The Solar Phallic King
-
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.
-
@Froclown said
"Yes, but everything Thelema is about is a revolt against modernist values, against the humanist notion of Universal rights."
As you knew I'd say, and as is true: Thelema is, more than any other single thing, a fundamental embodiment of a system 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."
Uh, you do understand (don't you?) that Liber OZ is a proposal of rights one gives to others, not rights one takes for oneself? It is a social code based on recognition of the universality of rights. (And no, by no reading of it does it give you, me, or anybody else only rights conditional on our ability to kill. It grants rights unconditionally.)
"There is no God's WILL"
Or, alternately, there is nothing but "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) "
You're just plain silly. (He's being silly, right?) That's cute the way you provoke antagonism.
"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 whole basis of Thelema might be expressed (among other ways) as the equal coexistence of the indivisible uniqueness and importance of each being in and off itself with a mandate to fulfill itself as unconditionally as possible AND of an indivisible Whole from the perspective of which those indivisible uniquenesses are essentially theoretical transiencies, and the one truth is the (ultimately, but not necessarily locally) harmonious coexistence of all units. In social terms, this means setting the highest value on true-to-self individual expression within a context that extends that core right unconditionally and equally. Politically, it means the equal and respected coexistence of all such party-defining polarities as, say, the right of each individual to make their way unmolested + a recognition that we ride a single tide that floats, or drops, all boats.
Etc.
"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" "
Personally, I actually tend to be in favor of an enlightened monarchy. I regret that no one has ever found a way to ensure that a monarch would be enlightened.
-
Your view of the harmony of all parts is lacking the Truth which I finally accepted, that was presented to me in RAW Illuminatus!.
The fact is than the harmony of nature is not like the co-operation of a military unite or sports team, ultimately the harmony is a result of thy dynamic antagonism between rival factions, each with goals that oppose each other and keep each other in check.
The sheep and the wolf oppose each other, even if the sheep band up with other sheep in the herd and the Wolves band up with the pack, still the wolves and the sheep are part of a dynamic tension that creates the ecosystem.
It is Christianity that denies the truth that wolves need to kill sheep to live and sheep need to be fed upon to clean the herd of diseased and weak genes. The Christian says the sheep shall lie down with the lion. This denies that in nature lions MUST EAT.
Humans are not all of one pack or one global pride much less one herd, we feed on each other, and yet their is a dynamic harmony than transcends the friction between the parts. Thus their is no Collision of TRUE WILL between the Sheep and the Wolf, as part of being a sheep is to live in risk of being eaten, part of being a wolf is to feed upon sheep. It is not a restriction of nor a conflict between the wolf and sheep WILL, rather this relation ship is a fulfillment of the purpose of the sheep.
No matter what set of laws you say I SHOULD grant to other people, or people SHOULD live by, no matter what IDEALS you pur forth, people are only every ACTUALLY going to do what the HAVE to do, not what they SHOULD DO. The only reason I would allow you to walk in my yard, and maybe step on by garden, it that you carry a sword and I an a weak fighter. Thus your MIGHT creates your ability to Travel as you WILL, even if it crosses what I want you to do. Almost any act will interfere with some one in some way, but those acts which you do that I would have to go out of my way to bother you, though you act does not bother me, I well not go bother you.
But most times their is external tensions and conflicts, like the sheep and wolf conflict, but the inner plane, the TRUE WILL does not Conflict the predator and prey compliment each other.
The Enlightened King, is one who realizes the inner plane, and facilitates its external expression, in a way where the players in the conflicting drama can understand how their duality is transcended, and fight with LOVE, DETACHMENT, free from LUST of result, and with perfect peace and good spirit.
-
@Froclown said
"No matter what set of laws you say I SHOULD grant to other people, or people SHOULD live by, no matter what IDEALS you pur forth, people are only every ACTUALLY going to do what the HAVE to do, not what they SHOULD DO."
Completely true for those that have satisfied fundamental 'deficit' needs. But, these being met, people do spontaneously make different decisions.
"The only reason I would allow you to walk in my yard, and maybe step on by garden, it that you carry a sword and I an a weak fighter."
You skipped over the more basic question: Why in the world would I ever want to walk in your yard and step into your garden?
-
@Froclown said
" 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. "
I've never been impressed with the parable of the orange, not even when Crowley tells it. My Grandma was not a very educated or philosophical woman, though I consider her to have been a very wise matriarch and competent magician (as she had to be, to keep a very large household fed on a small farm's output, and my feisty cousins and I from injuring each other too severely.) But even she could tell you this solution isn't going to fly, and that wisdom is stepping in and showing the greedy infants that the orange is divisible into parts so that each can enjoy it as a treat until supper is ready. The temporary sweetness it offers will not satisfy the real hunger of the one, nor the deep resentment/need for attention of the other, so why use it as an unrealistic and naive comparison for complex problems like global economics or human relationships?
In Light, Life, Love, and Liberty ~ Manami
-
@Froclown said
"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... 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.) "
This discussion demonstrates what I meant in a previous post about being careful about imaginaries, or the way that we bond ideas and assumptions to these images. Contemplating the stars in their orbits and reflecting on how this illustrates one's path in life can lead to some useful things, but there is a critical difference that makes this inaccurate for the way it's being used here. Namely, stars are passive subjects to the forces that move them in their orbits, and as such, their peace or conflict is fated and occurs without desire, self-reflection or recognition. They have no rights to enforce or resign. However charming or poetic the metaphor may be, as humans - especially as those engaged in the Hermetic or Thelemic tradition - we do not share their nature, being more kin to the Intelligence that is historically credited with setting them in motion. There may be a suggestive idea in there to play with in regard to how much control I have vs. how much control I think I have, but it doesn't tell me much about how to be a conscious being intent on realizing my own God-like essence, and thus freeing myself from the illusion of separation or powerlessness.
It pays to be careful with what images one falls in love with. What you've described, Froclown, - a world where two people cannot even pass each other in the street without behaving like animals asserting their dominance, where social order is neatly filed and sorted into enforced "niches" under an all-powerful godhead, where hospitality is given only at swordpoint - is for me in no way at step forward into a New Aeon. In fact, it sounds like a repeat of the failure and fall of the Carolingian empire to me, with nothing learned in the process. Even dressing it up in some nice Gorian garb isn't going to make it Thelemic in my book.
People confident in their power can afford to be gracious without it being self-debasing - we are sharing light and passion and delight with each other, and if I am Sun-like in my nature, then it doesn't matter to me what the flower thinks when I shine on it. I'm too intent on getting where I'm going to care if you thought that I sidestepped you when you attempted to plow through me because I thought myself inferior to you. There are many obstacles that regularly impose themselves between me and my desire, and as a human, I work through, around, over, under or with them according to what seems wise and most efficient to me in my way.
In the discussions of Hegel's Master/Slave dialectic I've seen, the point made by it is that the relationship is not satisfying or beneficial to either side - especially to the Master, whose power begins to be drained and diminished from the moment the slave is bonded into his/her identity. The Master must produce the resources for the upkeep of the slave as a trophy, or consign to it labor (as you've suggested)...and thus the slave gains the means to a measure of control over the Master's existence that will increase and push towards synthesis until one day transforming the Master/slave dichotomy. If forced to accept a temporary domination by another due to lack of equitable power, there will always be those who will use the opportunity to undermine their oppressor's strength and take them when they get flabby and lax and turn their back.
Beyond my own self-interests, if I care about ending the Aeon where suffering is deemed to be good for the soul, and aiding the advent of one in which I will thrive joyfully, then I would want to use the sympathetic magick of decreasing the suffering of others wherever it was within my power to do so, thus weakening the power that imprisons all I Love. If such changes are beyond my range and I am truly just fated to play out my time on this run, then my intent may not make a difference to the Powers That Be but it makes a considerable difference to my quality of life during my time here.
In Light, Life, Love, and Liberty ~ Manami
-
Nice commentary. Well said.
In L.V.X.,
chrys333 -
Such sentimentalism for others is exactly what restricts their WILL, keeping the babies in the nest for fear they may get hurt on falling. If they do die they were not fit to be birds in the first place, having to keep them save rather than let them die is a waste of resources and that millstone on your neck will restrict your own WILL.
Freedom and liberty, means being free to be harsh and kind as you will, my Liberty includes my ability to be a jerk and kick people in the head for no reason at all. Their in no RIGHT to not be kicked in the head. However you have liberty to wear a helmet, to turn the other cheek, run away, or fight/kill me. Liberty has nothing to do with sentimentalism, nor in allowing others their "Rights".
I knowing that you may turn against me if I kick you, and knowing that co-operating will better serve my purposes, it is not in my WILL to kick you without cause, but I am free to do so, with no ethical repercussions, no sense of guilt or shame, no fear that I went against God's Will, or the Cosmic WILL, or my own WILL, as if I could turn against my own WILL.
Thu purpose of a king is not to force you to sacrifice your own WILL to his WILL. The King is the figure who passes down wisdom, who teaches the customs and gives advice that relates to the culture and traditions (also racial memories) of the people he rules. The King help people see past their ego games and shortsightedness to realize what ones natural place is within a social order and second how best to conduct ones actions to fit that order.
Since the SELF is a constructed identity both of DNA and of environment, including the social environment, then ones TRUE SELF is devised within the social order and the orbit of ones WILL is set within that order as well. Now shall we impose an edict that everyone is of equal value, shall the mob rule who is fit for what social role? Or shall some one with Wisdom, and a method shown to word, which the people will accept (preferably scientific Illuminism) pass down the traditions and stories, and help each individual find his proper place in the society.
Here is John Crow again
www.thelema.nu/archives/245“To judge the sick by the healthy is pregnant with error. The wretched and the weak are simply not real beings; they cannot be helped or mended. They must be expunged as falsehoods likely to infect the truth. This is the law of Nature, and it is the Law of the Lords of the Aeon. Put into force it will fill the world with joy.” (Crowley)
-
"He that is righteous shall be righteous still. He that is filthy shall be filthy still."
As much as my own mind and heart have been enlarged and filled with an image of Beauty by Thelema, I can never get away from the fact that this Beauty is a balance struck by opposites, and the Law favors neither.
Soror, I loved your response. You spoke only in terms of the kind of life you would like for yourself to have.
-
@Froclown said
"
Thu purpose of a king is not to force you to sacrifice your own WILL to his WILL. The King is the figure who passes down wisdom, who teaches the customs and gives advice that relates to the culture and traditions (also racial memories) of the people he rules. The King help people see past their ego games and shortsightedness to realize what ones natural place is within a social order and second how best to conduct ones actions to fit that order.
"You know Froclown, My main problem with your philosophy is that something in me is repulsed by any theory that seems unbalanced, there is too much emphasis on the male-energy, and further this system has repeatedly failed in the past. I for one am no shrinking violet, and I doubt if many here have more reason to agree with you than I. But my own personal experiences are necessarily relative, and so i look upon them in that light. Trust me, I am no fan of democracy/corporatism, as human value has evidently decreased under this system; in fact I am seriously beginning to doubt the need for any type of government soever, I think anarchy is a myth, merely propagated to "scare us straight" to provide a reason why we need "Big Brother", there is no evidence of anarchy in nature, just phases and seasons. I am presently thinking along the terms of some type of post-modern peasantry class, with each individual as Land Owner and Individual King/and or Queen, a multi-lateral self-organizing network, a complete decentralization of power, ideally with a high level of initiates. Usury and Land Lordship(being compelled to pay rent) is the foundation of the modern slavery we have today IMO. Politics is a very passionate topic for me but I am still developing my model, I have just started reading Plato's "the republic" amongst others. I will give updates on my thoughts periodically.
-
that is not far from what I am driving at.
Rather than large global world wide empires, driven by economic domination, and justified under the notion than we all because we breath and bleed are equal sheep that must be tended and protected by powerful economic masters.
I propose we for small organic communities, where our individual Brutishnesses are organized along a common transcendent vision shared by a Race or group of people with a common history and tradition. A tradition into which one can be more or less initiated, the less initiated the more individual and brutish one is, the less part of the social sphere, that is one can be a total out caste to like alone and without Rule of the King.
However the more one contributes and abides by the tradition of the local community the more "Rights" one is granted it reciprocation. Those outside the Walls (real or figurative) of the city, have no innate rights within the city, and are basically seen as enemies of the city, or at least distrusted and not seen as fully persons. The King or Highest initiates are held up as protectors of the way or life, the elder(s) whose wisdom was earned by pasing ordeals, proving higher loyalty and understanding of the Tradition that the others, and the Ability to apply the tradition.
Now each small city-state will have castes, ie levels of initiation and each level will have specializations, each based on the nature and ability of the person. the King being the highest initiate and the more a role deals with the community as a whole, like a scribe entrusted with city records vs a merchant who lives mostly autonomous but relies on the city to sell wares and its police to protect his business. The more vital or community based ones work, the higher the caste, as ones level of community initiation will be higher. This is exactly what Crowley Chartered into the OTO.
The nature of the specific structures, the rituals, the myths, the traditions, the regalia, etc will differ from one state to another, based on the shared culture and history of the people in the area. Certainly alliances can form between cities and trade agreements etc. Sure antagonisms may from as well. However each state is free to practice its own system, and each individual determines his own level of involvement in the social hierarchy by determination and natural ability. Natural ability being that which finds ones horizontal movement and ones earned level of trust and honor in the community ones vertical location in the caste system.
At no point is anyone subject to shame or guilt, or any demand to be other than one is, everyone finds a place inside or outside the system.
-
@Frater LR said
" You spoke only in terms of the kind of life you would like for yourself to have."
Thank you, Frater....the life I that I have -right here and right now- created from how I respond to the forces at play in it is the only thing I have control over.
If the point under debate here is that no one can truly make another person do something unless that person either consents or lacks the power to resist another's intentions, then sure, I agree. And if one is willing to live with the consequences of their actions, then there's really not a lot that can be done about it. If someone wants to get their friends together and go create a place where they can live by their own myths and customs (be it treehugging or headkicking), and they can pull off the organization it requires to be anything but a pipe dream -- then they are certainly at liberty to try it. I avidly study intentional communities and organization theory, so it will be interesting and edifying to watch their results, regardless of if it's something I would personally enlist in or not.
" As much as my own mind and heart have been enlarged and filled with an image of Beauty by Thelema, I can never get away from the fact that this Beauty is a balance struck by opposites, and the Law favors neither."
This is a very important observation, and well put. One of the problems with Utopianism is that it is too often driven by a limiting definition of Beauty which is based in artificiality, not in the reality which is dependent upon the interplay of opposites. Through it, people project their own distortion into the World rather than reflect the influence of the Reality which is perfect via their Work and thus nourish it: "This shall regenerate the world, the little world my sister, my heart & my tongue, unto whom I send this kiss."
And yes, no one has to worry about nourishing anything if they don't want to...but for those of us who view our presence here as an obligation to participate according to the Law, it's a tendency that demands constant vigilance and critical reflection.
In Light, Life, Love, and Liberty ~ Manami
-
Well my point is that just because something breaths and bleeds does not mean I must try to make it happy, In fact I have no obligation to make anyone or anything happy. Peta although good intentioned is seems to thing animals have rights as liberals define rights as that no creature that can feel pain will ever feel any pain anywhere ever, which these self proclaimed Bodhisattvas can be quite violent in their persecution of anyone they perceive as mean or negative, calling them usually the term the use is Fascist. Which is really Ironic that the tree-hugging Nazis would choose to denigrate Fascism.
But back to my main point is that a dog has no rights, other than the rights it receives under protection from its Master, and the extension of social protection as property of its owner, If and only if that owner is a member of the protected social class. The same is true of Humans, just being a human does not give you right, and does not afford you any protection other than what you can provide with your own fists. Neither the police nor the army have any duty or responsibility to risk their lives to protect the rights of people who are not officially under their protection. The Mafia does not stop your store being robbed, if you don't pay your protection fees, do they? The Private security guard does not protect the property outside the community limits he was hired to watch. The police protect the community, because their is reciprocity, not because he has a soft spot for damsels in distress, or desire to break up gunfights between thugs. He would prefer the thugs shoot each other and leave his community of friends and family in peace. But if people outside want to kill each other than is no more his business or concern than if two stray dogs kill each other.This does not mean he may not have empathy, but we should not constitute our social order and political law around open ended empathy, as if we have to stop all "negative energy" of any kind anywhere in the world. When in fact this very negative energy is very necessary, we need harsh experiences because the JOY of the world is on a personal level to be victorious over the hardship, to conquer others gives self confidence and finds ones place in the world. If we have only games with no winners and no losers, and we constantly patronize each other with compliments and pats on the back, we only became soft and useless.
That which does not kill me only makes me stronger. That which tried and failed to kill me in my youth, made me strong in spirit and in body, without antagonism, insults, strife, physical confrontations, defeats and victories, I would not be who I am. I would be a hippie, because thats how hippies are made, from spoiled brats who have no challenges and take on causes than are not their own, and are so overly sentimental they don't know their own WILL from the plight of the new guinea tribes man.