Treating Spirits with respect.
-
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
this has turned into a really interesting thread Really fast!
@red fezz said
"It seems to me that "utterly dominating" possibly malicious spirits, you are not utterly dominating anything. They're making you dance to their little tune (a war dance, a fightin' song) and laughing while you think you're in "control.""
i couldn't disagree more! hooray!
i'd make the argument that there's no such thing as a malicious spirit. for one thing "If he be a King, thou canst not hurt him!" on another plane, any "bad feeling" that a "demon" produces within you is strictly an issue with your khu - you're seeing something within yourself that you don't want to see. after all, we're each the center of our own universe, and there is no part of us that is not part of the gods.
and after all, a demon is just a god acting out of turn
the issue of domination is a simple one, in my view. in the previous aeon, the demons were Blamed for the incorrect actions that mankind made. "the devil made me do it" sort of thing, and the appeal was made to whatever dying god you want to "save" you from same. in the aeon of horus, it's up to each of us to bring ourselves Fully under our own control.
this has a lot to do with the structure of "the sacred magic of abra-melin" the mage and how it needs to be re-worked for reasonable use today. in abra-melin's aeon, the Great Work had to be accomplished First before you could dominate the demons. the way i see it, in the new aeon it's necessary to dominate the demons - those parts of ourselves that we reject fully into our khu and under our complete domination and control. (It is a lie, this folly against self!)
i will say that it's important to make a distinction between domination and a domineering attitude. there's no reason whatsoever to be an asshole about it. however, the demons are ours to command - i've found the best way is to approach them as secure in our royalty. there's no question that an order will be obeyed - it's our nature to be kings, after all.
"If they are objective beings, then it is our role, as magicians, to contribute to their following their own Will."
again, i totally disagree!
"thou hast no right but to do thy will!"
your concept strikes me as self-sacrificing. it's not our role in this aeon to die that others be saved. * all *we do is our will. for some of us, serving is part of our will but it's important to be Very careful with that, after all - "the slaves shall serve"
on another plane, why would a star need another to prop them up? that kind of relationship would skirt on the vampiric, in my view, and should be avoided.
"the ephemeral agreement of living circumstance which implies service to other more than service to self. The Great White Brotherhood Crowley spoke of was not a bunch of selfish pricks."
i would argue that all aspects of the selfish nature are of hadit.
perhaps you can explain how this attitude can be anything other than christist.
"Like a musician is liberated and finds ultimate freedom of expression when he discovers the laws of music, so too is the individual finally liberated when he discovers the laws of life."
ah! now you're talking about restriction unto babalon, which is a very different cup of meat Indeed! the laws of music are necessary to our enjoyment of them - although they are hardly set in stone. to slightly misquote a phrase, the chinese can not help but think the octave has five tones. we have twelve, the hindu has some twenty odd. it's important to keep in mind that these laws are *totally arbritary *and can be discarded in an instant!
as for the laws of life - "There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt."
Love is the law, love under will
-
@luxinhominefactum said
"
"If they are objective beings, then it is our role, as magicians, to contribute to their following their own Will."again, i totally disagree!
"thou hast no right but to do thy will!" "
Yes. And inherent in the definition of that is that it is not one's True Will if it is in conflict with another's True Will.
"your concept strikes me as self-sacrificing."
OK, I hear that. - It doesn't strike me that way at all. To me, it's just another guage on the dashboard or navigating traffic on the road: Witnessing (at multiple levels, dependingon capacity) the proper way of another is one of the most important devices we have for seeing our own way.
"it's not our role in this aeon to die that others be saved."
Agreed completely. (Except, of course, for those for whom that's their Will - I make allowance for all such possibilities.)
"* all *we do is our will."
Or, actually, our Will. Agreed completely. But we're limiting ourself to a Hadit-only perspective (isolated Star running its course), and depriving ourselves of the Nuit experience unless we strive to be simultaneously mindful of the whole.
-
"Yes. And inherent in the definition of that is that it is not one's True Will if it is in conflict with another's True Will. "
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
i find that particular point Inarguable
Love is the law, love under will
-
I just sort of feel that if you continually cop to the "everything we do is our Will" thing then you will never progress or need to progress beyond the limited perspective you were born with. What impetus is there to go beyond your daily urges if you can just casually justify anything by saying "all I do is my Will!" Meanwhile, Crowley went to great lengths to [abstractly] point out the difference between "whatever you feel like doing" and "True Will." The point is to realize your True Will, not to act according to your desires secure in the knowledge that whatever you do is your Will... Crowley said you have no right but to do thy Will but he also pointed out that not everything is an act of True Will. Doing whatever and believing in any case it's an expression of your True Will, while remaining oblivious to what the View from that perspective of your True Will actually is would miss the point entirely. Right?
-
I think Crowley said TRUE WILLs are not in conflict with the dynamic of the universal.
The WILL of a lion to rip a Gazelle to bits, does not indicate that the Gazelle has a WILL to be ripped to bits.
But is a universal sense it is a necessary part of being a Gazelle that one aspect of that life is no be potential food for lions.
It is also an essential aspect af being a lion that it potentially eat Gazelle.
If the Lion feels sorry for the Gazelle and refuses to eat, it will die. If the Gazelle feel sorry for the lion then they may sacrifice themselves to the lion, and here we have the beginnings of an Osiris Aeon cult.
If the weak are given to the lion out of fear, we have an Isis cult.
If both Lion and Gazelle accepts who he is, and acts without fear or pity, the Gazelle running fearlessly through the savanna, chancing death but not meeting it with anxiety, for it is only with respectful indifference to the risks that the beast hops and plays feely.
The Lion must stalk and hunt, take pleasure fully in the kill, engorge itself on the flesh of his prey, without remorse. For if the Lion despises himself, thinks his hunting a Sin, weeps for his kill, then he is an example of the weak and down trodden that are to be stomped down. He would be nothing but a depressed, neurotic, self-hating mess. Not unlike the casualties of Osiris's religions.
Now, both hunter and prey have a true WILL, and each takes joy in his WILL. Though they may fight in the flesh, each if free in spirit.
hunter-prey Master-slave same diff.
-
Froclown, could you make your point using human examples? I'm not sure the hunter-prey / master-slave relationship connection your making is very clear.
From your perspective, it seems to me that you would believe Crowley's view of True Will would have supported Hitler's actions as well as Hitler's defeat and would support the current "war on terror" as well as, paradoxically, the terrorists who target their prey, the general populace, as a proxy attack on their real prey, the governments of the general populace. It seems you would believe Crowley endorsed any selfish act or selfless act; essentially anything whatsoever.
It would be convenient, then, if you would use these examples of Hitler, War On Terror, Terrorism and General Populace to clarify your point in detail. These are situations which define human freedom of choice and self-awareness we can apply more sensibly to the discussion than the instinctual behavior of gazelles and lions, which is not the experience of anyone here, as we are all human beings.
-
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
@redd fezz said
" I just sort of feel that if you continually cop to the "everything we do is our Will" thing then you will never progress or need to progress beyond the limited perspective you were born with. "
read my post again. all we do is our will. when we're not doing our will, we're not really doing anything. we're failing to do.
"What impetus is there to go beyond your daily urges if you can just casually justify anything by saying "all I do is my Will!""
the same impetus that makes us go into the temple every day when, in fact, everything we do is a magickal act. it's often called "aspiration." perhaps you've heard of it
i disagree that the gazelle/lion metaphor has any similarity to hitler or the war on terror.
in both cases, we had a situation where religions cursed in chapter three tear each other apart like scorpions in a bottle (remember, hitler was a roman christist.) it has no bearing on the discussion.
Love is the law, love under will
-
@luxinhominefactum said
"read my post again. all we do is our will. when we're not doing our will, we're not really doing anything. we're failing to do."
Since you are putting it so simply, please explain further: if I want to make a sandwich but I also don't want to get up and do it at the moment, am I failing to do or am I doing my will?
"
"What impetus is there to go beyond your daily urges if you can just casually justify anything by saying "all I do is my Will!""the same impetus that makes us go into the temple every day when, in fact, everything we do is a magical act. it's often called "aspiration." perhaps you've heard of it
"Aspiration actually comes from the belief that there is something more which is obtainable. Thelema is a philosophy of life that aspires to more than "I do something because I want to." It is about the discovery of True Will. It is a system of spiritual evolution that goes beyond Darwin and Nietzche.
"i disagree that the gazelle/lion metaphor has any similarity to hitler or the war on terror."
I disagree that the gazelle/lion metaphor has any relevance to human experience of free choice and self-awarenes implicit in the discussion of True Will.
"in both cases, we had a situation where religions cursed in chapter three tear each other apart like scorpions in a bottle (remember, hitler was a roman christist.) it has no bearing on the discussion."
If you think the gazelle/lion metaphor has more baring on this discussion of True Will than actual human experience, consider the following...
Crowley actively opposed Hitler as much as Hitler opposed Thelema. Crowley shot animals for sport. I'm pretty sure he was opposed to shooting humans for sport.
If a lion is the perfect example of True Will, since lions are perfectly true to their lion-ness, then please explain how that exactly "works out" when two lions are fighting over the same gazelle. It reduces to absurdity in light of the following instruction:
"Every man has a right to fulfill his own will without being afraid that it may interfere with that of others; for if he is in his proper place, it is the fault of others if they interfere with him."
So, which lion is at fault here? Both are 'true will lions' yet both fighting over the same gazelle!
If it is simply a matter of whichever wins, then you are just talking about "survival of the fittest." That's not Thelema. All the Aeonic propositions inherent in Thelema prove that this is not the point of Thelema. Because Crowley would not stand by and say, "Yep, that's The Law of Thelema!" if a new breed of religious fascism wiped out all the Thelemites and burned every last Book of The Law. -
@Redd Fezz said
"If a lion is the perfect example of True Will, since lions are perfectly true to their lion-ness, then please explain how that exactly "works out" when two lions are fighting over the same gazelle. "
In nature, that doesn't tend to be the case. Lions collaborate in bringing down the gazelle, and then take turns eating it.
I do think that, most of the time, cats are smarter than humans.
""Every man has a right to fulfill his own will without being afraid that it may interfere with that of others; for if he is in his proper place, it is the fault of others if they interfere with him.""
"Right" is an interesting word. I defend it entirely. However, having the right to so act doesn't mean that it's always the most intelligent move. I still hold that most drivers keep track of whether they are in the right lane by noticing where the other cars are driving.
-
Your definition of intelligence seems to be at odds with the literal definition, but I get your point. Though, I don't agree with it and hope it is more of a joke than for serious.
Your comment about car lanes is exactly what I'm thinking about. In my experience, it seems that discovering your True Will is about finding your rightful place within the "universal pattern," just as driving down the street is all about finding your right place in the traffic pattern. Your will might be to get to work faster, but that could be very at odds with your True Will if you wind up paralyzed due to utterly stupid driving choices.
At the same time, your "rightful place" is always wherever you are because your experience does always manifest from the source of your potentiality, your "secret sun." But, discovering your True Will is clicking into what works for you, ultimately, not in the moment. According to Crowley, one person's True Will can never interfere with another's. So, calling up a spirit and demanding it do your bidding lest you torture it seems, to me, about as wise as driving down the wrong side of the street.
-
Doing your WILL means just that in is your own WILL, I can not say what is right or wrong.
So long as Hitler was being the best Hitler he could be, and not acting out of fear, guilt, self-loathing, etc. Then He was True to himself, his WILL was True.
If you hold yourself back, then your WILL falls short of its mark. If you do what you are told is the moral thing to do, and deny your "beastly" nature to act against the moral rules, then you are aiming at the MARK of morality, thus your actions are not TRUE to your WILL.
When an arrow hits its mark, then your aim was True, the arrow was true to its target.
If ones aim is distracted by another target, the arrow is not true to its target.
If one fears it is wrong morally to hit the target, say its a child of a wolf cub, so one pulls the bow to half tension, the arrow will fall short. and is not TRUE to its Target.
TRUE WILL, is like a true arrow.
Success is thy proof.
If Will stops to ask why...
Then in power weakness.
Thelema calls us to be potent, focused, undistracted and not watered down by sentiment and morality.
You want a human example, read Atlas Shrugged.
The whole book is about the TRUE WILL of people who run business, and how liberal notions of equality that make powerful men work at lower capacity in the name of common good, destroy the human spirit and make a mess of progress.
-
Let me repeat myself, friend: According to Crowley, one person's True Will can never interfere with another's.
So, Hitler's failure and Crowley's opposition of the man is proof he wasn't following his True Will. The funny thing about thinking you know your True Will before you actually do is how easy it is to screw up.
A good checklist would be:
- How many beings oppose my view?
- How logical is that opposition?
- Does it appear I am right?
- Am I successful?
- Does it appear I will be?
In Hitler's case, it probably did.
... but then, if you're Hitler...
guess what?
YES, THAT'S RIGHT:
http://img357.imageshack.us/img357/2787/fail2it9.jpg
YOU'RE A FOCKING DOUCHEBAG! SURPRISE! (Not YOU, I mean HITLER)
It's easy to figure out why if you go through the above checklist. There's no effing way he could be following his True Will because there's no way it was the True Will of the rest of the races on earth to be killed and/or enslaved. But, Thelema isn't really for insane people or megalomaniacs.
-
megalomania itself is a sign that one does not know ones proper limits.
It seem s to me that Hitlers proper place was as an artist, but this was denied to him, and his political career was nothing but a tantrum in responce to his failed art.
Thus, it was not his WILL to be Fuhrer, but that was like a strong pull of the bow, aimed at a target that was not properly his own.
Hitler seemed like a very depressed and self loathing man, this is the proof he was not following his WILL. Where as a proud and joyous Sadist like De Sade or Vlad Tepis, it seems was TRUE to his nature and WILL.
-
93,
"
You want a human example, read Atlas Shrugged.The whole book is about the TRUE WILL of people who run business, and how liberal notions of equality that make powerful men work at lower capacity in the name of common good, destroy the human spirit and make a mess of progress."
Actually, it isn't a good example. Ayn Rand's entire philosophy, Objectivism, is based around her own definition of rationality, which goes against the notion of any "factor infinite and unknown." Reason, she affirmed throughout her life, is never a lie. And she spends scores of pages in the book, especially in John Galt's "A is A" speech, attacking the very notion of a mystical perspective.
Oddly, in Atlas Shrugged she lapsed into what academics (not magicians!) call 'magical thinking.' Hank Rearden buys a used-up old mine and lo, there is lots of ore there. He then sets out to create a super-metal that defies the rules of chemistry. Dagnar Ranneskjold's ship is faster than anyone else's. By means of his superior reason, Galt can endure torture. And so on.
What she firmly denies exists at her front door, she permits to enter by the kitchen window. Not a good example for Thelemites.
93 93/93,
EM
-
@Edward Mason said
"93,
"You want a human example, read Atlas Shrugged."
Actually, it isn't a good example."
The Fountainhead (written earlier) might be better, since it doesn't have as much of the weirdness. Good stuff happens to the good guys, bad stuff happens to the bad guys, but not in such a deus ex machina way as the "magical thinking" examples you gave. But, hey, these were allegories.
I think we can all probably admit that Ayn Rand's conception of the Tree of Life (if we can map systems) effectively stopped at Daath. Not an uncommon problem in the 20th and 21st centuries. I've always interpreted a lot of the "sin of Because" and "factor infinite and unknown" stuff as applying to Daath and the supernals, anyway.
Finding and doing the True Will seems to be something that can be done at the "lower" levels (with appropriate influx from the supernals, sure, but does that need to encompass conscious acceptance of the supernals?)
We're now far from 'Treating spirits with respect.' Maybe a new thread called "Knowing and Doing True Will" ?
Steve
-
I was talking about the book, not Rand in general.
Also there is no reason a book can't contain fanciful elements in order to make a point.
Also the mystical theory need not conclude that A is not A, but that while A is A, A may seem other than A due to the process of perception.
We may conclude that we never know A as A, but that A induces phenomenal appearances in the mind which represent A.
The nature of there phenomena are subject to alteration by ritual and WILLED manipulation of the perceptual process of the mind.
Thus A ----> mental phenomena B under standard conditions,
Yet under ritual conditions A---> mental phenomena C
A say --> as in yields, such as in a chemistry equation.
The products of the equation are the world we know, the reactants are the world as it is.
There is no method to discover the reactants, as only after they react do they become elements of awareness.
Hadit and NUIT can express this idea.
-
Froclown, 93,
You said:
"Also the mystical theory need not conclude that A is not A, but that while A is A, A may seem other than A due to the process of perception.
We may conclude that we never know A as A, but that A induces phenomenal appearances in the mind which represent A.
"We may indeed. But Rand's point is Aristotle's - that there is no validity in any mystical perceptions, and if A is what it is, it can't be anything else (B, for example). She outwardly refutes mysticism as nonsense in the book, and did so throughout her life.
This is relevant to respecting our Goetic spirits here, for one issue about them is that they are taken to be psychological realities at one point and, in ritual, as objectively existing entities. Aristotle - and Rand - would have ruled such notions out of order.
After getting through Atlas Shrugged twice, I felt I couldn't face The Fountainhead (how much bad sex and shallow characterization can one reader handle in a single lifetime?) and I've never read that. Yet Rand can be fascinating, and Atlas Shrugged is one of the most God-haunted books I've come across. But in that fascination I also find her dishonesty. She is entranced by her concept of reason, and her Objectivism is plainly mystical, or at least excessive in its reverence for its core idea.
If you read Jung's thoughts about how Freud was captivated and mesmerized by the numinous quality of sexuality, you find yourself on similar ground. Reason is a tool, just as physical sex is the dissolution-in-Assiah (admittedly <b>way</b> more fun than logical argument), but doesn't and can't encompass the total experience of dissolution in Nuit.
93 93/93,
EM
-
Agree about Ayn Rand, Steve and Edward. She reminds me of the series "Heroes", where people who feel they have special gifts, and a destiny that uses those gifts for a greater purpose than mundane people who are conventional.
Except that Ayn Rand cuts out the whole mystical side of life as having any validity. Or says she does.
Froclown, interesting name. In the bible, they use the word "Froward".
It means "habitually disposed to disobedience and opposition ".
(wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn)
Since Thelema is about rituals that bring forth powers of transformation, again, I say, how can you be a Thelemite and admire Ayn Rand? She is very shallow and one dimensional, compared to the wealth of subconscious images that Crowley writes about.
Thelemites worship Nuit, glorious ecstasy, mind blowing (no rational mind thoughts during the explosion).
Froclown, do you study the keys of the Tarot and the Tree of Life? Do study the qabalah? Do you call on those Enochian fallen angels? Have you done the rituals? Have you joined the COT and are doing the lessons?
If you do not, how can you a Thelemite?
Where is your fierce joy?
No offense, but sincerely puzzled.
chrys333 -
@Chris Hanlon said
"Froclown, interesting name. In the bible, they use the word "Froward". It means "habitually disposed to disobedience and opposition "."
I'm curious to hear Froclown's response. I've just been picturing a clown with a righteous 'fro (Damon Wayans' "Homey the Clown?") The Fool archetype is a powerful one to adopt...
"Since Thelema is about rituals that bring forth powers of transformation, again, I say, how can you be a Thelemite and admire Ayn Rand? She is very shallow and one dimensional, compared to the wealth of subconscious images that Crowley writes about.
Thelemites worship Nuit, glorious ecstasy, mind blowing (no rational mind thoughts during the explosion).
Froclown, do you study the keys of the Tarot and the Tree of Life? Do study the qabalah? Do you call on those Enochian fallen angels? Have you done the rituals? Have you joined the COT and are doing the lessons?
If you do not, how can you a Thelemite?
Where is your fierce joy?"
I think it's possible to be a Thelemite without literally doing rituals, literally worshipping anything, studying the Tarot or the Tree of Life, calling ceremonially on angels, or joining any Thelemic organizations. What about merely taking the Book of the Law into one's bosom and striving to live life by its poetic, evocative, and powerful words?
Of course, I personally find a lot of worth in Tarot, Qabalah, and Enochian as wonderful symbol-sets for obtaining a better understanding of these topics. I'm exploring the "path of initiation" too (albeit in the "slow lane" compared to many others' initiatory paths). But if someone decides not to use these trappings, I don't think that needs to be a disqualifying factor.
I greatly respect the "fierce joy" of people like David Brin and Hal Duncan and Eliezer Yudkowsky, who don't have anything to do with the standard trappings of the occult, but whom I think embody many of the positive virtues that (IMHO!) Thelema should teach. (Note that I'm not saying that they're some kind of "crypto-Thelemites" or that the label Thelemite should be expanded so widely to people who have never heard of Liber Legis, etc.)
Steve