HGA
-
@Her said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"I have no reason to believe this was his general view at all. The Law is for all."Really? Crowley's commentaries on the Book of the Law positively reek of Social Darwinism.
"I made that statement for a couple of reasons.
First, I don't read his (matured) underlying position as ever being different from standing for each being doing its Will - actualized and fulfilled.
Second, in much that he wrote (especially during the '20s), there is a tendency to rhetoric bordering on the ingenuous. He was always willing to make a point for the sake of impact. For example, what looks like, "Kick the bums when they're down" (which plays better for impact), is more of, "Let the chips fall where they may." (Actually, that's real social Darwinism.)
Nothing in that suggests to me that his actual general view was a two-tier master-slave class.
-
@zeph said
""Nor is it fitting for the cobbler to prate of the Royal matter. O cobbler! mend me this shoe, that I may walk. O king! if I be thy son, let us speak of the Embassy to the King thy Brother. - <i>Liber LXV</i>, I:11"
I thought that was merely a warning against confusing the planes?
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"Nothing in that suggests to me that his actual general view was a two-tier master-slave class."
"The Book announces a new dichotomy in human society; there is the master and there is the slave; the noble and the serf; the "lone wolf" and the herd. ~ Magick Without Tears"
Elsewhere in MWT Crowley says to hell altruism. But isn't this the great failure of Social Darwinism? Altruistic behaviours are exhibted by many species of animals besides man. Therefore altruism is a part of nature and the natual order. How does ignoring aspects of nature square with the Law of Thelema? As far as I can see it would run completely counter to it.
-
I'm not speaking of altruism at all. I agree that he pretty much always spoke out against that.
I'm speaking of social efficiency. The only fuly efficient society in the new time is one in which all beings are awakened to their True Will and doing it. If their role is to serve (and, ultimately, all roles are to serve), then that's the function.
-
@zeph said
""Nor is it fitting for the cobbler to prate of the Royal matter. O cobbler! mend me this shoe, that I may walk. O king! if I be thy son, let us speak of the Embassy to the King thy Brother. - <i>Liber LXV</i>, I:11"
There is also this:
"Be not as the As$ in the Lion's Skin; but if thou be born As$, bear patiently thy Burdens, and enjoy thy Thistles; for an As$ also, as in the Fables of Apuleius and Matthias, may come to Glory in the Path of his own Virtue. - Liber Aleph, zeta, DE NATURA SUA PERCIPIENDA"
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"I'm not speaking of altruism at all. I agree that he pretty much always spoke out against that."
But the fact that 20 years later in the 1940's Crowley was still ranting against altruism is proof that his hardcore Social Darwinistic ideas were still very much alive and kicking. Antipathy towards altruism is the main downfall of Social Darwinism and the reason for it being such a discredited and incorrect interpretation of Darwin's theory.
But here's the big question. If the long discredited theory of Social Darwinism forms part of Crowley's idea for Thelema, what does that say about Thelema? It's kind of like having a theory of the universe that includes the "flat earth" model at it's centre.
Crowley's ranting against altruism is a case of the "pot calling the kettle black". We all know that Crowley was a financial and social parasite who sponged his way through life. For much of his life he was dependent on the altruism and good will of others to open their wallets to keep him afloat. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you!
-
@Her said
"But here's the big question. If the long discredited theory of Social Darwinism forms part of Crowley's idea for Thelema, what does that say about Thelema?"
I don't think one should confuse Crowley's idea for Thelema with... Thelema. He isn't it's source. He's only the most intimate witness to its communication.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"I don't think one should confuse Crowley's idea for Thelema with... Thelema. He isn't it's source. He's only the most intimate witness to its communication."
I'm reminded of a couple of lines from chp.56 of The Book of Lies:
"So wrote not FRATER PERDURABO, but the Imp Crowley in his Name.
And yet who knoweth which is Crowley, and which is FRATER PERDURABO?"
-
93
Heru wrote
"forms part of Crowley's idea for Thelema, what does that say about Thelema? It's kind of like having a theory of the universe that includes the "flat earth" model at it's centre. "
Jim wrote
"I don't think one should confuse Crowley's idea for Thelema with... Thelema. He isn't it's source. He's only the most intimate witness to its communication."
Thelema is not a theory. It is Law.
93, 93/93