"Low men" and Kings
-
I think I agree with Froclown in a milder sense.
I thought the "slaves" (in those last three instances) referred to those who do not wish to work on themselves/see anything--those who will never know or have any Will at all.
(also called, the cows, the cabbages, the masses, "the sleeping ones", in other circles
you know who i'm talking about--99% of the world population? ).The slaves shall serve because they have no (conscious) will, and don't want to have one, so any will at all can move them in the desired direction. Maybe before working on ourselves every one of us is a slave until we know our own will. I am a slave in many ways. I wish to not be a slave so I am Working on myself. I believe I am capable of this and will succeed because I can put effort (will?) into work. Some people will never do this. They will be slaves forever.
Maybe I'm deluded, but when I first read the Book thats what I got out of it. You all have probably put more thought into it than me--but doesn't this make any sense?
-
@SophiaLux said
"I thought the "slaves" (in those last three instances) referred to those who do not wish to work on themselves/see anything--those who will never know or have any Will at all. "
Soror Meral used to regularly ask those working under her, "What are you a slave to?" We're all probably a slave to something (usually several somethings), and a major part of working on oneself is to identify and address these things.
"The slaves shall serve because they have no (conscious) will, and don't want to have one, so any will at all can move them in the desired direction."
This is the crux of the point I want to make on this. I think the usual (simplest) way of reading this is misleading because it arises out of Old Aeon social models of kings and slaves.
Polarizing kings against slaves because the latter serve entiely misses the point that service is the essence of kingship. To miss this point is to assert the historic position of ruling kings over ruled (dominated) slaves, and I have no reason to believe Liber Legis is recommending anything of the kind - it's against its essential message.
Not only does that approach miss that kingship is service, it misses a more important point: Saying that the slaves shall serve doesn't promise to keep them down in the mushroom farms; rather, it is a promise of success, of liberation - real liberation! Those who are slaves shall become servants. That is, those who work against their conscious choice, as if in violation of (apparent) will, shall, instead, work (the same work!) consistent with their conscious choice - their personality choices in alignment with True Will.
In some senses, the kings and the slaves are equal - properly enacted, each role is a role of service.
Since "king" throughout Liber Legis surely refers to Adepts per se, it may actually be that "slaves" refer to "Men of Earth" (pre-adepts) per se - anyone who has not attained to the Knowledge & Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel. Historically I've been hesitant to suggest this, because I think many who embrace it would interpret it in terms of old-school ideas about slaves - which isn't at all what I mean.
"Maybe before working on ourselves every one of us is a slave until we know our own will."
Yes, I'm sure of it. (And, for that matter, we're still slaves for a long time after starting to work on ourselves because not all 'masters' are dislodged quickly.)
"Maybe I'm deluded, but when I first read the Book thats what I got out of it."
Actually, that's way better than what I got out of it on my first reading!**
-
[a response of mine to a similar thread elsewhere]
Crowley addresses the external dealing of Kings and slaves, in chapter 46 of MWT on "Selfishness": "You should treat everybody as a King of the same order as yourself. Of course, nine people out of ten won't stand for it, not for a minute; the mere fact of your treating them decently frightens them; their sense of inferiority is exacerbated and intensified; they insist on groveling. That places them. They force you to treat them as the mongrel curs they are; and so everybody is happy!"
Despite the cheekiness of the statement, it does explain the relationship of King and slave. That is, in the external philosophy of Thelema, the slave enslaves themselves to the King. The attitude of the King should be to continue to treat this other person as a King, otherwise he is supporting the wretched & weak character both in the individual at hand, an in society at large (and by extension the weak character in one's self). Promotion of the slave to a King is given here:
"See! he has summoned us to the Imperial dais. The night falls; it is a great orgy of worship and bliss. // The night falls like a spangled cloak from the shoulders of a prince upon a slave. // He rises a free man! // Cast thou, O prophet, the cloak upon these slaves! // A great night, and scarce fires therein; but freedom for the slave that its glory shall encompass." Lapidus Lazuli VI:21-25
The spangled cloak imagery echoes Legis II:62 "...the kisses of the stars rain hard upon thy body" which is described in Book 4 as a meme of "consecration".
-
@jw said
"Crowley addresses the external dealing of Kings and slaves, in chapter 46 of MWT on "Selfishness": "You should treat everybody as a King of the same order as yourself. Of course, nine people out of ten won't stand for it, not for a minute; the mere fact of your treating them decently frightens them; their sense of inferiority is exacerbated and intensified; they insist on groveling. That places them. They force you to treat them as the mongrel curs they are; and so everybody is happy!""
I love that quote!
-
yes but how does one treat a king?
he does not presume the king needs help of a handicap on life. He does not curb his tongue least the he offend the king nor does he pull his punches.
Thus if one serves because it is his will to contribute to a goal as a brute labor or even in support of another personage, he is still a king.
Even if one is enslaved but not spiritually brken one is not truly a slave. Their are amongst the most beaten and deprived slaves those individuals who are happy with their lot and live as kings amongst the vagrants and outcasts.
Satan is a kingly persona who refuses to suffer or look down upon himself even while GOD himself degraded him and sent him to live in the pits of hell.
or the Sysiphis of Camus how who can not be broken and rejoices with merriment as he rolls his stone.
The true slave is one who always suffers, the anti-Job. the angel how lives in paradise any spends eternity moping about.
Thus we the lines say to treat all ai kings, to strike them low and hard with all your might and if they are of good spirits you can knock them down but never off their horse.
If they are slaves then don't offer a hand te help them back up because they will only try to drag you down. instead leave them to die in their misery.
-
@Froclown said
"yes but how does one treat a king?"
A good place to start would be r-e-s-p-e-c-t.
"he does not presume the king needs help of a handicap on life. He does not curb his tongue least the he offend the king nor does he pull his punches. "
Kings often curb their tongues when that best serves their purposes. For example, the art of diplomacy is a major part of even traditional kingship. One is reminded of Crowley's observation that, in one Thelemic fellowship, good manners were likely to be a far better mark of one's readiness to pass on than any amount of technical magical knowledge or skill. The bearings of aristocracy demand graciousness as a baseline, even when one has to occasionally wander from it to make a point.
"Even if one is enslaved but not spiritually brken one is not truly a slave. Their are amongst the most beaten and deprived slaves those individuals who are happy with their lot and live as kings amongst the vagrants and outcasts."
This might be a good time to mention where the word "slave" originated. It definitely puts a different spin on the word. The following is from The American Heritage Dictionary:
"The derivation of the word slave encapsulates a bit of European history and explains why the two words slaves and Slavs are so similar; they are, in fact, historically identical. The word slave first appears in English around 1290, spelled sclave. The spelling is based on Old French esclave from Medieval Latin sclavus, "Slav, slave," first recorded around 800. Sclavus comes from Byzantine Greek sklabos (pronounced sklävōs) "Slav," which appears around 580. Sklavos approximates the Slavs' own name for themselves, the Slověnci, surviving in English Slovene and Slovenian. The spelling of English slave, closer to its original Slavic form, first appears in English in 1538. Slavs became slaves around the beginning of the ninth century when the Holy Roman Empire tried to stabilize a German-Slav frontier. By the 12th century stabilization had given way to wars of expansion and extermination that did not end until the Poles crushed the Teutonic Knights at Grunwald in 1410. · As far as the Slavs' own self-designation goes, its meaning is, understandably, better than "slave"; it comes from the Indo-European root *kleu-, whose basic meaning is "to hear" and occurs in many derivatives meaning "renown, fame." The Slavs are thus "the famous people." Slavic names ending in -slav incorporate the same word, such as Czech Bohu-slav, "God's fame," Russian Msti-slav, "vengeful fame," and Polish Stani-slaw, "famous for withstanding (enemies).""
"If they are slaves then don't offer a hand te help them back up because they will only try to drag you down. instead leave them to die in their misery."
When you make comments like this, do you also keep in mind that there is no real separation between you and they? That you are the same being they are?
-
everything is the same being
Dishes and jugs are made of the same clay, but the form makes all the difference.
The flag of triumph is cut from the same cloth as the white flag of defeat.
and if it turns out that my spirit is broken and I lie defeated in misery then shall I know that Ra-Hoor-Kuit has forsaken me and perhaps my corpse will make a pleasing mat for the feet of someone who may carry on the great work where I left off.
However Though I may be trampled upon my attitude is that of a king who is not defeated even in death and disgrace. As my WILL un-defeated, goes on and with my last breath my final act of WILL, I consecrate my mortal remains to the great work.
-
"and if it turns out that my spirit is broken and I lie defeated in misery then shall I know that Ra-Hoor-Kuit has forsaken me and perhaps my corpse will make a pleasing mat for the feet of someone who may carry on the great work where I left off.
However Though I may be trampled upon my attitude is that of a king who is not defeated even in death and disgrace. As my WILL un-defeated, goes on and with my last breath my final act of WILL, I consecrate my mortal remains to the great work."
These are selfish statements. If one gets wrapped up in the glory of their own Kingliness then they are no better than the beggar in the King's robe. Something which might be helpful: Try visualizing other people as Sun-Gods on Earth, especially the difficult people.
-
I like what most people have said here. I do think its good to remember not to be a slave to material things or to let yourself become weak either. I think I don't want to be among the "dead and the dying".
Christ said something similar about letting the dead bury the dead.
Respect is good when you deal with others, but I try to be brutally honest with myself and let myself know when I am wallowing or letting myself get away with things. I think maybe all of these passages can be taken both ways--i.e. slaves are okay in the sense that they are servants, but one wants to remember to be about One's Own Work. Slaves don't get to do their own work.
I like some of the harsh wording in Book II a lot. It reminds you not to be soft on yourself and to get up and Do Something instead of rolling around in your own filth like most people.
-
since when is thelema not about being selfish?
the whole idea is solipsist, I am the center of the universe and all others revoulve around me and my WILL.
the only distinction from pure solipsism is that Thelema recognizes that every other individual is also the center of his own perspective universe and will use you as fast as you will use him.
Thus it works out better to use others in a way that complements their nature.
however oneself is still GOD and all others are cannon fodder!
-
Froclown, 93,
"
however oneself is still GOD and all others are cannon fodder!"A key factor in any description of what people anywhere call God is the identification or at least continuity of God with the creation. Even in the conventional Abrahamic traditions (Judaism, Xianity, Islam) there is no impedence to communication between God and and Its creation. The reverse may be true, since the created can have trouble communicating with the Divine, but the Creator has no opponents to gun down.
If you are seeing the rest of us as cannon-fodder, you're failing to be God, and thus you're not fulfilling the Law.
93 93/93,
EM
-
@Froclown said
"since when is thelema not about being selfish?"
I've never regarded it as being about being selfish - except in the abstract sense that contributing to the well-being of the universe is ultimately quite selfish.
Or, to put it another way: It's all selfish, but the definition of "self" evolves with one's own psychological and spiritual evolution, until it eventually includes the whole universe. (But that understandably takes a while.)
"I am the center of the universe and all others revoulve around me and my WILL. "
Ah, there's the rub. That's a very egoic statement (to which you're most definitely entitled!), but the ego - the personal manifestation - has no WILL. It has personality games that, most of the time, heavily interfere with True Will and, at their very best, don't rise about "true want." Actual Will can't exist outside of the context of all others, because only the Whole provides all the circumstances which determine the Will. (Think astronomy: A planet has its own distinctive orbit, complete and definable in its own terms, except that the existence and positions and motion of all other parts of the system are among the variabls in those equations.)
"Thus it works out better to use others in a way that complements their nature."
Bizarrely, I thin I agree with you on that!
"however oneself is still GOD and all others are cannon fodder!"
No, all others also are GOD in exactly the same way that you are. (And it's not your ego that is GOD! It's something before which your ego, like mine, is a bit of a joke.)
-
"Or, to put it another way: It's all selfish, but the definition of "self" evolves with one's own psychological and spiritual evolution, until it eventually includes the whole universe."
Tell it!
Love under Will. (They're the same thing eh? 93=93). And of course Love requires both an awareness of self as separate and an understanding of the interconnectedness of others and self. I doubt that it is anyone's True Will to go about damaging others.
-
@Froclown said
In particular, I have always liked the following excerpt from that chapter - and draw your attention to its last sentence:
"In practice, I begin afresh, it is almost entirely a matter of the point of view. That poor chap looks as if a square meal wouldn't hurt him; and you chuck him a half-crown. You offend his pride, you pauperize him, you make a perfect cad of yourself, and you go off with a glow of having done your good deed for the day. It's all wrong. In such a case, you should make it the request for favour. Say you're "dying for someone to talk to, and would he care to join you in a spot of lunch" at the Ritz, or wherever you feel that he will be the happiest.
When you can do this sort of thing as it should be done, without embarrassment, false shame, with your whole heart in your words — do it simply, to sum up — you will find yourself way up on the road to that royal republic which is the ideal of human society."
-
in any effect the only thing one can know for sure is that oneself is real and all others are but phantasms which aid the self.
Thus everyone and everything I perceive is nothing in and of itself but a mere creation of my mind to amuse me.
Thus there is no harm done in treating those imaginary friends in any way I like.
but it is to my advantage to use characters in my drama according to their proper role and not cast the butler in the role of the king or the detective as a house maid.
-
@Froclown said
"in any effect the only thing one can know for sure is that oneself is real and all others are but phantasms which aid the self.
Thus everyone and everything I perceive is nothing in and of itself but a mere creation of my mind to amuse me. "
Wow. If this was really the fundamental ontology of Thelema (and if the "self" above is intended to imply what we usually regard the "ego-self" to be), then I'm no Thelemite.
I have a feeling that this is a topic on which Thelemites disagree...
After doing some quick reading,
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism
I find that there are hosts of ways that these ideas interpenetrate schools of thought like Buddhism, Advaita Hinduism, etc. -- but I have a feeling that the "Self" spoken about in those traditions isn't the same thing as the standard conscious ego.Steve
-
the self includes the world. that is everything is an aspect of the self.
and it is true that I too am just an aspect of your self.
however, I am not you and thus it is proper for be to concern myself with my own perspective. Thus all things are lesser spirits that are to be put to proper use by my WILL to achieve those ends that are proper to me.
A general might find that the proper use of pawns is to send them across a mine field to clear the way for his better fighters, and the only proof that this act was proper and moral is that he he succeeds that is he wins the battle.
The pawn will not harbor a grudge for it is his Will to die for a cause of strong leader, thus he will rejoice at the oppertunity to prove his devotion in any way he can.
-
@Froclown said
"the self includes the world. that is everything is an aspect of the self.
and it is true that I too am just an aspect of your self.
however, I am not you and thus it is proper for be to concern myself with my own perspective. Thus all things are lesser spirits that are to be put to proper use by my WILL to achieve those ends that are proper to me. "
Now we're getting somewhere!
Froclown, the above is an example of cognitive dissonance. "The self includes the world" and "I am not you" are mutually contradictory statements. This doesn't mean that they can't both be true at once in some sense(s) - it just acknowledges the logical incompatibility.
I think the practical resolution is that, in the course of spiritual growth, one becomes more capable of understanding (rather than simply theorizing abot) the actual truth of the former, and one realizes that the second quoted sentence is only true by temporary definition and in a limited way.
I think it entirely right that you speak from the level of what is actually evident to you at the present time, and therefore you're going to speak in terms of ego-isolation, divisions between people, polarization and power-dominance games, and the alienation and antagonism that arises naturally from not actually experiencing that there every other person you encounter is authentically the same person you are.
But - in speaking from the personality level - I think it also important to understand that most of the statements you've been quoting don't have much to do with the personality level. The words mean something different (sometimes subtly, sometimes grossly) than they would mean if the only reality were the dividual and personality level of existence.
"A general might find that the proper use of pawns is to send them across a mine field to clear the way for his better fighters, and the only proof that this act was proper and moral is that he he succeeds that is he wins the battle. "
As long as you experience that you are both the general and the pawns (and, for that matter, the opposing army), I have no problem with this. A test: Would you feel the same way in this scenario if you place yourself in the pawn position as you would if you place yourself in the general's position? That is, can you see the equality and even identity of the "king" and the "slave"? (I'm not asking for theory. I'm asking for your actual feelings about the matter.)