Moral Codes in Thelema
-
@Redd Fezz said
"in Magick Without Tears, he makes some statement that it may be a man's True Will to beat his woman, just as may be her True Will to be beaten; one can not say what is "right" and "wrong". I found this pretty disturbing and I still do whenever I think of it."
And, of course, it was intended to disturb.
The main point, I think, is there can't be a priori, non-contextual judgments on any particular action whatsoever, however "wrong" it might be in the general case.
"In "The Law Is For All," there are plenty passages that suggest "extreme liberalism," such as the idea that there is no such thing as "evil," only "good" and "bad" in relation to one's True Will"
Yes - hence my remarks about moral relativism. I hold to this principle you have stated with adamantine certainty.
"I'm not sure how the logistics of it are supposed to work out (I suppose it is some "higher math" of the cosmos thing),"
Yes, it wouldn't be expected always to be comprehensible to the human mind because the equations can only be guaranteed to cancel out when all elements soever in the universe (in all dimensions) are included.
It may work out in simpler form - that is, most of the elements in the universe may be balanced on either side of the equation is that they "cancel out," leading to an easy resolution of the formula - but it can't be guaranteed to work out unless the whole universe is figured in. Sometimes, therefore, it won't be comprehensible. On the other hand, one only has to be responsible for one's own portion of the equation.
"but occasionally it does seem to be the sort of society that would be difficult to work out realistically."
You certainly can't count on consciously controlling it!
And - I submit - the only reason it seems so daunting is that the majority of people are off track most of the times. We may have learned to travel in our lanes most of the time on the freeway, but most people in the world are exceedingly untrue to themselves.
-
I think what Crowley was getting at was basically, "Hey, that's life. That's the Universe. 'God' has been letting people suffer for as long as recorded history, so who are WE to distinguish between "right" and "wrong?" And I think it was intended to disturb, to get the old wheels a-turnin'...
In truth, I don't think Crowley actually believes any enlightened being's True Will would be to harm another unless the overall picture was to advance society by shocking it into action.
I thought of this as I listened to a surprisingly great interview today that discussed one author's psychedelic experience with a cosmic voice that:
(1) brought him to a state of bliss beyond bliss and pointed out that this was Infinite Love and this was ultimate reality. There was no vibration in this place. The Voice said that anything that any experience of vibration was not true reality, but a lie. And, of course, all of matter and energy as we know it is vibration (I immediately thought of Crowley's concept of "to go" and "breaks" in the Book of Lies).
(2) asked jokingly, "Do you think Infinite Love cares about George Bush?"
(3) explained that Infinite Love is all inclusive and none will be rejected; all will return to harmony and unity. Anything else would not be love and it certainly wouldn't be Infinite Love.It made me think of a plane ride. When you look down on the earth from a plane, it makes all your troubles seem really insignificant.
-
@Redd Fezz said
"In truth, I don't think Crowley actually believes any enlightened being's True Will would be to harm another..."
Exactly! The universe is internally coherent.
-
what about the role of the state (police and military and tax collectors so on) in Thelema? E.G. can a policeman be doing his True Will in his job-role as policeman? Also on same matter ; check the section in Liber Al about the military,. chp 2 ; 24 and 25
-
Gerry, 93,
"what about the role of the state (police and military and tax collectors so on) in Thelema? E.G. can a policeman be doing his True Will in his job-role as policeman? Also on same matter ; check the section in Liber Al about the military,. chp 2 ; 24 and 25"
As I see it, the True Will is a formula, so it would might something Geburic like "to uphold justice". That would mean that gradually, through all aspects of his life, the cop or the soldier would strive to support fairness, prevention of violent acts, and maintenance of the minimal amount of actual laws Thelema calls for. The fact of being a cop or soldier would be the final manifestation, of that. He/she wouldn't be a cop trying to do his true will around justice, but a True Will centered around justice, trying to manifest that Will through the choice of being a cop.
Similarly, a tax collector might have the TW of "facilitating freedom". That could mean he/she would look for an occupation that helped bring that about. If that person felt government was or could be an effective agent for maintaining freedom by upholding law and fairness, he or she might then choose to be a tax collector.
Any ideological rationalisations would be secondary things, constructed after the fact. Whether we know the TW fully, partly or not at all on a conscious level, it's going to manifest, and the occupations we choose frequently relate in some way to what it is that fuels our existence.
93 93/93,
Edward
-
93
Morality? Good question, I actually wrote an extensive and detailed moral system, unfortunely it's in spanish, but basically here's what I think:
1.- Do your True Will.
2.- Conflict will eventually rise, what to do? what would be the proper course of action? Fight, like brothers, fight!
3.- The law of the jungle (I think it's mentioned in the book of the law), in real life it doesn't mean kill whoever stands in your way of getting the last pepsi in the stadium, in fact killing, stealing and other violent acts are useless because you're probably end up in jail (try and do your Will while a bunch of bikers and rapists stalk you day and night
).
4.- Two men want the same job, for one to get the job the other must loose, it's reality and real life, for someone to achieve anything, someone else suffers defeat. Even brushing your teeth results in someone suffering! Who get's the job? Who ever deserves to get the job, or who ever was more clever in achieving his goal (fake curriculum, lying in the interview, making connections, etc.) and he deserves it, nature is prodigal but it's also strong and determined.
5.- Weakness it's the only enemy, by "weakness" I mean a lack of selfcontrol, the innability to control one's life and Will. The elimination of weakness (not through violence of course, this is must innefective) takes place through education, making sure everyone get's the chance, or at least a proper environment to learn that they are a star and can achieve great things (this would be a "social ethical system" if you will).
6.- An ethics based on "must" or "moral obligation" or "intrinsic value" is impossible to conduct, fictional and insane. Rather, I'm guessing ethics of power, that which will strengthen your will, help you in your path is "good", the opposite is "bad", being a drug adict won't help you (at least in most cases I can think of), while education, discipline, reading, etc., will help you. Commiting crimes is dangerous because you expose yourself to being thrown to jail, or having a criminal record that could, in the future, be an obstacle for doing your will.And, of course, if everything else fails, common sense and the golden rule "treat others like you would like to be treated" is, in most cases, the best way to go.
93 93/93 -
@asclepi said
"Two men want the same job, for one to get the job the other must loose, it's reality and real life, for someone to achieve anything, someone else suffers defeat."
I think this is two narrow a view, even though things look like this a great deal of the time. But the one who "loses" at the one job often will find that life (meaning, their much deeper guiding self) has other things in mind, and that getting that job would have been the real loss. And there are dozens of other variations on this that come to mind - the main point is that "win" and "lose" are rarely that simple, and that Win-Lose thinking is quite Old Aeon (Osirian / egoic / linear).
Gradual adoption and practice of Win-Win thinking IMHO is a real mark of adoption an emerging Thelemic (Horusian / trans-egoic / nonlinear) point of view. After all, the core premise of Thelema is that every man and every woman is a star, each has its own space and way in our highly interacting and infinitely complex and spacious universe, and that collision is the only crime in the cosmos. If each is in his or her own way ("orbit"), there will always be interaction (all matter in space is gravitationally and in other ways continuously interacting, all simultaneously affecting each other); but the way of one is not the way of another.
"Ambition" comes from the same root as "ambulence" or "ambulate." It means "to get somewhere." It's neither good nor bad per se, but the moral judgment we'd give to it in Thelema depends on whether the "going" is in one's own way or away from one's own way. To seek someone's else's place is "sinful" simply because it means one is not seeking one's own place. OTOH, ambition that motivates us to strive and succeed in our own way - our own True Will - is one of the holiest things.
"Weakness it's the only enemy, by "weakness" I mean a lack of selfcontrol"
Agreed. I've phrased it differently - I once wrote, "What we call evil is but incontinence." I meant the same thing that it appears you mean here.
BTW, I appreciate your nonviolent approach to struggle.
"An ethics based on "must" or "moral obligation" or "intrinsic value" is impossible to conduct, fictional and insane."
Ah, but don't we do the same? We are bold to state that one must do one's True Will! That's a very firm moral obligation in Thelema. And, while carrying it out is more freeing and authentic than any moral code in human history (or, at least we believe, or at least hold, that it is), it's still a strict moral code for the Thelemite.
"Commiting crimes is dangerous because you expose yourself to being thrown to jail, or having a criminal record that could, in the future, be an obstacle for doing your will."
Agreed. Also, commiting crimes is a bad idea because it reinforces a false division or dualism between yourself and another, and denies the underlying truth that there is no separation between us. In most cases, it also reinforces a view of weakness about oneself. (In writing this, I'm assuming the definition of "crime" isn't going to be a stumbling block to discussing it in the abstract, and, for sake of argument, that we likely could attain general agreement on what is "crime.")
"And, of course, if everything else fails, common sense and the golden rule "treat others like you would like to be treated" is, in most cases, the best way to go."
On common sense: Yeah! Thinking and acting in relation to reality! Good guide.
But I disagree on the Golden Rule. It rests on a fine deep premise, but starts failing pretty fast. At root, it means, "Look, just treat people decently - you know more or less how to do that, so do it!" But the Golden Rule then assumes that what I want in my experience of existence is the same as what you want. That's a very non-Thelemic world-view. It denies that we are fundamentally different universes (albeit intersecting and ultimately united). It denies that we exist to serve as differing points of view. A closer phrasing (and one often proclaimed as The Platinum Rule) is "Do unto others as they would like to be done unto." Use their universe as the guide for "good" treatment of them.
BTW - putting on my site administrator's hat - thanks for jumping right in and sharing, as you have.
-
Jim wrote: But the Golden Rule then assumes that what I want in my experience of existence is the same as what you want.
A really good (and sad) example of this is an American humanitarian effort some decades ago that was attempting to relieve famine in some part of Africa (was it Ethiopia? unfortunately there are a lot of areas in Africa that have suffered from famine) by air-dropping powdered milk. Not realizing that most Africans, like most Asians and some Mediterraneans, can't digest milk once they're adult...
-
93 Jim,
"I think this is two narrow a view, even though things look like this a great deal of the time. But the one who "loses" at the one job often will find that life (meaning, their much deeper guiding self) has other things in mind, and that getting that job would have been the real loss. And there are dozens of other variations on this that come to mind - the main point is that "win" and "lose" are rarely that simple, and that Win-Lose thinking is quite Old Aeon (Osirian / egoic / linear)."
Yes, of course it's not that simple, nor am I implying that the win=lose equation is universal and univocal. Basically mi idea is that existence in itself is struggle (not in a violent way, violence is one of it's products), by that I mean, first, the every action produces effects on some scale and through some medium, that affects nearly everyone (in some level or degree, by that I mean, there is no link between you sneezing and someone getting AIDS). Using water for instance, since water is a finite resorce, just by brushing your teeth your influencing the market in such a manner that you spend a resource, and therefore the price must go up.
This is particullarly clear through "culture" and the use of oil (makes for good explanation). Since "culture" is every human product, from toothpaste to the greates paintings, they are all culture, if you sneeze and put the kleenex in the trash can your making culture and an impact that can reflect in someone else's world. "Struggle" is fancy word for "we're all in this mess we call "earth" together, everything we do has an impact on other people".
If I get a job someone else won't, I'm not saying that such a person is, somehow doomed to misery and demise, maybe that same day, precisely because he doesn't get the job, ends up in a bar and meets his future wife and lives happy ever after. We don't know that, what we know is that this guy didn't get the job, doesn't make him a "loser" or a reject, nor should he be embarrased (not getting a job happens all the time to a lot of people).
So if we ask "who won the job" we know who did and who did not, in spanish (I'm mexican, so I translate each word, sometimes creating confussion, as it is this case) one says "gané el trabajo", here "gané" means "I won", we use, nearly for everything that implies achieving anything, from a prize to a cold, it's like "earning", only in english you have "to earn" and sepparately "to win", with different connotations.
" After all, the core premise of Thelema is that every man and every woman is a star, each has its own space and way in our highly interacting and infinitely complex and spacious universe,"
Each man is a star, the society (and finally the world) would be like a galaxy, unfortunately most people don't follow their orbits, so more often than not we find an obstacle, but if we are truly in our orbits, following our tru will, such an obstacle will be overcome. Now, such "obstacle" can mean a person, a man's ambitions in life (getting the job so he can have a nice house, or put his dear brother through re-hab or other sad stories), sure he is wrong to assume that getting tha job is really his will (or even that he has a tru will), but he doesn't know it and, many times, we don't know him. So, conflict arises, and who continues in it's true path? He who follows his True Will, which is the same as saying, the stronger, the law of the jungle is the joy of the world! (or something like that, can't remember the exact verse
).""Ambition" comes from the same root as "ambulence" or "ambulate." It means "to get somewhere." It's neither good nor bad per se, but the moral judgment we'd give to it in Thelema depends on whether the "going" is in one's own way or away from one's own way."
Yes, but suppose it is your True Will to get the job at the bank, I don't know why or how, it just is. Suppose that you're not alone in wanting that job, you'll overcome, and such "overcoming" is the practical ground of the natural law "the fittest survive, or endure, or overcomes". It's not that it is a "good" thing that you get the job and the others don't, nor is it bad, it's simply a fact, you were following your True Will, they weren't, you were fit and they were not.
"
"Weakness it's the only enemy, by "weakness" I mean a lack of selfcontrol"Agreed. I've phrased it differently - I once wrote, "What we call evil is but incontinence." I meant the same thing that it appears you mean here."
"Incontinence", that's a good word, I'll keep it!
"BTW, I appreciate your nonviolent approach to struggle."
Violence is a waste of energy, in most cases you can get the same results in a different way, while not compromising your physical health (or future, as in going to jail) and, surely, in a more efficient manner.
"
"An ethics based on "must" or "moral obligation" or "intrinsic value" is impossible to conduct, fictional and insane."Ah, but don't we do the same? We are bold to state that one must do one's True Will! That's a very firm moral obligation in Thelema. And, while carrying it out is more freeing and authentic than any moral code in human history (or, at least we believe, or at least hold, that it is), it's still a strict moral code for the Thelemite."
I'm not denying the existence of morals, rather than taking away, from morals (at least in it's phylosophical perspective) all platonic traces, that's why Thelema, while being, or containing some moral system, or at least accepting the existence of morals, it does not depend on "virtues" of intrinsic value, even when we might say "self-control is a virtue" this does not mean that such law can, or must be, placed as a metaphysical truth that no one can deny and all must obey, rather it is a way of saying "I want this, an efficient way of getting there is by self-control", is a bit more pragmatic.
The difference between one set of morals, say christian morals, and Thelema, is that Thelema is "Do what thou wilt", it's not "Do what I wilt", by that I mean that the values that you accept, make yours and rule your life by, are not dictated by some metaphysical conception of the world as if there was just one star (one sun that has the only possible perspective), they are dictated by your own will. Also, modern and contemporary philosophy agree on the simple fact that metaphysics, and for that matter, any rational system of saying what the world is, is at it's core, an interpretation from a point of view, this is the phylosophical way of saying "every man and every woman is a star". In fact Heidegger might just proof why "Do your will" is not a moral statement, but that's another topic altogether.
[quote]Commiting crimes is dangerous because you expose yourself to being thrown to jail, or having a criminal record that could, in the future, be an obstacle for doing your will.[/quote] Agreed. Also, commiting crimes is a bad idea because it reinforces a false division or dualism between yourself and another, and denies the underlying truth that there is no separation between us. In most cases, it also reinforces a view of weakness about oneself. (In writing this, I'm assuming the definition of "crime" isn't going to be a stumbling block to discussing it in the abstract, and, for sake of argument, that we likely could attain general agreement on what is "crime.")``` Crime is breaking the laws of your city or country, I think we can agree on that. There's something interesting here, you say "there is no separation between us", do you mean that everybody is equal? Now, don't take me wrong, I'm not going to invade Polland or deny humanity, but not to people are equal, some are closer to their True Will, some are way off and miserable, each man and each woman is a star is true, but that doesn't mean they know it! The slaves shall serve, there is no equality, yes we are all human, but some are more free than others, some are closer to their orbits than others, therefore some will be more miserable than others, some will fail in grasping even the smallest thing they ambitioned (falsely believing it to be their will), some won't. >"But I disagree on the Golden Rule. It rests on a fine *deep* premise, but starts failing pretty fast. At root, it means, "Look, just treat people decently - you know more or less how to do that, so do it!" But the Golden Rule then assumes that what I want in my experience of existence is the same as what you want. That's a very non-Thelemic world-view. It denies that we are fundamentally different universes (albeit intersecting and ultimately united). It denies that we exist to serve as differing points of view. A closer phrasing (and one often proclaimed as The Platinum Rule) is "Do unto others as they would like to be done unto." Use *their* universe as the guide for "good" treatment of them." Yes, I agree, the Platinum Rule is way more closer to the truth, and more thelemic. >"BTW - putting on my site administrator's hat - thanks for jumping right in and sharing, as you have." Thanks for the patience! and for this great forum, hope to learn a lot! 93 93/93 -
@asclepi said
"There's something interesting here, you say "there is no separation between us", do you mean that everybody is equal?"
No, I mean everyone is a single organism, a single living thing.
-
93
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@asclepi said
"There's something interesting here, you say "there is no separation between us", do you mean that everybody is equal?"No, I mean everyone is a single organism, a single living thing."
Oh, my mistake, sorry
I guess what you said about words (in the Thelema and Islam discussion) it's true yet again!93 93/93