Conflict
-
To my understanding, one of the main tenants of the most "common" view of Thelema is that one should strive to follow one's True Will, and that two Wills will never come into conflict. When I first heard this concept, it was in relation to "every man and every woman is a star," and explained that just as it was believed that two stars would never collide in Crowley's time, two Wills would never collide.
We have since discovered that, as part of the natural order, stars do collide and destroy one another.
So, here comes the barrage of questions: Can two True Wills come into conflict? Is it possible that, to take an extreme example, the True Will of one man could lead him to be a serial killer? What is the basis in Liber a vel Legis for the belief that Wills will not conflict?
To me it seems perfectly sensible that True Wills would come into conflict; harmony in the universe exists through conflict and balance. Wolves kill and eat rabbits. If they eat too many, the population dips lower and the food supply becomes scarce. Wolves dies, and the rabbit population regrows. If the wolves can't get enough, the rabbits become plentiful, providing food. Even though it is played out in conflict, this is the ultimate expression of balance and fluid harmony. In the same way, waring tribes are, on a purely objective (and thus inhuman) level are just as harmonious as a hippy drum circle.
I'm still pretty early in my development under and understanding of Thelema, so I'd like to hear other people's perspectives on this. If anyone has answers to any of the above questions or random comments, that would be the height of awesomesauce.
-
@Wilder said
"Can two True Wills come into conflict?"
To give a doctrinal answer: It is fundamental to the root definitions in Thelema that this could not be. (Wants are in conflict all the time, choices can even be in conflict, but not wills.)
To give a personal answer: It is my belief, and conforms to every intuition, that it could not be.
To give an empirical answer: We know that stars can appear in conflict with each other. There is no reason to presume that this is not, in fact, an actualization of their natures or the enactment of a part of their journeys. (The usual arguments - tests of strength, challenging oneself, play, the value of friction in some phenomena of nature and science, etc.).
You ask a fair question, but the best I can do is take a few minutes to toss off some quick remarks and see where it goes. So, here goes...
"Is it possible that, to take an extreme example, the True Will of one man could lead him to be a serial killer?"
It isn't anyone's True Will to be pathological. That's a shortfall, a sickness, a weakness from an earlier stage of maturity.
"What is the basis in Liber a vel Legis for the belief that Wills will not conflict?"
For the most part, it arises out of an understanding of what the root principles mean. (Elaborating that would probably be an hour or two's work.) The universe is an omnipresent "continuity of existence" (CCXX 1:26).
A few other passages seem to speak to this idea. To pick a trim sampling:
CCXX 1:42-43: "...So with thy all; thou hast no right but to do thy will. Do that, and no other shall say nay." Shall declares a certainty. In the doing of the True Will, one is undeniable. If all were doing True Will, none would be deniable by any other in the whole universe. All such executions would necessarily coexist.
CCXX 2:6: "I am the flame that burns in every heart of man, and in the core of every star." Note the flame - a single flame that burns in every human heart. Are we to presume that it is schizophrenic? No, if we are to apply any parsimony at all to our thinking, we must recognize the single (non-dimensional) impulse, sounding at once and forever within every living thing, as self-consistent.
CCXX 2:59-60: "...If he be a King, thou canst not hurt him. Therefore strike hard & low, and to hell with them, master!" For me, the most interesting word here is Therefore. According to the Book, it is specifically because "thou canst not hurt him" that one is licensed to strike. There is no actual harm - which must be understood, I think, to include no possible interference with the other's Will (since that, alone, would be great harm).
"Wolves kill and eat rabbits."
Wolves and rabbits are part of the same food chain, specific examples of the larger framework of life sustaining itself on this particular planet. I don't regard that as conflict, but as each being true to itself. (And yes, I've been in the rabbit's place before
)"If they eat too many, the population dips lower and the food supply becomes scarce. Wolves dies, and the rabbit population regrows. If the wolves can't get enough, the rabbits become plentiful, providing food."
I think you're arguing against your own point. You're showing the innately collaborative system at work.
"Even though it is played out in conflict, this is the ultimate expression of balance and fluid harmony."
Exactly. So the actions may be (say) combative, but the Wills are in alignment. There is no actual conflict.
-
Thanks for the response. I've been pondering a bunch of questions like this, so it's nice to be able to talk through points with other Thelemites as the people I normally discuss religion/ philosophy with don't really know much about Thelema.
"To give an empirical answer: We know that stars can appear in conflict with each other. There is no reason to presume that this is not, in fact, an actualization of their natures or the enactment of a part of their journeys. (The usual arguments - tests of strength, challenging oneself, play, the value of friction in some phenomena of nature and science, etc.). "
This seems like a false dichotomy of conflict and nature that presumes the "actualization of their natures" cannot also be conflict.
"It isn't anyone's True Will to be pathological. That's a shortfall, a sickness, a weakness from an earlier stage of maturity. "
Why? Would someone with antisocial personality disorder be unable to manifest a True Will then?
"Wolves and rabbits are part of the same food chain, specific examples of the larger framework of life sustaining itself on this particular planet. I don't regard that as conflict, but as each being true to itself. (And yes, I've been in the rabbit's place before Wink ) "
This seems like you're just re-defining conflict and returning to the false dichotomy of nature and conflict. I think that a wolf chasing down a terrified rabbit, grabbing it with its fangs, and vigerously shaking it to bits as it tries to escape is a pretty good example of conflict, and I think that this conflict between predator/ prey is innate to the nature of each.
"I think you're arguing against your own point. You're showing the innately collaborative system at work. "
That is my point - harmony and balance is achieved through conflict.
"Exactly. So the actions may be (say) combative, but the Wills are in alignment. There is no actual conflict."
If I beat you to death I would argue that we are in conflict. If two men are stranded in the desert with enough water for one, but not two to make it back I would argue that their Wills would most probably lead them into direct conflict with one another. The world is innately a place of conflict, because through that conflict comes balance and thus harmony.
-
I'm not going to get contentious with you on it. (That would, by definition, be a digression from True Will.
) So, after a few remarks below, I'll bow out if you're going to try to turn this into an argument. (You asked a question, you defined the parameters of the answer, so I answered within your parameters - which is not at all how I would have approached the question otherwise.)@Wilder said
"This seems like a false dichotomy of conflict and nature that presumes the "actualization of their natures" cannot also be conflict."
Possibly there is a semantics issue here - a matter of how True Will is defined. It being that which the universe requires and necessitates, there can be no way that the universe would have one necessary requirement which necessarily cancels or interferes with another necessary requirement. If they don't cancel or otherwise interfere with each other, there is no actual conflict.
"
"It isn't anyone's True Will to be pathological. That's a shortfall, a sickness, a weakness from an earlier stage of maturity. "Why? Would someone with antisocial personality disorder be unable to manifest a True Will then?"
That's not what I said, and you picked a relatively mild form of psycho-pathology; but, to address the idea more than the particulars, in most cases I think you are be correct and there would be no complete fulfillment of True Will until the pathology was cleared. The vehicle is damaged and, at best, it's much harder to drive it. In some cases the pathology wouldn't be sufficient to impede the Will.
What I actually said is that it isn't anyone's True Will to be pathological. True Will is, itself, a condition of health.
"
"Wolves and rabbits are part of the same food chain, specific examples of the larger framework of life sustaining itself on this particular planet. I don't regard that as conflict, but as each being true to itself. (And yes, I've been in the rabbit's place before Wink ) "This seems like you're just re-defining conflict and returning to the false dichotomy of nature and conflict."
I'm defining conflict - in this conversation about whether two genuine expressions of True Will can conflict - to mean that state in which the authentic expression of True Will by one beings halts, impedes, or otherwise actually interferes with the expression of True Will by another. If it doesn't actualy interfere, then there may be battle or friction (etc.) but there is no rea conflict.
If this isn't what you're talking about, then my responses obviously wouldn't apply. Please ignore them.
"I think that a wolf chasing down a terrified rabbit, grabbing it with its fangs, and vigerously shaking it to bits as it tries to escape is a pretty good example of conflict, and I think that this conflict between predator/ prey is innate to the nature of each."
I disagree that it is confict as I've defined it above. (It is confict in the casual sense of the word, but I fail to see what the casual meaning might have to do with this conversation.)
"
"I think you're arguing against your own point. You're showing the innately collaborative system at work. "That is my point - harmony and balance is achieved through conflict. "
Then there is probaby a semantics issue here. If it results in harmony and balance, then there is no conflict. (There may be battle, friction, disagreement, etc., but neither actually conflicts with, i.e., is inherently incompatible with, the other.)
I wonder if you're talking about means more than end?
"
"Exactly. So the actions may be (say) combative, but the Wills are in alignment. There is no actual conflict."If I beat you to death I would argue that we are in conflict."
I would agree unless my True Will necessitated that I die at that point in time, in which case you are merely helping me fulfill it.
But I think you've wondered off course. This discussion was about conflict in True Will, wasn't it? If you beat me to death and my True Will did not necessitate my death at that paint, then I've merely failed. I wasn't strong enough, or made other error. It's part of my education and would have to make another try at actually fulfilling True Will.
"If two men are stranded in the desert with enough water for one, but not two to make it back I would argue that their Wills would most probably lead them into direct conflict with one another."
Sure, but would their True Wills be in conflict? That's the question I thought we were discussing, and it's not at all the same question.
"The world is innately a place of conflict, because through that conflict comes balance and thus harmony."
Sure, the world has conflictual situations. That's the continuous trial-and-error process. What does that have to do with True Wills being in conflict, i.e., inherently incompatible with each other?
-
"I'm not going to get contentious with you on it. (That would, by definition, be a digression from True Will. Laughing ) So, after a few remarks below, I'll bow out if you're going to try to turn this into an argument."
I'm not trying to turn this into an argument, just to figure out a question that I have. I'm still in the process of establishing a solid Thelemic foundation, and there are a lot of matters that I'm still unsure of and contemplating. When I disagree with something you say it's not because I'm trying to prove you wrong or shoot down your point, but because these are the thoughts that I'm having and I'm hoping that you can show me more of your side that so I can understand it and decide for myself where I stand. Still, if you want to bow out that's entirely your choice. Thanks for you time anyway.
"(You asked a question, you defined the parameters of the answer, so I answered within your parameters - which is not at all how I would have approached the question otherwise.) "
What are you refering to with this?
"Possibly there is a semantics issue here - a matter of how True Will is defined. It being that which the universe requires and necessitates, there can be no way that the universe would have one necessary requirement which necessarily cancels or interferes with another necessary requirement. If they don't cancel or otherwise interfere with each other, there is no actual conflict. "
Maybe I'm just having trouble penetrating your syntax, but this doesn't really make much sense to me. What are these neccessary requirements that you speak of?
"That's not what I said"
Sorry if I implied that I thought it was; it was of a follow-up question that was spawned from your original statement, not an attack on it.
"I think you are be correct and there would be no complete fulfillment of True Will until the pathology was cleared. The vehicle is damaged and, at best, it's much harder to drive it. In some cases the pathology wouldn't be sufficient to impede the Will. "
This is why my question came into play (not because I misconstrued what you said) - something like anti-social personality disorder isn't generally "cured," and has massive biological factors as well as early formative enviornmental factors, meaning that some people will develope the pathology with no control over this and be unable to access their True Will.
"What I actually said is that it isn't anyone's True Will to be pathological."
I understand. My response to that was "why," and a follow up question on a related side-topic. Why is it that one's True Will cannot fall under what would be classified as mental illness?
"I'm defining conflict - in this conversation about whether two genuine expressions of True Will can conflict - to mean that state in which the authentic expression of True Will by one beings halts, impedes, or otherwise actually interferes with the expression of True Will by another. If it doesn't actualy interfere, then there may be battle or friction (etc.) but there is no rea conflict. "
Killing someone would be halting the expression of their True Will, right? If so, we're on the same page.
"
I disagree that it is confict as I've defined it above. (It is confict in the casual sense of the word, but I fail to see what the casual meaning might have to do with this conversation.) "I think the key to our conversation lies here. Why is this? The way I'm looking at it, the rabbit's Will is halted to be devoured. On the other hand, if you take a step back you could argue that it is the rabbit's True Will to be eaten, because that is part of the purpose of rabbits, and all animals - they die to preserve the natural balance of the universe. Is this the point that you've been trying to make? If so, I think that I could easily walk away with the conclusion that individuals can come into direct conflict with one another (in my more common sense of the word with which I originally approached this problem, not your Thelemic understanding of it), but not neccessarily be in a conflict of Wills (your conception of conflict) as this conflict is innate to their nature as humans.
"Then there is probaby a semantics issue here. If it results in harmony and balance, then there is no conflict. (There may be battle, friction, disagreement, etc., but neither actually conflicts with, i.e., is inherently incompatible with, the other.)
I wonder if you're talking about means more than end? "
I think that that's it - I'm using "conflict" in a more common sense where people killing eachother is conflict, even if that killing is part of a larger harmony.
"I would agree unless my True Will necessitated that I die at that point in time, in which case you are merely helping me fulfill it.
But I think you've wondered off course. This discussion was about conflict in True Will, wasn't it? If you beat me to death and my True Will did not necessitate my death at that paint, then I've merely failed. I wasn't strong enough, or made other error. It's part of my education and would have to make another try at actually fulfilling True Will. "
I think this is still back to the semantics - I'm using "conflict" in the sense that would include any fight, even something that is perfectly natural and part of both Wills.
"But I think you've wondered off course. This discussion was about conflict in True Will, wasn't it? If you beat me to death and my True Will did not necessitate my death at that paint, then I've merely failed. I wasn't strong enough, or made other error. It's part of my education and would have to make another try at actually fulfilling True Will. "
I guess what I'm asking with the original question is could my True Will lead me to beat you to death when your True Will is not to die at that point, and if not why?
"Sure, but would their True Wills be in conflict? That's the question I thought we were discussing, and it's not at all the same question. "
If each of their True Wills was to survive, and they both knew that only one could, wouldn't that put them into a conflict where the strongest would be able to follow his True Will and the weakest couldn't?
Could one could argue that the True Wills aren't in conflict (survive and survive, respectively) but the circumstances only allow one of the men to fufill his Will?
What exactly is the distinction you see between my scenario and the original question?
"Sure, the world has conflictual situations. That's the continuous trial-and-error process. What does that have to do with True Wills being in conflict, i.e., inherently incompatible with each other?"
This topic is me trying to get outside input on my understanding of exactly what a True Will is and how it affects the world. One of the points of contention in my mind was the question of conflict, which I see as central to the world. My resolution of the True Wills shall not collide bit and the innate nature of existance was that True Wills can lead people into direct conflict, but that this conflict is, when examined from a much higher level (at which point True Wills can be viewed essentialls as one's "niche" in the universe) part of a natural balance. Thus two tribes can war over a limited resource, where the Wills of all involved is to see their tribe hold the said resource. The Wills are in direct conflict - tribe A and B both want something that only one of them can have, and conflict between humans results, but this is ultimately OK because that is the way of the world. Of course, I'm still far from settled into this point, which is why I came here.
Sorry if I've been so all over the place (and incredibly long-winded) with my responses - my mind has an obscene number of lines of thought running at once, as I'm finally able to discuss topics that have been bouncing around in the peripharies of my mind. Right now I have a lot of half-thoughts and ideas pouring out, which is why I posted this topic - talking out points (what you saw as me trying to start as an argument) is the best way for me to develope and synthesize ideas. If you're up for it I'd love to carry on the conversation, though as I said above I'm cool with you bowing out, too.
-
@Wilder said
"
"(You asked a question, you defined the parameters of the answer, so I answered within your parameters - which is not at all how I would have approached the question otherwise.) "What are you refering to with this?"
You specifially asked IIRC that the answer be derived from The Book of the Law. That's why I extracted quotes as a starting place. If you hadn't made that stipulation, I probably would have ignored Liber L. per se and started by defining terms and talking from principle rather than quoting scripture.
"
"Possibly there is a semantics issue here - a matter of how True Will is defined. It being that which the universe requires and necessitates, there can be no way that the universe would have one necessary requirement which necessarily cancels or interferes with another necessary requirement. If they don't cancel or otherwise interfere with each other, there is no actual conflict. "Maybe I'm just having trouble penetrating your syntax, but this doesn't really make much sense to me. What are these neccessary requirements that you speak of?"
Whatever the universe requires. That's the crux of the whole matter. True Will is the fulfillment of who one inherently is within the context of the whole (the largest context of which one is part). The primal impulses moving through us arise from necessity, i.e., Nuit (to use jargon).
"something like anti-social personality disorder isn't generally "cured," and has massive biological factors as well as early formative enviornmental factors, meaning that some people will develope the pathology with no control over this and be unable to access their True Will."
In this lifetime. But there's always the next lifetime. (Some incarnations exist simply to gain experience and/or to work through such things.)
"
"What I actually said is that it isn't anyone's True Will to be pathological."...,Why is it that one's True Will cannot fall under what would be classified as mental illness?"
Again, that's not what I said. It's possible something could be classified as pathology that, in fact, is health. The mental health profession has many instances of that. - I was careful to only speak of actual pathology (speaking on the principle of the thing, without trying to pin down what that exactly might mean).
"
"I'm defining conflict - in this conversation about whether two genuine expressions of True Will can conflict - to mean that state in which the authentic expression of True Will by one beings halts, impedes, or otherwise actually interferes with the expression of True Will by another. If it doesn't actualy interfere, then there may be battle or friction (etc.) but there is no rea conflict. "Killing someone would be halting the expression of their True Will, right? If so, we're on the same page."
Usually, I think. But not always. Dying might be precisely what a being needs for the next step.
Are you a Harry Potter fan? As a literary example (but with plenty of real life situations to match it), note what happened to Dumbledore at the end of Book 6 and how it became clear, in Book 7, that this was absolutely essential to the fulfillment of both his plan and his real purpose.
"On the other hand, if you take a step back you could argue that it is the rabbit's True Will to be eaten, because that is part of the purpose of rabbits, and all animals - they die to preserve the natural balance of the universe. Is this the point that you've been trying to make?"
Yes, that's a big part of the point I've been trying to make.
"If so, I think that I could easily walk away with the conclusion that individuals can come into direct conflict with one another (in my more common sense of the word with which I originally approached this problem, not your Thelemic understanding of it), but not neccessarily be in a conflict of Wills (your conception of conflict) as this conflict is innate to their nature as humans."
Ahh, clearing up word meanings continues to enhance communication!
Yes, we do seem closer on this that previously seemed to be the case."
"I wonder if you're talking about means more than end? "I think that that's it - I'm using "conflict" in a more common sense where people killing eachother is conflict, even if that killing is part of a larger harmony."
I agree with you that people doing their True Wills can be involved in situations we call "conflict" (disagreement, battle, friction, polarization, whatever). That's often an enormously powerful tool. I would continue to disagree with the proposition that the True Wills themselves could be in conflict.
"If each of their True Wills was to survive, and they both knew that only one could, wouldn't that put them into a conflict where the strongest would be able to follow his True Will and the weakest couldn't?"
I submit that, by definition, it would not be both of their True Wills to survive unless the universe provided the means for them to do so. It might be their heartfelt wish, it might be their passionate choice, but those are personality matters. If the universe doesn't provide the means for both to survive, then it probably is doing some filtering.
"What exactly is the distinction you see between my scenario and the original question?"
I've last track by now. Can you pose an A vs. B, please?
"Thus two tribes can war over a limited resource, where the Wills of all involved is to see their tribe hold the said resource."
Surely their wills (mortal, personality-level decisions), but not their Wills (immortal identity-path). In fact, in this case, the real purpose of the universe (precipitated to the human species level) is likely to determine which DNA chains survive in order to build an overall more effective human vehicle for incarnation.
"talking out points (what you saw as me trying to start as an argument) is the best way for me to develope and synthesize ideas."
I think this has been an excellent example of the value of conflict - in the casual sense of the word - to overcome division
-
"You specifially asked IIRC that the answer be derived from The Book of the Law. That's why I extracted quotes as a starting place. If you hadn't made that stipulation, I probably would have ignored Liber L. per se and started by defining terms and talking from principle rather than quoting scripture. "
Sorry, I meant those as two seperate questions (that is, what the scriptural foundation was and then past that what the beliefs of various practitioners were).
"In this lifetime. But there's always the next lifetime. (Some incarnations exist simply to gain experience and/or to work through such things.) "
How prevelant would you say the belief in reincarnation is amongst Thelemites? In organizations like the A.'.A.'.? Kind of an off topic question, but I'd assume that you've had signifigantly more contact with Thelemites than I have...
"Again, that's not what I said. It's possible something could be classified as pathology that, in fact, is health. The mental health profession has many instances of that. - I was careful to only speak of actual pathology (speaking on the principle of the thing, without trying to pin down what that exactly might mean). "
Which is what I meant in the question. Ah, online communication.
--Skipping a bunch of "ok"/ "agreed" responses--
"I've last track by now. Can you pose an A vs. B, please? "
Lol. Two men in the desert vs. the possibility of conflicting True Wills, though you just already answered that above.
"I think this has been an excellent example of the value of conflict - in the casual sense of the word - to overcome division Smile"
Quite. Well there's one question to rest. I'm sure more will be comming soon.
-
The branching discussion on Reincarnation has been spun off to its own thread: heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?t=1086