The Law of the Strong
-
@Metzareph said
"
In the end, your laws and my laws are ONE single Law... the Law of Thelema."The law of Thelema may be the one single law, but that one single law of Thelema is Do what thou wilt. And I'm sure, our wills are not the same
-
@kuniggety said
"
The law of Thelema may be the one single law, but that one single law of Thelema is Do what thou wilt. And I'm sure, our wills are not the same"
Yes, of course, but to expand on what i meant, we seem to have different a purpose, but you and me are not different after all. Only on the plane of the physical we seem to be different.
"Let there be no difference made among you between any one thing & any other thing"
-
@kuniggety said
"And I'm sure, our wills are not the same
"I'm sure they are... meaning, if you follow their stream back far enough (probably farther upstream than the point that demarcates "yourself"), you'll find that your two separate streams are branches of the same river.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"I'm sure they are... meaning, if you follow their stream back far enough (probably farther upstream than the point that demarcates "yourself"), you'll find that your two separate streams are branches of the same river."
I think this relates to how you've argued before on these forums how when you dig deep enough, there is no true conflict in the universe. However, for all practical purposes, I believe there is.
-
@kuniggety said
"I think this relates to how you've argued before on these forums how when you dig deep enough, there is no true conflict in the universe. However, for all practical purposes, I believe there is."
There is no conflict in the universe.... the universe is fine.
but our failure to see that the universe is fine "creates the conflict"...
-
@kuniggety said
"I think this relates to how you've argued before on these forums how when you dig deep enough, there is no true conflict in the universe. However, for all practical purposes, I believe there is."
And far be it from me to disavow your beliefs
It may be a semantics issue, though. By conflict, I mean inherent incompatibility. I'm certain there is no such thing at any point in the universe. - I specifically do not use the word "conflict" in this sense to mean something like "struggle" or "combat."
-
The Will of the Universe Flows in one direction - & all Higher Wills move according to that same Flow. It is the lesser wills that appear to flow contrary - & thus result in pain. My Sufi friend used to say "To walk with the wind on your back is to walk with the force of God" - only recently have I been able to grasp the deeper meaning of his aphorism.
616
-
Very good.
My favorite variation is, "It's easier to ride the horse in the direction it's running." (An experienced horseman will understand that this doesn't mean the horse is picking the destination.)
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"And far be it from me to disavow your beliefs
"How dare thee... I shall fight ye to the death.
"It may be a semantics issue, though. By conflict, I mean inherent incompatibility. I'm certain there is no such thing at any point in the universe. - I specifically do not use the word "conflict" in this sense to mean something like "struggle" or "combat.""
I would agree with the semantics issue. The universe is a beautiful thing and there is no incompatibility. Just as I would agree that there is no incompatibility of my will with anothers. It may have been the will of Hitler to take over Europe but it was also the will of Churchill to defend it. Both wills are compatible with the universe but at conflict with each other.
-
Just one relatively minor quibble...
@Metzareph said
"The spirit of the bill of rights and the american constitution were based on granting people basic rights."
According to the framers, these rights could never be "granted" by the government; they were defined as *(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inalienable_rights:zctq2lds) (or unalienable). The issue of whom they really thought granted us those rights (usually termed "Divine Providence," but with a range of interpretations) is probably secondary.
I think it's right to worry when politicians speak of rights that the government "grants" to us (it happened once in the 2004 presidential debates), because in the back of their heads they leave the door open for the government to take them away. Of course, in practice, the constitution acts as a shared social contract, in which all of the participants have to agree that the rights in question do exist and should not be infringed upon by the government.
I think the intention behind Liber OZ was also to recognize existing rights, not to be a framework for granting them (or, Nuit forfend, enforcing them!).
Steve
-
@Steven Cranmer said
"Just one relatively minor quibble...
@Metzareph said
"The spirit of the bill of rights and the american constitution were based on granting people basic rights."
According to the framers, these rights could never be "granted" by the government; they were defined as *(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inalienable_rights:2qz5pb5z) (or unalienable). The issue of whom they really thought granted us those rights (usually termed "Divine Providence," but with a range of interpretations) is probably secondary.
I think it's right to worry when politicians speak of rights that the government "grants" to us (it happened once in the 2004 presidential debates), because in the back of their heads they leave the door open for the government to take them away. Of course, in practice, the constitution acts as a shared social contract, in which all of the participants have to agree that the rights in question do exist and should not be infringed upon by the government.
I think the intention behind Liber OZ was also to recognize existing rights, not to be a framework for granting them (or, Nuit forfend, enforcing them!).
Steve"
Thank you for correcting! This makes things easier to grasp.
-
@Steven Cranmer said
"Just one relatively minor quibble...Steve"
I think it is a very important point and not a minor "quibble". There was going to be NO CONSTITUTION unless the Bill of Rights were included in it. The Anti-Federalists were not going to accept or vote for the Constitution without the Bill of Rights. The funny thing is that the Federalists were trying to claim that man already had all of these rights and that no one in their right mind could ever dream to imagine that the Constitution would ever allow the government to infringe upon them. The Anti-Federalists insisted that the rights of free men be listed in the Constitution as untouchable by the government. They made it clear that these rights come from a power well beyond the grip of the government and that these rights (already held by The People) could not be assaulted by or harmed in any way by the government unless it violates its own supreme law of the land. The government is acting in a criminal manner, and no one is above the law. The criminals should be punished, and the Constitution enforced. I trust the Supreme Court to do it.
-
@Metzareph said
"I'm just appalled by how fast this country is being dismantled."
If it is being taken apart, then we will soon have an opportunity to rebuild it
This opposition to the rights of the people may be just what is needed to get people to start defending them. If not in the courts, then perhaps where it is most important : their daily lives.
The most powerful weapon we have in this society built on fear, is to not give into it. It is coming to the point where I do not even want to turn on the TV. Growing tired of sitting there and being told of all the things I have to "fear."
Am I going to get a disease from smoking? Will I die without having enough life insurance? What will I do if I am not part of the next big trend?
Pardon me, I have to make a call in the next twenty minutes or I am going to miss out on a great deal...
-
@Uni_Verse said
"If it is being taken apart, then we will soon have an opportunity to rebuild it
"Solve et Coagula
616
-
@Uni_Verse said
"
@Metzareph said
"
I'm just appalled by how fast this country is being dismantled.
"If it is being taken apart, then we will soon have an opportunity to rebuild it
This opposition to the rights of the people may be just what is needed to get people to start defending them. If not in the courts, then perhaps where it is most important : their daily lives.
The most powerful weapon we have in this society built on fear, is to not give into it. It is coming to the point where I do not even want to turn on the TV. Growing tired of sitting there and being told of all the things I have to "fear."
Am I going to get a disease from smoking? Will I die without having enough life insurance? What will I do if I am not part of the next big trend?
Pardon me, I have to make a call in the next twenty minutes or I am going to miss out on a great deal..."
Thanks Uni..
Key lesson... fear.
This whole issue revolves about the fifth sephirah... Geburah. One aspect is Power and the other is Fear.
When we don't own our power, we create a void and immediately this void is filled with the opposite to compensate. The solution is to understand the lesson and be responsible. When we don't get the "lesson" in our own personal lives (internally), the lesson becomes external and harder. This Aeon is very much action oriented (The first word of the Law is "DO") Self-transformation is very necessary to counter-act all this, and to "cure the illness of the word". -
@Uni_Verse said
"
@Metzareph said
"The most powerful weapon we have in this society built on fear, is to not give into it. It is coming to the point where I do not even want to turn on the TV. Growing tired of sitting there and being told of all the things I have to "fear.""
"I agree. They want us scared to death so that we think all of their programs are the thing that is going to save us. (Like we need to be saved!)
-
@Metzareph said
"power is not about enslaving. power is about liberating.
it's really a disgrace..."
Humanity and power are two different things.
Everybody lives a short ignorant little life, and they only think they are superman when they're drunk or on crack.As far as the people who leech money and authority out of civilization, those guys aren't exactly "strong" either. He uses what other people, animals, plants and whatever else made, and it's usually squandered pointlessly aswel. Meanwhile his actual self is basically as "strong" as you or me, pluss a few technical social catalyst factors.
The pope has religious influence, he's a bit similar to a mayor or a governer, but that doesn't mean he's strong or superior. He's propagating an old religion and he's an old fart. He's weak and linear.
If we're talking about power in physical terms, the sun is power. Stars are power. They're large amounts of energy.
The philosophical term "power" as an ideal, is generally meaningless, because it suggests the overtaker as the superior, when in fact the most superior things exist in harmony which has no obstructions or needs and thus does not have to overtake or overcome anything.
People can't even choose how they are born, how their own life will go, etc. They can't choose whether or not they are going to get old and die, it's automatic. Their parents and the nature of everything around them is already so deterministic and automatic, that they can't overcome or choose any of it. Even master magicians still get ill, old, poor and socially disfunctional/lonely. Some of the strongest magicians I ever met, live unhappy little half-lives.
Now to combat the truth of the matter, we can enter into any number of delusions about divine and extremely important insects. Frankly vegetables are more important than mankind, that along with grass and trees, for those kinds of life support the whole ecosystem and have a greater natural purpose. Most people aren't ecology oriented either, so they don't even serve a natural purpose, nevermind a divine purpose.
Because humanity is such a genetic defect, a huge percent of the population is mentally ill. Oh yes, that's a fact. And that means people are going to fuck up all the time. So for the bill of rights and freedom, civilians wont rise up and defend it. Civilians aren't rising up to stop any problem, really. They're barely even able to handle the stress of daily life, therefor the mental burdon of active planetary or national responsability is completely out of their current capacity. After that they say it's all part of a higher natural necessity, or it's all in God's plan, or meant to happen, or whatever else, because they can't make it any better. In order to feel comfort, all kinds of ideologies are made up. That's probably the bulk of metaphysics right there : comfort and anthropic onanism.
-
@Dannerz said
"
Everybody lives a short ignorant little life
"Which is what makes life so grand! It is a contest to see who can pretend to know the most!
@Dannerz said
"
If we're talking about power in physical terms, the sun is power. Stars are power. They're large amounts of energy.
"That must mean I am powerful; cause: I am a star!
@Dannerz said
"
...when in fact the most superior things exist in harmony which has no obstructions or needs and thus does not have to overtake or overcome anything.
"Existing in harmony is what I consider power
@Dannerz said
"
Some of the strongest magicians I ever met, live unhappy little half-lives.
"They do not sound very strong...
@Dannerz said
"
Civilians aren't rising up to stop any problem, really.
"Of course not! First they need the force and vigor of arms!
Looking at it all as a disease, would not help in finding a cure (Me thinks). That seems to imply it is something foreign, when you should instead be integrating it in order to bring about a change.
Life might be easier if people stopped pretending they were in control.