The Solar Phallic King
-
@Froclown said
"I fail to see how you can insist on separating Thelema from Crowley, or soy something absurd like Crowley did not understand the book of the law, when he wrote the book. His comment even says to appeal ONLY to his works in interpreting the book, not to the works of liberal humanism or Quantum mechanics."
I've seen this exact debate played out so many times on Thelemic forums (including John's blog) that there's not a lot I can say here that hasn't already been said more times than I can stand to think about. But this discussion so far has been very useful in spurring me to reflect deeply on what has brought me back around and where I want to go from here...so redundant as it may be, and in case you really do want to try to understand this side of it:
I was heavily active for ten years in Thelemic communities - it was only in the last couple of those that I started encountering Thelemites (all online) that were demanding this return to "fundamentals" in Crowley's work and trying to draw a tighter circle around what or who was considered Thelemic. Prior to that, while debate over particulars was constant and heavy and often just as divisive, all the Thelemites I'd encountered worked from the assumption that we were supposed to emulate Crowley's curiosity, breadth of study and investigation into the most up to date scientific theories and ideas of his time before attempting to understand the Class A docs. They not only encouraged me to explore anything that could expand my range of knowledge to better grasp the very difficult concepts and language presented in the work, but to push myself rigorously to develop the kind of objectivity, balance, and tolerance expressed via Liber Librae so that I wouldn't hamstring myself with aversions to one symbol set or another. So I have a hard time understanding why this openness is so threatening or how it constitutes trying to separate Crowley from Thelema. For me, learning about Thelema has always come through interaction with my Brothers and Sisters - direct experience, testing, and observation of results. The theoretical arguments or opinions were just the things we experimented with in our day to day life with each other. Some of Crowley's ideas have held water...some haven't, and those are set aside in favor of what works. The dichotomy you set up here is far too simplistic for me to take seriously - it may work fine for you based on your personal experiences, but it's useless to me. If the quotations you base this argument are enough for you, so be it...but surely you have noticed there was an "each for himself" in there. I did not notice any mention of liberal humanism or quantum mechanics in the Comment, and actually, it's "only by appeal to my writings" not "by appeal only to my writings." If one is going to be so literal in interpretation, it's best to get the words right.
There are many ways to approach Crowley's work - for me, I came to Thelema based on a strong empathetic connection with the man himself gained through an intensive study of Confessions (which I was doing for a class, as I had no interest in Crowley's legacy at the time - it seemed like an interesting and slightly controversial case study.) I come from a religious raising very similar to his own, and in my early teens had already fought my way through a fundamentalist conditioning that had tried from the first week of my life on to instill fears in me that would make me obedient to whatever a spiritual figurehead told me to do, think, or believe (ranging from the traditional eternal pain of hellfire to some quite creative ones, like getting brain cancer for reading books that God wouldn't approve of.) Breaking that left me utterly without the compunction to worry about disobeying a Prophet, straying off the straight and narrow, or facing the disapproval of my "tribe." I developed my beliefs regarding freedom and my dedication to it long before I encountered Crowley's writing, and I still to this day don't need Thelema to provide me with any religious or philosophical justification for them.
What I did see in Thelema was a very powerful Mystery, and a very intelligent and creative person (Crowley) wrestling with what it meant for his life. Of course I don't think that Crowley fully understood the Book of the Law- "the scribe" is warned directly that he won't, and that prophets don't know everything, and his writings reflect his work to refine his understanding of the Law throughout his lifetime - it wasn't just easily given to him. The fascination with his journey led me to experiment with his work and to ultimately credit its processes for being able to promote the development of a type of genius whose presence enriches humanity - yet this has not made me blind to the discouraging pile of wrecks that line the sides of this road, either.
I have been blessed to be around individuals of true genius for much of my life, enough to know that for all those times when something almost unearthly wise, knowing, or beautiful breaks through them, it doesn't change the personal struggles or perceptions that keep them bound to the karma of their time, place, and biological/emotional makeup. Because of my background, I understand what it is like to be able to find deep, timeless meaning in Christian scripture (as Crowley obviously did) and at the same time call for those who would shove it in your face to be fed to the Lions. What I have gained from study of Crowley's work and the practices associated with it is a very joyful appreciation for the puzzles I have been presented with in this life, and also true empathy and compassion for those who engage the Mysteries in whatever form it appears to them. For me, it's all a reflection of Thelema. I can't look at anything which shows the splendid miracle that is existence and **not **see the Law within it. I don't particularly feel like putting blinders on, and since I no longer have to worry about something damning me to pain and suffering for such waywardness...I won't. It's that simple.
I'm not going to labor much harder on this point - you either get it or you don't, you agree or you don't. I've been in this scene long enough to know that Thelema frequently attracts people who need Crowley as a Prophet/Saint/infallible King-that-was to justify some behavior or attitude that would be considered unacceptable and unhealthy in any other society. I will not waste my time on that. I know the dangers of pity - I've dealt with half a dozen dearly loved ones' destruction or death via their addictions, most claiming them as part of their Thelemic education/Will, and learned about "enabling" the hard way. I also know that there are dangers and ordeals on this path that make "tough love" very necessary, as well as what happens when someone can't handle the emotional forces unleashed by initiatory forces because they came into this too blind and broken to really have this incarnation be anything more than a warm up for it.
It is my understanding based on what I've been told over the years that this is why the A.'.A.'. curriculum - in particular the student portion - exists. If we were only to approach Thelema by the writings of Aleister Crowley (noting that you make no distinction between works he writes and works he claims were given to him by an Intelligence beyond his own), then there would be no need to encourage the study of such an extensive list of outside texts. If Compassion for those not yet understanding the Law or being received as Initiates was such an alien concept to Thelema, there would be no obligations on the highest Initiates to devote their lives in service to teaching it. And if Love - basic care and affection for the whole of mankind, dross and all, as sentimental and self-sacrificing as a parent's love for a child - wasn't part of it, then the A.'.A.'. itself wouldn't exist to ensure that the lights stayed on throughout the ages. Read "The Cloud on the Sanctuary" and then Liber XXXIII: An Account of A.'.A.'. - note what changes have been made to "update" that work. Note what remains constant. That's all that has been revised in the formula of Love, as far as I'm concerned. And back to the point of the overall discussion - if one is looking for a model to emulate in ordering earthly societies, I would give far more attention to the concepts Liber XXXIII contains than trying to slavishly emulate the feudal model of "Crowleyesque" daydreams.
Just how I see it, take it or leave. If anything resembling GAWD showed up and tried to tell me I was wrong on this point, I would thank it for it's concern and send it back to where it came from...so good luck Mr. Person I Just Met Online.
I trust by this point we're pretty clear in each other's opinions on this subject so I hope you'll pardon me if I move on to new ground, with my thanks for all this debate has clarified for me, and your participation in that.In Light, Life, Love, and Liberty ~ Manami
-
93,
Great post. It always seems to me that any real growth is about undoing knowledge, not compiling it. All our formulae dissolve in Nuit at the end ... and then we move on towards another end, which of course turns out to be just a further step or phase.
93 93/93,
EM
-
Just for a start, I see no reason to hold to Crowley's notion of receiving texts from supernatural beings to be anything more than poetic expression an one hand, and an a appeal to a made up authority to attract what the church of the subgenius would call "bobbies".
Nor do I accept everything that Crowley writes, when he contradicts known scientific facts about the universe, for example their is no soul, no reincarnation, no literal gods, no karma (other than causality itself). But Christian morals contradict the known facts of Nature, it supports and allows to survive that which nature would have destroyed. Nature produces by trial and error, thus a great deal of the forms the dust kicks up are failures, which only can exist in a liberal community, by the detriment to the common good. Pretty much any element that Crowley writes than would contradict Richard Dawkins "Brights" one must take a close look and see if he is not just being poetic, or pretending to believe literally in some notion just to gain followers who are impressed by supposed supernatural powers, Ie being a fraud to get, money, sex, and minions to aid in his own WILL.
-
" Nature produces by trial and error, thus a great deal of the forms the dust kicks up are failures, which only can exist in a liberal community, by the detriment to the common good. "
Could you please define "the common good"? What do you mean by the word "common"? What do you mean by the word "good"?
Could you please give your rationale for caring about it?
-
In the body the common or rather higher good, is the health of the body, and many cells that are not fit die off or are killed off by the immune system to keep the body functioning.
In a game of chess the higher good is to capture the opponents king, and many pieces are sacrificed to that ends. Each piece has its own WILL, a bishops WILL in to move diagonally, the rook to move perpendicular. They all do their WILL in service to the higher transcendent ends, and the request of the King.
In a natural environment, each animal is part of a system of balance. Each plant feeds some animals and poisons others, each animal eats some animal and is eaten by another, the nests they build, their behaviors all interact into a higher whole. The strong emerge stronger, the weak die off. The whole is preserved by his.
If the king tries to save every pawn, and especially not hurt any opponent pawns, them he leaves himself open to attack, also the game is not played.
If the body stops killing off weak and cancerous cells, or even bacteria from outside the body, the body will get weak or even die. Rather, "xenophobia" is what protects the body, and it is what make my body distinct from the world and from your body.
If the animals in the ecosystem stop playing their part, and avoid killing or upsetting other beings, then the whole system fails, all the animals die, or they weaken the everyone by supporting colonies of the weak. If you support a leper colony in the center of town, then you open yourself up to plagues. If you kill and burn the bodies of lepers, you prevent harm to all.
-
This thread should go to the just plain nuts forum. It certainly qualifies for off-topic.
-
Also I am not just mindlessly following Crowley. Rather at entire tradition with lots of people speaking on its behalf, Machiavelli, Nietzsche, Julius Evola, Jean-Marie Le Pen, Alain De Benoist, Tomislav Sunic, and many political parties, social groups, etc.
Such as the Rose Noire
www.rosenoire.org/essays.phAnd especially see this essay
www.rosenoire.org/archives/The_Occult_Technology_of_Power.tx -
@Nudor said
"This thread should go to the just plain nuts forum. It certainly qualifies for off-topic."
Considerations of the political application of Thelema may not be your forte Nudoro, that doesn't translate to being off-topic, rather on the contrary it ultimately may be the truest test of the validity of Thelemic philosophy. You didn't seem to have a problem with the Obama Nation of Desolation Thread??
-
Agreed. I'm spending some time thinking about how the following quote from Liber XXXIII may apply to our conversation:
"But all exterior societies subsist only by virtue of this interior one. As soon as external societies wish to transform a temple of wisdom into a political edifice, the interior society retires and leaves only the letter without the spirit. It is thus that secret external societies of wisdom were nothing but hieroglyphic screens, the truth remaining inviolable in the Sanctuary so that she might never be profaned."
And I'm also re-reading some Nietzsche, among others, in an old ethics textbook I haven't read in a very long time. Back in the day, I just thought he was the devil - you know, like Crowley... lol... Trying to give him a proper read and let him speak this time.
Nietzsche is on to something, of course, but I'll bet Epicurius enjoyed his life more. Kicking it all around...
Peace.
-
Nietzsche was all about life.
-
Could you point me to some of that? Most of what I've read is bleak and praises struggle for the production of strength. But there's no purpose in praising that strength that I can see other than providing a rationale for the rejection of the eternal "Christian" death and the revaluation of success. Which is great in it's own right, don't get me wrong. It just seems that someone who constantly is telling themselves how good tragedy and struggle are for them will create for themselves a tragic and struggle-filled life.
Personally, I'm not into strength for strength's sake alone. It just doesn't motivate me. Could you direct me to something in Nietzsche about enjoying one's own life? About pleasure? Friendship? Peace of mind? Something glad-hearted?
I must admit, the selection I have is rather limited in that regard.
-
Nietzsche kills people all the time who talk about waiting for the next world and being deserters of this world.
A friend should be your best enemy according to Nietzsche.
You probably should not read "selections" with Nietzsche because all I hear is that it confuses people. You've got to read his works in their entirety. Beyond Good and Evil and Thus Spoke Zarathustra are a good one, two combination.
-
the only thing that is not joyful about struggle and fighting is if you fear defeat. If you WIN then a struggle so always joyous, it brings a feeling of joy and self confidence with each greater victory. It is only those with such a hatred of self and fear of life (Life is struggle and fighting) who feel than struggles are sorrowful.
That is the difference between master and slave mentality, the Master loves to fight and to win, even in his lose the master learns from his mistakes and takes joy in his lessons. (That which does not kill me only makes me stronger) The slave has already been defeated before he enters the struggle, feels weak and helpless at the mercy of the world. The slave projects this weakness on others and bases ethics and life on saving people, on being safe from the hardships of life, and dreams of another world a heaven or some ideal state when he can be warm and safe and everyone can join him in being warm and safe and no one ever needs feel sorrow, disappointment or fear of losing. Thus the slave fears and hates life, (struggle for power and survival) and seeks death (peace, quite safety, and absence of overwhelming emotions)
The Overman in the Ideal of the Master and the Last man in the ideal of the slave.
A solar phallic King has a very keenly developed master mentality. A very high confidence in his own power, not out of arrogance or narcissism but out of tried and true tested knowledge one from real struggles and earned by passing difficult ordeals and initiations that if he fail threaten, not only life and limb, but mind and soul as well. The greatness of the reward mirrors the Risk in failure. The Ordeal of the Abyss being the Greatest possible Risk and Reward.
The King then is another word for Magus. For example look to the Gospels where the story of the 3 Magi (called kings) of the eastern world, deferred their power to Jesus. Thus conferring or anointing him with the Solar Phallic crown, and power over their schools and territory.
-
A person who does not fear defeat is deluded. That works for only a short time because of boldness and the lack of knowledge of others. That is good for getting something, but not keeping it. It's as if you are sure you will never fall down as you run and walk. Part of the skill is to know you will fall and how to get up without injuries to walk again.
My thoughts.
In L.V.X.,
chrys333 -
@RosenKreutz said
"You probably should not read "selections" with Nietzsche because all I hear is that it confuses people. You've got to read his works in their entirety. Beyond Good and Evil and Thus Spoke Zarathustra are a good one, two combination."
I totally concur. I remember first reading Zarathustra and thinking that nearly everyone I have ever heard mention Nietzsche must have never actually read his works. They all took select quotes, out of context, and then assumed it was a representative of the whole. Absurd.
-
Nietzsche must be the MOST taken out of context philosopher!
-
Before a man can rule others, he must first rule his self.
If a man rules his self, why would he seek to rule an other?
-
If one is playing football and one it perfectly disciplined and playing the game to one best, why would one want the rest of the team to join in and play the game too?
I mean so long as oneself is working hard everyone else can goof off and do any random thing. I mean what does Wining the game have to do with anyone other than Me alone playing by the rules and actually trying.
Oh, you mean the WHOLE team has to work together and be on the same page, and to win the game means every person an the team has a unique function to play out, but yet each can't do just whatever random thing they might think is their role, rather they HAVE one correct role which is their purpose and no ethical restrictions on how to achieve that ends.
To function together the Team needs a coach, who is outside the game itself, but knows more about the logistics of the Game than the players.
-
Here is ch. 81 from the book of lies. I don't think we can mince words here or assert that Crowley was being ironic or facetious as this is not found in a pro-german news letter.
81 {Kappa-Epsilon-Phi-Alpha-Lambda-Eta Pi-Alpha} LOUIS LINGG I am not an Anarchist in your sense of the word: your brain is too dense for any known explosive to affect it. I am not an Anarchist in your sense of the word: fancy a Policeman let loose on Society! While there exists the burgess, the hunting man, or any man with ideals less than Shelley's and self- discipline less than Loyola's-in short, any man who falls far short of MYSELF-I am against Anarchy, and for Feudalism. Every "emancipator" has enslaved the free.And its comment.
COMMENTARY ({Pi-Alpha}) The title is the name of one of the authors of the affair of the Haymarket, in Chicago. See Frank Harris, "The Bomb". Paragraph 1 explains that Frater P. sees no use in the employment of such feeble implements as bombs. Nor does he agree even with the aim of the Anarchists, since, although Anarchists themselves need no restraint, not daring to drink cocoa, lest their animal passions should be aroused (as Olivia Haddon assures my favourite Chela), yet policemen, unless most severely repressed, would be dangerous wild beasts. The last bitter sentence is terribly true; the personal liberty of the Russian is immensely greater than that of the Englishman. The latest Radical devices for securing freedom have turned nine out of ten English- men into Slaves, obliged to report their movements to the government like so many ticket-of-leave men. The only solution of the Social Problem is the creation of a class with the true patriarchal feeling, and the manners and obligations of chivalry. -
Just a bit of background...
Evola was a Fascist and the folks who run the Rose Noire site have ties to the far-right BNP. Le Pen is of course a far-right politician. (For those unfamiliar with European politics 'far right' means xenophobic.)