Notifications
Clear all

The expression "True Will"  

Page 6 / 6
  RSS

belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1025
23/10/2014 4:45 pm  
"jamie barter" wrote:
You're right, the concept of “True Will” does seem to have been earlier exactly foreshadowed by the concept of carrying out or fulfilling “The Great Work”.  Also, the implication appears to be that, in general terms at any rate, the discovery of every single individual’s True Will (and therefore their subsequent "attainment") must relate to their obtaining either control and/or knowledge over the nature and powers of their own being, and would appear to rule out everything else which is not included within those (admittedly fairly wide) parameters.

There's another innovation in the formula, that wasn't implied in the Liber 185 expression of the meaning of the Great Work - the sense of "discovery".

The old words had:

Obtain
Attain

The new one, for True Will, has:

Discover

We could interpret it as roughly the same, as if the Probationer had sworn to "prosecute the Great Work, which is, to discover the nature and powers of my own being," or that the Adeptus Minor is to "discover the Holy Guardian Angel," but I think that misses something essential in Crowley's understanding of the force of the concept of True Will. The True Will is just waiting there, to be discovered. It has all the answers. It includes, and supersedes, all of the work of the grades up to Dominus Liminis in A:.A:.; Crowley says in The Heart of the Master that discovery of the True Will is "akin" to the K&C of the H.G.A., but for the moment I can't recall a passage where he says they are equivalent or synonymous terms (somebody?).

Essentially, the H.G.A. is 5=6, "other"; the True Will is the essential SELF, so if they are equated, it must only be in the Supernals, or even only in 10=1. It makes sense of passages where he writes things like "I am Thelema", Thelema being 93 and Aiwaz (spelled as such), who is the Ipsissimus of A:.A:..   


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
23/10/2014 5:35 pm  
"belmurru" wrote:
The True Will is just waiting there, to be discovered. It has all the answers.

I suppose in this sense it is pending to be uncovered as well, as in The Book being both “written” (already in plain sight) and “concealed” (in the sense of everything in it being already there, but waiting to be revealed.  A little like making the subconscious conscious, too.)

"belmurru" wrote:
It includes, and supersedes, all of the work of the grades up to Dominus Liminis in A:.A:.; Crowley says in The Heart of the Master that discovery of the True Will is "akin" to the K&C of the H.G.A., but for the moment I can't recall a passage where he says they are equivalent or synonymous terms (somebody?).

Sorry, I can’t place this reference immediately either.  As you point out, though, the actual K&CHGA would relate rather more to Tiphereth than the Supernals in this case.

"belmurru" wrote:
Essentially, the H.G.A. is 5=6, "other"; the True Will is the essential SELF, so if they are equated, it must only be in the Supernals, or even only in 10=1. It makes sense of passages where he writes things like "I am Thelema", Thelema being 93 and Aiwaz (spelled as such), who is the Ipsissimus of A:.A:..

And possibly as 9[sup:2e5h4919]o[/sup:2e5h4919]=2[sup:2e5h4919]□[/sup:2e5h4919] as well within the Supernals, in the sense that A.C./ Therion would be speaking forth “Thelema” (and he said somewhere in more than one place that "Word is Will") in the capacity of being The Logos of the Aeon.

Incidentally, do you (or anyone) recall where it is mentioned anywhere that there may only be one Ipsissimus?  I seem to recall coming across that contention somewhere but I’m not sure where – I think it was in relation to C.S. Jones not being able to move up the Grades until A.C. had advanced beyond Magus, and he could only do that when he advanced to Ipssismus himself (upon the death in 1921 of Oscar Eckenstein, allegedly).  Also, if Aiwaz/ OIVZ is meant to be the Ipsissmus “himself”, this could not fit in with A.C. assuming the Grade also since "he" would be - relatively at least - a “permanent fixture”.

N Joy


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1025
23/10/2014 9:44 pm  
"jamie barter" wrote:
Incidentally, do you (or anyone) recall where it is mentioned anywhere that there may only be one Ipsissimus?

I don't know of these arguments, but a priori, in terms of A:.A:. hierarchy, there is nothing wrong with asserting that. It is a position in the chain of authority, and if only one person can be the head, then that is just the rule.

But in terms of the spiritual doctrine of the Tree of Life as a Minutum Mundum or Microcosm, we all have all the parts, and have only to become initiated into them. All of us have, and are, the whole Tree. We have only to try to get to the point of view from whence the idea symbolized by the emanation arises to understand that part of what we already manifest in the proof of our being. If we care to, that is.

Back in terms of who can hold the office of this or that, Magus or Ipsissimus in particular, in One Star in Sight, he says that in all cases "save only in One case" the superior of the person advancing must admit the candidate. Since he frequently emphasizes that the 5=6 experience is unjudgeable, I am unsure whether it is this or the Ipsissimus, for whom there can be no superior officer. It is fun to speculate what he means by "One case" - and the capitalization of "One" weighs in favour of Ipsissimus - but I don't know what can be gained by such speculation. 

I seem to recall coming across that contention somewhere but I’m not sure where – I think it was in relation to C.S. Jones not being able to move up the Grades until A.C. had advanced beyond Magus, and he could only do that when he advanced to Ipssismus himself (upon the death in 1921 of Oscar Eckenstein, allegedly).  Also, if Aiwaz/ OIVZ is meant to be the Ipsissmus “himself”, this could not fit in with A.C. assuming the Grade also since "he" would be - relatively at least - a “permanent fixture”.

N Joy

Can you tell us who alleges that Eckenstein was the Ipsissimus of A:.A:. (it rings a bell but I can't place it)? The timeline is tight, but not impossible - he died on 8 April 1921 and Crowley took the 10=1 Oath on 23 May 1921.

But I think it is not a doctrine of "one physical person only" who can claim a grade as such, but only that in the Order only one person can be in place, and in particular, that for the Word of the Aeon, only one person can be that Word, and every other person claiming "Magus", for instance, would be identifying with that Word. Crowley says this explicitly somewhere I have recently read, and of course it makes sense, since who would claim such a thing unless they were aware of whole doctrine surrounding the thing anyway?

I believe Crowley must be the first person ever to claim the Ipsissimus grade in any case, since it was an innovation with the G:.D:., where the S.R.I.A. only had Magus as the highest office, a nominal and honorary grade like all the rest. The G:.D:. restricted the Supernal grades to the Secret Chiefs, and the highest officers in that order only ever claimed 7=4. I don't know of Mathers or anyone else claiming MT or Magus or Ipsissimus.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5056
23/10/2014 10:52 pm  
"belmurru" wrote:
"jamie barter" wrote:
Incidentally, do you (or anyone) recall where it is mentioned anywhere that there may only be one Ipsissimus?

I don't know of these arguments, but a priori, in terms of A:.A:. hierarchy, there is nothing wrong with asserting that. It is a position in the chain of authority, and if only one person can be the head, then that is just the rule.

Since any man can become a Magus (well, the equivalent - so "he" says"), and since all Magi eventually move on, then of course there can be a multitude of Ipsissimi.

"A man can make personal progress equivalent to that of a "Word of an Aeon"; but he will identify himself with the current word, and exert his will to establish it, lest he conflict with the work of the Magus who uttered the Word of the Aeon in which He is living." - One Star

The Transhimalayan White Brotherhood, of Blavatsky, Besant, Bailey & Judge, calls a Magus a "Master," and there are many Masters. And the equivalent of an Ipsissimus is called a "Chohan." There are several Chohani.

How can an Ipsissimus be "an authority," when he "has no will in any direction? Like the 10th degree in martial arts, the grade is honorary. And nobody has said that an Ipsissimus is the "head" of A.'.A.'. - except maybe AC, who blurs and condenses the identity of Aiwass as a man, an Ipsissimus, (maybe) the head of A.'.A.'., as well as a Sumerian demon-god.

And why would anyone wish to assert that there can only be one Ippy? There is, in fact something wrong in asserting the "one Ippy" rule: One would be asserting something that has no basis in fact.

Now in OTO, there is only one OHO. And in Rome, there is only one Pope; this is why there have been schizms in the Roman church and we find alternate Popes and Patriarchs and Pundits at the head of alternate organizations.

If A.'.A.'. is a political/military organization, then one head would be ideal. If it's a rendering of the levels of consciousness, then there should be NO LIMIT placed on the number of folks who can hold (ie, attain to) any given grade. We all know that AC worked very hard to limit OTO authority to himself and no other; and he talks in One Star (at points) in military language about superiors (and implied inferiors); but anybody who falls for that nonsense might as well go join Jehovah's Witnesses 😀

The question, I believe, was "where is it mentioned?" a priori answers to not answer the original question.


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1025
23/10/2014 11:46 pm  

If you wish to discuss the ontological status of Ipsissimus-ness, Shiva, please change the thread.

This thread IS about Aleister Crowley and his usage of these terms. Whether he was right or wrong, by the standard of his time or ours, or whether he was wise or foolish, or naive or shrewd, or whatever, to say what he said or believe what he believed, is beside the point, irrelevant. We just want to know what he meant, and why he considered it so.

"Shiva" wrote:
How can an Ipsissimus be "an authority," when he "has no will in any direction? Like the 10th degree in martial arts, the grade is honorary. And nobody has said that an Ipsissimus is the "head" of A.'.A.'. - except maybe AC, who blurs and condenses the identity of Aiwass as a man, an Ipsissimus, (maybe) the head of A.'.A.'., as well as a Sumerian demon-god.

Sure - the Sumerian stuff was silly. It is incidental enough - thankfully - anyway.

As for Crowley saying so, as I said, Crowley invented the whole shebang, following Mathers and Co. who invented the Ipsissimus grade to begin with. Crowley filled it in.

As an authority, "93" is listed as the 10=1 issuing authority for the A:.A:. documents in The Equinox III,1 of 1919. 93 clearly alludes to the recently discovered Aiwaz=93=Thelema. To what degree Crowley considered Aiwaz his own HGA at this point is unknown (to me at least), but he obviously considered the Order to have an Ipsissimus by this point, whereas no document has that authority before. Does it have to have will to have authority? Maybe that is a philosophical question worth discussing. A point has position but no magnitude, perhaps that is the idea.

The relevance of these considerations to this thread comes from when he writes about his own Will being itself Thelema, which equals 93, which is Aiwaz. I'm thinking that the other shoe didn't drop until 1923, when he discovered that Aiwass, written in Greek as Alpha-Iota-Digamma-Alpha-Sigma-Sigma = 418. Now Aiwass= Aiwaz, which equals the two important numbers 418 and 93, or both the Word of the Aeon "Abrahadabra" and the Word of the Law, as well as the name of Crowley's house Boleskine (as well as Cheth, the mystery of the 8 and the 11, spelled in full), which by this time he considered a metaphor rather than the actual place. So his claiming the Ipsissimus grade is a recognition of his identity with Aiwaz himself. His True Will is Aiwaz's True Will.

The question, I believe, was "where is it mentioned?" a priori answers to not answer the original question.

Can you express this sequence of words another way that makes some sense?


ReplyQuote
Tao
 Tao
(@tao)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 316
24/10/2014 12:40 am  

The wording of the True Will/Great Work mentions above raises some interesting parallels to alchemy where the idea of the Great Work originates. In order to begin the process of the Great Work, it is necessary for the alchemist to "discover" the First Matter. Without suggesting exact correlation between True Will and First Matter, I'd say we can pretty much take it as read that an Adept of the Golden Dawn would have been well versed in this terminology and usage (though he never explicitly wrote about it) and would not have unintentionally applied it to his new terminology. Looking at it through this lens, the various oaths of the grades of A.'.A.'. seem to correlate to the steps of the alchemical process once the First Matter has been discovered. I wonder, then, if perhaps by adding the True Will oath in the early 1920s, he wasn't using it as a way to focus the beginning of the work because his minions, as their numbers grew, were missing that fundamental first step.

The True Will, then, is "akin" to K&C in that it guides the alchemical process that results in K&C. It is not, however, the Great Work itself, though without first discovering one's True Will, one cannot successfully complete the Great Work for lack of focused direction.

This seems to correlate with my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong since I have very little knowledge of O.T.O.) that neither "The Great Work" nor attaining K&C are explicitly a part of the O.T.O.'s grade system even though discovering and doing one's True Will is central.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
24/10/2014 1:30 am  
"belmurru" wrote:
Crowley says in The Heart of the Master that discovery of the True Will is "akin" to the K&C of the H.G.A., but for the moment I can't recall a passage where he says they are equivalent or synonymous terms (somebody?).

The New Comment to AL I:7:

"our own Silent Self, helpless and witless, hidden within us, will spring forth, if we have craft to loose him to the Light, spring lustily forward with his cry of Battle, the Word of our True Wills.

"This is the Task of the Adept, to have the Knowledge and Conversation of His Holy Guardian Angel, to become aware of his nature and his purpose, fulfilling them."

New Comment to AL II:65

"It is curious that this verse should be numbered 65, suggesting L.V.X. and Adonai, the Holy Guardian Angel. It seems then that He is Hadit. I have never liked the term 'Higher Self'; True Self is more the idea. For each Star is the husk of Hadit, unique and conqueror, sublime in His own virtue, independent of Hierarchy."

In Magick in Theory and Practice, Crowley identifies KCHGA with knowing oneself:

"It should go without saying that until the Magician has attained to the Knowledge and Conversation of his Holy Guardian Angel he is liable to endless deceptions. He does not know Himself"

And though he doesn't explicitly use the words "Knowledge and Conversation" in this next passage from Liber Samekh, he identifies the HGA as an "intelligible image of [the Adept's] own true Will, to do which is the whole of the law of his Being."

And though he doesn't explicitly identify Knowledge and Conversation with the "True Will" by that specific term in the following passages, he calls KCHGA in Magick Without Tears "the central and essential work of the Magician" and in Liber Aleph says that "This Great Work is the Attainment of the Knowledge and Conversation of thine Holy Guardian Angel."

But I wouldn't want to interpret Crowley or anything...oops, I've already said too much.


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1025
24/10/2014 10:03 am  

Thoughts in mid-flow, apropos of nothing.

The more I think about it the more I believe Crowley’s adoption of the term True Will, along with True Self, is a reaction to his reading in psychology, Freud and Jung. Particularly Jung, whose concept of archetypes, drawn from fairy tales and myths, overlapped with Crowley’s own readings, particularly his use of Frazer.

“Dwarf-soul”, “little man”, etc.

The model appears to be that of an inner person, complete and pure, whom our conscious, compromised self has covered in veils – inhibitions and shame. For Crowley, this person was unreservedly good, which is where he contrasted himself to Freud, for whom it was the Id, “It”, expressed in fantasies and dreams, and completely amoral, and Jung, for whom it was the unconscious self, the shadow, also amoral. I’m not knowledgeable enough to know if either Freud or Jung thought of these parts of the person as coherent “selves”, or if, as I suspect, they were incoherent masses that could be integrated with the ego to make up a person’s complete self, which is the rationale of psychoanalysis.

For Crowley, this person was whole, good and pure, and only had to be released. This is where the ontological question is of primary importance, because in order to say that this person exists, and to qualify him as good, one needs to account for his origin and grant him a will. The Star metaphor was firmly established in 1911 when he read somewhere that Khabs means “star” and he could therefore link Liber Legis I,8 with I,3. Every person is a star with a will. That will is pure, which is a synonym for good, and the star represents an elemental quality, which is indestructible (to physics at the time). So this eternal person, a star, weaves for itself a fine body, a Khu, with which it undertakes adventures of incarnation, veiled in matter, in order to enjoy the fight back to itself, or “gain experience”. The ultimate aim is to gain all experience, union with and through all. The whole process may never end, a given instance may be crap, but it’s all for experience’s sake, and the moral attitude to take is that “existence is pure joy”, to seize life by the tail and squeeze every last drop out of it, knowing that it is all ecstasy whatever happens.

The key is to realize this star-nature; that you came from there, that you go back there, that it is the eternal you. You can’t lose it, although you can convince yourself in a given incarnation that you don’t know it, and thereby become sad. That itself is just another experience, that may help you next time if you can remember it.


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1025
24/10/2014 10:27 am  
"Tao" wrote:
The wording of the True Will/Great Work mentions above raises some interesting parallels to alchemy where the idea of the Great Work originates. In order to begin the process of the Great Work, it is necessary for the alchemist to "discover" the First Matter. Without suggesting exact correlation between True Will and First Matter, I'd say we can pretty much take it as read that an Adept of the Golden Dawn would have been well versed in this terminology and usage (though he never explicitly wrote about it) and would not have unintentionally applied it to his new terminology. Looking at it through this lens, the various oaths of the grades of A.'.A.'. seem to correlate to the steps of the alchemical process once the First Matter has been discovered. I wonder, then, if perhaps by adding the True Will oath in the early 1920s, he wasn't using it as a way to focus the beginning of the work because his minions, as their numbers grew, were missing that fundamental first step.

The True Will, then, is "akin" to K&C in that it guides the alchemical process that results in K&C. It is not, however, the Great Work itself, though without first discovering one's True Will, one cannot successfully complete the Great Work for lack of focused direction.

This seems to correlate with my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong since I have very little knowledge of O.T.O.) that neither "The Great Work" nor attaining K&C are explicitly a part of the O.T.O.'s grade system even though discovering and doing one's True Will is central.

I agree, something like that occurred to me too, although I haven't worked it out systematically.

I would imagine that the prima materia is the Self, the Star itself, and the Will is what is impressed on the substance it takes. But the first matter is supposed to be inert, or completely passive, whereas the Self has a character that is expressed in its Will. Crowley did adapt some of these terms in his magical instructions, using alchemical imagery in particular in OTO instructions, and terms like "Bud-Will" in places like Liber Aleph 86 (as well as classic alchemical imagery like Lion and Eagle).


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1025
24/10/2014 3:21 pm  
"Los" wrote:
"belmurru" wrote:
Crowley says in The Heart of the Master that discovery of the True Will is "akin" to the K&C of the H.G.A., but for the moment I can't recall a passage where he says they are equivalent or synonymous terms (somebody?).

The New Comment to AL I:7:

"our own Silent Self, helpless and witless, hidden within us, will spring forth, if we have craft to loose him to the Light, spring lustily forward with his cry of Battle, the Word of our True Wills.

"This is the Task of the Adept, to have the Knowledge and Conversation of His Holy Guardian Angel, to become aware of his nature and his purpose, fulfilling them."

New Comment to AL II:65

"It is curious that this verse should be numbered 65, suggesting L.V.X. and Adonai, the Holy Guardian Angel. It seems then that He is Hadit. I have never liked the term 'Higher Self'; True Self is more the idea. For each Star is the husk of Hadit, unique and conqueror, sublime in His own virtue, independent of Hierarchy."

In Magick in Theory and Practice, Crowley identifies KCHGA with knowing oneself:

"It should go without saying that until the Magician has attained to the Knowledge and Conversation of his Holy Guardian Angel he is liable to endless deceptions. He does not know Himself"

And though he doesn't explicitly use the words "Knowledge and Conversation" in this next passage from Liber Samekh, he identifies the HGA as an "intelligible image of [the Adept's] own true Will, to do which is the whole of the law of his Being."

And though he doesn't explicitly identify Knowledge and Conversation with the "True Will" by that specific term in the following passages, he calls KCHGA in Magick Without Tears "the central and essential work of the Magician" and in Liber Aleph says that "This Great Work is the Attainment of the Knowledge and Conversation of thine Holy Guardian Angel."

Thanks, right. I took it as axiomatic that they are equivalent "Great Works", but I couldn't recall where. The fact that he defined the Great Work in the "shorter Oath" as "to discover my own True Will, and to do it", which replaces what you quoted in Liber 111 - the K&C of the HGA, makes it even more apparent. But what appears to be his ambivalence on this equation, sometimes, might be his wish to distinguish the HGA from oneself, to understand him as another being altogether.

Personally, I would say they are the same, or better thought of as the same. In that same New Comment on I,7, he says that "Hoor-paar-Kraat, or Harpocrates, the 'Babe in the Egg of Blue,', is not merely the God of Silence in the conventional sense. He represents the Higher Self, the Holy Guardian Angel. The connection is with the symbolism of the dwarf in mythology.... But the 'small person' of Hindu mysticism, the dwarf insane yet crafty of many legends in many lands, is also this same 'Holy Ghost', or Silent Self of a man,  or his Holy Guardian Angel.

But I wouldn't want to interpret Crowley or anything...oops, I've already said too much.

Please. You know what I mean. There is a difference between discussing a writer's ideas, including interpreting them, and discussing our own ideas on basis of that writer or our developments and refinements of the idea, as we personally understand it, rather than the author.

If the assignment were to discuss the idea of Redemption in Chaucer, or Fortune in Machiavelli, or even Magic in Rowling, I don't think people would get themselves so confused with the subject as with True Will in Crowley.


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1025
24/10/2014 4:14 pm  
"Los" wrote:
And though he doesn't explicitly use the words "Knowledge and Conversation" in this next passage from Liber Samekh, he identifies the HGA as an "intelligible image of [the Adept's] own true Will, to do which is the whole of the law of his Being."

i quite like this quote, as it points the way towards a bridge between the True Will as oneself, and the Angel as other. The True Will can be known and expressed as a statement or formula, perhaps precise but rather impersonal, while the HGA is an "intelligible image", or a face and a name, on that True Self who expresses the True Will. 


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5056
24/10/2014 4:58 pm  
"Tao" wrote:
The True Will, then, is "akin" to K&C in that it guides the alchemical process that results in K&C. It is not, however, the Great Work itself, though without first discovering one's True Will, one cannot successfully complete the Great Work for lack of focused direction.

Yes, as stated previously (by somebody who will not become immortal as I cannot remember who), this so-called True Will varies in definition and in activity at various levels. In the Outer Order (1=10 through 4=7), one has little experience in these matters and his/her Will is defined as simply doing all kinds of practices.

In the Inner Order (5=6+), one is expected to pick and choose from among those Outer Order practices, and pick a few, or a lot of them, and weave them into a ritualistic tapestry designed to invoke the HGA. So we could say (as you have done) that this central rite of A.'.A.'./R.'.C.'. is the True Will of every aspirant ... at this Tipherethic level. One is supposed to be performing this rite so as to contact the Angel, who is then supposed to guide the initiate/adept into the higher levels where the grand definition of Will resides (ultimately at Chokmah, according to "standard" Qabalistic attributions).

... neither "The Great Work" nor attaining K&C are explicitly a part of the O.T.O.'s grade system even though discovering and doing one's True Will is central.

That grade system is revealed rather clearly in The Secret Rituals of the OTO by F.X. King. It must be noted that since Frater Superior H.B. took over the reins (reigns ;D ), it has been announced that there have been "changes" made to the system, so we really don't know what the deal is today. But historically speaking, you are correct in that HGA operations are (were) not part of the "path" in Oriental Templar Land. Even "discovering and doing one's True Will" is not central. Although Will is alluded to (for example, in the Minerval (0º) rite, Saladin (the Initiator) instructs (used to instruct, and maybe still does) the candidate by saying:

[/align:2136hqd7]

In order to obtain freedom to do your will, it is necessary to submit voluntarily to discipline and organization ... In order that you may do the one thing which you will truly, you must therefore renounce all those other things which may tempt you to swerve from the one purpose of your sojourn amongst us. This tent, under whose canopy I sit, is restrained by the rigidity of its support. It fulfils its design by virtue of this discipline. I charge you, therefore, to meditate over this paradox, in order that you may understand the necessity to undergo that course of training which will make you efficient as a soldier of freedom.

We should note that the referenced "course of training" is rather vague. There is (at least there was, prior to 1986 or so) no prescribed procedure that tells the initiate what he/she must do in order to reach the next grade ... specifically, obedience to the Grand Master, and/or his representatives is stressed over and over at the various levels.

The term "True Will" does not appear anywhere in The Secret Rituals. The term "will" [as in " "your will" (a noun) - and not as in "you will" or "I will now" (a verb form)], appears approximately seven (7) times - as quoted for us here ...

"We neither know nor care what your will is."

"Thou hast no right but to do thy will. Do that and no other shall say “nay”. We unreservedly place
power in your hands. If it be your will to enter this army as a spy to destroy your comrades, so be it!"

"Candidate, do you persist in your Will to be consecrated a Magician?"

"The Pass Word is Thelema, which means WILL in the Greek language."

"Will you not make trial of the Word of a Master Magician? ... It is my will."

"(... saying to VIII°.) Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless my will, which is thine, be done." (biblical quotation - prior to crucifixion). - from IV°

"Swear to devote your whole energies to the Will of the Order and the Dominion of The Sacred
Law."

The word "angel" (as used in HGA) does not appear at all.

OTO does not (did not) even begin to address the matter of contacting one's angel or True Will, except by obedience to some physical dude, and that, somehow, was supposed to lead one to freedom ... although it was never explained how.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
24/10/2014 6:04 pm  
"belmurru" wrote:
Can you tell us who alleges that Eckenstein was the Ipsissimus of A:.A:. (it rings a bell but I can't place it)? The timeline is tight, but not impossible - he died on 8 April 1921 and Crowley took the 10=1 Oath on 23 May 1921.

The reference was to the ‘fact’ that A.C. appeared to recognize Oscar Eckenstein as a/the 10[sup:2m5ojwhs]o[/sup:2m5ojwhs]=1[sup:2m5ojwhs]□[/sup:2m5ojwhs] (i.e., the Head of the Silver Star).  This was despite there being not much, if any, corroborating evidence he was even actually a member of Crowley’s A.’.A.’. , although Crowley did say something about Eckenstein “training me to follow the trail” [= tao?]).  Nevertheless it is true that he did wait until after Eckenstein had died to the world in 1921 before assuming the position (as it were). I suspect the idea was that A.C. was not in a position to move in the A.’. A.’. ‘chain of command’ from 9[sup:2m5ojwhs]o[/sup:2m5ojwhs]=2[sup:2m5ojwhs]□[/sup:2m5ojwhs] to take up the position of the Ipsissimus until Eckenstein physically had died, which would have created a ‘vacuum’ for To Mega Therion and thenceafterwards a ‘vacancy’ in the Magus position for Achad to fill up – such being the theory; however I think A.C. had become alienated from Achad by this time (1924) and there were no clear other alternatives - Loveday having expired and the only other ‘regular’ at the time, Norman Mudd, not really being a serious contender.

I’m not familiar with how to directly link to another thread (are there “how to” do things for dummies anywhere on the site?  I would be grateful if someone could inform), but the following extract from Reply #40 to the “10 = 1 Document” thread on page 3 of the Thelema board contains the relevant information:

Reply #40 by on November 07, 2013, 02:45:45 pm:

Concerning the A.’. A.’.[/align:2m5ojwhs]

If as Frater Achad claimed the System of the A.’. A.’. had fallen apart during his own lifetime while he held the grade of Magister Templi, then surely now after his death & that of Crowley, the Catina is no longer complete, though some members may remain in isolated Grades, the A.’. A.’. no longer exists as an initiating Order, for all practical purposes.

According to Frater Achad, who researched the matter rather thoroughly, there was a time when an actual chain existed in the Outer, up to and including the grade of Magus 9[sup:2m5ojwhs]o[/sup:2m5ojwhs]=2[sup:2m5ojwhs]□[/sup:2m5ojwhs]. The G.’.D.’. was the Outer Court up to 5[sup:2m5ojwhs]o[/sup:2m5ojwhs]=6[sup:2m5ojwhs]□[/sup:2m5ojwhs] and the Grades were all legitimately filled.  Mathers himself was 7[sup:2m5ojwhs]o[/sup:2m5ojwhs]=4[sup:2m5ojwhs]□[/sup:2m5ojwhs],  Oscar Eckenstein (according to Crowley) was an Ipsissimus 10[sup:2m5ojwhs]o[/sup:2m5ojwhs]=1[sup:2m5ojwhs]□[/sup:2m5ojwhs] whose death around [sic; should be in - j.b.] 1921 enabled Crowley to go on to the supreme Ordeals, which he claims to have transcended in 1924 when he became or assumed, the grade of 10[sup:2m5ojwhs]o[/sup:2m5ojwhs]=1[sup:2m5ojwhs]□[/sup:2m5ojwhs].  These Ordeals, which were truly awful, and which constitute a great chunk of the remaining and unpublished portions of his Magical record, thus made the chain complete in the Outer, for Frater Achad, by virtue of his extreme daring assumed the grade of a Master of the Temple 8[sup:2m5ojwhs]o[/sup:2m5ojwhs]=3[sup:2m5ojwhs]□[/sup:2m5ojwhs] so that Crowley could make the transition to the Grade of Magus 9[sup:2m5ojwhs]o[/sup:2m5ojwhs]=2[sup:2m5ojwhs]□[/sup:2m5ojwhs].  All of this is documented.  What may be in doubt, is whether or not Crowley actually attained this Grade 9[sup:2m5ojwhs]o[/sup:2m5ojwhs]=2[sup:2m5ojwhs]□[/sup:2m5ojwhs].

Supposing, however that he did indeed become a Magus, then, when Eckenstein died, he was free to go on to the ultimate pinnacle or final in the System of the A.’.A.’. and become that Supreme & Silver Star, that Argenteum Astrum, which has been identified with Sothis (Sirius) and which is indeed the vehicle of Aiwass, and the full Concentration of the 93 Current, which is an Ipsissimus 10[sup:2m5ojwhs]o[/sup:2m5ojwhs]=1[sup:2m5ojwhs]□[/sup:2m5ojwhs] A.’.A.’. (with all that this implies in the sense in which only Wei Wu Wei of all European Adepts, has made unequivocally plain.

Further, Frater Achad claimed that the system of the A.’.A.’. fell apart (in the outer) long before 1924. […]

(By Soror Tanith 789 (Janice R. Ayers] and Frater OTz PTN 690 [Bill Siebert]
from MEZLA, “Official Organ of the [Typhonian] Ordo Templi Orientis”, Vol. I No. 11, Spring Equinox Anno LXXIV [1978 ev].  Underlinings mine [j.b.])[/align:2m5ojwhs]

I’m not sure it exactly fits in with that thread there either, so any further discussion around the matter including its ontological aspects would probably benefit from the creation of a new thread exclusively devoted to it.

N Joy


ReplyQuote
Tao
 Tao
(@tao)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 316
24/10/2014 8:57 pm  
"belmurru" wrote:
I would imagine that the prima materia is the Self, the Star itself, and the Will is what is impressed on the substance it takes. But the first matter is supposed to be inert, or completely passive, whereas the Self has a character that is expressed in its Will. Crowley did adapt some of these terms in his magical instructions, using alchemical imagery in particular in OTO instructions, and terms like "Bud-Will" in places like Liber Aleph 86 (as well as classic alchemical imagery like Lion and Eagle).

Hmmm... the more I ponder it...

The first matter is meant to correspond to alchemical mercury which must be activated by sulphur in order to bring it into the operation. The Work is then to balance the forces of the newly activated mercury with that of the abundantly present salt by increasing mercury and decreasing salt. This model (sulphur in the middle as the force that motivates the balancing) utilizes the correspondences mercury-spirit, sulphur-soul, salt-body. It is also, in some places outside of Liber Legis, directly correlated to the Hermit, the Lovers, and the Man of Earth (viz: Case, Paul Foster. Hermetic Alchemy: Science and Practice).

Looked at through this lens, perhaps there is some correlation between salt/body/khu on one end and mercury/spirit/khabs on the other with the sulphur/True Will as the motive force in the middle that works to bring them into balance. It is, after all, singularly following one's True Will that is meant to bring one to the point of K&C which, I would surmise, is equivalent to the perfect balancing of the principles. The uniting of body/Nephesh and spirit/Neshamah at the point of soul/Ruach (n.b. While these terms don't exactly correlate between alchemy and qabalah, the levels on the Tree do).

"Shiva" wrote:
That grade system is revealed rather clearly in The Secret Rituals of the OTO by F.X. King. It must be noted that since Frater Superior H.B. took over the reins (reigns ;D ), it has been announced that there have been "changes" made to the system, so we really don't know what the deal is today. But historically speaking, you are correct in that HGA operations are (were) not part of the "path" in Oriental Templar Land. Even "discovering and doing one's True Will" is not central.

...

The term "True Will" does not appear anywhere in The Secret Rituals. The term "will" [as in " "your will" (a noun) - and not as in "you will" or "I will now" (a verb form)], appears approximately seven (7) times - as quoted for us here ...

...

OTO does not (did not) even begin to address the matter of contacting one's angel or True Will, except by obedience to some physical dude, and that, somehow, was supposed to lead one to freedom ... although it was never explained how.

Yep, that was my basic understanding (gleaned from a quick scan of King a few years back).

Given what's been recorded in this thread, it doesn't really surprise that the term True Will doesn't appear in the rituals since Crowley re-wrote them during this period of term-gestation that we've been focusing on. "Do what thou wilt" was certainly a guiding force in bringing the rituals into the "New Aeon" but the technical term didn't exist yet.

That said, looking at the outline and seeming purpose of the O.T.O., it appears that the majority of order-based Thelemic practice was set up by Crowley to realize his "True Will" of spreading the gospel of Legis rather than actually assisting any of the masses to find their own individual "True Will". If it's true that the highest attainment possible in the O.T.O. is control of sexy-time magic, this suggests that, for the individual at least, the whole order is simply a preliminary to the actual spiritual alchemy/Raja yoga work of the early grades of A.'.A.'.. This accords well with the wealth of personal correspondence we have from him urging his chelas towards the Work of spreading the word of Thelema and the dearth of correspondence we have of him assisting them in discovering their own individual True Will as something apart from attaining K&C.

(side note: I wonder how much motivation towards coining a technical term came from constantly having to correct new minions of the O.T.O., unversed as they often must have been in the intricacies of "Will" as a magical term, when they predictably reacted with "Oh dear! Do whatever you like? How droll! And downright scandalous when you come to think of it. Have you ever met that Wilde chap? I do think you two might get along."
    A couple of years of that would drive even the most patient man to retort with a quick, "Don't be such a nit! It is only your True Will of which I speak. You must first discover that and, until you do, leave me the bloody hell alone!"
    Then, of course, the fawning masses wanted to know how to go about finding this True Will of which their mighty guru spoke.
    "Shut off your brains. That shouldn't be too difficult for the lot of you. But if you can't even manage to do that, well then follow your superiors in the O.T.O. and do everything in your power to spread the word of the Law. I can guarantee you that that is, in some little way, a most important aspect of your purpose on this earth.")


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5056
24/10/2014 11:26 pm  
"Tao" wrote:
Yep, that was my basic understanding (gleaned from a quick scan of King a few years back).

Of course, even a thorough study of King's book, or the rituals as located somewhere else, would not necessarily ive one the whole picture. For example, if one were to read the A.'.A.'. rituals (there were only three: Pyramidos 1º & Tuat 2º - there is no evidence that Tuat was even ever performed for anyone & HGA 5º - as given in Liber 418 - the 8th Aethyr - I haven't heard of anyone doing that rite, except myself, but that doesn't mean nobody's done it, right?) ... anyway, you could read those rites and yet miss all the Libers in Class D that were meant to accompany the rites ... a lot of real work there, all right.

Well, that matter was solver by Solar Lodge when we ...

... the organizational details fell to myself and I arranged it so that some real work was required. The Lodge used the O.T.O. ceremonial initiation rites but in order to qualify for a ceremony one had to perform the AA  tasks required for the corresponding degree.
For example: After having taken the A.'.A.'. Oath of a Probationer, the aspirant would then be admitted to the O.T.O. Minerval degree (0°) initiation ceremony.
The aspirant would then commence to complete the tasks of a Probationer in the AA, and upon completion of those tasks, take the A.'.A.'. Oath of a Neophyte before being admitted to the O.T.O. first-degree (I°) initiation ceremony; and after that, beginning to complete the tasks of a Neophyte in the A.'.A.'., and so on up through the degrees and grades ... For us, the designations Probationer, 0°, and Minerval all had the same meaning.  Now don’t get confused, for this is certainly not the way the systems were originally designed (i.e., to be equal to each other), but nonetheless, it was the way we did it.

- Inside Solar Lodge

I have seen comments that say, "They were ahead of their time," but I disagree. We were right there in the 1960s with lots of legal LSD, and we were completely at home in our own time, and the system worked! 😮  It only got twisted when the Grand Master decided to play OTO without the A.'.A.'.

Capricornus assumed her dictator pose and proclaimed, “She is getting the first degree whether she passes the exam or not! And she’s getting it because we need her as a worker, and she is willing to work!“  And that, dear reader, is when the internal seed of disorder was sown into the fertile ground of Solar Lodge. The standards had suddenly been altered in order to allow entrance to an unqualified candidate just because she was willing to work.
- Inside Solar Lodge

Alas! ::)  We had people on their way, actively seeking their True Will, and it got messed up because there's something in mundane Orders that wants to promote slavery - or at least to encourage dictatorship oriented toward personal gain. I repeat: Alas! :'(


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5056
25/10/2014 1:49 am  

author=belmurru link=topic=6877.msg85489#msg85489 date=1414104375]

The question, I believe, was "where is it mentioned?" a priori answers to not answer the original question.

Can you express this sequence of words another way that makes some sense?

Removing typos and poor capitalization:
The question, I believe, was "where is it mentioned?" A priori answers do not answer the original question.

Of course, you're right about seeking what AC said and meant, and not whether he was right or wrong or what the truth is or was - the "truth" can be sought in another thread.


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1025
02/11/2014 3:05 pm  

The following passage from the Confessions reminded me of what I suggested in my vague ramble a few posts back. I suspect Crowley chose “True Will” in response to the growing popularity of Freudian ideas about the Unconscious. Already in 1916, when the term “True Will” does not appear to have had a technical sense yet, Crowley’s piece on psychoanalysis assumed that the Unconscious would be “one of the favourite conversational gambits of the coming social season.” We can surmise that he frequently countered such gambits as “have you heard what Freud says about sex?” with “Yes, but he’s wrong, since it is not infantile wishes but the self’s true will he is talking about!”

From Confessions, chapter 6 (p. 68 in 1929 edition (capitals as such); p. 72 in the 1969 ed., capitals removed)

“Most people, especially Freud, misunderstand the Freudian position. ‘The libido of the Unconscious’ is really ‘the True Will of the Inmost Self.’ The sexual characteristics of the individual are, it is true, symbolic indications of its nature, and, when these are ‘abnormal’,’ we may suspect that the Self is divided against itself in some way. Experience teaches the Adepts who initiate mankind that when any complex (duality) in the Self is resolved (unity) the Initiate becomes whole. The morbid sexual symptoms (which are merely the complaints of the sick animal) disappear, while the moral and mental consciousness is relieved from its civil war of doubt and self-obsession. The complete man, harmonised, flows freely towards his natural goal.”

Freud defines the libido as “the energy, regarded as a quantitative magnitude (though not at present actually mensurable), of those instincts that have to do with all that may be comprised under the word ‘love’”

(“Libido ist ein Ausdruck aus der Affektivitätslehre. Wir heißen so die als quantitative Größe betrachtete – wenn auch derzeit nicht meßbare – Energie solcher Triebe, welche mit alldem zu tun haben, was man als Liebe zusammenfassen kann.” Massenpsychologie und Ich-Analyse (1921), p. 42; English translation by James Strachey, Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego (London/Vienna, 1922), p. 37; the Standard Edition, XVIII, pp. 69-143 (quote on page 90), has changed “mensurable” to “measurable”)

Crowley could have read this definition – the Massenpsychologie was translated into English in 1922 – but Freud himself does not appear to use the phrase “libido of the Unconscious” anywhere. Crowley clearly differs from Freud in attributing, not only “will”, but “True Will” to the libido. Freud granted it instincts and urges, but would doubtlessly have vehemently denied as absurd the contention that it had a coherent or unified Will.

What is worth contemplating, especially if we assume that Crowley had read this definition, is that Freud defines the libido as the instincts of “love”. It’s not so far from Crowley, actually, taking “True Will” in its ultimate form as the desire for union. For Freud, this inchoate mass of urges for instant gratification is something to be sublimated, both in the normal process of ego-maturity as well as through psychoanalysis where there are unresolved problems, “complexes”; for Crowley, this mass is not inchoate, but articulate, and the complexes or veils are what inhibits its free expression. This perspective must have pricked a few ears during the "social season." 


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 3150
02/11/2014 4:07 pm  

We can see the disappearance of the "morbid sexual symptoms (which are merely the complaints of the sick animal)" through adherence to True Will manifest years earlier in AC's life, when, despite his "own achievements", he hymns the profound sacramental nature and spiritual benefits he derived by consuming fecal "gifts from on high" delivered by Babalon incarnate in an Australian violinist.
This sacramental act commemorated in TBOL 87 "Mandarin Meals" may even have been the Magus initiation, though he is cryptic about when and what exactly constituted this- 3/22/1912 is around the right time though. Perhaps others better versed in the timeline of his claimed initiations can correct me here?
Sorry to digress a bit from the OT of the evolution of the phrase TW here.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
03/11/2014 6:53 pm  
"belmurru" wrote:
The following passage from the Confessions reminded me of what I suggested in my vague ramble a few posts back. I suspect Crowley chose “True Will” in response to the growing popularity of Freudian ideas about the Unconscious. Already in 1916, when the term “True Will” does not appear to have had a technical sense yet, Crowley’s piece on psychoanalysis assumed that the Unconscious would be “one of the favourite conversational gambits of the coming social season.” We can surmise that he frequently countered such gambits as “have you heard what Freud says about sex?” with “Yes, but he’s wrong, since it is not infantile wishes but the self’s true will he is talking about!”

From Confessions, chapter 6 (p. 68 in 1929 edition (capitals as such); p. 72 in the 1969 ed., capitals removed)

“Most people, especially Freud, misunderstand the Freudian position. ‘The libido of the Unconscious’ is really ‘the True Will of the Inmost Self.’ The sexual characteristics of the individual are, it is true, symbolic indications of its nature, and, when these are ‘abnormal’,’ we may suspect that the Self is divided against itself in some way. Experience teaches the Adepts who initiate mankind that when any complex (duality) in the Self is resolved (unity) the Initiate becomes whole. The morbid sexual symptoms (which are merely the complaints of the sick animal) disappear, while the moral and mental consciousness is relieved from its civil war of doubt and self-obsession. The complete man, harmonised, flows freely towards his natural goal.”

Freud defines the libido as “the energy, regarded as a quantitative magnitude (though not at present actually mensurable), of those instincts that have to do with all that may be comprised under the word ‘love’”

(“Libido ist ein Ausdruck aus der Affektivitätslehre. Wir heißen so die als quantitative Größe betrachtete – wenn auch derzeit nicht meßbare – Energie solcher Triebe, welche mit alldem zu tun haben, was man als Liebe zusammenfassen kann.” Massenpsychologie und Ich-Analyse (1921), p. 42; English translation by James Strachey, Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego (London/Vienna, 1922), p. 37; the Standard Edition, XVIII, pp. 69-143 (quote on page 90), has changed “mensurable” to “measurable”)

Crowley could have read this definition – the Massenpsychologie was translated into English in 1922 – but Freud himself does not appear to use the phrase “libido of the Unconscious” anywhere. Crowley clearly differs from Freud in attributing, not only “will”, but “True Will” to the libido. Freud granted it instincts and urges, but would doubtlessly have vehemently denied as absurd the contention that it had a coherent or unified Will.

What is worth contemplating, especially if we assume that Crowley had read this definition, is that Freud defines the libido as the instincts of “love”. It’s not so far from Crowley, actually, taking “True Will” in its ultimate form as the desire for union. For Freud, this inchoate mass of urges for instant gratification is something to be sublimated, both in the normal process of ego-maturity as well as through psychoanalysis where there are unresolved problems, “complexes”; for Crowley, this mass is not inchoate, but articulate, and the complexes or veils are what inhibits its free expression. This perspective must have pricked a few ears during the "social season." 

That 1916 piece from Vanity Fair has become my number 1 favorite recently. What I particularly like is the example of Green Cats.


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1015
05/11/2014 2:17 pm  
"belmurru" wrote:
“Do what you like”, Ethics, Thelema, and True Will

Crowley invented the concept and the term “True Will”, so it always with his writings on it that we should begin – and we should start at the beginning. In the Confessions, he describes his “discovery” of this “true will” in the very earliest phase of his journey, beginning with the now well-known experience in Stockholm on December 31, 1896, even before he began studying alchemy or magic. Understanding what he meant by this shows that his concept of the True Will is inextricably entwined with transcendental and mystical  concepts, as it is with Magick: it is not merely an ethical method, however rational many of its techniques may be.

"david" wrote:
I don't have Colin Wilson's "The Nature of the Beast" at hand but if I'm not mistaken he puts forth the view therein that Crowley underwent a crisis of an acceptance of his own homosexuality but in the context of a "spiritual experience."  Does anyone have Wilson's book? I'd like to know when and where that experience happened.  Does Wilson propose that this was the Stockholm experience?

Yes, Colin Wilson propose that this was the Stockholm experience. The relevant pages in Colin Wilson's book The Nature of the Beast, are 36, 37 and 38 in the 1987 edition.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
06/11/2014 12:30 am  
"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
Yes, Colin Wilson propose that this was the Stockholm experience. The relevant pages in Colin Wilson's book The Nature of the Beast, are 36, 37 and 38 in the 1987 edition.

Thanks Wellread I thought so.  I don't know what to make of that.


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1025
06/11/2014 2:56 pm  
"david" wrote:
"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
Yes, Colin Wilson propose that this was the Stockholm experience. The relevant pages in Colin Wilson's book The Nature of the Beast, are 36, 37 and 38 in the 1987 edition.

Thanks Wellread I thought so.  I don't know what to make of that.

Colin Wilson’s insights were very good, especially given that previous biographers had not yet made the connections (I mean Symonds, Regardie, King, and Roberts). Wilson’s deduction, through a close reading of Crowley’s phrasing, and comparing it with his recounting of how he described his sexual encounter with a parlour maid ‘”on my mother’s very bed!”, as a “magical affirmation of my revolt” (Confessions, pp. 79-80), shows how much thought he had given to Crowley’s obscure hints. The connection with his True Will was that he found he was discovering himself – his true Self – through sex. Sex was rebellion, sex was freedom, and sex was magic. It was a way to knowledge, liberation, and power: a key to identity. There is a lot more that could be said, but you should think about it, and its implications for you, if any, for yourself.

The first serious research on Crowley’s bisexual awakening, and his relationship with H. C. J. Pollitt, were begun by Martin Starr in the 1980s. He promised us an edition of Not the Life and Adventures of Sir Roger Bloxam (written in 1916-1917) in his introduction to The Scented Garden of Abdullah the Satirist of Shiraz (i.e. the “Bagh-i-Muattar”), in the Teitan Press facsimile of 1991 (p. 7, note 7), but this has not seen the light of day. 

Here is a very good discussion of Crowley’s relationship with Pollitt, which includes references to the “Stockholm Revelation.”
http://ghostblooms-van-asten.blogspot.fr/2011/11/how-sweet-passion.html

A bibliography for further reading -

1. “He who seduced me first”; unpublished poem from a manuscript “About 1898 or earlier” (Crowley’s note), quoted by Kaczynski in Perdurabo (2010), p. 37
2. “At Stockholm” and “To J.L.D.”, in White Stains (1898), pp. 41, 66
3. Not the Life and Adventures of Sir Roger Bloxam (1916-1917), chapters 19-23 (specifically 21-22)
4. Περὶ της Παιδεραστεὶας, in The Scented Garden of Abdullah the Satirist of Shiraz (the “Bagh-i-Muattar”) (1910/1991 (facsimile)), pp. 21-34
5. Lawrence Sutin, Do What Thou Wilt (2002), pp. 38-43
6. Richard Kaczynski, Perdurabo (2010), pp. 36-40
7. Tobias Churton, Aleister Crowley, The Biography (2011), pp. 29-30; 33-35


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5326
06/11/2014 10:17 pm  
"belmurru" wrote:
Here is a very good discussion of Crowley’s relationship with Pollitt, which includes references to the “Stockholm Revelation.”

Thanks for the link, belmurru. For what is probably the definitive statement on the incident in Stockholm, see William Breeze's excellent introduction to the Ebba edition of White Stains, where the 'other party' is named in full and identified.

Elsewhere, Breeze has noted that Crowley's relationship with Eckenstein was also homosexual in nature.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1025
06/11/2014 10:27 pm  
"lashtal" wrote:
"belmurru" wrote:
Here is a very good discussion of Crowley’s relationship with Pollitt, which includes references to the “Stockholm Revelation.”

Thanks for the link, belmurru. For what is probably the definitive statement on the incident in Stockholm, see William Breeze's excellent introduction to the Ebba edition of White Stains, where the 'other party' is named in full and identified.

Elsewhere, Breeze has noted that Crowley's relationship with Eckenstein was also homosexual in nature.

Thanks, Paul.

He is named in Not the Life and Adventures of Sir Roger Bloxam as well, as James L. Dickson. Churton mentions him on page 29 as well, and gives the full name in the endnote, page 432, note 7 to chapter 3, as James Lachlan Dickson, attributing the discovery to William Breeze.

I would certrainly like to see the Edda edition, but it was sold out soon after going on sale, and is out of print. I tried to make sure every reference I provided is either available on line or in print.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5326
06/11/2014 10:33 pm  
"belmurru" wrote:
I tried to make sure every reference I provided is either available on line or in print.

Apologies - I wasn't aware that the Ebba edition had gone out of print.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1025
06/11/2014 10:46 pm  
"lashtal" wrote:
"belmurru" wrote:
I tried to make sure every reference I provided is either available on line or in print.

Apologies - I wasn't aware that the Ebba edition had gone out of print.

Yes, they only printed 418 of them. You can find copies for sale at about 80 dollars, but as much as I love Breeze's scholarship, that's a lot of money for an introduction. I hope they reprint it in a few thousand copies, so more of us can appreciate his insights.

http://www.edda.se/docs/003/


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
07/11/2014 1:47 am  
"belmurru" wrote:
"david" wrote:
"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
Yes, Colin Wilson propose that this was the Stockholm experience. The relevant pages in Colin Wilson's book The Nature of the Beast, are 36, 37 and 38 in the 1987 edition.

Thanks Wellread I thought so.  I don't know what to make of that.

Colin Wilson’s insights were very good, especially given that previous biographers had not yet made the connections (I mean Symonds, Regardie, King, and Roberts). Wilson’s deduction, through a close reading of Crowley’s phrasing, and comparing it with his recounting of how he described his sexual encounter with a parlour maid ‘”on my mother’s very bed!”, as a “magical affirmation of my revolt” (Confessions, pp. 79-80), shows how much thought he had given to Crowley’s obscure hints. The connection with his True Will was that he found he was discovering himself – his true Self – through sex.

This is interesting as it backs up Los's idea that True Will is just an unearthing of our natural inclinations and in this example in Crowley's case it's his homosexuality being unearthed.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
07/11/2014 5:31 pm  
"david" wrote:
This is interesting as it backs up Los's idea that True Will is just an unearthing of our natural inclinations and in this example in Crowley's case it's his homosexuality being unearthed.

But is Los’s idea of True Will just that it is an unearthing of our natural inclinations (– in other words, I supppose this could then possibly involve giving free rein & expression to the suppressed elements of the id?!)  I’d thought he was implying it was something a little bit more than "just" that when Tao also brought up this issue a little while back?

In search of the truth (tell me, I can handle the truth!)
N  Joy


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5056
07/11/2014 5:54 pm  
"jamie barter" wrote:
But is Los’s idea of True Will just that it is an unearthing of our natural inclinations ...

Hopefully, he will affirm or deny or modify this assumption.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
08/11/2014 8:29 pm  

Hard determinism is the Only way.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
11/11/2014 5:32 pm  
"Shiva" wrote:
"jamie barter" wrote:
But is Los’s idea of True Will just that it is an unearthing of our natural inclinations ...

Hopefully, he will affirm or deny or modify this assumption.

I imagine if he does he would probably condescend to reply something along these lines:

Reply #197 by Los on: October 16, 2014, 12:15:58 am:

Look, the term "True Will" or "authentic preference" or "whuzzle wuzzle" or whatever we want to call it [add: “natural inclinations” here – j.b.] are labels.  We're labeling this one thing because we can distinguish it from the other thing […] [and thereby there not cometh hurt ?! – j.b.] […]

*Thinks*:  This “Los-speak” is a dead doddle – any fule can do it!

Whizzle whorzle!
NoyJ


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 3150
12/11/2014 1:00 am  

"Los" is perhaps on a reprogramming break, or maybe the "preference" of our favorite "Mechanical Turk" for lashtal is not "authentic" after all?
The "Los" posts do seem to come and go periodically. Confident all us "goblin" believers will be rebuked for our superstitious cowering before our heathen idols (best part of my day actually, the cowering) again soon.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
12/11/2014 12:49 pm  
"ignant666" wrote:
"Los" is perhaps on a reprogramming break, or maybe the "preference" of our favorite "Mechanical Turk" for lashtal is not "authentic" after all?

The "Los" posts do seem to come and go periodically. Confident all us "goblin" believers will be rebuked for our superstitious cowering before our heathen idols (best part of my day actually, the cowering) again soon.

Los is not properly programmed to deal with input from yours truly: “The computer says no”.

I think he had to do a manual override to stop his works overheating when he last tried to answer my salient points addressed in his direction, and ever since then a message has flashed up to him: “Warning, warning - do not engage with jamie unit, repeat do not engage with rogue Jamie unit: this may cause harm and irreparable damage to the integrity of your Logic circuitry.”

- Fizzz!  Snap!  Crackle!  Pop!  Boom!  Bang!  Ha! Ha!
N Joy


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 3150
12/11/2014 2:03 pm  

Don't get hurt feelings, jamie barter, you are far from alone.
"Los" has gone on and off with refusing to engage with me over the years, though I had thought we were on speaking terms as it was me who simply stopped replied to our last go-round.
"Los" often breaks off "conversations" when the going gets too rough, or too many points or questions without pre-packaged "talking points" in "Los-ianity" come up.
Anyone who doubts "Los" may be a Turing-bot is invite to ask the iphone's "Siri" what "Love is the law, love under Will" might mean. The results will make as much sense, and will be rooted in as much genuine understanding of AC's work, as the "Los" posts.
Also, i recently realized a subtle clue we are all being trolled: in Blake's work, "Los" is the Luciferian figure representing art, creativity and the irrational, who is locked in struggle with his nemesis, the dead hand of "Urizen" ("your reason").
I assume the irony of our "Los" naming his persona after this figure in Blake's work will not be lost on any carbon-based entity able to appreciate irony.


ReplyQuote
Page 6 / 6
Share: