Question on Liber L
-
Scarecrow, 93,
One last comment from me:
"Also it seems to me throughout Crowley's life, at times he was at times at odds with his True Will as he understood it. It didn't bring him, from what I've read, the freedom from conflict you have explained it would."
Crowley was the *first *Thelemite. I think that is often overlooked. I don't personally see him as the "finished Aeonic product." His job, if you will, was to make every fumble, stumble and blunder, record it, and ensure everyone knew about it. That includes groaners like his recently quoted comments on the joys of being a pre-Civil War slave in the US South. I see his doing all that screwing up as a key part of him fulfilling his TW. What we knowabout him in his later years sounds like he had serenity come over him in his last decade or so. Not everybody gets that.
93 93/93,
EM
-
The supernals are a state of awareness, a way or ordering conscious perceptions, specifically it is a state were the categorical distinctions made by the rational mind, that is the symbols of knowledge are not used. The pure raw, data is not divided into parts, it is non-dual. Rather than perceiving as if one is a self apart from and juxtapose to the world of other things, one realizes that all is one continuous process. There is nothing supernatural about this its perfectly physical.
The true Will does derive from this level of physical brain structure, of which the conscious mind is only a sub-layer, a software run on the physical brain hardware, Crossing the abyss is simply the discerning how to influence the hardware of the brain, to reprogram the software of the conscious mind. It is what RAW and Leary called the 6th brain circuit or John Lilly calls Meta-programming the human bio-computer.
Any way the TRUE WILL, is the set hardware of the brain-body-nervous system which is shaped by the environment both by the chemical-genetic make up and the effects upon it from space-time. Where as the whims and conscious Will, is the software of the conscious mind that merely attempts to use symbolic data in the present, to achieve the ends of the unconscious WILL. The conscious mind must however feel that it is free to find a means to achieve the TRUE WILL, bu if for example it is afflicted with the Chrisitan notion of SIN, then one is at conflict with the True WILL, because the conscious mind feels the ones TRUE WILL is sinful and immoral by nature, and thus the mind undermines itself, it becomes a state of many-hood.
Thus their are no moral laws or restrictions in Thelema, which is more concerned with the individuals free expression of under-lying psychology than with the social good of other people. Thus if you possess a Will to hate and kill, then you must be free to rape and murder without moral restriction, guilt or self-loathing. (As the only thing that liber all claims directly is to free one from all fear, guilt and sentimentality that makes on a slave to moral laws and supernatural authority.)
However, we also must realize that as a race we can't have people raping and killing Willy nilly, and we can't just have anyone doing anything at any time. So instead what we need is a social order that discerns atleast in general what sort of WILLs people generally have, and provides a proper role and means to express those WIlls in a productive way for the common good.
For example some one with a murderous WILL, may make an excellent soldier or assassin, working for the good of society. Or say a child who mutilates animals may become a serial killer, or if we discern these tendency early this Child's WILL can produce an a ficst rate veterinary surgeon.
-
93
Not sure I have much to add to Froclown's excellent mapping of the concept of True Will onto society. That perspective tends to be somewhat underplayed, especially in certain countries where the illusion of freedom must be maintained, and the mode of improving society is penal rather than progressive.
With regard to a better definition of the True Will, however... look at it like this. We are all constructed and wired slightly differently. Our physical beings and our non-physical beings are not so much bound together as they are intertwined... mated with one another for the duration of a life. It is the form that this union takes that determines the True Will.
The fundamental problem is awareness. How many are acutely (or even peripherally) aware of their own natures? I believe that Crowley gave us a set of tools for discovering this nature, and chose his words carefully along the lines of Rabelais and others to indicate that we must gain a conscious awareness of our innate nature. This makes the idea a philosophical one. The tool used is a spiritual one. The method used is a scientific one.
Since man moves through his experiential universe, that nature is not static, but possessed with a momentum and an evolution. This motion is also part of the True Will, at the very least from the perspective of the individual. Which leads us into the realm of relativistic physics, and I could very easily see professor Einstein being possessed of his own sort of enlightened adepthood through his disciplines as well.
It isn't the language "True Will", or the tool used, or the method invoked that is critical... it is the unmistakable experience of working in concert with one's own nature and the universe.
93/93
-
This has been such an interesting thread to me that I was hoping someone would share another post to keep it rolling. I'm going to try to... sorry if everyone else has moved on. True Will just seems like something not worth accepting on faith to me, and I appreciate the different perspectives.
Peregrinus93 said this:
"it is the unmistakable experience of working in concert with one's own nature and the universe."
Which I find very nice, poetic, and romantic. I like it as an idea. But as a practical explanation of reality, my scarecrow brain begs me to question:
- This implies that the universe has a True Will. Which implies a unity, which we might call God. So we're saying if you follow God's will, and your own nature (which I assume from Peregrinus93's comments to be our physical and non-physical (soul???)) you will be following your True Will.
- It will be unmistakable.
I can't believe the Universe has 1 Will.
I can't believe in a non-physical (soul like) quality that we all possess.
I can't believe that "it will be unmistakable" is the measure of success, since I've known the feeling of being absolutely sure of something only to be proved incorrect later.In this debate of True Will it just seems we're assuming sooooo much.
What would it take away from AC's methods to say that we each of us have Wills; why do we have to tie it into something cosmic? What does that get us?
You've told me what you think True Will is. Can it be shown? Can it be proven? Or do you just "know it" and can maybe recognize it in other people in which case we must ultimately take it on FAITH?
-
Scarecrow, 93,
"You've told me what you think True Will is. Can it be shown? Can it be proven? Or do you just "know it" and can maybe recognize it in other people in which case we must ultimately take it on FAITH?"
Have you taken this too far? True will is a term that sums up the essence of a person. In saying that, we assume we humans are not here simply to be, but to act.
But you seem to be striving for a metaphysical concept first. In fact, I could switch around some of your phrasing here, and comment that you are asking if God exists.
Keep this on a level in which you can believe. Do you feel you have an individuality? That in some respects you are unique? That there are things you want to achieve that others don't, and which are important to you? If so, then you'll see the idea of True Will isn't some invention of Aleister Crowley's, it's commonsense. Sure, (most) Thelemites extend TW into the metaphysical realm, because they have a metaphysical belief or perspective. But that has to be something that is real to the person, not a borrowed concept that strains one's credulity.
If I take myself as an example, I see TW as a vital means on the road toward the mystical state we call the Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel. I have very little patience with using Thelema to form political philosophies or indeed, philosophies or any kind. Philosophy, to my mind, is any temporary mental resting place that keeps the intellect reasonably happy and busy while the real work of dissolving fixed ideas about life is done.
Other people here are the opposite - they cannot even stomach the idea of an HGA or a non-physical realm of any kind. For them, philosophy, along with concrete values, is the vital need and the vital goal.
So, such a person and myself have very different True Wills. But insofar as we are both living, conscious expressions of a dynamic universe, there is no inherent conflict in this.
I think you remarked in one post that True Will is a concept unique to Thelema. I disagree. Christians are urged by their scriptures, "To thine own self be true." A Zen Buddhist discovers his/her Original Face. Hindus may see themselves working out their karma on the road to Liberation. A classic Sartrean existentialist would be striving to be authentic. And so on and so on. The difference in Thelema is its recognition of the <b>dynamism</b> of the essential self, especially once it's freed from Old Aeon dogmas and guilt.
Understanding True Will does not mean reaching some inflexible state of unchanging illumination, It's a process, subject to endless revision. If you are ever offered the final, fixed formula for defining True Will, if you follow that you are probably just getting yourself stuck.
93 93/93,
EM
-
EM: you make the case, if I'm hearing you right, that TW is a path and not a goal. I love this concept.
In the case of Crowley and Thelemites in general, I've heard it discussed that a person discovers their TW (ie, final results attained).
If I heard more "I'm discovering my TW", as in, I'm on the path, I think I wouldn't get stuck on the label.
Anyway, thanks for the input. Your perspective helps me to see another color from the prism.
-
I'll add a post, though I said it way earlier in this thread when replying to Froclown. If this helps, TW is something that is discovered. You have to ATTAIN it. You may feel hints of it, or, as I've heard, when you find it, it isn't a surprise as much as an affirmation. But importantly, it is a path. You're on the path to find your TW. (This should already separate it from instinct and nature, although Crowley praised them I think he wasn't calling them TW, yet embracing them as part of the path to discovering your TW). Then when you discover your TW you are on another path, doing your TW. The concept of paths shouldn't be that much of a revelation if you are familiar with the Qabalah and Tarot.
It also may help to look at what isn't TW. Crowley was quite clear, as well as my own personal experience, that when you go against your TW (even if you do not know it yet) those actions will cause you pain. Immediate or later. One example could be a bad relationship. Your "heart may not be in it" (not doing you TW) but you stay in it anyway and relationship problems become worse and worse and you find yourself engaging in other activities to get away from it, but these may not be TW either and the situation is made even worse. So if you know what feels wrong (against your TW) you may over time (on the path) be able to sum these up and know what your TW isn't and perhaps through this, take a huge step toward discovering your TW. You could use the example of being a vegan yet taking a job in cow slaughter house. There's a definite "not doing your TW." This would cause the individual pain, morally and otherwise.
-
93,
I would like to add a yes, yes, and yes to pretty much everything Edward Mason (or, as I like to call him, "E to the M") just said. I will also add a few thoughts of my own.
I think it's unconscionably arrogant and indefensible to assert that Crowley and TBOTL are correct, while every other mystic philosopher and his/her accompanying path is wrong. I don't even think Crowley was the first to realize that different people have different paths - even the Buddha is remembered as saying that he could not teach the path to enlightenment, he could only teach his path and it was up to others to see whether or not it worked.
While I would never argue that every religion is at its core the same, I do believe that if you limit your search to mystic thinkers and mystic means of attainment there is a surprising degree of conformity. In the end, I think it's different people looking at different parts of the same elephant. The knowledge and conversation of my HGA and the knowledge and conversation of yours may be so different that we barely recognize them as the same experience. How much different must it be to encapsulate such a subjective moment in a way people in the West will understand, to the way people in the East will understand?
This is why, although I enjoy dreaming up Thelemic social systems as much as the next guy, deep down I think we all might benefit from a little less day-dreaming and a little more half-lotus (or full lotus, if that's your bag). I think to come at Thelema and try to use it as a means to master the external world is putting the cart before the horse. Use it to master yourself, and the rest will fall into place, or the rest won't fall into place, but what the f@ck will you care, you're already where you want to be, doing what you want to be doing.
For me, the problem with saying the universe has one Will is the word "Will." To be perfectly frank, I don't care much for the word Will, and much prefer the term "Way," to borrow from the Taoists. I also believe the two concepts are entirely analogous in the broader definitions, although I recognize there is no absolute consensus even among Taoist philosophers as to the Way's essential nature.
While it seems perfectly reasonable to argue that the universe does not have a Will, it seems impossible to me to argue that the universe does not have a way. Even if one asserts that the universe is completely random, this is still a way - randomness - that the universe exists, or doesn't exist, depending.
This is why, for me, someone who makes no claims to having discovered his True Will, the experience cannot possibly be "Oh, that's why I've been so unhappy; I'm supposed to have been living in Budapest for the past 5 years." Rather, I expect it will come as something far less concrete, far less amenable to definition, or even understanding.
Now if anyone needs me I'll be reviewing the vocabulary for my finals next week, which I have, for some reason, decided is more important that the half-lotus I mentioned a few paragraphs up. Certainly I am not meant for greatness.
Love=Law
- C
-
93,
Do you have to 'attain' the true will or is it a realization or pulling back of the layers of the mind? Do you have to believe in 'free will' to believe in true will (Crowley and Hymenaeus Beta certainly think not)? Why shoudl we distinguish animal and plant 'instincts' from human (I think we shouldnt). Stars 'shine,' Humans 'go.' Whether you are mired in the delusion of ignorance and therefore suffer from the changing circumstances of life or whether you dont or whether you find an occupation you like or whether you dont - does that alter Will at all?
"Our minds and bodies are veils of the Light within. The uninitiate is a "Dark Star", and the Great Work for him is to make his veils transparent by 'purifying' them. This 'purification' is really 'simplification'; it is not that the veil is dirty, but that the complexity of its folds makes it opaque. The Great Work therefore consists principally in the solution of complexes. Everything in itself is perfect, but when things are muddled, they become 'evil'." - The Law is for All, I:8
I find it funny that There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt but everyone has their own idea of what Will is in the first place...
NarrowFellow: you seem to be confusing Will as a metaphysical principle (like Schopenhauer's Will-to-Life and Nietzsche's Will-to-Power) with the notion of willpower or volition. I would say teh universe certainly doesnt have volition but it certainly has a Will... IS Will. I see Will and Way/Tao as essentially coterminous (as does Crowley). "It should be clear from the foregoing that the Law of Thelema "Do what thou wilt" must be a logical rule of conduct to anyone who accepts the above premises... That the task is endless is no detriment to this process, but makes it all the more interesting. It is the way of the tao. Finality would cloy." -"On Thelema" by A.C.
IAO131
-
93,
ThatNarrowFellow wrote:
"Edward Mason (or, as I like to call him, "E to the M")"
Not sure I get the reference here, other than some altered version of E-MC squared.
I'm just curious.
93 93/93,
EM
-
*Crowley was the first Thelemite. I think that is often overlooked. *
Actually, Rabelais was the first Thelemite in spirit since he coined the term Thelemite, but in practice, the Monks of Medmenham, A.K.A. The Hellfire Club were probably the first practicing Thelemites.
-
93,
The Hellfire Club(s) - there were apparently several - consisted of a bunch of rich guys getting drunk and laid. They did, it seems, believe in stamping down the wretched and the weak, but not much beyond that and their own enjoyment.
Rabelais' status is arguable, since he did offer a laissez-faire philosophy. But I think he fell halfway between Thelema as presented by Crowley and expanded by others since, and the 18th Century rakes in the Hellfire Club. I'd give him honorary status, mostly for having coined several notions and phrases that Aiwass was able to appropriate as part of the conceptual framework in the Book of the Law.
93 93/93,
EM -
@Edward Mason said
"93,
ThatNarrowFellow wrote:
"Edward Mason (or, as I like to call him, "E to the M")"
Not sure I get the reference here, other than some altered version of E-MC squared.
I'm just curious.
93 93/93,
EM"
93,
No need to be curious, just a joke.
Aum: You're right, and I think this is why I prefer the word "Way." Even though intellectually I understand that there is the will of volition and the metaphysical concept of Will and that they are different (just look at their initial letters) in terms of understanding where the lower will of my animal desires ends and the higher Will of my Higher Self (to choose one of many insufficient terms) is something that still escapes me.
I also think that because of language, and the way in which language informs thought, no matter how clear I think I am on the different uses of this English word "(W)will," I still catch myself falling into confusion. The fact is, the word "will" implies a certain conception of what we're striving for, and on days when I feel particularly clear-headed it seems like a wonderful vision and I attain to it, but on days when I am more muddled I find it helps for me to go back to "Way" as a means to encapsulate what I am striving for, because it is easier to sort out, and clearer in definition. I'm not likely to mistake the path to the subway as my individually-expressed "Way," or "Dao," as it were.
Love=Law
- C
-
I like the concept mentioned before as the TW being a Way, a continuous and never-ending road.
I'm not sure this is what Crowley meant. He seemed to mean it as an ending. Something you can attain. (I'm not sure if you can actually attain a path, after thinking about that metaphor, since it could be argued one is ALWAYS on a path, and all of us are Gods in the midst of Going).
I also disagree strongly with the concept that:
"when you go against your TW (even if you do not know it yet) those actions will cause you pain. "
I'm sure following people's TW (whatever that is) has caused much pain, morally and otherwise.
I'd like to ask a new, but similar question of the group:
How does True Will differ from Destiny in your interpretation of the concept.
One thought I immediatly had on the subject was that destiny as it's normally understood cannot be circumvented... you are always following your destiny (or maybe I'm misguided on this subject too)... but it seems as many people have explained TW, you can NOT be following your TW.
Thoughts?
Also I've liked the different posts about Crowley and "being a thelemite"... in another thread it was posted that one could seperate the prophet Crowley from the person. I wonder if people consider Crowley the person as a prime example of a thelemite. If not why?
Thanks again folks - you all rock and so do your posts!
-
Scarecrow, 93,
"I'm not sure this is what Crowley meant. He seemed to mean it as an ending. Something you can attain."
I don't have the entire corpus of Crowley's writings memorized, but my understanding of him is that we attain or grasp the <i>formula</i> of the True Will. Then we spend the rest of our lives coming to terms with what it actually means in the context of the incarnation each of us inhabits.
"How does True Will differ from Destiny in your interpretation of the concept.
One thought I immediatly had on the subject was that destiny as it's normally understood cannot be circumvented... you are always following your destiny (or maybe I'm misguided on this subject too)... but it seems as many people have explained TW, you can NOT be following your TW."True Will defines or encompasses or encapsulates the whole of what our actual living is about. We can't simply 'figure it out'. Reason is the power we bring in at the review stage. Our lives are about fear, awe, love, mystery, joy, absurdity, hilarity, disappointment, creativity, fulfilment and so on. The term True Will refers to the essential spark that's behind our <i>living</i> all that. A fully realized being, living according to True Will, finds "ecstacy in every phenomenon," including all the above, and not just the parts of living that are outwardly fulfilling, or fit some conventional notion of success.
There is a resemblance between destiny and True Will. Both these ideas contain a sense of something far grander and more mysterious, more <b>vital</b>, than any mere <i>concept</i> we can have about being alive. But the term 'destiny' is used to describe that which is imposed on us or pre-designed for us. By opting for 'True Will,' Crowley made sure we see that we ourselves are the actors: not victims or mere recipients of grace.
The only remaining assignment is to discover Who/What is writing the script. The "Only the physical plane can exist" faction bore me stupid - not because I think they're 'wrong' exactly, but because they usually insist on putting a whole series of restrictions on the possibilities inherent in existence. Almost all of them claim we can define existence in terms of consciously perceived and definable terms. I've yet to meet anyone who, in honest moments, finds life fits that rule. The scriptwriter/director of our individual existences is <i>always</i> going to be found to be a half-dozen steps beyond the last life-conception we came up with, or the latest realization we've had about our 'real' selves.
Whether we see that as the HGA, 'God', or some similar term strikes me as a purely personal call. But once someone reaches the point where he/she sees his/her own life as a discrete whole with some kind of pattern, or theme, or common set of tendencies and outcomes, then intellect can be brought in to assess the situation. As noted above, I don't think we 'figure out' what the True Will is - it is an understanding that is revealed, or sneaks in through the back routes of consciousness. Intellect is then needed to apply that intuitive revelation or understanding to the different parts of our lives.
Doing all that (I hope and believe, anyway) leads eventually to the realization of the K&C of the HGA. That condition of consciousness seems to include something very close to a grasp of our 'destiny' since its effect is one of "lightening the girders of the soul" and then we get to see what the wider picture is about. Simply trying to figure out all the 'big' answers, though, is just going to produce a lot of mental noise: and I think it probably leads us further from our goal, not closer.
The various outcomes of doing that would resemble the pain caused by not following the True Will that - you said - you can't agree with. Such pain is often closer to Buddhist notions of *dukkha *(suffering, dissatisfaction) than conventional anguish. But it would include the perception and exprience of things like absurdity, cruelty, and hopelessness. These things come, and plentifully, but they are "but as shadows; they pass & are done; but there is that which remains."
93 93/93,
EM
-
Froclown, 93,
True Will is unique to each monad. None of us, as I understand it, can change that - rather, it is the mundane aspects in each of us that need to be changed to conform to that uniqueness.
But we have considerable choice on the level of society and the other aspects of the physical plane. We have all of Nuit in which to learn to play. And I can't understand how *you *can't see that.
93 93/93,
EM
-
Ideally a fish has the whole world to explore as well, but in practice fish are suited to be in the water. Each specific type of fish is suited best only to be in water with a specific salt contend, temperature, and only in relation to those other beings on which its digestion is fitted my nature to nourish its specific biology, and also only in relation to such predators as will work to keep the species in check but not devour the whole school to extinction.
Ideally a tree sloth has the whole rain forest to explore, but as an expression of its Will, it stays in the branches moving a mere few feet a day.
A dog can be left to its own devices, and it will eat things that are unclean, it gets into fights it can't win, messes with bees, chases cars, rolls in mud, gets rashes and diseases, etc.
But the same dog may be domesticated, put in a safe and clean environment, given special food that is nourishing, and have poisons removed from its diet.
Thus the animal in its proper environment is happy, healthier, and more able to express its potential. The animal which is places into a controlled Environment where its specific needs are discerned by science and met by technology, is happier and healthier than even an animal placed into its place designed by nature.
Mans science can do far better than the bind forces of nature, especially for suiting a physical and social environment where each type of man can grow and prosper according to its natural niche or WILL.
Also I can find example of Crowely supporting Aristocratic ideal, social castes, of him judging individual by class, gender, race, nationality, etc, and where he speaks directly against democracy and popular rule, calling for a select fow elite rulers to govern the moron masses of humanity.
I do not however see him calling for democracy, egalitarianism, or any form of liberal-anarchism.
If you have any such quotes I would like to read them