Question on Liber L
-
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.
-
93 I always have to be the hippie on this forum.. or maybe it's just the female perspective that's lacking... Some of you guys seem to think being victorious in a cock fight means you've accomplished your Will. I think your Will successfully navigated would have been to avoid any such conflict because LOVE is the law!
DavidH:
"This is a case of another star, not acting according to their 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."
So what if that star having gone off course is, by chance, not on a direct path that will collide with yours however is careening towards a heavily populated region of stars whom you know to be a vital part of the universe? Do you intervene? I believe sometimes we find ourselves in a certain place/time where we realize our Will might mean for us to sacrifice our life as an act of Love under Will. For to knowingly allow a crime against the sanctity of sovereigns is to be just as guilty as he who would commit such violation. Why? Because it all comes down to intention! If you kill another to save yourself because you love yourself above all others you are NOT doing your Will because you were not living by the Law bringing you to this junction. You can't go on a self serving rampage and assume anyone with the audacity to humble you is alienating your rights.
Froclown:
"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. "
You have a long way to go, dear Froclown, I'm sorry to say. Nothing more is expected of you though but for you to listen to your conscience while you're going.. I think Bob Marley said it best with "you can't run away from yourself". Just the fact that you said "to do it and get away with it" means you know "it" was WRONG. That is not power, that is self defeat! You know you have to sow all that you may reap. Strength is tendered by mercy, wisdom by understanding. All power is given when Will surrenders to Love and one accepts responsibility for all his actions AND experiences (however they appear be it friend or foe) as a particular dealing of God with his soul...
-
their is no right or wrong, you have to get away with it, if it pisses other people off.
and as for love, It is love to engage in battle. The fight unites two opposite Will, as in one arena.
As brothers fight ye.
The whole point of thelema is one not give concession of ones own Will to others, and others feelings are not taken into account at all. Save in matters of self preservation.
Politically correct is not Thelemically correct
-
@Asraiya said
"93 I always have to be the hippie on this forum.. or maybe it's just the female perspective that's lacking... Some of you guys seem to think being victorious in a cock fight means you've accomplished your Will. I think your Will successfully navigated would have been to avoid any such conflict because LOVE is the law!"
Its a sad thing that women cant take pride in being victorious in a cock fight
Love is the law but... "This is to be taken as meaning that while Will is the Law, the nature of that Will is Love. But this Love is as it were a by-product of that Will; it does not contradict or supersede that Will; and if apparent contradiction should arise in any crisis, it is the Will that will guide us aright. **Lo, while in The Book of the Law is much of Love, there is no word of Sentimentality. Hate itself is almost like Love! ``As brothers fight ye!'' All the manly races of the world understand this. The Love of Liber Legis is always bold, virile, even orgiastic. There is delicacy, but it is the delicacy of strength. ** Mighty and terrible and glorious as it is, however, it is but the pennon upon the sacred lance of Will, the damascened inscription upon the swords of the Knight-monks of Thelema."
"So what if that star having gone off course is, by chance, not on a direct path that will collide with yours however is careening towards a heavily populated region of stars whom you know to be a vital part of the universe? Do you intervene?"
Thats too abstract to tell. The thing really is: if its your Will, you do it, if not, you dont.
"I believe sometimes we find ourselves in a certain place/time where we realize our Will might mean for us to sacrifice our life as an act of Love under Will. For to knowingly allow a crime against the sanctity of sovereigns is to be just as guilty as he who would commit such violation. Why? Because it all comes down to intention! If you kill another to save yourself because you love yourself above all others you are NOT doing your Will because you were not living by the Law bringing you to this junction."
Huh? Saving yourself doesnt necessarily mean you love yourself above others. In fact, its hard to love others if you dont save yourself first to be able to give out that 'Love'.
"You can't go on a self serving rampage and assume anyone with the audacity to humble you is alienating your rights. "
You sure can but that doesnt mean its a practical approach to conflict...
"You have a long way to go, dear Froclown, I'm sorry to say. "
Im sorry to say that you sound utterly condescending and I find that disgusting. You think you can tell anotehr they have a long way to go because they dont agree with your 'hippie' interpretation of things?
"Nothing more is expected of you though but for you to listen to your conscience while you're going.. I think Bob Marley said it best with "you can't run away from yourself". Just the fact that you said "to do it and get away with it" means you know "it" was WRONG. "
Suppose a person thinks that a law is stupid and disagrees with it. They break that law and 'get away with it' but dont think that action is wrong, just that they will incur penalties if the 'authorities' catch them for doing this. This is a clear example showing that your conclusion is 'WRONG.'
"That is not power, that is self defeat! You know you have to sow all that you may reap. Strength is tendered by mercy, wisdom by understanding."
And mercy is tendered by strength, etc.
"All power is given when Will surrenders to Love and one accepts responsibility for all his actions AND experiences (however they appear be it friend or foe) as a particular dealing of God with his soul..."
That doesnt necessarily exclude fighting, conflict, war, and good ol competition my hippie friend.
IAO131
-
93! I do apologize for being condescending and will readily admit to having a long way to go myself. We're all in this together whether we admit it or not. As for Froclown I'll confess my contempt stemmed a bit from disgust with his love for this Gor philosophy stuff that has men enslaving women in a some fictional utopia... It's discussed on a different thread so I was being rather passive aggressive but you didn't have to hurt my feelings by insulting my ability to cock fight
-
They are still taking volunteers for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. You should sign up. It would be a good place to test your will, if you know it so well. After all, ACTION not WORDS. Keep us posted on any conversions to Thelema you are able to accumulate. Last I checked, torture is still on the table.
-
@Aum418 said
"Its a sad thing that women cant take pride in being victorious in a cock fight
"excuse me? please do not generalize. any woman can win your cock fight.
remember, all the power is given to the scarlet woman. power belongs to the severity (feminine) pillar
@Aum418 said
"Im sorry to say that you sound utterly condescending and I find that disgusting. You think you can tell anotehr they have a long way to go because they dont agree with your 'hippie' interpretation of things?"
excuse me again but you have been dismissive and condescending to froclown and you are being rude to asraiya. take that into account.
