ease and animal happiness. We should allow these people to fulfil their destinies without interference. We should give every opportunity to the ambitious, and thereby establish a class of morally and intellectually superior men and women. We should have no compunction in utilizing the natural qualities of the bulk of mankind. We do not insist on trying to train sheep to hunt foxes or lecture on history; we look after their physical well being, and enjoy their wool and mutton. I this way we shall have a contented class of slaves who will accept the conditions of existence as they really are, and enjoy life with the quiet wisdom of cattle. It is our duty to see to it that this class of people lack for nothing. The patriarchal system is better for all classes than any other; the objections to it come from the abuses of it. But bad masters have been artificially created by exactly the same blunder as was responsible for the bad servants. It is essential to teach the masters that each one must discover his own will, and do it." [My underlining.] Source: http://hermetic.com/220/crowley-comment.html

"Camlion" wrote:
"name538" wrote:
Compare what I have written here, with Crowley's "Scientific Solution to the problem of Government"

Neither your ideas nor Crowley's as given there will work in the real world of human beings today, name538. That does not mean that nothing will work, nor that we should scrap Thelema (IMO), but we cannot to be manipulated involuntarily as if "design elements," even if it is for our own good. It won't work. Only voluntary adherence by each individual to the Law of Thelema will work. (IMO)

As documented by the Crowley expert Marco Pasi in his book on Crowley and politics, Crowley wanted to make both the Soviet-Union and Nazi-Germany accept Thelema as a state religion, and who are to say that a Nazi-Germany or a Soviet-Union with a leadership truly converted to Thelema, would not have turned into something better the what happened in history:

Think of the following as the protagonist 'Axinia' being given further opportunities due to being ambitious, as recommended by Crowley in The Old and New Commentaries to Liber AL, and quoted above:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peLk6EEOlrU

Or maybe a Thelemic versions of Stalin's or Hitler's regimes, would not have been much better, seen in the light of the following from Crowley's The Old and New Commentaries to Liber AL:

"Should we not rather breed humanity for quality by killing off any tainted stock, as we do with other cattle, and exterminating the vermin which infect it, especially Jews and Protestant Christians." Source:
http://hermetic.com/220/crowley-comment.html

Crowley's authoritative texts on Thelema clearly contains much that is problematic, and defining acceptance of all those texts to be the defining quality of Thelema, texts from someone that on page 549 in his 'autobiography' Confessions, defines his own ideas to be "anti-anything which imagines itself to have a monopoly of truth or propriety", is something I find to be highly ironic.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 
"name538" wrote:
I don't have to rephrase Crowley. what he says is clear.

Then why do you keep doing it? LOL


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Where did I quote Crowley out of context, or express a notion that is opposed to his intention?


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 
"name538" wrote:
Where did I quote Crowley out of context, or express a notion that is opposed to his intention?

93,

I spent a considerable amount of time earlier chasing down Patriarch156's posts, and his are much easier to read.

Needless to say, I'm not going to do that for you. You can reiterate or rephrase Crowley's words until you are blue in the face for all I care. It won't make you Crowley.

Before you try to put words into my mouth again, what I said was,"I don't mind accepting Thelema as Crowley presents it. I do mind accepting it as name538 presents it. "

In other words, it could be a simple matter of packaging. Either way, it's a personal opinion, one which I happen to hold, and one which you most likely will not change.

93 93/93

P.S. I can copy and paste this infinitely.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 

If you can't show where we differ. Then that means we do not differ.
And how I express Thelema is how Crowley expresses Thelema.

I am the only one here not deviating from Crowley and expressing popular liberal notions as if they were Thelema, which are exactly the opposite of Thelema.

Further it is not a Personal opinion.

It is a fact.

You do not cerate facts you accept them as they are, no matter how you feel about it.


ReplyQuote
Horemakhet
(@horemakhet)
Member
Joined: 19 years ago
Posts: 554
 
"name538" wrote:
Where did I quote Crowley out of context, or express a notion that is opposed to his intention?

well, I don't know. One day you reference the supreme will power of serial killers, whilst training us in Batman comics. The next you change your approach, to make it more gentle. Then you are an expert on german philosophers. You are an expert on everything, depending on what someone else says. I find it annoying, personaly; but continue. . . .


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Yeah, I said that it may be some one's Will to be a serial killer.
Also such a person is not good material to use in a community, the leader would do best to not allow admission of people who have sadistic, anti-social natures, and in such extreme cases, one may find it best to protect the flock by execution of such an individual before this killer does any harm.

However, that is up to those leaders who make such decisions, they may have some beneficial use for a serial killer, in the community. Maybe as like Dexter, a killer that finds and kills other killers, or maybe working for the state as an assassin. Maybe a lack of empathy and disgust at cutting up bodies, could be put to work in a doing autopsy, which may appease the desires without anti-social murder.

You can't say that nature does not produce monsters, because it does. Monsters have WILLs too.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"Camlion" wrote:
How will we know these Masters who are to correct our wayward individual courses, name538?
"name538" wrote:
The have attained 8=3 in the A.'.A.'.

Of course the leaders over the O.T.O are meant to be 7=4 Adeptus exmptus, thus to have put forth their thesis.

They don't correct your wayward course anyway.

You are to find your own HGA.

Like the ugly duckling found out on it's own that it was a swan.
The master then works with "OK so you are a swan, and he is a fox, and that one is a an apple tree, how can we make a society out of you all"

And even those who do not know what they are, all will be used according to what they are.

How do the Masters know what the true Will of each one is for certain?


ReplyQuote
Horemakhet
(@horemakhet)
Member
Joined: 19 years ago
Posts: 554
 

No, they don't Certainly not as individuals.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"name538" wrote:
If you can't show where we differ. Then that means we do not differ.
And how I express Thelema is how Crowley expresses Thelema.

I am the only one here not deviating from Crowley and expressing popular liberal notions as if they were Thelema, which are exactly the opposite of Thelema.

Further it is not a Personal opinion.

It is a fact.

You do not cerate facts you accept them as they are, no matter how you feel about it.

You appear a little occluded, name538. You deviate from Crowley frequently. I don't have the time or inclination to correct all the disinformation but I will give one blatant example.

"name538" wrote:
Since there is no supernatural, or spiritual, or other world (dreams are chemical changes in the brain, not another world of non-physical or astral entities) So no matter what it may have SEEMED like to Crowley to be in that state, the voice he heard in his head or over his shoulder was of his own brain. (And he himself kept the degree of skepticism to accept that this may be true, despite what it seemed like to him).
"name538" wrote:
Since we KNOW for a FACT that Naturalism is true and the spiritual is only the seeming of the events of brain changes to the brains subjective self-awareness.

Crowley's rebuttal to this uninitiated view is found in Book 4 in the section The Claim of the Book of the Law to Open up Communication with Disincarnate Intelligence It's on p.684 of the blue brick. The whole thing is worth reading, but here are some highlights:

Yet the average man of science still denies the existence of the elementals of the Rosicrucian, the angels of the Qabalist... with the same bland misosphy as in Victorian days. It has apparently not occurred to him that his position in doubting the existence of consciousness except in connection with certain types of anatomical structure, is really identical with that of the narrowest geocentric and anthropocentric Evangelicals. It is comic to limit consciousness... The arguments against the existence of spiritual Intelligences stink of false analogy; on top of being attempts to prove a universal negative...

He closes with:

I hope that the above remarks have destroyed the a priori denials of the possibility of the existence of disincarnate intelligences. Nay, more, I trust that I have established a strong probability that they are everywhere. The way is therefore clear for me to come forward and assert that I have positively opened up communication with one such Intelligence; or, rather, that I have been selected by Him to receive the first message from a new order of beings.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2195
 
"zardoz" wrote:
You appear a little occluded, name538. You deviate from Crowley frequently. I don't have the time or inclination to correct all the disinformation but I will give one blatant example.

I don't really agree with name538's politics or his utopian ideals or his strange plans for the future, but I feel compelled to point out that he's claiming that he isn't deviating from Crowley's ideas about Thelema -- he's not claiming that he isn't deviating from Crowley's ideas about other things, such as the existence of supernatural critters.

And incidentally, on that point, name538 is perfectly right: there's no good reason to think that anything supernatural exists.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2195
 
"Erwin" wrote:
[Crowley's] "authority" does, however, only extend to a relatively broad definition of what "Thelema" actually is, and not to the working details of it. This is no different from any other field of study. We may say that Darwin (and Wallace), for instance, invented the theory of evolution, but we clearly know far more about evolution now than Darwin ever did, because although Darwin defined the overall framework, there were many details he wasn't able to fill in, not least because the existence of genes was not known at the time. It is quite possible, therefore, to question and correct some of Crowley's ideas about how the "true will" actually functions, or some of his ideas about how to discover it, for instance, and if people didn't insist on thinking of Thelema a religion we'd positively expect this to happen all the time, but we can do this without calling into question Crowley's authority to define what Thelema actually is as a simple result of the fact that he invented the term, and therefore gets to decide what it means.

This is a really important point that gets overlooked far too often.

People similarly make the mistake of thinking that Crowley's authority -- in this sense -- means that his politics and his supernatural beliefs and his religious inclinations and his weird utopian ideas and his missionary desires, etc. are part and parcel of Thelema.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 
"name538" wrote:
If you can't show where we differ. Then that means we do not differ.
And how I express Thelema is how Crowley expresses Thelema.

I am the only one here not deviating from Crowley and expressing popular liberal notions as if they were Thelema, which are exactly the opposite of Thelema.

Further it is not a Personal opinion.

It is a fact.

You do not cerate facts you accept them as they are, no matter how you feel about it.

93,

This is the last time I intend to say this outside of PM, out of respect for other members of this forum...

"Azidonis" wrote:
I spent a considerable amount of time earlier chasing down Patriarch156's posts, and his are much easier to read.

I've realized a bit of English comprehension is in order.

This sentence says that I spent an hour looking back through this thread for the post I made explaining Patriarch156's comment, since the material was unquoted using the quote feature. In fact, it was paraphrased, so the only way to do it justice was to return Patriarch156's words to their original form: his.

"Azidonis" wrote:
Needless to say, I'm not going to do that for you.

This should be simple. I'm not going to dig through your posts... at all.

"Azidonis" wrote:
You can reiterate or rephrase Crowley's words until you are blue in the face for all I care. It won't make you Crowley.

Listen, the English language is fairly complex. Part of that complexity is talking for someone else, in other words, a quotation. Generally, when one is using someone else's words or ideas, they will use a direct quotation, enclose the quotation with quotation marks, and cite their source.

To simply paraphrase what someone says is not a quotation, and by definition it is not that person's words. It is the words of the current speaker. This is basic English.

If oh, I don't know, Person A comes up to me and says, "Fish have gills, which they use to breathe underwater", and I tell you that 'fish breathe underwater using their gills', it is not the same thing as what person A said, though it may carry the same meaning. In order for me to attribute the sentence to Person A I would have to say, "Person A said that fish have gills which they use to breathe underwater." Thus, I would be telling you what Person A said, not what I heard Person A said.

In the same token, you can talk about Will and whatever you want to. However, if you are citing a source, then cite the source. Don't refuse to cite the source and then claim you are citing the source. To do so is improper English. If you do not use the source, and cite it properly, it follows that what you are saying are your words which came from your brain.

I can say, "O.T.O. stands for Ordo Templi Orientis".

I can also say, "The O.T.O. documents show that the letter stand for Ordo Templi Orientis."

The first sentence is completely subjective, which must have some sort of tangible proof in order for it to be true.

The second sentence is a statement of information collected from various published articles by the body O.T.O., and therefore may be assumed true until proven false, whereas the first sentence is assumed false until proven true.

If you do not see how this applies to your own words, I'm not sure how else to explain it to you.

As I said before and I will say again, I never said you deviate from anything. What I have said in the past, and still say now, is that you constantly talk about some of these subjects without any sort of quotations or citations, and you do not provide those citations until you are asked. That is fine for a general forum, but if you would actually read some of the more intelligible posts on this Website you will see that there is a general format that is followed. It's not to make anyone look cool, but to provide credit where credit is due, proper citations where they are necessary, and in general to reduce the amount of overall confusion that can occur when dealing with the various subjects at hand.

For all I care you can paraphrase Crowley until your fingers fall off. You will still be paraphrasing Crowley, which is not quoting Crowley, and therefore the words are not Crowley's words, they are your words, and therefore your interpretation of Crowley's words. Logically then, they are your opinion of what Crowley said, or what he meant, or whatever.

Furthermore, how you can continue to make this mistake and refuse to acknowledge it, and even mention the idea of what a Master of the Temple might do in a "Thelemic society" is beyond me.

"Azidonis" wrote:
Before you try to put words into my mouth again, what I said was,"I don't mind accepting Thelema as Crowley presents it. I do mind accepting it as name538 presents it. "

Again, no where in either of these two sentences is the word "deviate". This is an actual example of you taking someone's words and reiterating them into what you think they mean.

Again, in English: "I don't mind accepting Thelema as Crowley presents it."

This simple statement says that, I accept Crowley's idea of Thelema.

Second: "I do mind accepting it as name538 presents it."

For anyone not familiar with this word usage what it basically says is, "name538, I do not accept the way you present Thelema." If you need more clarification, I have put plenty clarification above.

I think you have some wonderful things to say, name538, I really do. I actually enjoy reading your posts. However, when you make long general statements about stuff that "Crowley said", or about "what Crowley meant", and absolutely decline to reference his actual words by citations and what-not, it makes it really hard to believe you aren't just sitting at your computer chair with a Thelema uzi and your finger on the trigger just blurting out whatever you think Crowley meant with his writings, and then claiming that you must be right because it is almost exactly what Crowley said.

All of this could be easily avoided by using proper citations when quoting someone or not claiming to quote them when you do not. It could also be avoided by starting every post of paraphrasing or personal observations with the phrase, "in my opinion".

"Azidonis" wrote:
In other words, it could be a simple matter of packaging. Either way, it's a personal opinion, one which I happen to hold, and one which you most likely will not change.

All of the above is a discussion of the 'packaging'.

I'm not telling you any of this stuff for any other reason than some of the replies and remarks you have been getting, from myself and others. It's not what you say that people are finding offensive, it is how you are saying it.

For the thread purposes, a question: What does this have to do with "Thelema-like qualities of Thelema"? I'm quite sure there are some creative answers out there.

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 

93,

Los, good sir, if you don't mind...

"Los" wrote:
This is a really important point that gets overlooked far too often.

This is an opinion.

People similarly make the mistake of thinking that Crowley's authority -- in this sense -- means that his politics and his supernatural beliefs and his religious inclinations and his weird utopian ideas and his missionary desires, etc. are part and parcel of Thelema.

This too is an opinion.

Both of these opinions have a possibility of being proven through factual information. Until or unless they are, they remain a matter of opinion.

Los, kind soul that he is, most likely recognizes that this (as it was stated) is his opinion, and as such he shares his opinion freely.

He has two choices. He can either A) acknowledge that it is his own personal opinion, or B) work to provide proof of that what he says is true.

If he acknowledges it is his opinion, then it's okay.

If he seeks to prove that it is a matter of fact, then that is okay too.

Either way, as long as he acknowledges one or the other it is perfectly okay.

However, if he were to reply with, "[Crowley said] that his politics and his supernatural beliefs and his religious inclinations and his weird utopian ideas and his missionary desires, etc. are [not] part and parcel of Thelema", then the very first thing we will do is ask for proof of this statement. He will then know immediately that he could have avoided the request for proof by providing an initial quotation instead of his own words.

Brackets - mine.

Just using your post as an example, Los, if I may. :/

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 1126
 

Erwin,

"Erwin" wrote:
Thelema is a philosophy of individual conduct which holds that the sole valid guide to conduct is the individual's own nature. Whether anyone or anything did or did not dictate The Book of the Law has absolutely no connection with this philosophy

😆

In other words, you don't like that bit of Thelema (Aiwass), which is actually fundamental to The Book of the Law itself, and appears on the first page of the manuscript, and so you choose to ignore it, in the same way you choose to emphasize other bits of The Book of the Law that you happen to agree with. You seem to think that simply by saying whether or not you think certain bits fit with the "philosophy" you imagine to be "Thelema", that they then either become or cease to be "Thelema", which is utter bollocks. "Thelema" is not what you write about, it's what Crowley wrote about.

"Erwin" wrote:
and thus we can quite happily disregard an enormous number of things that Crowley said that have no bearing on that philosophy without having to bring his "authority" into question.

I don't know how you ever got yourself twisted into a position where you sort of accept Thelema but filter out bits that you arbitrarily decide "have no bearing on that philosophy". Maybe it was when you deluded yourself into thinking you're a Magister Templi – I presume that's why you make such ridiculous pronouncements about "what Crowley meant to say" (as Bill Hicks would put it).

"Erwin" wrote:
These notions we've seen recently that you either accept Crowley's "prophet status" and if you don't "follow his rules" then "that's not 'Thelema'" are utterly absurd, because while these things may have a bearing on Crowley's attempts to create a cult-like religion, they have no bearing at all on Thelema itself.

Uh-huh, so there's a "cult-like religion" and there's "Thelema", which are totally unrelated!

Too weak to type... 😆 😆 😆


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 

The underlinings in the three quotes/'pastes' below, are all add by me.

First quote/'paste': http://hermetic.com/crowley/confessions/chapter49.html
"Such teachers as Lao-Tzu, the Buddha and the highest Gnana-yogis announce that they have attained to superior wisdom, understanding, knowledge and power, but make no pretence of imposing their views on mankind. They remain essentially sceptics. They base their precepts on their own personal experience, saying, in effect, that they have found that the performance of certain acts and the abstention from others created conditions favourable to the attainment of the state which has emancipated them. The wiser they are, the less dogmatic. Such men indeed formulate their transcendental conception of the cosmos more or less clearly; they may explain evil as illusion, etc., but the heart of their theory is that the problem of sorrow has been wrongly stated, owing to the superficial or incomplete data presented by normal human experience through the senses, and that it is possible for men, but virtue of some special training (from Asana to Ceremonial Magick), to develop in themselves a faculty superior to reason and immune from intellectual criticism, by the exercise of which the original problem of suffering is satisfactorily solved." Pages 395 and 396.

Second quote/'paste' http://www.venomous-magick.com/members/confess/chapter61.html
"It is natural that my attitude should be utterly abhorrent to my fellow countrymen. But they are quite wrong to think that my ideas are anti-Anglo-Saxon. They are anti-anything which imagines itself to have a monopoly of truth or propriety." Page 549.

Third quote/'paste' http://hermetic.com/crowley/confessions/chapter74.html
"I could not doubt that I had made the Path of Initiation plain. It was beyond doubt that any man of ordinary energy, integrity and intelligence might now attain in a very few months what, until now, had meant years of desperate devotion. I had destroyed the superstition that spiritual success depended on dogma. I was thus able, to some extent, to go fearlessly into the presence of the Secret Chiefs who had chosen me to carry out their plans for the welfare of mankind, and say with upright head that I had not wholly proved unworthy of their trust. Yet withal, there was a certain sadness such as, I suppose, every man feels when he comes to the end of a definite stage in his career. Nevertheless, I knew that those who had thus far used me would not now throw me aside; that higher and holier service would be found for me." Page 719.

All of the three quotes/'pastes' above, all pasted from Crowley's 'autobiography' Confessions, might at a first fast reading give the impression of Crowley being non dogmatic, but reading the first quote/'paste' more carefully and remembering Crowley in Confessions presenting himself as a person of the highest spiritual attainment, it - by implication - suggests Crowley being among those going beyond the faulty "normal human experience through the senses", and developing "in themselves a faculty superior to reason and immune from intellectual criticism."

Reading the third quote/'paste' closer, one find Crowley at the same time both stating that he "destroyed the superstition that spiritual success depended on dogma", and stating that he is chosen and entrusted by "the Secret Chiefs", "to carry out their plans for the welfare of mankind."

The writings we have from Crowley, show him constantly using faulty reasoning of this kind, and this fact together with him claiming supreme authority over Thelema as its Prophet, strongly increase the chance of turning such faulty reasoning into an inherent quality of Thelema.

In conclusion I change my position on Crowley as being non dogmatic. I now regard him as dogmatic, that is a dogmatic person intending to estasblish a new [only pretending to be non-]dogmatic world religion.


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 1126
 

I think you've hit the nail squarely on the head there. And this view, that Thelema is non-dogmatic, is also typical of Crowley's followers. In fact, when I joined OTO back in 1996 I was told quite bluntly by someone now very high up the ranks that "The OTO has no dogma". This is, of course, a very silly notion and in fact what he was really saying was "we're completely right, so what we're doing isn't dogma but truth". It's often buttressed by the idea that there is some science to it.

This largely stems from the notion in The Book of the Law (and elsewhere) that somehow reason has been conquered by spiritual attainment, and (more generally) that the Class 'A' literature contains information that is "entirely beyond the criticism of even the Visible Head of the Organization". Techically, this probably isn't exactly "dogma": it's something much more than just a body of opinion, and is only really comparable to the status of religious texts which are described as being "the Word of God" in one way or another. Crowley's own opinions on the matter (being regarded by him as pretty final) would I suppose fit the category of dogma, which perhaps explains why some people calling themselves Thelemites are less than keen to accept that he held that opinion of his own non-Class 'A' writings.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"Los" wrote:
"zardoz" wrote:
You appear a little occluded, name538. You deviate from Crowley frequently. I don't have the time or inclination to correct all the disinformation but I will give one blatant example.

I don't really agree with name538's politics or his utopian ideals or his strange plans for the future, but I feel compelled to point out that he's claiming that he isn't deviating from Crowley's ideas about Thelema -- he's not claiming that he isn't deviating from Crowley's ideas about other things, such as the existence of supernatural critters.

And incidentally, on that point, name538 is perfectly right: there's no good reason to think that anything supernatural exists.

You sound as occluded as name538.

He wrote:

And how I express Thelema is how Crowley expresses Thelema
I am the only one here not deviating from Crowley ...

Further it is not a Personal opinion.
It is a fact

No one said anything about the supernatural. Crowley stated his belief that disincarnate Intelligences exist and that one of them dictated the cornerstone of Thelema, The Book of the Law.

Azidonis is right. name531 doesn't quote Crowley, he paraphrases him with a liberal dose of bias and personal opinion.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"ianrons" wrote:
In other words, you don't like that bit of Thelema (Aiwass), which is actually fundamental to The Book of the Law itself,

Yet again your continuing struggle with the English language defeats you. No wonder you have so much difficulty. Here we are talking about what is fundamental to Thelema, and off you go on a tangent prattling on about what you think is "fundamental to The Book of the Law".

Pay attention to what's going on, for goodness' sake. Thelema is a philosophy which is described in - at least partially - The Book of the Law. That philosophy would still be that exact same philosophy if it was described in the 1977 Blue Peter Annual instead.

"ianrons" wrote:
in the same way you choose to emphasize other bits of The Book of the Law that you happen to agree with.

Oh, the irony!

"ianrons" wrote:
"Thelema" is not what you write about, it's what Crowley wrote about.

So Thelema is about mountaineering and chess now, is it? Or are you just choosing the bits you happen to agree with?

"ianrons" wrote:
utter bollocks

An accurate summation of your half-baked recent contributions. Only to be expected from someone who openly claims that he "was in love with [Crowley] for many years", which others have been quick to point out. And now you've rejected Dee, as well. This entire recent rant of yours is nothing but the transparent actions of an altogether typical love-spurned teenager. Who, in this case, seems to think he's acquired some superpowers into the bargain. Claiming that, since Crowley didn't describe becoming able to "see the future" as a result of practising yoga, he must therefore be the one talking nonsense about it was inspired. "Utter bollocks" indeed.

"ianrons" wrote:
Uh-huh, so there's a "cult-like religion" and there's "Thelema", which are totally unrelated!

That's right, just like there's "Christianity", and then there's the "Roman Catholic Church", and the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints", for instance, none of which are anything like the same thing. The difference, of course, is that whereas the Christian churches are based on the Christian religion, the Thelemic churches that you so eagerly want to misdescribe as "Thelema" are not based on a religion at all, but on a philosophy whose "and metaphysics are sound", whose "science is orthodox", and which "has no false theories of Nature, no false fables of the origin of things".

See how this stuff works? If you want to talk about religion, the place to start is looking at actual religions that really exist, instead of talking a lot of risible tripe about this cartoon-character, fantasy "religion" that nobody in the world seems to recognise other than you. I accept that you can't seem to tell the difference between a philosophy and a cheap imitation of a church-group which purports to be based on that philosophy, but you're dreaming - and so much for your prophetic dreams, by the way - if you think that everyone else is forced to suffer from the same deficiency as you.

"ianrons" wrote:
I think you've hit the nail squarely on the head there. And this view, that Thelema is non-dogmatic, is also typical of Crowley's followers. In fact, when I joined OTO back in 1996 I was told quite bluntly by someone now very high up the ranks that "The OTO has no dogma".

See? You clearly are utterly incapable of distinguishing between "Thelema" and "The OTO". This is just more rejection anxiety from you.

What a funny little fellow you are.


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 1126
 

Erwin,

Gosh – hit a nerve, did I?

Picking just one of your largely ad hominem attacks – your claim that I am 'utterly incapable of distinguishing between "Thelema" and "The OTO'' – there is so clearly nothing in what I have said to indicate anything of the sort. And why would I feel "rejection anxiety", after having resigned from the OTO?

Nothing in your post makes any sense, or addresses what I've said, which is that you are simply cherry-picking all the bits that you like from Thelema, and finding ways to rationalize away the rest – as the front page of your website sets out in different terms. Thelema is fundamentally based on a claim to an event that you would dismiss as "supernatural", so your attempts to strip Thelema of any such content are, frankly, quixotic.

The only bit of my post that you vaguely half-address is the question of Thelema as "cult-like religion", but you choose to decide that I'm talking about Thelemic churches, which I'm clearly not: I'm talking about Thelema as set forth in The Book of the Law and secondly in Crowley's writings. That's obvious, and I've discussed it here on several occasions other than in this thread.

The thing about you, Erwin, is that when you feel you're on shaky ground, you ratchet up the nastiness, vitriol and rhetoric and find ways of misreading (or inventing) and spuriously trivializing whatever the other person has said, so as to belittle, intimidate and annoy that person, which has the effect of taking the focus off the weaknesses of your own position. It may be largely subconscious on your part, but that's what's going on, and it's more obvious than you think.

---
P.S. To everyone else: I don't want to derail this otherwise-interesting thread with a slanging match, so I am going to back out now & hope it gets back on course again.

Erwin: Perhaps we could continue this via PM if you really want to.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"ianrons" wrote:
Gosh – hit a nerve, did I?

No. Funny that should be on your mind, though.

"ianrons" wrote:
Picking just one of your largely ad hominem attacks – your claim that I am 'utterly incapable of distinguishing between "Thelema" and "The OTO''

How is pointing out that you are "utterly incapable of distinguishing between 'Thelema' and 'The OTO'" an "ad hominem attack"? The position of yours that I am criticising is your mistaken idea that Thelema and the cult-like groups which some people purport to be based on it, are the same thing. Pointing out that you are mistakenly conflating one prime example with Thelema is absolutely on point to demonstrating you're doing that. Your dishonest and bizarre attempt to characterise it as an "ad hominem attack" is indicative of your complete inability to respond to challenges to your fantasies, as shown here and in many other places where you ignore all the evidence put to you and simply proclaim "I haven't seen anything that would change my mind". Well, that might be a compelling argument in your mind, but it isn't anywhere else.

"ianrons" wrote:
there is so clearly nothing in what I have said to indicate anything of the sort.

How is illustrating your claim that "this view, that Thelema is non-dogmatic, is also typical of Crowley's followers" by quoting someone saying that "The OTO has no dogma" anything other than exactly that? Are you off your rocker?

"ianrons" wrote:
And why would I feel "rejection anxiety", after having resigned from the OTO?

Because you resigned when you realized that Crowley didn't love you back.

"ianrons" wrote:
Nothing in your post makes any sense, or addresses what I've said,

See? There you go again. You have no resources to sensibly respond to any contrary position put to you. You have to resort to stamping your little feet and saying, "no, this doesn't make sense, it just doesn't and that's that! So I don't have to face up to responding to it."

"ianrons" wrote:
which is that you are simply cherry-picking all the bits that you like from Thelema,

You are "simply cherry-picking" random events from Crowley's life that you can conflate with Thelema for the sole purpose, it seems, of knocking it down, so you can make yourself feel better about the realization that Crowley didn't love you back. You'll get over it one day, really.

"ianrons" wrote:
and finding ways to rationalize away the rest – as the front page of your website sets out in different terms.

In terms so different as to mean something completely and utterly foreign to this, yes. What I'm doing is taking away the extraneous nonsense that people like you repeatedly insist on mistakenly conflating with Thelema.

"ianrons" wrote:
Thelema is fundamentally based on a claim to an event that you would dismiss as "supernatural", so your attempts to strip Thelema of any such content are, frankly, quixotic.

No, it's not. Thelema is fundamentally based on a claim that there is no valid guide to individual conduct other than an individual's own nature. The event through which this idea was "revealed" or otherwise constructed is completely irrelevant to that claim. Again, you seem utterly incapable of separating an idea from the legends surrounding one man's discovery of it.

"ianrons" wrote:
The only bit of my post that you vaguely half-address is the question of Thelema as "cult-like religion", but you choose to decide that I'm talking about Thelemic churches, which I'm clearly not: I'm talking about Thelema as set forth in The Book of the Law and secondly in Crowley's writings.

No, you aren't. You're talking about Crowley's writings about a cult-like group he wanted to form with the Law of Thelema at its core. You're not talking about Thelema at all, which is a philosophy based around the discovery and performance of the will. Hence the name - "Thelema". See how that works?

Yet again, you seem incapable of distinguishing Thelema from the half-baked religious and political ideas of the man who named it. You're just picking and choosing the various bits from Crowley's writings that you want to include under the heading of "Thelema". The fact that you continually complain about others doing this, and then so blatantly base your entire argument upon doing just that, is hilarious.

"ianrons" wrote:
That's obvious, and I've discussed it here on several occasions other than in this thread.

And again, it's obvious to you because you cannot distinguish between two obviously different things. You can discuss it here as many times as you like, it won't make you correct.

"ianrons" wrote:
you ratchet up the nastiness, vitriol and rhetoric and find ways of misreading (or inventing) and spuriously trivializing whatever the other person has said,

More irony!

"ianrons" wrote:
so as to belittle, intimidate and annoy that person, which has the effect of taking the focus off the weaknesses of your own position.

If you want to talk about whose position is weak, I'd suggest starting by looking at which one of us is habitually unwilling and/or unable to face up to challenges to his position. In other words, in your own direction.

"ianrons" wrote:
so I am going to back out now

Probably a wise move.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2195
 
"Azidonis" wrote:
93,

Los, good sir, if you don't mind...

"Los" wrote:
This is a really important point that gets overlooked far too often.

This is an opinion.

Sure.

People similarly make the mistake of thinking that Crowley's authority -- in this sense -- means that his politics and his supernatural beliefs and his religious inclinations and his weird utopian ideas and his missionary desires, etc. are part and parcel of Thelema.

This too is an opinion.

Both of these opinions have a possibility of being proven through factual information. Until or unless they are, they remain a matter of opinion.

Maybe an analogy will help.

Let's say a guy comes up with a great diet that's really effective. He claims that this diet came from the Ghost of Christmas Past and furthermore that this diet entitles him to being "world teacher" of dieting. Oh, also, he has right-wing political beliefs, casually expresses racist sentiments on occasion, dreams of a nutty utopian future where his diet will be implemented throughout society, writes a number of rituals where the terms, images, and metaphors in his diet book are exalted, and creates a religion that involves worshipping metaphors in his diet book.

Would you consider this guy's political outlook, beliefs about the spirit world, and religious tendencies part of the diet?

In order to go on the diet, would you have to accept (or even like) any of the other stuff?


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 

My Karma ran over my Dogma... har har


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Out of all work concerning Thelema - your work to from Thelema, discard all extraneous nonsense - is the one I am most in sympathy with, Erwin.

In this your work of clarifying Thelema, do you also discard Crowley's designs - as referred to in the quote from Patriarch156 below - for realizing ones infinite will (attainment), as nonsense, extraneous to Thelema?

"Patriarch156" wrote:
As for your last question, according to the designs of Crowley there is a distinct difference between realizing ones finite will (i.e. what you are fitted for) and your infinite will (attainment). As such the work of the A.'.A.'. would be ever-present and important for those few who have the aptitude and ability to walk that perilious and demanding path.

ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 
"Los" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
93,

Los, good sir, if you don't mind...

"Los" wrote:
This is a really important point that gets overlooked far too often.

This is an opinion.

Sure.

People similarly make the mistake of thinking that Crowley's authority -- in this sense -- means that his politics and his supernatural beliefs and his religious inclinations and his weird utopian ideas and his missionary desires, etc. are part and parcel of Thelema.

This too is an opinion.

Both of these opinions have a possibility of being proven through factual information. Until or unless they are, they remain a matter of opinion.

Maybe an analogy will help.

Let's say a guy comes up with a great diet that's really effective. He claims that this diet came from the Ghost of Christmas Past and furthermore that this diet entitles him to being "world teacher" of dieting. Oh, also, he has right-wing political beliefs, casually expresses racist sentiments on occasion, dreams of a nutty utopian future where his diet will be implemented throughout society, writes a number of rituals where the terms, images, and metaphors in his diet book are exalted, and creates a religion that involves worshipping metaphors in his diet book.

Would you consider this guy's political outlook, beliefs about the spirit world, and religious tendencies part of the diet?

In order to go on the diet, would you have to accept (or even like) any of the other stuff?

93,

Apparently I came up with a "Thelemic Potato Salad" in another thread that seems pretty nutritious. Some people just don't like potato salad though. 🙂

Los, I think actual acceptance of the Law of Thelema and actual acceptance of Thelema as Crowley viewed it seem to be two different things. However, I'm certain there is a fine line where the two co-exist. How broad or narrow that line is, is another matter altogether.

Either way, I think it is important for us to recognize the different world views that people have regarding Thelema and even Crowley.

A note is appended, which may help with the conundrum:

Is Crowley the man also Crowley the Magus? When Crowley the man speaks, is he speaking with parts of his personality that were not annihilated? When Crowley the Magus speaks, is there any doubt that those parts of the personality are annihilated?

If Crowley the man is also Crowley the Magus, the Logos of the Aeon, then we have ourselves one view.

If parts of Crowley the man were not annihilated, then he is not a Magus of anything.

If Crowley is the Magus, then he speaks as the Magus.

And we all know that the curse of the Magus is, roughly, "that he must speak truth".

Points to argue/consider.

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 

93,

I really shouldn't keep doing this...

"wellredwellbred" wrote:
Out of all work concerning Thelema - your work to from Thelema, discard all extraneous nonsense - is the one I am most in sympathy with, Erwin.

Your opinion of Erwin's work. Perfectly okay.

In this your work of clarifying Thelema, do you also discard Crowley's designs - as referred to in the quote from Patriarch156 below - for realizing ones infinite will (attainment), as nonsense, extraneous to Thelema?

Would you mind telling us where/ how Patriarch156 "discarded" anything as "nonsense" exactly?

Please bear in mind that Patriarch156's comment was in reply to me asking about where the A:.A:. would fit into the idea of a "Thelemic society". (Yes, it's paraphrased. I don't want to go back and quote myself.)

"Patriarch156" wrote:
As for your last question, according to the designs of Crowley there is a distinct difference between realizing ones finite will (i.e. what you are fitted for) and your infinite will (attainment). As such the work of the A.'.A.'. would be ever-present and important for those few who have the aptitude and ability to walk that perilous and demanding path.

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2195
 
"Azidonis" wrote:
Los, I think actual acceptance of the Law of Thelema and actual acceptance of Thelema as Crowley viewed it seem to be two different things. However, I'm certain there is a fine line where the two co-exist. How broad or narrow that line is, is another matter altogether.

Well, I draw a distinction between Thelema and Crowley's utopian plans for the future in which people attempt to integrate the Law of Thelema into society.

I further draw a distinction between Thelema and the religion of the EGC, which is based on Thelema.

I further draw a distinction between Thelema and the OTO, which exists to promulgate the Law of Thelema and to teach it (along with certain mystery school teachings) to initiates.

In order for Thelema to be a thing that people can try to implement in a utopian plan or try to base a religion around or try to teach in an organization, it has to be something *distinct* from those utopian plans, religions, and organizations.

To characterize any of those things as "Thelema" or "part of Thelema" is to make an error of categorization.

You're free to label those other things Thelema if you want, but I think you're going to be creating far more confusion than clarity.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"wellredwellbred" wrote:
In this your work of clarifying Thelema, do you also discard Crowley's designs - as referred to in the quote from Patriarch156 below - for realizing ones infinite will (attainment), as nonsense, extraneous to Thelema?

I can't really say, because he's using terms that are unclear - i.e. "finite will" versus "infinite will" - and the import of his comments are clouded by the context of the discussion in which they appeared. In other words, I don't think he's made a clear enough statement of his own views for me to comment on them without taking a significant risk of completely misinterpreting what he wanted to say with that quote.

But, that being said, there obviously aren't two types of "true will" if that was the implication, which I doubt. There's not one type of will that the plebs follow, and another type of will that superspecial magician chums follow. What most magician types refer to as "attainment" is nothing but a bizarre story they tell to themselves to make themselves feel better, a collection of wild tales about the fantasy that their mystical dream-states actually mean anything, that they have superpowers like "seeing the future", or that they're talking to amazingly advanced aliens through the awesome power of bad poetry and inane number games. The only real type of "attainment" in Thelema per se is knowing the will, and the entirety of Crowley's outer order instructions for the A.A. are, in his own words, directed towards this end, although not very effectively in my view.

At any rate, the "work of the A.'.A.'." is not the "perilous and demanding path" that only the few have the aptitude to accomplish that he seems to think it is; in reality, that work is for the religious, credulous dunces who can't figure out they're being taken for a ride by people who are no more "advanced" than they are. You're not going to "attain" anything by pretending to conjure demons, concentrating on the end of your nose, memorising chapters of The Book of the Law, eating cakes made from menstrual blood, or cutting your forearms with razor blades, and it really shouldn't need a lot of intelligence to figure that out - one's true will is found by impartially paying attention to one's own nature while interacting with the real world, not by prancing around doing silly crap like that.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"Los" wrote:
In order for Thelema to be a thing that people can try to implement in a utopian plan or try to base a religion around or try to teach in an organization, it has to be something *distinct* from those utopian plans, religions, and organizations.

To characterize any of those things as "Thelema" or "part of Thelema" is to make an error of categorization.

Precisely and exactly so.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"Los" wrote:
Maybe an analogy will help.

Let's say a guy comes up with a great diet that's really effective. He claims that this diet came from the Ghost of Christmas Past and furthermore that this diet entitles him to being "world teacher" of dieting. Oh, also, he has right-wing political beliefs, casually expresses racist sentiments on occasion, dreams of a nutty utopian future where his diet will be implemented throughout society, writes a number of rituals where the terms, images, and metaphors in his diet book are exalted, and creates a religion that involves worshipping metaphors in his diet book.

Would you consider this guy's political outlook, beliefs about the spirit world, and religious tendencies part of the diet?

In order to go on the diet, would you have to accept (or even like) any of the other stuff?

An excellent analogy, Los, thanks for that.

What one would do in the case of Aleister Crowley, IMO, is measure what percentages of his total work output are devoted to X, to Y and to Z.

With Crowley, huge portions were devoted to Thelema as a personal philosophy (including HGA matters unrelated to ritual), huge portions to Thelema as Magick (with the K) and huge portions to Thelema as religion (Aiwass included).

There are comparatively smaller amounts devoted to other things, perhaps the next largest - but much smaller in comparison - might be his visions for the social and political applications of Thelema, mostly within the framework of his Orders, but a few bits on world government, international economics, etc. - areas he understood practically nothing about - in stark contrast to his genius in matters of true Will, Magick and religious evolution.

So, understanding nothing about social and political science, he attempted to impose Thelemic religion and Thelemic Magick onto them, as name538 does again this week, rather than applying his other main specialty to them: Thelema as a personal philosophy, matters pertaining to the successful accomplishment of individual true Will. This, IMO, is the obvious course of action with regard to the application of Thelema to the social and political sciences, assuming that success is the goal.

Matters concerning chess, mountaineering, Indian curry and so on occupy progressively less space in Crowley's total work, are of less universal importance, and could hardly be regarded as significant with respect to the value of his total work. Discount these, Los, if you will, and you will have very little negative reaction from the Thelemites of today.

But, to dismiss huge portions of Crowley's total work output is not going sit well the constituencies of these major Crowley-inspired fields of endeavor, nor should it. These areas, Thelema as a personal philosophy, Thelema as Magick and Thelema as religion are each legitimately derived from the vast majority of the total output of Aleister Crowley.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2195
 
"Camlion" wrote:
But, to dismiss huge portions of Crowley's total work output is not going sit well the constituencies of these major Crowley-inspired fields of endeavor, nor should it. These areas, Thelema as a personal philosophy, Thelema as Magick and Thelema as religion are each legitimately derived from the vast majority of the total output of Aleister Crowley.

I'm not trying to "dismiss" magick or religion -- at least not in this context. I'm arguing that Thelema is something distinct from magick, religion, politics, and Crowley's other personal inclinations.

I'm all for people practicing a religion based on Thelema, but let's not start mistaking that religion for Thelema.

I'm all for people joining organizations that promote and teach Thelema, but let's not start mistaking those organizations for Thelema.

I'm all for people performing magick based on godforms found in Liber AL or with goals drawn from Thelema, but let's not start mistaking that magical system for Thelema.

I'm all for people pushing for increased individual liberty, but let's not start mistaking that political stance for Thelema.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 

93,

"Azidonis" wrote:
Los, I think actual acceptance of the Law of Thelema and actual acceptance of Thelema as Crowley viewed it seem to be two different things. However, I'm certain there is a fine line where the two co-exist. How broad or narrow that line is, is another matter altogether.
"Los" wrote:
Well, I draw a distinction between Thelema and Crowley's utopian plans for the future in which people attempt to integrate the Law of Thelema into society.

Do you think that Thelema will "die out" if not integrated into society? Do think that the society is not undergoing changes in alignment with the Law of Thelema?

"Los" wrote:
I further draw a distinction between Thelema and the religion of the EGC, which is based on Thelema.

It is this same distinction, possibly, for which I have never attended, and do not really desire to attend, a Mass.

"Los" wrote:
I further draw a distinction between Thelema and the OTO, which exists to promulgate the Law of Thelema and to teach it (along with certain mystery school teachings) to initiates.

I do not see the O.T.O. as an initiating body. I see it as the "Catholic Church" of Thelema, as the project created to be a mainstay and public beacon for the masses.

"Los" wrote:
In order for Thelema to be a thing that people can try to implement in a utopian plan or try to base a religion around or try to teach in an organization, it has to be something *distinct* from those utopian plans, religions, and organizations.

Howso?

"Los" wrote:
To characterize any of those things as "Thelema" or "part of Thelema" is to make an error of categorization.

It seems you are mistaking Thelema the Will for Thelema the movement, if there is such a thing?

"Los" wrote:
You're free to label those other things Thelema if you want, but I think you're going to be creating far more confusion than clarity.

This coincides with what I said about earlier concerning Germer. When the A:.A:. moved into different Lineages and the O.T.O. became ran by the Caliph, many things changed. With mass publication and such, things have changed even moreso. One thing I have noticed in Crowley's letters to aspirants is that he is very direct and precise where the Path is concerned. With all of the various "entities" in existence today in accordance with the Law of Thelema, I venture to say that Thelema didn't necessarily grow into specialized branches as may have been envisioned. It splintered.

Interestingly enough, of the few actual Lineages of the A:.A:. that are in existence today, if you talk to many of the actual Members (not failed drop-outs), they pretty much all say the same stuff. This tells me that unless they are still all in communication with each other concocting some huge diabolical plan, the Current is very much real and alive.

In my opinion this is one of the meanings of Patriarch156's words to me.

Consider how all of the talking we are doing, all of the things the O.T.O. and other organizations are doing, the various crises of the world, etc. do not seem to effect the A:.A:. proper.

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 

93,

"Erwin" wrote:
I can't really say, because he's using terms that are unclear - i.e. "finite will" versus "infinite will" - and the import of his comments are clouded by the context of the discussion in which they appeared. In other words, I don't think he's made a clear enough statement of his own views for me to comment on them without taking a significant risk of completely misinterpreting what he wanted to say with that quote.

Wellbredwellfed actually asked Patriarch156 directly what he meant, to which he did not respond. It is possible that what he said was directed more or less at me, seeing how we brought our conversation to PM after that.

But, that being said, there obviously aren't two types of "true will" if that was the implication, which I doubt. There's not one type of will that the plebs follow, and another type of will that superspecial magician chums follow.

What *I think* he meant was, there is a Will. Take for instance my Will to obtain a Religious Studies degree. This is not to be mistaken by whim, as I know beyond all doubt it is my place in life, and have known that since I was a young boy. However, accomplishing that is not the same thing as "Attainment". In other words, if I get a Master's degree in Religious Studies and am able to better fulfill my function in this incarnation, it does not necessarily follow that I will also become a Magister Templi, which is usually referenced with words such as Enlightenment, Liberation, etc. I suppose one could say the Inner and the Outer Will.

What most magician types refer to as "attainment" is nothing but a bizarre story they tell to themselves to make themselves feel better, a collection of wild tales about the fantasy that their mystical dream-states actually mean anything, that they have superpowers like "seeing the future", or that they're talking to amazingly advanced aliens through the awesome power of bad poetry and inane number games.

Wow man... just wow. None of those bullshit parlor tricks have anything to do with actual Attainment. I suppose if you wanted to, you could place some of them into the category of siddhis, but they are only distractions.

The only real type of "attainment" in Thelema per se is knowing the will, and the entirety of Crowley's outer order instructions for the A.A. are, in his own words, directed towards this end, although not very effectively in my view.

Crowley's words are very effective if taken in the proper context. Of course, we each are entitled to our own opinions.

At any rate, the "work of the A.'.A.'." is not the "perilous and demanding path" that only the few have the aptitude to accomplish that he seems to think it is;

I'm assuming you are speaking from experience?

in reality, that work is for the religious, credulous dunces who can't figure out they're being taken for a ride by people who are no more "advanced" than they are.

Erwin, have you ever actually met anyone in the A:.A:., physically?

You're not going to "attain" anything by pretending to conjure demons,

Have you ever performed a successful Evocation?

concentrating on the end of your nose,

Have you actually practiced and obtained success in, Dhyana and Dharana?

memorising chapters of The Book of the Law,

Are you kidding me?

eating cakes made from menstrual blood,

Have you ever eaten real cakes of light?

or cutting your forearms with razor blades,

Have you ever successfully performed Liber Jujorum? Do you have the scars to prove it?

and it really shouldn't need a lot of intelligence to figure that out

It doesn't take a lot of intelligence to recognize that you sound like a disgruntled ex-employee.

- one's true will is found by impartially paying attention to one's own nature while interacting with the real world, not by prancing around doing silly crap like that.

Take all the lifetimes you want, Erwin. We're waiting...

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"Los" wrote:
"Camlion" wrote:
But, to dismiss huge portions of Crowley's total work output is not going sit well the constituencies of these major Crowley-inspired fields of endeavor, nor should it. These areas, Thelema as a personal philosophy, Thelema as Magick and Thelema as religion are each legitimately derived from the vast majority of the total output of Aleister Crowley.

I'm not trying to "dismiss" magick or religion -- at least not in this context. I'm arguing that Thelema is something distinct from magick, religion, politics, and Crowley's other personal inclinations.

The term 'Thelema,' (in the only context worth discussing in this place), refers to the concept of true Will, to the innate nature of each and every individual. Anything beyond this single simple definition refers to an application of this concept in practice, be it the practice of a personal philosophy, the practice of Magick (with the K) or the practice of religion based on these facts of human nature rather than on fantasy, as in the past.

The practice of a strictly personal philosophy based on the concept of true Will (Thelema) happens to be your own preference, Los, but it pertains no more exclusively to concept of true Will (Thelema) than do the efforts of those who prefer other applications in practice of the same concept, that of true Will (Thelema).

Now, you often argue that your preferred practice of the concept of Thelema is universally more effective than those of other Thelemites but, in all honesty, is that for you to say? Can you not, in all honesty, speak only for yourself?

Apparently, Crowley thought highly enough of these other practices to devote major portions of his total body of work to them. It seems apparent that he foresaw that, for some, the practice of Magick would be better suited, for others the practice of a new religion and for still others, yourself included, the practice of a strictly personal philosophy.

Each of these groups of practices are equally based upon the same concept of true Will, of Thelema.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"Azidonis" wrote:
What *I think* he meant was, there is a Will. Take for instance my Will to obtain a Religious Studies degree. This is not to be mistaken by whim, as I know beyond all doubt it is my place in life, and have known that since I was a young boy.

What a paltry imagination you had as a child.

"Azidonis" wrote:
However, accomplishing that is not the same thing as "Attainment". In other words, if I get a Master's degree in Religious Studies and am able to better fulfill my function in this incarnation,

Oh, spare us the reincarnation bullshit. Who do you think you're fooling? For goodness' sake, some of you people seriously need to grow up.

"Azidonis" wrote:
it does not necessarily follow that I will also become a Magister Templi, which is usually referenced with words such as Enlightenment, Liberation, etc. I suppose one could say the Inner and the Outer Will.

I suppose one could say that, if one wanted to transform the concept of "will" into total gibberish. Getting a Master's degree in Religious Studies won't make sausages for you, either, so I suppose making sausages is "infinite will" too, right? What absolute unadulterated nonsense.

The will is the will. If you want to call something completely different the "Inner Will" just because you think it sounds pretty neat, and you think the will is kinda cool too, then good luck with that, but don't start complaining when people point at you and laugh.

"Azidonis" wrote:
I'm assuming you are speaking from experience?

What are you asking me for? How am I supposed to know what you're assuming?

As for the rest, if you're the kind of idiot who believes what people say based on what wild claims to "experience" they make on their internets then no wonder you think the way you do. You and everyone else can judge what experience I have by listening to what I say, since being able to talk sensibly and knowledgeably about your subject is the only relevant measure in that department. Regardless, your entire line of questioning can be easily dismissed with the observation that no amount of "experience" in fairyology is going to leave you the slightest bit wiser as to the exact shape of fairy wings. You might think a master of bullshit is someone worth looking up to, but I sure don't.

"Azidonis" wrote:
It doesn't take a lot of intelligence to recognize that you sound like a disgruntled ex-employee.

Yes, that's exactly the kind of conclusion someone who doesn't have a lot of intelligence might come to.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2195
 
"Camlion" wrote:
Each of these groups of practices are equally based upon the same concept of true Will, of Thelema.

Right, which is why they are not Thelema.

Thelema refers to the philosophy that the only guide to individual conduct is the nature of the individual. Anything else -- including all kinds of practices to attain the will, mine or otherwise -- cannot be called "Thelema." They are practices employed in the service of Thelema.

Calling a set of practices "Thelema" or a particular group or religion "Thelema" or a particular set of political beliefs "Thelema" just confuses things.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Ok.
Lets start with Thelema as a personal philosophy. What they hell is a personal philosophy, There is only one Philosphy the it is sensible and ethical to use as your "Personal" philsophy and that is the TRUTH. Truth however is not personal, it is th esame for everone, there is one world and we are but tiny specks in that one TRUE world. To hold a belief or philosophy that is other than Truth is to accept delusion of prupose.

Next, what is the purpose of Philosphy. The purpose to know and experience truth more directly and accuratly, not because of a personal feeling or sense of achievement or som eoverwhelming perosnal feeling. NO, We come to know truth correctly so that we can act correctly in the world, The one true world. We seek to act correctly so that our actions achieve their intentions rather than our means be inadequate to our ends.

What are our ends, are they some masturbatory self imporvement the bringing of a sel fimportant mystical joy?
No that is not the purpose of acting, Unless you are a black borhter to whom the highest import in life is stimulating yourself to mystic orgams.

the purpose of your WILL is to add to the universe, to use up yourself by giving your all to a greater scheme of things, the TRUTH of the world.

So then by adding your thread to the tapistry of life. that is by organizing yourself with the world and with other people in common unity of civil society.
That by knowing yourself in truth, displelling ideas and beliefs about what you are, by knowing the cold hard true facts of who and what you are as a matterial being in the system of material beings. Then by knowing thyself and knowing the world you can work out your best integration of your self into the world around you, so that It is not a personal WILL that is alligned with the events in the world, rather the entire flow and concourse of society, nature, and the cosmos is ONE continuous process a SINGLE WILL of which your particular expression if but one note in a chorus and by knoing which noted the universal choras as assigned you and constraining yourself to that single note that is your own true Name and purpose. (Be if king of street sweeper, hunter or planter, healer or killer) and and in Doing that ONE WILL and that alone, wihtout concern of self preservation, to willfully give own pleasure and your gratification over service of the world around you, So you sweep the streets not for personal pleasure but to annihilate yourself interest in service to the greater community. That is what it means to do your TRUE WILL, in which your individual will, and life and awareness is swept up in the WILL of the whole cosmos, that transcends pleasure and pain, and all personal awareness.

Thus, Thelema is a personal philosophy it requires that one man seeks out truth, and does not delude himself
Thelema is also Magick, the art of applying knowledge of Truth to achieve one's purpose effectively (Nature to be controlled, must be obeyed)
Thelema is also social order, The work of weaving and blending each string of WILL into a tapestry that unites in harmony Man with Man, and Man with Nature, such that Each loses his personal WILL into the station of his life that united him in LOVE with His Brothers and in LOVE with the Balance of nature.

Thelema is all of these and more. (It is not one particualar order, or system or person) But it is an ideology that can replace the heart and core of any existing religion, sceince, philosphy, society, etc.

Both the O.T.O and the EGC have their own traditions, teachings, etc. Those where not replaced by thelema, they were merely re-fromulated, their overal-purpose re-evalurated and the nature of the symbols and rituals shaped to reflect this change in ideaology.

The previous ideal was of a central king that would impose his will over all others, beinding and forcing man to be other than he is, to a WILL that is not his own. rule was by forced acceptance of superstition and a fear that TRUTH, SCIENCE and PHILOSOPHy might driv emen to rebellion against the superstitions that bind him to the divine WILL.

The New Formula is that the individual by his own experience, seeks truth via science and philsophy, casting aside superstition, and that the class of kings treat each individual WILL as a station in the universal WILL, not distoring the individual WILL nor imposing obedience to superstition and lies. Instead each individual is used and aligned into the greater whole of society according to the truth and Science of his own self discovery. There is one TRUTH, it is not owned by anyone, it is not for ME or anyone to tell to you, but it is all around you to be discovered by experimentation.

The leader is not to remove your freedom, but to acceptuate it by helping weave the strings of WILL into patterns of mutual benefit and completemen, and to remove snags of conflict from tapistry.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 

93,

"Erwin" wrote:
What a paltry imagination you had as a child.

It's just like you to result to insults when you have nothing decent to say. The fact of the matter is that you know nothing of my childhood, or what led me to anything that made me consider such a path in life.

For someone who speaks so frequently about Thelema, you are showing your ass by trying to talk shit about the will of another.

Oh, spare us the reincarnation bullshit. Who do you think you're fooling? For goodness' sake, some of you people seriously need to grow up.

Again, you result to insults when they are not necessary. I take it that you just didn't have anything else worthwhile to say. I could have alluded to reincarnation, or I could have simply meant "while I'm alive", which doesn't necessarily imply any other lifetimes. But you will never know, since you are too busy trying to be an asshole, and failing.

"Erwin" wrote:
I suppose one could say that, if one wanted to transform the concept of "will" into total gibberish. Getting a Master's degree in Religious Studies won't make sausages for you, either, so I suppose making sausages is "infinite will" too, right? What absolute unadulterated nonsense.

Again, resorting to attempting to attack my will. How futile.

"Erwin" wrote:
The will is the will. If you want to call something completely different the "Inner Will" just because you think it sounds pretty neat, and you think the will is kinda cool too, then good luck with that, but don't start complaining when people point at you and laugh.

Do you not understand the concept of manifestation, or are you too busy thinking of insults?

"Erwin" wrote:
What are you asking me for? How am I supposed to know what you're assuming?

I suppose you were too busy formulating insults to read clearly. I'll repeat it for you...

Erwin: "At any rate, the "work of the A.'.A.'." is not the "perilous and demanding path" that only the few have the aptitude to accomplish that he seems to think it is;"

Azidonis:"I'm assuming you are speaking from experience?"

As in, do you know your words to be a fact through your experiences with the A:.A:. System, or did you just "conjure" up an idea about the A:.A:. System based on your preconceived notions of what it actually entails.

As for the rest, if you're the kind of idiot who believes what people say based on what wild claims to "experience" they make on their internets then no wonder you think the way you do.

In other words, you haven't worked through the A:.A:. System, and therefore can neither confirm nor deny any of your accusations. In other words, you are again just making up shit based upon your preconceived notions of what you think the System to be.

You and everyone else can judge what experience I have by listening to what I say, since being able to talk sensibly and knowledgeably about your subject is the only relevant measure in that department.

I honestly don't care what you have to say, especially since you haven't worked the System. If you had worked the System, and come to your conclusions, then perhaps it might hold some weight. In an analogy you are saying, "professional football players are pansies" without actually having been in on one play and felt the impact of a car crash on your body multiple times.

Regardless, your entire line of questioning can be easily dismissed with the observation that no amount of "experience" in fairyology is going to leave you the slightest bit wiser as to the exact shape of fairy wings. You might think a master of bullshit is someone worth looking up to, but I sure don't.

Still sounding like a disgruntled wanna-be.

"Erwin" wrote:
Yes, that's exactly the kind of conclusion someone who doesn't have a lot of intelligence might come to.

Again, insults. LOL Will you grow up and have an actual conversation? Oh yes, you are too busy trying to dispel the various "myths" that have been created over thousands of years of human evolution.

Good luck with that.

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
Page 6 / 7
Share: