The Solar Phallic King
-
For one their is a difference between running a gang of thieves and being a beggar. Not that either are socially desired.
It is well within the LAW "Do what thou wilt" to be a beggar or a thief, etc. That is not the issue, the issue is how we promote a social system where people can do their WILL and everyone has a place like gears in a clock, or stars in the galaxy.
The WILL of the heart in not like the WILL of the brain nor the WILL of the Liver, but if the heart does not abide by the signals sent by the brain, instead beating at its own pace (I am the heart equal to the brain I need not obey any orders) the blood will flaw erratically, the liver will not be able to filter properly, the blood will carry poison to the brain and the whole body will die.
If the so called lowly cobbler does not build the kings shoes well, the king may stumble on a broken heel and lose the respect of his soldiers, who in turn ignore his battle plan, lose the war, and the whole kingdom is burned to the ground.
Likewise in the body the most vestigial and superfluous organ, the appendix may rupture and poison the whole body, if it is not able to do its WILL, no matter how insignificant than function may seem. The lowest slave fulfilling his function is as vital to the whole as the highest nobleman. Thus to do ones WILL, does not mean everyone is the brain, it means if you happen to be the appendix, be proud of it, be the best damn appendix you can be, for that is your nature and purpose, to do other than this can lead to catastrophe, the knowledge that you hold this power to cause and prevent catastrophe shall be your sense of power and pride. The healthy individual will seek to do ones WILL no matter what it is.
That is to say "Their are no small roles only small people",
Roles are not equal, the body can live if the appendix is removed, but remove the heart or brain and all the rest perish as well.
The rise of thieves I spake of before was because without a king, without a community ideal to serve, these people turn their force into turning profits, to pure immediate material gains. Organs without a body, all claiming that each it its own whole body, and does not need the others, does not need to be part of something, because each is its own whole everything.
Every man is a king, in the reach of his sword arm, the swords of others will mark his limits. Thus are treaties drawn, and communities formed. But not all men are warriors, some can bearly lift a sword, but are quick with the pen, writing verse. Each here is king within the influence of his pen, and can dip his quill in venom to take down a foe, thus creating limits, between scribes.
The doctor is a master of potions and healing arts, but also has the knowledge of what kills the body, thus the doctor finds a sphere of action and sets up his limits. A builder creates buildings in which to live and walls, doors, locks, to set limits.Their are different castes and they have Earned their place in a particular community by way of imposing and removing limits, on each other. Respect for these limits are taught via local rules of manors, norms, titles of respect, etc.
Those who have been limited and have no power to push back the limits are given little or no respect (as it should be). This is the Law of the strong.
Thelema is not about what political limits are put over someone, it is about spiritual limits, super-ego stuff. That is if you are a slave, you are a slave still, but you can do anything you can get away with and feel no guilt, as no GOD will punish you, The law may imprison you, a jealous lover may kill you in a rage, and all than is Lawful under thelema.
All Do what thou wilt, really means is their is no spiritual punishment, no heaven no hell, no God or any other moral principle to obey. Instead we must look to earthly conditions to set our limits. To our biology, and the might of others.
Here is a Christian version of Liber AL.
I GOD have given up on you, mortal men, I am ashamed of you and I offer you no more guidance, you do whatever you want, I have Forsaken you! Now go bugger off.
To which we can either sulk and lament, or we can shout FREE at last, Free at a last, on live by our own principles, not God's standards.
-
Yeah, now, see... Something like that seems much more debatable.
I still think monarchy is a dead end for the reasons of sustainability I mentioned. I'm just much more pessimistic about how easy it is to create initiates. I think it requires more than just the science of it. There's a rare personal quality that's necessary. Some people talk about it in terms of karma. I don't pretend to understand it. It's just very rare.
All the ranting against Equality and democracy on principle seems pointless though. It's a distraction from any good points you have.
-
what I meant before about using up slaves, is the for example the body does not live for the heart or any other organ, but for the whole body, the heart beats and its beating is USED up by the body for an end that transcends just the heart itself. The WILL of the heart is to beat for beating sake, because that is what hearts do, and part of being the heart and doing good beating is to obey the impulse from the central nervous system. The heart does not mind that it is being used up, that each beat brings it closer to death, because in beating it is part of a higher order, which supports on only itself, but the other organs, and in fact little does the heart know but by beating in one mans chest, it allows this man to provide life necessity for a child and thus one heart beat preserves the beating of another.
The liver the same as the heart has its transcendent role, but its purpose is not the hearts purpose. The purpose of some cells in the body are that when killed by a bacteria they dead cell produces a chemical signal than helps Identify the invader. Much as in Islam we find even young boys who attain a transcendent meaning in suicide, even if their personal life is short, and they die in a gristly way. It is the WILL of some stars to burn out fast.
What Thelema teaches is to feel no fear or guilt, about being who you are and whatever happens to you pleasure or pain in the local life, is irrelevant as the whole is beyond the inter-play of the parts. If you are performing your natural function, even suffering is joy.
The king is vital as both a political and a "spiritual" leader, one who by example as much as lesson, leads the people in rituals that help remind than they are each part of something bigger, and each has a proper place in the larger world, what that place is, and how to sense it. As well as the links between the individuals in the community. Links to the communities history, to the natural world, to each other, and to the social order. The social order which is guided by the King, who is the Lord of the community, who is one with the solar force. Whom the people orbit, and draw strength from.
Is this not what the Gnostic mass is meant to achieve?
Is not first the common man made into a Priest (King)
"I am but a man among men, how shall I be made worthy to administer the virtues to the brethren"
Perhaps the consecration by the Priestess can be studies along with the deliverance of Excalibur to Author by the lady of the lake. As a means to understand how a king is "made".Also realize that never in the whole of humanity mentioned as recipients of the virtues, but rather the brethren who are present at the mass. It would be a rare king indeed who could be worthy to administer virtues suited to all men everywhere. Rather let each group of brethren conceive its own King, and certainly the Mass is catholic, but one can devise local versions on the same theme, more suited to the group. With its own saints and memorable deeds.
-
Here is an articles from the Treasure-house of pearls site.
www.thelema.nu/archives/13#more-13
Any time an administration is run by someone without transcendent knowledge of some kind, but instead is just a product of the herd (the masses as Ortega y Gasset calls them) you will see this kind of government. In all cases, the best that could be hoped for is mediocrity. Rarely though do they even reach that height. Look around; what do you see?
-
That's a good blog article. I'm pretty sure I agree with every bit of it.
What still amazes me is that you would refer to articles like that (or, indeed, any concept of Kingship in Thelema) in support of your idea that your government would be more effectively ruled by someone other than yourself (monarchy opposed to democracy).
You are very vocal about giving up your own voice in the matter. Why? Is it because you have such a low opinion of "the masses" that you would rather give up your own voice and authority? To do so is to place your fate directly in the hands of circumstance and Because. You would be forfeiting your "ability to make change occur in conformity with Will" in your own government.
To me, it always seems like you are abdicating what "throne" you currently have (one out of many that it is) in favor of no throne at all.
I would argue that forcing "the masses" to realize that we all bear the consequences of our decisions and individual level of enlightenment together is the most effective and efficient tool for the evolution of humanity. Putting that responsibility solely on someone else simply ensures its continued ignorance and lack of global consciousness or responsibility.
Democracy is the school of hard knocks on a global level, and everybody has to play, for better or worse, or remain the slave of Because.
-
Not at all.
I work on the assumption that I would by my own merits rise to a position or appointment by the king with personal authority over not the whole nation or the whole community, but over a smaller sphere of action, which is appropriate to my nature and ability. I never said the King would have autocratic and omni-potent power over everything.
For example one can believe their should be a governor of the State, but still only want to be mayor, or even only want to be a police officer oneself. Just because their is a Mayor who is chief of all the police, it does not mean that the individual officer does not have freedom to act when out on his patrol. Nor does the fact that the Governor exist, mean that the mayors of townships have room to act.
Tho sphere of ones action being as much a social as economic concern, a mans character determining allot about what sort of social-economic caste he is suited for. A Timid man is not suited for the military nor is an impatient man suited for accounting, the proper role (Orbit of each star) can be calculated, rather than left up to chance.
-
This is very Old Aeon stuff. Utterly Osirian.
-
Hi Froclown,
Did you vote in the last election? Not clear about the monarchy vs republic thing.
In L.V.X.,
chrys333 -
The last election I wrote in Ron Paul actually, as he addressed the issue of the Federal Reserve Bank and monetary policy.
I have not against a republic, and most of the time a well working Monarchy would be a republic, the King who does his job well, never has to actually do anything.
A republic would have delegates of each caste or faction within the society, and these would negotiation the best use of the collective resources, as in how much of each type of resource would be divided up to the few general factions. These are free to use those resources as they feel in best. If the negotiations do not run smooth, or become unproductive, this is when the King would step in to arbitrate, and to dismiss or re-appoint members who are causing the problem.
When all is working well, their is little political noise created, the castes divide the wealth justly, the caste members get along and mutually support each other, Ever person no matter what his or her faculty works towards the one collective Ideal, the transcendent Goal, the WILL of the community.
The King then is like the HGA of the community, the human representation of the Transcendent values and goals of the people, that brings order when the individual Ego games start to interfere with the Transcendent values.
-
www.billheidrick.com/tlc1996/tlc1296.htm
scroll down to "Crowley Classics"
"Men are fit to hunt, fish, and create; women to cook, to labor in the fields, and to bear children. Abandon this conception with all its obvious demerits, and you merely arrive at a Bottomless Pit of vague argument, ending in the query "What is a man? What is a woman?" A very nauseating mess!""The hierarchical and caste system is the system with biological truth to back it, and it always comes back as soon as the organism is in danger. This war will make an end of the "brilliant," "intellectual" nonsense of the George Bernard Shaws and the Leon Trotzkys; aristocracy will be re-established in a more enlightened form. Birth is not everything; we need brains as well. But we must put an end to the power of money, which is the corruption of all Virtue,"
Now this was written by Crowley, but could have come right out of Evola's Revoult against the modern world.
If this is old Aeon, then you accuse Crowley of Old aeon thought, and when you start trying to say Crowley the man vs the Prophet or Revealed vs mundane books, or whatever, all you are doing is spinning deceptions to make Thelema meet your liberal ideals, that are indoctrinated in us all from birth and extra impressed in University.
The Old aeon in not feudalism, the old aeon in Christian equality and modernist denial of the all values in favor of pure materialism.
-
@Froclown said
"... when you start trying to say Crowley the man vs the Prophet or Revealed vs mundane books, or whatever, all you are doing is spinning deceptions to make Thelema meet your liberal ideals, that are indoctrinated in us all from birth and extra impressed in University. "
Am I mistaken, or wasn't it Crowley himself who instituted a classification system for his writings to prevent precisely this kind of thinking?
The document you quote bears no classification, but according to the system he instituted, it looks to be Class E, "manifestoes, broadsides, epistles, and other public statements."
-
Yes, Class E at best.
This particular piece appears to have been from an article from The International. Much of what Crowley wrote for that magazine was intentionally deceptive propaganda written for the expressed purpose of making German sympathizers look bad during WW I.
He did actually believe much that he wrote for The International; but not all of it.
In any case, every word out of Crowley's mouth shouldn't be taken as prophetic. His distinctly prophetic writings are quite distinct from even his enlightened opinion - how much more distinct from his casual human opinion.
-
Whenever there is a choice between a naturalistic and supernatural explanation, the supernatural must always be rejected or taken as a metaphor for an unknown natural explanation.
If we speak of GOD, we must take it as a metaphor for human psychological effects, when we speak of Prophecy we must take it to mean a gleaning of subtle cues and events inherently explainable in terms of the individual's psychology, which is to say his nervous system.
As far as intentional disinformation, that may be true in the international, though I don't see how this passage outs German sympathies. Any way here is a quote from his own tunisia diary, I suppose one does not fill the pages of ones own diary with lies and propaganda.
diary entry of May 29, 1923: "I'm certainly not an anarchist, for the family is the smallest and vilest unit of government: nor a Socialist, for the State is the largest and so the least human unit. I suppose then, that - with Ethyl as without - I want a Patriarchal-Feudal system run by initiated Kings."
To separate Crowley into man and prophet is the same as to say the same Nietzsche did not write twilight of Idols that wrote Zarathustra, certainly the texts are different and the later work was a more refined expression of his ideals, but the Prophetic or received Zarathustra was just as much a product of the same man's voice, his same nervous system, acquired opinions and ideals. The same is very much true for Crowley, no matter how enlightened or illuminated, no matter how intense the seeming supernatural and the different egos or selfs within self, the angles and GOD's one thinks one meets, all in all its just the brain of one man.
-
@Froclown said
"...all in all its just the brain of one man."
...the same man who also created a classification system for the degree of importance each of his writings should have for posterity.
He struggled to understand the implications of the Book of the Law as well - for years, as I read it. I won't deny your right to be the same sort of Romantic that he was. But claiming any sort of authority for his opinions written from that everyday, very human level of his consciousness that struggled to understand and incorporate the Law is something he denied you, not me.
It seems to me that Crowley gave me more freedom to disagree with him than you do, hence the classification system that you will only attack indirectly through your opinions on mysticism (which is one place where you seem to take the freedom to disagree with your beloved prophet).
@Frowclown said
"The same is very much true for Crowley, no matter how enlightened or illuminated, no matter how intense the seeming supernatural and the different egos or selfs within self, the angles and GOD's one thinks one meets, all in all* its just the brain of one man*."
Yet, from the mouth of your prophet:
@Aleister Crowley said
""We are forced to conclude that the author of The Book of the Law is an intelligence both alien and superior to myself, yet acquainted with my inmost secrets; and,** most important point of all**, that this intelligence is discarnate."
- The Confessions of Aleister Crowley, Chp 49"
So, which is it, man? Do we have to buy everything he said or not?
Hmmm.... I wonder what else I can tell you that you either have to believe or face the terrible accusation of "spinning deceptions to make Thelema meet your liberal ideals."
So, can we get back to discussing your ideas (and perhaps Crowley's as well) on their practical merits, Heretic...? <img src="http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-6/738102/diablo3(1).gif">
-
I never said one MUST believe everything Crowley said, nor anything he said. What I did say is you can't reject the very fundamental essence of his beliefs about life, politics, nature, and everything and still claim you accept what he teaches.
Even Crowley defaulted to supernaturalism only when scientific rationalism and skepticism failed to provide an explanation, for the phenomena he experienced. For example he believed in goetic spirits only up to the point psychology and neurobiology of his time could not explain to his satisfaction the events he experienced subjectively. As out knowledge of the human nervous system increases, once supernatural notions will be explained by natural science, Crowley said this explicitly too.
I mean to accept one and reject the other aspect of Crowley is non-sense, Einsteins unique mind and the same way of thinking, was responsible for relativity as for his Zionist support of antisemitism. If you admit that Einsteins style of thinking was superior, then you can not accept relativity and totally dismiss his Zionism. It would be like accepting nuclear fusion happens, and accepting the sun as valid and hydrogen bombs as invalid. Weather you like it or not, fusion is the father of the bomb and the sun.
Crowley's Traditionalism is the root of Lber AL as much as his Scientific solution to the problem of Government, and certainly the feudal hierarchy in the OTO.
-
Thanks for helping me learn what I think about this stuff.
I disagree, of course, and fundamentally... lol...
I respect your cajones and your search for consistency. I can tell that's where you're coming from, and it can be a complicated mess, I know. I'm searching for it in a different direction myself. Your last point wasn't totally lost on me, though I, of course, have to say that I gather data from other aspects of Crowley's life and thought and prioritize them differently.
I think I'd have to say our fundamental disagreement is twofold:
-
We disagree over whether we should be Primitivists, believing in an early golden era that must be preserved from the corruption of later thought, or whether we should be, what... Evolutionists (?), who view the early thought as a baby that will and should evolve.
-
We disagree over the level of authority we should give to Crowley's personal thoughts, especially regarding documents that have a low-level classification. I view it as him ensuring our freedom to disagree with his personal opinions. Honestly, you've never touched on the classification issue, but you seem to give everything equal authority because it came from the same mind.
I've enjoyed debating with you. I look forward to more productive ones in the future. I want to focus myself on other aspects of the journey at present, and it's just more difficult if my major source of intellectual stimulation is being a bastard to you... lol...
I'm certain Time will teach both of us.
Success is your proof.
peace.
-
-
actually I think the fundamental difference in the two ways of view thelema stems from what it means that Everyone is a unique star its own orbit.
It seems a lot of thelemites take this to mean, we should always be on gaurd least we push some one out of orbit, always ready to yeild the right of way, because everyone else has a right to their own orbits, heaven forbid that I get in their way.
I take it to mean that I ALWAYS have the right of way, and if two stars are on a collision course, then both shall charge full steam ahead, and if need be they will collide, but generally one or the other will be weaker or less determined and the fight will not last long, one will cry uncle and the other will continue on his way. The one simply did not want it enough to risk death of sever injury. (See Hegel's Master-slave dialectic.)
The difference I see in this, is that in the first one it follows the Christian formula (Everyone is a child of God and deserves to be treated that way) and it also assumes that others take president over oneself and ones own WILL, just to avoid confrontation. This is why I call is weak, liberal, and Christian. It does not promote pride and self assertion of one's own WILL and confidence in oneself as victor, it sees oneself as already having lost before the battle even starts. This is at best a luke warm display of power, its "professional soldiers who dare not fight, but play".
The rationalization that others WILLs are as important as one's own, leads to the bit of because, it is the sort of reason that stop WILL and turns power into weakness."Every man is a king in the circle of his sword arm, the swords of others will draw his limits" This is from Gor, but I think it represents Thelema nicely. That we only know a true limit to our WILL when we clash swords. If we just say I have a sword and so do you, lets respect each others RIGHT is keep clean shiny swords and stay in our own circle, we become a bunch of sheep, grazing on the land, mulling about polishing our swords, not the Warrior monks of thelema. That would befit an aeon of sloth and earth, but this is an aeon of Force and Fire!.
Also I am speaking not of a return to the previous "golden age" but that aeons go in cycles, which return, and of a new "golden age" where the transcendent principle of Thelema has waxing influence, directly over more and more people, will then wane away and in the materialist an decay of Horus Death, a new Lord of a New Aeon with a new principle will take over.
God is Dead, The Horus child is taking his first steps. Even Thelemites seem it be picking still at the corpse of God, as most still accept some for of my first version of Every man and every woman is a star.
-
"I view it as him ensuring our freedom to disagree with his personal opinions."
I think that should always be a freedom.
-
"If you admit that Einsteins style of thinking was superior, then you can not accept relativity and totally dismiss his Zionism."
I don't know that sounds way too inflexible. How about if I say one form of gov't, say communism, is better than democracy. I don't think that means I can't say communism is flawed and I only accept this part of what communism is about.
-
Yes, but everything Thelema is about is a revolt against modernist values, against the humanist notion of Universal rights. Even in Liber Oz it is admitted that one only has "rights" so long as one has might enough to KILL anyone who comes to take that right. If I want to steal your property, your right to own it only extends to your ability to fight me off, if I succeed in killing you, then it is my right to own your property. In fact that I win, proves that you were the one who interfered in my WILL by claiming something that it was my WILL to own. (but if you just give up and lot me have it, because you think you have no right to own property, or that my WILL to take it means it is gods will that I have it, you miss the point. There is no God's WILL and the only way to discern who is right is in battle, be it physical or in negotiation with as little compromise on each side as possible)
The whole basis of Thelema is that Christs was an Evil Magus, who sold out to the black school, and doomed the world with liberalism, socialist equality, sacrifice of ones unique will to herd like conformity, softness, globalism, and effeminatizing men, and as Christ's Word as magus as run its course and waned in power, so that a new Law, replaces Christ's law, one that re-establishes manliness, vigor and valor, Willfulness, Uniqueness, Pride, courage to fight, to be hard and confident unwilling to compromise ones WILL.
The king has highest wisdom and a certain scientific indifference, "Make ye no difference between one thing and another" "who soever availeth at this shall be chief of all"
Do not think of the king as Sadaam, Hitler or Joseph Stalin, Rather think of King Solomon who with his higher wisdom, was able to discern the true intentions of his people, to see into the their minds and motives, and discern the just solution.
Two boys fighting over an orange, one is truly hungry for the orange his WILL to eat, the other merely resents the other boy's ability at baseball. Thus the boys Fight over the orange, the wise king will see that one boy's magick is focused on the right target, the orange. The other boy's WILL is focused on the wrong target, the orange, even if he gets the orange the boy's resentment remains. Thus the wise king, takes the orange, gives it to the hungry boy, and takes the resentful boy aside and tells him a parable, a myth or story that is part of the community culture, this story consoles the boy, and he relates to the characters in the story, and finds a productive way to express his resentment. Perhaps by learning chess or basketball, which the boy has more natural talent and interest in, where he can show off his skills.
The resentment fades, the hungry boy gets his orange, domestic peace is maintained and the other boy is helped to get back on track of his true WILL.
Jesus represents such a king, in his time, his major harm was done by his self sacrifice, which set him up as a God, and claimed everyone else as a sinner who must give up our sinful nature to be forgiven by Christ. This makes ones own WILL the enemy of God and leads to a demonized view of the flesh, and especially natural sexuality.