"A Thelemic Utopia"
-
"And... turning backwards to yell at those on the step below you is one way to avoid the step above."
I agree one hundred percent. I refer you to the entirity of my argument. I have performed my defense for those who are not able to tease out the complexities of this argument for themselves. I may be untrained and unrefined, but in my experience, invoking the mystery of the "True Initiate" (the ones who "know" are really of THIS opinion), without any evidence to support their claims is a form of control.
It's an argument that manipulates the emotional power of shame while repudiating sensitivity.
If I am a master, then I think that a student's understanding of the purity of this tradition is worth fighting for - especially in cases where the student is combative by self-definition. If I am a student, then how else am I to learn and survive in this environment if I do not have the right to challenge such thinking with all the power of my soul? Who is like God that I may be instructed by him? The one who can instruct me in the laws of Reality.
My conscience is clear.
-
Lab - Of course you don't see the irony of taking umbrage if someone includes you in their general statement, after you included a vague swath of humanity in yours.
Some vague subset of all people, specifically including you, Labyrinthus, can't take what they dish out.
-
"Excuse me, but you said "all people" which is lumping me in where I do not agree to belong."
Yes I do see what you are saying,
Or I guess I mean,
I hear that you are saying you do not belong on this boat,which was a term I used to imply planet Gaia.
All people share one thing,
and you cannot claim otherwise.In my vain attempt at living my life, I have flaws
as beautiful and perfect and loving as I amAnd while I hold myself to certain standards,
I will not ever dare to deny that I have a
dirty dark and nasty past
we all do
a side some call humanand while kings and queens
magi may have more clothes
in which to conceal themselvesI will dance naked for all to see,
and not hide behind wordsas best as I can.
peace and be well brother always
-
@Veronica said
"All people share one thing,"
I was not disagreeing with the fact that we are all here on planet earth. This is another example of what I spoke of on another thread; replying to something not said. ( the point was concerning the ability to separate opinion from fact)
-
@AvshalomBinyamin said
"The 'fact', though, is only true in certain very limited conditions."
Classic!
This whole post of yours is a great example of this problem. It is a clear demonstration of the classic "Nit-Pick" reply that liberals resort to when getting uncomfortably close to a "fact". Even a generic one introduced for the sake of clarity alone is too close for comfort.
You see, the qualifier "at sea level" is sufficient for reasonable folks to establish the "limited conditions".
@AvshalomBinyamin said
"EVERYTHING, including unassailable truths like gravity or at what state liquids turn into gas, are really matters of perspective."
No. The perspective is implied by stating gravity "at the surface of earth". But for those who want to nit-pick there are plenty of side door exits to be fabricated at will.
-
Please explain the difference between "nit-picking" and "applying ruthless and immense scholarly ability toward a single question."
That, sir, is the very job definition of a Ph.D.
I know how to defend against one.
Do you know how to convince three?
You create your work and present it for their scrutiny.
-
In response to Labyrinthus, because you addressed a question to me and I didn't want to ignore you, I found all of Froclown's post (the one immediately before mine) to be in the vein of "All Liberals X", but specifically the entirety of paragraph 4 which begins with "That is why liberalism shows as Nietzsche...". You'll notice the common usage of the pronoun "They" followed by some remark that lumps all "Liberals" (not well defined who fits this label - as pointed out by Takamba) into a category that Froclown desires.
The point of my post is to state that I've used the "Liberal" label when talking about myself and I'm doing what Froclown says "liberals" don't do - making a solid judgment about his post and how False it is.
Now to follow that up, in the case of your posts recently, you've been talking about "nit-picking" replies, such as the examples that AvshalomBinyamin gave. It seems to me that "nit-picking" is extremely scientific, and not paying attention to details is not. THAT is not a judgment on which is better, only that AvshalomBinyamin's additional information seems more scientific to me, and I like that approach...
It kind of feels like if you were in a classroom and the teacher said "America was discovered by Christopher Columbus"; you would A) expect the liberal child in the class to raise his hands and "nit-pick" over that "fact" B) tell that Child to shut-up.
-
@Tinman said
"You'll notice the common usage of the pronoun "They" followed by some remark that lumps all "Liberals"..."
Not necessarily. A generalization about "they" is usually debatable to some degree. To say "all" is usually indefensible... which is why many will rephrase a generality as an exclusive 'all' (or 'none' or 'never' or 'always', etc.) which then is much easier to refute. And then the deep denial leftist can continue along his merry way in dismissive bliss of the uncomfortable truth.
One can make a general observation that Florida is warmer than Alaska. Now those who are threatened by such an observation might obfuscate by rephrasing the speaker as saying, "You said Florida is** always** warmer than Alaska but once the southern panhandle of Alaska was warmer than it was one record cold spring day in Florida" or some such thing. Those in denial now presume that they have made a relevant refutation. But the reality is that no meaningful reply was made concerning the actual claim.
-
@AvshalomBinyamin said
"Lab - Of course you don't see the irony of taking umbrage if someone includes you in their general statement, after you included a vague swath of humanity in yours.
Some vague subset of all people, specifically including you, Labyrinthus, can't take what they dish out."
Av, please look up the word umbrage. You have used that word incorrectly regarding comments of mine before. Simply disagreeing with someone or pointing out an error does not imply umbrage. When someone says "ALL people do such n such" and I say "No, they don't, I don't" -- that is NOT umbrage.
-
@Labyrinthus said
"
@AvshalomBinyamin said
"Lab - Of course you don't see the irony of taking umbrage if someone includes you in their general statement, after you included a vague swath of humanity in yours.Some vague subset of all people, specifically including you, Labyrinthus, can't take what they dish out."
Av, please look up the word umbrage. You have used that word incorrectly regarding comments of mine before. Simply disagreeing with someone or pointing out an error does not imply umbrage. When someone says "ALL people do such n such" and I say "No, they don't, I don't" -- that is NOT umbrage."
ahem
to paraphrase.... so the lame may hear and the dumb may walk on....
"Of course you don't see the irony of you taking offense/resenting if someone includes you in their general statement, after you have so repeatedly been doing that all along in your lack of intelligent but highly opinionated arguments."
Sounds like someone needs a nap maybe?
-
"Main Entry: um·brage
Pronunciation: \ˈəm-brij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin umbraticum, neuter of umbraticus of shade, from umbratus, past participle of umbrare to shade, from umbra shade, shadow; akin to Lithuanian unksmė shadow
Date: 15th century
1 : shade, shadow
2 : shady branches : foliage
3 a : an indistinct indication : vague suggestion : hint b : a reason for doubt : suspicion
4 : a feeling of pique or resentment at some often fancied slight or insult <took umbrage at the speaker's remarks>
"What's wrong with umbrage?
I'm sorry you don't like the 4th definition.
All terms are relative. All evasion is possible. All madness is conceivable.
But to whom will you turn for confirmation of your Reality? And what are the consequences if you don't?
-
All I can conclude so far about this Utopia is that either Labrynthus won't be in it, or only Labrynthus will be in it. There shall or shall not be liberals in it - for I do not know exactly what a liberal is except that Labrynthus and a few others throw the word around like it in itself is a stinging device. One may as well call another person a "Jew," "Nigger," or "Monster" according to this usage - but I'm sure I know who and what a Jew is and I've never met a monster I didn't enjoy. The phrasing of the ignorant though, even if I may not always know where it comes from, I am usually right when I say I know why it is used. So allow us to each to seek our own orbits by dispensing with this pain once-and-for-all by declaring Labrynthus the winner of the penis match and Froclown and anyone else who wants can declare themselves winners of the soccer game - because I think someone once said we are all supposed to be winners or something silly like that.
-
NO, what they actually said was that we are all supposed to be whiners... but that just seems so tough and I don't wanna
-
"So allow us to each to seek our own orbits by dispensing with this pain once-and-for-all by declaring Labrynthus the winner of the penis match and Froclown and anyone else who wants can declare themselves winners of the soccer game - because I think someone once said we are all supposed to be winners or something silly like that."
if I would have known it was a penis match I would have brought a strap on......
Seriously, thank you for this discussion, and I hope you liked Momma Wolf's lilttle song...
I do have a favorite dream.after little league ball the players have to line up and meet the opposing team, shaking hands with each, and saying good game...
when you have a bunch of children doing this, it sounds remarkibly like a bunch of bees humming....
"good game, good game, good game...."
they say it builds character,
I say the kids say it so they can get over it and get on to the after game party.. -
lol...
Good game!
Seriously.
-
@Froclown said
"Right, so even the slave class who are unable to seek out the ordeals and mastery of their own WILL, are still acting according to their natural orbit and function by serving, and the difference between old and new aeon slavery is that the new aeon masters work to provide labor and opportunity to as close an approximation of the right and proper function of the slave, as anyone can ascertain for anyone else. "
Indeed.
Rather enlightened words for a native of Illinois.
Most fail to realize that the slave is always enslaved of his own Will. One needs a certain kind of stupidity to choose a life of addiction, manual labor, poverty, etc. over a life of opulence. And this opulence need not be merely internal.
-
"The consequence of the «do your own thing» democracy is the intoxication of the greater part of the population which is not capable of discriminating for itself, which, when not guided by a power and an ideal, all too easily loses sense of its own identity." (Julius Evola)
Now, what could be more necessary knowing and doing your TRUE WILL, than a sense of your own identity, And seeing as the sense of one's own identity is discerned by the measure of a powerful leader who represents and reveals an Ideal, (Culture and tradition) by which one finds ones place in a wider existence. It would seem that a Thelemic society must have a clear tradition, a culture of ideals and it must have leaders who exemplify those ideals, and thus command the respect and loyalty.
-
"Most fail to realize that the slave is always enslaved of his own Will. "
Could you please explain?
Personally, I would say that the slave is always enslaved by his own blindness to his True Will, but that True Will itself is necessarily always liberating, by definition.
I am against those who would perpetuate blindness for their own gain, which has always been my perspective on Froclown's argument. Not once in almost two years have I been able by hook or by crook to get him to describe how we change from the status quo to what he envisions.
And if what he envisions is so different from what currently exists, then why? What change does he suggest bringing? Mostly from what I can tell, he suggests a reorganization of society into castes. He used to refer constantly to the fantasy novel series Gor.
It is the reorganization of society into castes that I constantly question him about. According to what standard of reorganization...? Rich and poor? It already exists, and is ever as it was.
If you can get some sort of standard for the reorganization of the American democracy into castes from him, I'd like to inspect it very, very closely...
Until then, I will continue to disagree with him about his understanding of slaves and kings (a concept he frequently uses interchangeably with the term "masters," along with his talk of social revolution).
Your thoughts?
-
The traditional castes are
The Initiated Kings
The Pious Preists
The Honorable Warriors
The Shrewd Merchants
The Vulgar Peasant.The peasants are like Nietzsche's last man, they have no higher ambitions beyond their immediate survival needs, they are ruled by base desires and tend to butt heads. Communism in it's final stage is the rule of peasants. They have no link to a higher purpose or authority, just a gray basic equality.
The Merchants have profit in mind and thus they are ruled by market forces. They organize companies and such, But they have no greater purpose than profit. This is commercial capitalism at it's best.
The warriors are like the kinghts the police officers they believe in justice and laws of honor which they enforce and bring order to society. When the warriors are strong the shrewdness of the merchant class is kept in check and the peasants are kept peaceful, to a degree, by use of force.
The Priests, these teach and impose moral traditions, it is from these morals than the Warriors distill their codes of honor. The Priests, are keepers and transmitters of the traditional customs, manors, ways of the people. Thus the peasants informed by the priests, are instilled organized into a community, where head butting is replaced by sharing and division of labor. So that co-operation can fulfill the people with purpose and a link to something larger than themselves.
The initiated Kings, then are both the highest expression of the Traditional values and customs, they are like the arch-priests. But the Kings do not merely passively keep the traditions, the King is a part of tradition, the priests transmit the ways of the God's the King is one of the God's he is an expression of Tradition.
The Priest is to Magister Templi as the King is to Magus.
cordeliaforlear.blogspot.com/2009/04/regression-of-castes-by-julius-evola.html
My interest in expressing relations to Gor, is that Gor if you take out the sorta BDSM aspects and look at the structure of the caste system, it is very much like the model above.
Gor has
White caste Preists - Creators of traditions who talk directly to the "Gods" the Sardar
Blue Caste Scribes - keepers of records and educators of children and judges.
Green Caste Doctors - keep people immortal.
Yellow caste builders - Create cities and roads
Red Caste warriors - Protect the city and it's honor.Merchants then are a peasant class, or low class. The merchant is never respected the same as a warrior, or doctor or scribe, no matter how rich he is, nor how penniless the higher caste might be.
You immediately jump to the economic class system we have now as proof we already have a caste system. This economic based system is a result of money taking a higher value than honor, health piety, tradition, etc. That is a clear indication than Modern American society is under a regression of the Caste system where the Merchant class values of shrewdness and profit, are considered the highest or most important. See the Ferengi of Star Trek.
It is in the interest of the merchant class to dismantle the caste system, to teach equality, and to wipe out all tradition and higher values and common norms, etc which create cultural identity. It is much easier to sell things to people when they lack hight values and believe they can buy identity and purpose from the store. Also when they have no higher values, they have nothing to pre-occupy them thus they will buy more pass time activities. They also have less sense of personal integrity as part of the community and thus will buy products which may be of questionable origin or may have harmful side effects to others. Get rid of Honor and the police force are easily bribed, or the congress lobbied.
Creating a casteless society of pariahs, is good business for the merchant class. The merchants need to be kept in check by warriors, warriors need to be guided by priests, priests need to be in communication with an initiated King, at least from time to time.
-
So... are you suggesting a mythical framework to lay over the global "chessboard" where Queens, Popes, Uncle Sams, Henry Fords, and Apples are the grand personas in play - the members of the castes? Because I'm not sure if I'm really sold yet, but the concept does help me think differently in terms of the "grand game," so to speak. I like the interdependence. I like the sort of Star Wars/Dune angle... lol.. It kind of gives the chess pieces their rules.
Eh.. Maybe I'm finally hearing you. Kinda sounds kind of like a "kingdom not of this world."
Careful preaching that one...
