What is the True Will of a psychopath?
-
@FiatYod said
"But suppose the criminal is a psychopath. As research shows, psychopaths' brains are simply built in a way that doesn't let them feel empathy, and makes them ignore the consequences of their actions, and so on.
"Psychopathy is a flaw, not just "another organic variant." It impedes (not prohibits, but impedes) a soul's ability to discern its own fundamental truth, just as it impedes so much else, just as severely impaired eyesight impairs the ability to see things. For example, the inability to feel empathy means that one is cut off from the fundamental nature of Nuit.
Non-psychopaths also start out ignoring the consequences of their actions - this is something learned in the course of living. And, while a psychopath is severely distanced from this ability, he or she isn't the only one who has to learn by experience.
Surely such a life has much to teach one, and the real lessons and refinements of the soul in that particular lifetime are personal and far subtler than any of the rest of us are likely to see. But the best advice is still to seek to correct this flaw or shortcoming in oneself to the best that one can, and then to live, as mindfully as possible, struggling with the limitation every day - just as the rest of us to with our own shortcomings.
"So what if a psychopath's True Will is to kill people?"
If the universe needs someone to kill someone, much as the body needs a white blood cell, it will probably pick the most suitable cell available. But that would be just one momentary expression of a deeper Will (a more general case of that specific expression). It's the deeper articulation one must seek to find and voice.
"1. How can we know the nature of all possible True Wills?"
As mentioned above, we can't. But it's not like a check list. Those who have moved far enough down the path will have increasingly sound understanding of this sort of thing, and we take them to be teachers (if something in us intuits that they have whatever we need at the moment). - If you didn't think it possible that people would have this seasoned ability, you probably wouldn't have asked this question, right?
"2. What creates a True Will?"
A particular Hadit (a particular point of view from among the infinite points in an infinite universe of possibility), in the context of Nuit coming to abide in a particular body in a particular context at a particular intersection of time and space.
"3. Does a person have a True Will since the moment they are born? Can it ever be changed?"
Our details are constantly in change, in flux; but the deep core of who we are is fundamental through eternity, and takes on further distinction in a particular incarnation. I don't know if you have my book Pearls of Wisdom, but there's a discussion in the first chapter about adjectives we use to clarify what we mean by True Will in a particular conversation. For example, we sometimes use the term Infinite Will to mean the unlimited expression of a spiritual being independent of time-space, incarnation, or other condition, and Mundane Will (or Finite Will) to refer to so outward an expression as one's job.
Which is to say... the answer to your last question especially depends on the level from which you are asking it. The essential nature that endures with us across eternity, from incarnation to incarnation does acquire experience by particularizing to a more specific form in a given incarnation; and then, throughout our lives, we move through various changes in form, changes in expression, some truer and some less true to our deep center. True Will isn't just a single marching order - "Make egg salad sandwiches" - it's a deep essence demanding self-expression that, as an exercise (or stage of training) needs to be concisely articulated in a way that captures all of its threads and variants.
In Crowley's moment of enlightenment to his own True Will as Aleister Crowley, the words that were formed were, "To teach the next step." At the time, he asked what the next step was, and the answer was, "To attain to the Knowledge & Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel." That, indeed, was his own next step to teach, the thing he had to spend the next stage of his life formulating and expressing. But years later, when he became a Magus, he understood his True Will as to teach the Law of Thelema - to expound the nature of the Law in both social and individual ways. Does this mean that his True Will changed? No, only its expression changed. It was still, "To teach the next step."
To wrap this up, here are a couple of more things from the first chapter of Pearls. I'm taking them out of context, so they may make less sense than they would in context, but I think they mostly stand on their own.
I proposed the most general (and, I think, most comprehensive) definition of True Will as: "The inmost nature of a being, expressed through its most fundamental course or movement through time, space, and experience. "
A little later, I gave the definition of True Will that is most important within Temple of Thelema, where we are most interested in waking people to who they are, at root, within the context of their current incarnation and the life they have chosen. That working definition is: "The resultant of all vectors (conditions and characteristics) expressed through the focus of a specific incarnation; nearly synonymous with life-purpose or deepest impulse of self-expression."
FWIW.
-
Thank you very much for answering my questions!
@Jim Eshelman said
"
Our details are constantly in change, in flux; but the deep core of who we are is fundamental through eternity, and takes on further distinction in a particular incarnation. I don't know if you have my book Pearls of Wisdom, but there's a discussion in the first chapter about adjectives we use to clarify what we mean by True Will in a particular conversation. For example, we sometimes use the term Infinite Will to mean the unlimited expression of a spiritual being independent of time-space, incarnation, or other condition, and Mundane Will (or Finite Will) to refer to so outward an expression as one's job.Which is to say... the answer to your last question especially depends on the level from which you are asking it. The essential nature that endures with us across eternity, from incarnation to incarnation does acquire experience by particularizing to a more specific form in a given incarnation; and then, throughout our lives, we move through various changes in form, changes in expression, some truer and some less true to our deep center. True Will isn't just a single marching order - "Make egg salad sandwiches" - it's a deep essence demanding self-expression that, as an exercise (or stage of training) needs to be concisely articulated in a way that captures all of its threads and variants.
"So, theoretically speaking, someone could have an Infinite Will of (for example) "Destroy ugliness" and a Finite Will of "Kill ugly people"?
@gerry456 said
"
Re OP; I wouldn't say that psychopathy is determined by innate organic bio-chemistry. I'd take the more Reichian view ; engrained muscular/character armouring.
"The Reichian view sounds interesting, can you elaborate on that?
-
@FiatYod said
"So, theoretically speaking, someone could have an Infinite Will of (for example) "Destroy ugliness" and a Finite Will of "Kill ugly people"?"
As a practical matter, nothing deprives another of his or her own right and opportunity to express his or her Will like killing them. (It does tend to stop one cold, at least for the moment, right?)
Therefore (at least, as a general case), killing is an act that violates the Law of Thelema. One of the first clues that one is doing something other than one's own Will is when we catch ourselves depriving anyone else of the capacity to do theirs.
It starts getting murkier when one is killing not as an expression of individuality, but as an agent or expressiveness of the collective, e.g., if one's job is to be an executioner or a soldier. It also gets murky because there are occasions one must kill (e.g., in self-defense) to preserve the opportunity to continue (theoretically in situations where someone else is attempting to deprive you of your opportunity to do your Will). Etc.
Killing ugly people doesn't really remove ugliness, by the way. It tends to increase it. (Killing is usually so messy!)
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
It starts getting murkier when one is killing not as an expression of individuality, but as an agent or expressiveness of the collective, e.g., if one's job is to be an executioner or a soldier. It also gets murky because there are occasions one must kill (e.g., in self-defense) to preserve the opportunity to continue (theoretically in situations where someone else is attempting to deprive you of your opportunity to do your Will). Etc.
"Oh, that's an intriguing example.
What happens when two soldiers are in a war, really? How can we resolve this "murkiness", this clash of Wills? Survival of the fittest?
-
@FiatYod said
"Oh, that's an intriguing example.
What happens when two soldiers are in a war, really? How can we resolve this "murkiness", this clash of Wills? Survival of the fittest?"Every circumstance is a little different - hence my use of "murkier." Most of the possibilities for them rests on the fact that most people in the military in war are no longer acting as individuals, they are revved to not think and just follow orders - they are units of the collective. Their Will entered into the decision to enter the military stream in the first place.
And yes, a species-level test of fitness may indeed be part of it.
As I've hinted several times in this thread, but haven't explicitly said - to get a complete picture, one must consider both the Nuit and Hadit aspects of us. The Hadit aspect is that which distinguishes utterly from every other point of view. The Nuit aspect is that which recognizes no separation between any of us at all. We are only whole when we are concurrently individual AND collective. Most of my answers here have dealt with finding that coexistence.
-
@FiatYod said
"
Oh, that's an intriguing example.
What happens when two soldiers are in a war, really? How can we resolve this "murkiness", this clash of Wills? Survival of the fittest?"I feel this invokes the old "if two brothers believe each that it is their will to eat the single orange that sits on the table, one of them is certainly mistaken," and follows with "As brothers fight ye."
-
Agreed.
-
@Fiatyod, you want me to elaborate about Reich and psychopathy, I recommend that you do your own research, I think there's an institute dedicated to preserving his legacy, no doubt they have a website. Check out Reich's body of work, its a big subject, one that uses Freud as a springboard.
-
@gerry456 said
"@Fiatyod, you want me to elaborate about Reich and psychopathy, I recommend that you do your own research, I think there's an institute dedicated to preserving his legacy, no doubt they have a website. Check out Reich's body of work, its a big subject, one that uses Freud as a springboard."
Oh, I see...
Thank you all for your answers!
-
@Takamba said
"
I feel this invokes the old "if two brothers believe each that it is their will to eat the single orange that sits on the table, one of them is certainly mistaken," and follows with "As brothers fight ye.""How about splitting it in two and sharing it?
-
@gerry456 said
"
@Takamba said
"
I feel this invokes the old "if two brothers believe each that it is their will to eat the single orange that sits on the table, one of them is certainly mistaken," and follows with "As brothers fight ye.""How about splitting it in two and sharing it?"
Hey everyone, I found the hippy liberal!
El oh El
Then both are to go hungrier for it? Will doesn't exactly work that way. The entire orange is at stake. I see you aren't familiar with this story of old Uncle Al's discussion of the Book of the Law (to whom all appeals are meant to be made).
-
@Takamba said
"
Hey everyone, I found the hippy liberal!El oh El
Then both are to go hungrier for it? Will doesn't exactly work that way. The entire orange is at stake. I see you aren't familiar with this story of old Uncle Al's discussion of the Book of the Law (to whom all appeals are meant to be made)."
I think that survival of the fittest is obsolete. Humans are not built that way.
-
- "There is help & hope in other spells. Wisdom says: be strong! Then canst thou bear more joy. Be not ..."
No?
-
-
@Takamba said
"I don't believe survival of the fittest is "obsolete." It just depends on learning where you're actually best fit and where you are not.
Fighting doesn't only mean fisticuffs."
Well, what is this quote about the orange? Is it AC's commentaries? Do you have a link?
I mean I have applied for jobs where I was up against other people. I got the job and others failed so I was given what I went for. Is this what you mean? Also, once, some guy's girlfriend came around to my place and we got physically intimate. I don't think she told him. is this the sort of thing you mean?
By the way I never had a brother only sisters. I understand that brothers can fight regularly and kick each others' asses but essentially they love each other. Is that it?
-
@gerry456 said
"
@Takamba said
"I don't believe survival of the fittest is "obsolete." It just depends on learning where you're actually best fit and where you are not.Fighting doesn't only mean fisticuffs."
Well, what is this quote about the orange? Is it AC's commentaries? Do you have a link?
I mean I have applied for jobs where I was up against other people. I got the job and others failed so I was given what I went for. Is this what you mean? Also, once, some guy's girlfriend came around to my place and we got physically intimate. I don't think she told him. is this the sort of thing you mean?
By the way I never had a brother only sisters. I understand that brothers can fight regularly and kick each others' asses but essentially they love each other. Is that it?"
Do not just read Crowley's magical books, read his philosophical books, read his intellectual books. No, I'm not going to provide you a link to my personal library - that's something I earned over time.
Perhaps if Jim and I were the characters and the orange was a contract of land, I'd assume Jim probably has the true will to possess it and he would win that battle because he's an attorney and I am not. But if for some reason I actually believed I had a valid argument, as a brother, I would still fight for it.
And yes, there's the concept that it is done without rejecting the love. Or rather, in the above example I invented, it would be on a battle field that respects Jim (as he is an attorney, I wouldn't love him if I brought a gun to the battle).
So yes, with love and respect. As equals (but not equals because one is obviously intended to be the victor).
As equals (but not equals because obviously someone is always going to be dense).
-
@FiatYod said
"// Hi! This is my first message in this forum.
In Duty, AC wrote
"It is then the common duty to prevent crime by segregating the criminal, and by the threat of reprisals; also, to teach the criminal that his acts, being analyzed, are contrary to his own True Will. "
But suppose the criminal is a psychopath. As research shows, psychopaths' brains are simply built in a way that doesn't let them feel empathy, and makes them ignore the consequences of their actions, and so on.
So what if a psychopath's True Will is to kill people?
I assume the answer to this question would be, "But a True Will can't be to kill people!"
Then this brings up the questions:- How can we know the nature of all possible True Wills?
- What creates a True Will?
- Does a person have a True Will since the moment they are born? Can it ever be changed?
Thanks in advance for your help."
You've been given some great answers, but I'll just chime in here (FWIW, just my thoughts).
Remember, we're talking about "Law" here, we're not talking about just the natural free-for-all (e.g. blind biological competition) but about conscious (memetic, cultural, social, personal, individual) evolution. In a natural sense, yes, a psychopath's brain is just another structural variant. The problem is that that particular variant occludes/precludes the psychopath from discovering/having a True Will.
IOW, all this stuff, while it takes lessons from, and takes heed of, natural phenomena (i.e. isn't afraid to contemplate, and even meditate on, ugly facts of reality), is about having a society in which it's possible for people to live and express themselves as free individuals, i.e. we're talking about some kind of intrapersonal and interpersonal order, only we're denying that the form of that order is something that has to be imposed or submitted to. The order must come from within, primarily from every individual taking hold of their birthright and realizing that they're really God in disguise, therefore already perfect, already in need of nothing, and merely adventuring in the universe of possibilities for fun. Social order then arises naturally from the dignity of that (even if only as one person politely giving way when two people are trying to get through the same door - "after you!" - "no, after you!" - which can lead to its own mini comedy
)Really, the resolution to all "possible clash" questions is that "we" are gentle, i.e. always initially co-operative, always initially giving the benefit of the doubt. But we are also strong, i.e. "we" will instantly and mercilessly punish "defection" (as per game theory, Iterated Prisoners' Dilemma, TIT for TAT, etc.) until "defection" ceases and co-operation returns, whereupon we instantly return to benign equilibrium, without any lingering rancor
The general upshot of all that is that the moral thing to do is a) take as much cognizance as possible of all possible factors, and b) do the right thing by the Universe (including obviously oneself).
There's an apparent assymetry that arises (we are naturally more concerned with our own doings), but that's just an artifact of informational assymetry (we know more about ourselves than about others' position). This mandates a certain amount of fairly loose, liberal law in the ordinary sense (something like English Common Law, I don't mean "liberalism" in the American sense, more like libertarianism in the American sense, and liberalism in the old-fashioned sense), in which our "doing the right thing by" someone on the other side of the world implies that we will uphold at our end, a system that will also give that person room and scope to fulfil their own True Will. (IOW, it's like a mandala: king and consort at centre, functionaries and bureacrats close, then the commoners, then foreigners - close to home we know ourselves, our friends, etc., fairly well, so there's a bit of "free play" there, we can do fairly concrete things to help, even give our friends advice that would be importunate coming from a stranger. But the further you get from the centre of the mandala, the more our do-gooding has to be embodied in abstract rules, which address the ever-more-abstract conditions that we share with those at the fringes - unless of course it is one's True Will to go to where that fellow at the other side of the world is, and concretely get to know their situation, and concretely help them based on that more detailed knowledge.)
The psychopath we look kindly on, in the sense that we'd look kindly on a shark or a tiger - as a phenomenon of nature, s/he is equally as wondrous as any other phenomenon. But we don't mix the planes - we keep a wary eye on them (if they haven't actually done anything wrong, i.e. if they are canny enough to live and let live, or find some harmless outlet for their psychopathy) and if they do do something wrong, we capture them and stick them in jail (or whatever) until such time (in the future, perhaps) when they can be given a choice of some kind of medical intervention. ("Wrong" here being defined as something like "interfering with others' True Wills".)
