Tribulations of conversion?
-
93 TripleFlower,
" You have to uphold the values you know are right, you have to walk the path and not slide into the numbing easy-mode of the everyday life of the usual. Not give in to expectations of others and your culture just because they will be happy when you do it. "
That's true and I've suffered from it, I already study philosophy, try and be "normal" (what mexican tv tells you should be) when you're struggling between philosophical questions and a crooked love life, it's not easy, specially because everyone here is very, and I repeat, VERY catholic, so upholding my beliefs in my family, in my college, and with my friends has earned me the nick name of "the beast" or "the antichrist". I'm not complaining the love of Nuit is worth it, even though some times it's painful being different, walking away from trhe mass and the "easy-mode" like you say, but in the end it has it's rewards.
" It is an intellectual struggle, not a gross struggle, like being tossed in a den of lions. I think Atu 12 is a really good representation of this principle "walk in all ways contrary to the world" you have to start meditating and thinking, not just flow with the mass mind. This is the struggle of the Thelemite."
Like I said it's not easy, but it's rewarding, for instance I stopped all my magickal working since friday and felt I was lost, like walking aimlessly as I tried to "sincronize" myself with my friends and colleagues, but yesterday, in the peak of my depression, I performed a small ritual and meditation and Blam! a giant piece of the puzzle just came to me, a huge part of my life that had me wondering and struggling inside, trowing me to the pits of depression, was resolved. Then I realized it may not be easy, but it's worth it.
-
Good for you asclepio! Let's hope you make it. I also have a lot of experiences with breaking with the herd. It felt like that was mainly was my life was about: to be able to do it.
The reason I answered this thread is that I today came to an insight myself that might be beneficial to you, though probably not in a direct sense from what you describe.
I reformulated the question of The Quest (my true Will) to maybe be that I have a love for humans, but can't seem to cope with them, so maybe it is plain life I love, and maybe it would be beneficial to see it as though humanity is (a bit) depraved in enough issues I am really only hurting them if I grant their requests and help them let the flaws remain.
For me it's important to listen into myself to find out what each new situation demands from me. I also started seeing the Macroprosopus/Microprosopus connection in a new way some time ago, which added some comfort to this dilemma: if something goes wrong according to me, that means a part of me isn't working properly in the direction the error occurred, not - from my p o v, so not in a meaningful sense to me - that someone else has failed.
The end result is that no one can save the entire world, so as long as my intentions are concidered good in my book, I have no regrets.Don't know if this was helpful, but let's hope it was.
-
I appear to have had a very different experience with Thelema. Liber L looked like old-school Social Darwinism and fascism to me the first time I read it. I wanted nothing to do with it. I thought it did and still do think it conflicts substantially with contemporary Western values. I found nothing obvious about Thelema, except for a vague sense of tolerance for individual expression.
I experienced a substantial collapse of my belief system as part of a series of initiations (not in a Thelemic context). It was only then that I could seriously reevaluate Thelema and begin to come to terms with those elements of its philosophy that conflict with dominant values. I continue to struggle with this. Thelema has forced me to completely reevaluate my own values and how I operate in the world.
I suspect that if Thelema seems easy and obvious then we're not taking it seriously. Or maybe we're just looking at the superficial level of it. If everything's just fine as it is now, then why bother with Thelema at all. It adds nothing to the world.
Elements of Thelemic philosophy that conflict with dominant values (at least as I see it through my new and limited understanding):
- A division between kings and slaves - antithetical to egalitarianism and equality.
- Rejection of self-sacrifice and the valorization of suffering.
- Radical individualism opposed to collectivism or even a half-hearted and conflicted Western individualism.
- Aristocracy
Reading Nietzsche helped me to re-orient myself in my understanding Thelema. There are definite differences between Thelema and Nietzsche, but Nietzsche made some of the same critiques of the West and Christianity that Thelema made.
-
jmiller,
"1. A division between kings and slaves - antithetical to egalitarianism and equality.
- Rejection of self-sacrifice and the valorization of suffering.
- Radical individualism opposed to collectivism or even a half-hearted and conflicted Western individualism.
- Aristocracy "
You're very right, Western modern culture, even in it's most liberal fashion has conflicts with thelema, not because of it's moral standards regarding individual choices and such, but because it is strongly aristocratic, just like Nietzsche.
I was raised like an aristocrat to believe that there were inferiors and superiors, so that never quite bothered me at all, I struggled in my life to see such division in people, so I was a strong nazi for a while, in the typical age of young rebelion, at 16 or 17, but then my ideals where broken down and I had problems distinguishing the king from the servant until I embraced thelema.
That doesn't mean it's easy in "every-day-life" it's very difficult going to college and trying to be nice even to the ones I really don't like, but at the same time knowing they're slaves. I guess the biggest issue is keeping my mouth shot and not saying what I truly believe, each time I say what's on my mind there is chaos, confusion and rejection, and as amusing as that is to me it certainly doesn't help me acheive my goals.
"Reading Nietzsche helped me to re-orient myself in my understanding Thelema. There are definite differences between Thelema and Nietzsche, but Nietzsche made some of the same critiques of the West and Christianity that Thelema made."
In regards with morals Nietzsche is very close to Thelema, in regards to ontology or profound "world-view" Heidegger is very thelemic, his whole idea of Dasein and how he interprets instead of "knowing" is very close to Crowley's ideas of every man and woman being a star and having different points of view.
-
@asclepi said
" That doesn't mean it's easy in "every-day-life" it's very difficult going to college and trying to be nice even to the ones I really don't like, but at the same time knowing they're slaves."
I don't even begin to try to distinguish between kings and slaves. I still have a long way to go to disentangle myself from my own slavery. For now, I just mind my own business, do the best I can, and keep engaging in the most honest self-analysis I can.
-
@evolver said
"I was a big fan of Nietzsche long before i ever knew anything more of A.C. than Ozzy wrote a song about him and Jimmy Page bought his house.
this goes a long way to explaining why your above list is very natural to me. "That makes sense.
-
Asclepio wrote:
"That doesn't mean it's easy in "every-day-life" it's very difficult going to college and trying to be nice even to the ones I really don't like, but at the same time knowing they're slaves. I guess the biggest issue is keeping my mouth shot and not saying what I truly believe, each time I say what's on my mind there is chaos, confusion and rejection, and as amusing as that is to me it certainly doesn't help me acheive my goals.
"There are, I believe, more levels to this one than there seem to be. Each of us has a set of 'slaves' within, in that we have compulsive patterns, self-limiting behaviors and other nice specimens from the zoo of karma-formations. The aim to act as King is fine and necessary, but it carries with it the need to accept the apparent slaves. The division is one of labor and tasks.
Remember, Liber AL says the slaves shall serve (future tense) - that is, they will become servants as they evolve. The King's job is administer (guide, assist, or at least be patient) as they do this.
The slaves are mirroring the various slaveries we carry within ourselves, and once we come close to accepting what we are shown in the mirror, our patience with them at least levels out, even if we do not find it useful to spend time with them by conscious choice.
Edward
-
@jmiller said
"Elements of Thelemic philosophy that conflict with dominant values (at least as I see it through my new and limited understanding):
- A division between kings and slaves - antithetical to egalitarianism and equality."
Hey, nowhere does it say a slave must remain a slave forever.
I see a lot of "equality of opportunity" in Thelema. Any star can shine if it has the will to shine."2. Rejection of self-sacrifice and the valorization of suffering."
Is suffering really so highly valued today, in 2006, in the Western world? Sure, there are always going to be people who like to trot out their aches and pains for all to see, but suffering "ensconsed" in the wider society like it was in the Middle Ages? I don't know if I see it. It was there, of course, in Crowley's and Nietzsche's time, and it informed Liber Legis in no small number of ways. But in large swaths of society today (I like to believe...) it seems to be fading.
"3. Radical individualism opposed to collectivism or even a half-hearted and conflicted Western individualism."
Okay. But one person's "half-hearted and conflicted" is another's "delicate balance between the loony left and the loony right!
"4. Aristocracy"
Hmm, if you put aside the kings/slaves issue from item 1 above, I don't know if I see a lot of aristocracy in Thelema itself. Crowley, certainly, had it in his blood, and organizations like the OTO have an aristocratic bedrock that is silly to try to change. I guess I could envision a good Thelemic organization that is right in line with items 1-3 above, but not particularly aristocratic.
"Reading Nietzsche helped me to re-orient myself in my understanding Thelema. There are definite differences between Thelema and Nietzsche, but Nietzsche made some of the same critiques of the West and Christianity that Thelema made."
If you haven't listened to Keith418's lecture on Nietzsche and Thelema from an early Thelema Coast to Coast podcast, I recommend it. He was trying to avoid pissing off his audience, but I wouldn't have minded if he went further with some of his ideas...!
Steve
-
@Steven Cranmer said
"Hey, nowhere does it say a slave must remain a slave forever.
I see a lot of "equality of opportunity" in Thelema. Any star can shine if it has the will to shine."Of course. In fact, I think Crowley hoped to elevate the majority of people to kinghood through the spread of Thelema. But this isn't the same sort of "I'm okay, you're okay just as we are right now" equality that we often gets expressed today. It also isn't an equality before the law sort of equality. It's a potential for superman transcendence of dominant morality and law. Perhaps we're equal at the level of stars, but Liber L seems to describe things this way at the level of the ego-selves.
@Steven Cranmer said
"
Is suffering really so highly valued today, in 2006, in the Western world?"Abosultely, particuarly when we think of it in the context of sacrifice. What happens when you critize our occupation of Iraq? Someone says you're insulting the "troops". Supporters of the war and soldiers themselves will use their own suffering and sacrifice as a means of forcing others to subordinate their own wills to those of the soldiers or president. Their suffering trumps your own reason and judgement. We do the same with police. Their supposed sacrifice makes them largely exempt from responsibility for their actions, like murdering someone, at least among the middle class. I wasn't supposed to oppose the invasion of Afghanistan or the decline of civil liberties because the suffering of people in New York and DC trumped my judgement and will. I was, instead, to just fall in line behind Bush and militarist Democrats and Republicans who supported him without reservation or question. I see all of this political dynamic as grounded in Christian valorization of suffering based on the example of the sacrifice of Jesus and his Sermon on the Mount.
@Steven Cranmer said
"Hmm, if you put aside the kings/slaves issue from item 1 above, I don't know if I see a lot of aristocracy in Thelema itself."
I don't see that aristocracy in the traditional sense of having an elite group of rulers chosen by birth. I don't claim to really understand it, except that Thelema seems to demand a space in which genius can emerge and act freely.
-
@jmiller said
"I don't see that aristocracy in the traditional sense of having an elite group of rulers chosen by birth. I don't claim to really understand it, except that Thelema seems to demand a space in which genius can emerge and act freely."
I would affirm flatly that Thelema is a philosophy of spiritual aristocracy â not for the goal of exclusive elitism, but rather with the inclusive aim of lifting all to a higher state. It says that our right companions are the keen and the proud, the royal and the lofty.
Liber L. uses "king" as its technical term for "adept," thereby affirming inherent royalty that actually can be attained by all.
It promises that even the slaves shall serve - that is, that slaves shall become servants. (Kings are most definitely included in those servants.) The chief difference between a slave and a servant is not in what they do, but whether or not they do it at choice, and in conformity with will.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"It says that our right companions are the keen and the proud, the royal and the lofty."
This is something that has puzzled me for a while. How are these qualities of the ideal Thelemite different from plain egotism? Isn't pride supposed to be anathema to the Great Work? I'm sure that Crowley mentions something about pride being poisonous and no use at all, but I can't remember where I read it.
It may have been in Magick Without Tears. -
@Her said
"This is something that has puzzled me for a while. How are these qualities of the ideal Thelemite different from plain egotism? Isn't pride supposed to be anathema to the Great Work?"
False pride certainly is.
But true pride isn't really any different than humility, i.e., it represents a honest assessment.
-
@jmiller said
"
@Steven Cranmer said
"Is suffering really so highly valued today, in 2006, in the Western world?"Abosultely, particuarly when we think of it in the context of sacrifice. What happens when you critize our occupation of Iraq? Someone says you're insulting the "troops". Supporters of the war and soldiers themselves will use their own suffering and sacrifice as a means of forcing others to subordinate their own wills to those of the soldiers or president."
While I'm sure that this does happen, it feels "off-topic" as far as the specifically religious aspects of suffering that the New Aeon (to me) appears to specifically eliminate or supercede. The whole power trip about the world being a vale of tears that we must suffer through because Jesus suffered for us. I don't really see that as a motivating factor for the majority of soldiers or police for choosing those professions. (At least not a conscious motivating factor...)
About aristocracy...
@Jim Eshelman said
"I would affirm flatly that Thelema is a philosophy of spiritual aristocracy â not for the goal of exclusive elitism, but rather with the inclusive aim of lifting all to a higher state."
I haven't had the chance to break out my dictionary, but "aristocracy" isn't the first word that comes to mind for the goal of "lifting all" to a world of experience and understanding that everyone has the **potential **to attain.
Otherwise, I agree with just about all of the prior discussion on this. I keep getting blown away by the high level of "grown up" Thelemic talk in this forum.
Steve
-
@Steven Cranmer said
"
While I'm sure that this does happen, it feels "off-topic" as far as the specifically religious aspects of suffering that the New Aeon (to me) appears to specifically eliminate or supercede."Ayn Rand does a great job of describing the dynamic of sacrifice in this sort of context (perhaps the only thing she does well) - as opposed to the world as inherent suffering sort of context. It's a primary theme of Atlas Shrugged. It was through this novel that I really began to understand how people make claims upon one another and demand sacrifice or use sacrifice to make those claims on one another. It doesn't operate on the cosmic scale that you see as primary to Liber L, but it's probably more real in our daily lives.