Question on Liber L
-
93,
Is killing outlawed in cases of self-defense? In the cases of war? Are all wars against Thelema? What about a coup to dethrone dictators or aristocracy we think is oppressive? Does Do what thou wilt necessarily exclude killing others? Liber OZ would make us think not - in fact it guarantees that right. The problem then comes when does one exercise this right? Would it be pragmatic in many cases? I think not, but that doesnt mean killing is against the Law of Thelema. Do what thou wilt certainly doesnt mean do what you want but isnt it conceivable of a certain person's will to be violent, to kill another for some purpose, etc.? Do what thou wilt gives the freedom that no action is a priori wrong but that also subjects us to doing our will - but that doesnt mean any particular action is wrong unless it conflicts with our Will. And again isnt it conceivable for someones Will to include killing another?
"The formula of this law is: Do what thou wilt. Its moral aspect is simple enough in theory. Do what thou wilt does not mean Do as you please, although it implies this degree of emancipation, that it is no longer possible to say a priori that a given action is "wrong." Each man has the right – and an absolute right – to accomplish his True Will."
-Aleister Crowley, "The Method of Thelema"Also, if all experience is lawful and not all actions are what abotu the idea that All is Experience? We are only aware of actions through experience. Is the experience of killing someone lawful but the action not? That seems a bit contradictory and meaningless.
IAO131
-
@Aum418 said
"Also, if all experience is lawful and not all actions are what abotu the idea that All is Experience? We are only aware of actions through experience. Is the experience of killing someone lawful but the action not? That seems a bit contradictory and meaningless."
First, I didn't say all actions aren't lawful. I just noted the distinction. Equating the two seemed to be blocking the discussion flow.
It seems to me that experience is centripitel and action is centrifugal. (You can have experience of your actions, but that requires a different level of awareness than simply action.)
Certainly, subjectively "all is experience." But it makes no sense that this is true objectively.
BTW, I'm using a standard English meaning of "experience" as "an apprenension of [something] through some factulty of sense or mind."
-
@Aum418 said
"Is killing outlawed in cases of self-defense? In the cases of war? Are all wars against Thelema? IAO131"
93 Brother. This comment supports my claim. A case of self defense is protecting yourself from someone else who is attempting to take away your ability to follow your own will. As Crowley said, you have the right to kill someone who is trying to force their will upon you. This would apply to self defense, dictatorship, etc.
This is a case of another star, not acting according to thier true will, leaves orbit to collide with you. You can stop them without any negative karma. If you murder someone with no reason then it is you who are out of orbit and not doing your true will.
-
does one ever act without some reason for it?
What if I kill some one to prove my physical strength, or to test how well I have hardened my heart and emancipated myself from guilt. Either of which might be my WILL.
An act is only proved successful or unsuccessful in Liber all, their is no value of moral or immoral, Right acts are successful wrong acts are unsuccessful. "Success is thy proof".
The crux of this issue is addressed by Paul in Corinthians 10:23
King James
All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.Bible in Basic English
We are free to do all things, but there are things which it is not wise to do. We are free to do all things, but not all things are for the common good.Thelema does not tell us what to do, it tells us in plane language that we are free to do anytihng, all things are lawful. But it also provides a means by which to discern what is expedient for the individual and a means to more effectively achive those ends.
Thelema can greate a better Sinner or a better saint, and does not distingush one from the other. In Thelema the inefficient and unsuccessful saint and sinner are classed as the weak that are stoped out. The successful murderous tyrant classed with the great king Solomon who rules with kindenss and wisdom.
Crowley states “After five years of folly and weakness, miscalled politeness, tact, discretion, care for the feeling of others, I am weary of it. I say today: to hell with Christianity, Rationalism, Buddhism, all the lumber of the centuries. I bring you a positive and primeval fact, Magic by name; and with this I will build me a new Heaven and new Earth. I want none of your faint approval or faint dispraise; I want blasphemy, murder, rape, revolution, anything, bad or good, but strong.”
Strength vs weakness is found in Thelema. Not Good vs Evil, or Moral vs Immoral.
Thou has no Right, but to do thy WILL.Lets re parse that. THOU HAS NO RIGHTS. DO WHAT YOU WILL
-
93,
Froclown wrote:
"What if I kill some one to prove my physical strength, or to test how well I have hardened my heart and emancipated myself from guilt. Either of which might be my WILL. "
I don't see True Will as something that simply comes in from some exalted level above or outside Assiah / manifestation. To develop that idea is to create a new God as a substitute for the old one(s).
True Will is the expression of the essence of what we are, and that essence surely holds true on all planes, from Atziluth to Assiah. Its activation, therefore, is not going to be at the expense of matters in the manifest universe: I seriously doubt that my own TW, for example, requires me to seek a jail sentence or execution so that I can experience killing someone else.
I also think killing other people must be a letdown, like any observed activity, but that's another issue.
And waiting to see if "there is success" from such an act strikes me as a result of obliviousness, not wisdom.
Elevating lack of morality as a displacement of morality (which is what you seem to be doing here) is ... well, just asserting another morality.
The <i>mindset</i> of freedom from either moral constraints or lust of result is necessary in order to realize the True Will. But simply following whims is just that - following whims. Simply asserting egoic needs - "Look at my strength!" "Hey, look Ma - no heart!" strikes me as a delusory route to take, and not an emancipatory one.
Discrimination is the first skill mastered in the mysteries, because it will be necessary on all planes.
93 93/9,
EM
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@Aum418 said
"Also, if all experience is lawful and not all actions are what abotu the idea that All is Experience? We are only aware of actions through experience. Is the experience of killing someone lawful but the action not? That seems a bit contradictory and meaningless."First, I didn't say all actions aren't lawful. I just noted the distinction. Equating the two seemed to be blocking the discussion flow."
On my side it seems like youre obscuring the discussion but so it goes.
"It seems to me that experience is centripitel and action is centrifugal. (You can have experience of your actions, but that requires a different level of awareness than simply action.) "
I completely fail how that idea has anything to do with centripetal or centrifugal motion.
"Certainly, subjectively "all is experience." But it makes no sense that this is true objectively. "
Huh? Its not true objectively that all experience is subjective?
"BTW, I'm using a standard English meaning of "experience" as "an apprenension of [something] through some factulty of sense or mind.""
Uh huh... and?
DavidH: Yes well isn't it conceivable that someone could construe someone as constraining their, for example, right to create as they will? Does that justify killing them? Couldnt anyone be construed as infringing on one's ability to live and die as they will (hey, that guy is crossing the street in front of me but I want to keep going straight)? At what degree does it stop being true or useful?
IAO131
IAO131
-
Hi Froclown,
Seems to me there has to be a definition of "success" for an action. Both Hitler and Saddam Husein were quite successful for a long time, in that they exercised their will. But ultimately both reigns ended, was that a success?
Guess True Will has to be defined for each person.
In L.V.X.,
chrys333 -
yes Hitler was successful, until he made a bull move and failed.
Was Napoleon not chosen by destiny to conquer Europe?
And Alexander to conquer the world?
By Taking the right move at the right time with the right force applied to the right object in the proper way, All these great men by dint of truth, conquered the world.
But when they failed to meet one of these theorems, they failed. -
@Froclown said
"yes Hitler was successful, until he made a bull move and failed.
Was Napoleon not chosen by destiny to conquer Europe?
And Alexander to conquer the world?
By Taking the right move at the right time with the right force applied to the right object in the proper way, All these great men by dint of truth, conquered the world.
But when they failed to meet one of these theorems, they failed."These theorems of... conquering things? I think its safe to say that when someone isnt conquering they have failed at conquering.
IAO131
-
@Aum418 said
"
"It seems to me that experience is centripitel and action is centrifugal. (You can have experience of your actions, but that requires a different level of awareness than simply action.) "I completely fail how that idea has anything to do with centripetal or centrifugal motion."
Experience is a consequence of energy moving inward to a receptive center. Action is a consequence of energy moving outward from an emanting center.
"
"Certainly, subjectively "all is experience." But it makes no sense that this is true objectively. "Huh? Its not true objectively that all experience is subjective?"
I meant that it makes no sense to me that all objective things "are" experience.
-
no I was referring to the 28 theorems of Magick put forth in MTP.
More precisely I was referring te the postulate that precede the theorems
"Any required change may be effected by the application of the proper kind and degree of force in the proper manner through the proper medium to the proper object."
If an act of Magic succeeds, it is because it conformed to all parts of the postulate. If it fails, it was because one or more parts of the postulates were not conformed to.
Thus magick is only concerned with the success of the act, not the morality of it, or if it is ones WILL or if it interferes with others or not. If You stop to ask why then WILL stops and does not, so saith the book of the law. Thus to question oneself to seek any kind of moral or legal justification is to miss the boat, To invoke because, and their to perish with the dogs of reason, to question for ever and never act. "why is it moral or why is it lawful to do X, well BECAUSE it does not interfere with others"
That little interlude that little exchange between the WILL to act and the reason's moral criteria, that is a duality, that is the mind divided against itself, it is that state of manyhood. The instant you stop to question yourself, you restrict you Will, you slow its inertia and you invite failure.The postulates and theorems are not just for conquering and ruling, the are necessary for any act to be successful, including a game of billiards and blowing you nose.
Thelema is the law of the strong and the successful, it matters not what you succeed in, only that whatever you aim at, you focus your WILL Power perfectly and you persevere with total strength: that you are so cock sure of yourself that the thought of possible failure does not even enter your mind. Thus you can be totally unworried and detached from the lust of results, feeling you are assured success,
-
@Froclown said
"If an act of Magic succeeds, it is because it conformed to all parts of the postulate. If it fails, it was because one or more parts of the postulates were not conformed to.
Thus magick is only concerned with the success of the act, not the morality of it, or if it is ones WILL or if it interferes with others or not. "
That's specious reasoning. If I wrote a manual on how to kill people, that wouldn't mean I was endorsing doing so.
The definition, postulate and theorems of Magick are intended to define Magick. They don't mention the ethics of performing a given act of Magick because it's outside the scope of the essay, not because such ethics don't apply.
Dan
-
there is no natural or physical force called Ethics.
Thus if you CAN do it then you MAY do it. Ethics = restriction of WILL
Why if I can kill someone and I Want to Kill that person, and I benefit in every way from killing that person, Then what force of nature tells me I SHOULD NOT kill that person?
if their is no physical force as an obstacle that I can't work around or overcome, then I need not worry what others Gods or men might say Neigh.
The code of the warrior caste on Gor states "Ever man is an Ubar (tyrant-king) within the circumference of his sword arm, the swords of others will set his limits"
We are all Hadit points within our own perspective universe bounded my Nuit, Thus the whole universe is an extension of oneself and one is Free to use and abuse the universe as one WILL. No ethical codes apply, only cause and effect, and your desire to achieve a particular ends.
If you encounter another star do not back down and yeild way, do not justify this act with I must accommodate to his WILL too. Rather instead as it says in the book, Strike lo and hard, too hell with them. We can't be concerned with other people's feelings or their claim to have the Right of way. I always have the right of way in my course, and the other will face my steel and I shall not back down from his steal, and as brothers we shall fight with mutual respect, until one is the victor or a truce is drawn.
But the Truce does not exist until after the fight, when wy each prove our mettle to the other and we each define by Force and Fire each others Physical limits.
-
93!
- Man has the right to live by his own law--
to live in the way that he wills to do:
to work as he will:
to play as he will:
to rest as he will:
to die when and how he will. - Man has the right to eat what he will:
to drink what he will:
to dwell where he will:
to move as he will on the face of the earth. - Man has the right to think what he will:
to speak what he will:
to write what he will:
to draw, paint, carve, etch, mould, build as he will:
to dress as he will. - Man has the right to love as he will:--
"take your fill and will of love as ye will,
when, where, and with whom ye will." --AL. I. 51 - Man has the right to kill those who would thwart these rights.
"the slaves shall serve." --AL. II. 58
"Love is the law, love under will." --AL. I. 57
Now, this states the RIGHTS of each star. The only one that would take away the rights of another star is the last, and IF they are trying to thwart YOUR rights. Your view is the opposite, to go around imposing your will on everyone. That is the opposite of Thelema in my opinion. The above supports my claim. It does not say YOU have a right, it says MAN has a right. So you have no right to take these away by force.
- Man has the right to live by his own law--
-
@DavidH said
"Now, this states the RIGHTS of each star."
You have quoted Liber OZ.
Liber OZ is a piece of paper.
It is also some man's idea of how things should be (and then he wrote it down on OZ paper).
So what?
Froclown is right. Listen to him and learn! -
I am not going to just totally dismiss Liber OZ
Yes Man has a right to all of those things. Just as Horus child has a right to the throne, but that does not mean the throne is jsut given to him, he has to prove himself worthy of it, he must first avenge his father.
Anyway who or what grants the rights Listed in Liber OZ?
We may presume that it is Horus, or wore correctly Ra-Hoor-Kuit, who in defined an "the strength and vigor of your arms" That is to say Each man has every right to do what he WILL if he has the strength, power, and wisdom to do it and get away with it.Liber AL does not say that one man must grant any other man a free passage, that any man should apt out, forfeit or step aside for any other man. What it says is that ever individual is the sovereign ruler of his entires universe and has every right to conquer that universe and any element there of without concern for the rights of others, others ate big boys they can look out for their own rights. To assume others can't look out for their own rights, to handicap yourself when you engage them, is to insult their star. Rather we must meet all as equals and strike all with full force, the slaves shall perish and their failure proves their unworthiness, the kings shall strike back and met your force with theirs. A compromise will be drawn between two equally fierce WILLs or else one shall triumph over the other, but each having fought well shall earn the others respect and both winner and loser will not perish, in spirit or in body,
For the orbit of each star in the sum result of each acting its full force on the others, not one star holds back its gravity or its EMF, its force of attraction and repulsion are full, it shines on with all its might, and pulls no punches to spare the sentimentality of its neighbors.
Back to liber OZ, what grants man these rights? His physical power, his mental prowess, and the very fact that he is wiling to KILL anyone who stands in his way.
-
"Back to liber OZ, what grants man these rights? His physical power, his mental prowess, and the very fact that he is wiling to KILL anyone who stands in his way."
Not clear on this.
How are they rights? Because people do them? We have gangs of young men and women who do just what you said, but they can only function in a society that respects that.
The most powerful of the people in our world do not appear to have:
1. Physical power (unless you hire mercenaries)
2. Mental Prowess (unless you hire brains)
3. ..and who do you know that is willing to kill anyone who stands in his way? Powerful men and women may be willing to kill, but it seems to me the wisest people tend to chose a more expedient method. Even gangsters negotiate. It is more efficient.
If this formula works for you, so be it. But to assert it is the only way the world works is not true. The Buddha and the Christ are powerful, right? Their effect is lasting, so far. But conquerors come and go.
www.timelineindex.com/content/select/844/1023,844
What does all this have to do with True Will? You have defined True Will as someone who is Conan the Barbarian?
In L.V.X.,
chrys333 -
Seems like part of this discussion hinges on how one can approach Liber Oz, and maybe Thelema all together.
I tend to look at it in 2 basic ways:
-
From the perspective of an individual, there seems to be a certain amount of the Crowned and Conquering Child Persona being thrown around - what baby wants, baby gets, etc. (of course until we have these rights a certain amount of "Conquering" might be in order to gain these Rights of Man).
-
From the perspective of a society, there seems to be a certain amount of understanding that we are all individuals with our own needs and desires and "Wills", and that we can live together in a kind of peace if we respect each others "rights"... (I imagine this is akin to Crowley's view that as stars on their proper course we can all tred our path's without busting into any other stars, interacting, sure, but not destroying).
Ultimately I try to understand the document as an individual that would like to function in a functioning society.
My 2 cents.
-
-
-
we don't have to shape ourselves to fit into society. society is the Resulting vector of every individual doing what it Wills.
Not still doing what you Will does not mean doing just anything at all. It mean first of all, if You WILL to do a thing, you must take actions to do it, rather than puss out or rationalize an excuse to not do it.
Second it means than once you are set upon your WILL you must remain focused and not let your self be distracted by side issues than do not contribute to your WILL. Sure if it facilitates your WIll murder rape and pillage, but as Crowley said if you Will is to get down a cliff, the simplest means is to jump, but this method destroys the Will in the process of fulfilling it.
Even a negotiation is a fierce battle of WILLs, think not that when I say we are to fight with sword I mean only those swords forged of steel. In many cases say two men reach a bridge and both want to cross, generally one or the other shall be in less of a hurry, or one will realize that his greater purpose is not achieved by a petty bridge battle. So a compromise in made. But to go out of ones way to accommodate the enemy, (everyone else) is treason to your own WILL. Just because everyone else is the enemy of your WILL does not mean you can't respect them as warriors of Thelema, nor that it does not benefit your own WILL to form truces and alliances. When it is to the benefit of you WILL, to put the Will of others above you own, or even equal to your own is to fall into the vice of kings, and weaken yourself, thus becoming a candidate to be trampled upon.
When the great empires, Babylon and Rome, toyed with such sweetnesses, they became more liberal and compassionate, that is when the empire fell, So too is that happening in the United states, and all around the western world, it is only China the very opposite of liberal politics, that is doing strong today.
To see a very good explanation of this tendency read Atlas shrugged by Ayn Rand.
