Of Kings and Slaves...
-
Here is how Wikipedia explains the master-slave dialectic of Hegel.
Reaction
The "I" sees another "I" and finds its own pre-eminence and control compromised. It ignores this other or sees it as a threat to itself. Its own self-certainty and truth have forevermore been shattered. The only means of re-asserting itself, in order to proceed toward self-consciousness, is by entering into a struggle for pre-eminence.
[edit] Death struggleA struggle to the death ensues. However, if one of the two should die, the achievement of self-consciousness fails. Hegel refers to this failure as "abstract negation" not the negation or sublation required. This death is avoided by the agreement, communication of, or subordination to, slavery. In this struggle the Master emerges as Master because he doesn't fear death as much as the slave, and the slave out of this fear consents to the slavery. This experience of fear on the part of the slave is crucial, however, in a later moment of the dialectic, where it becomes the prerequisite experience for the slave's further development.
[edit] Enslavement and masteryTruth of oneself as self-conscious is achieved only if both live; the recognition of the other gives each of them the objective truth and self-certainty required for self-consciousness. Thus, the two enter into the relation of master/slave and preserve the recognition of each other.
[edit] Contradiction and ResolutionHowever, this state is not a happy one and does not achieve full self-consciousness. The recognition by the slave is merely on pain of death. The master's self-consciousness is dependent on the slave for recognition and also has a mediated relation with nature: the slave works with nature and begins to shape it into products for the master. As the slave creates more and more products with greater and greater sophistication through his own creativity, he begins to see himself reflected in the products he created, he realizes that the world around him was created by his own hands, thus the slave is no longer alienated from his own labour and achieves self-consciousness, while the master on the other hand has become wholly dependent on the products created by his slave; thus the master is enslaved by the labour of his slave. The realization of this contradiction allows the slave to once again struggle against his master. The contradiction is resolved when the difference between slave and the master is dissolved and both recognize that they are interdependent.
Conclusions
One interpretation of this dialectic is that neither a slave nor a master can be considered as fully self-conscious. A person who has already achieved self-consciousness could be enslaved, so self-consciousness must be considered not as an individual achievement, or an achievement of natural and genetic evolution, but as a social phenomenon. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master-slave_dialectic#Hegel.27s_my)So then Hegel claims that modern social state with it's equal but interdependent individuals working within a materialist market economy is the natural progression of Geist, as it manifest in time. The development of the Zeitgeist. That is he claims that as society is created that is reliant on the material products of labor, the role of master and slave are forced to level off. To became as the conclusion states "Fully conscious" a state in which neither the master nor the slave can exist alone.
However the Book of the Law tells us.
-
He that is righteous shall be righteous still; he that is filthy shall be filthy still.
-
Yea! deem not of change: ye shall be as ye are, & not other. Therefore the kings of the earth shall be Kings for ever: the slaves shall serve. There is none that shall be cast down or lifted up: all is ever as it was. Yet there are masked ones my servants: it may be that yonder beggar is a King. A King may choose his garment as he will: there is no certain test: but a beggar cannot hide his poverty.
If we this state is not to change, then it seems we are not to expect in this Aeon of Horus the collective development of what Hegel believes is "Full consciousness". We are instead to expect the full development of the Master to it's highest and purest state and the slave also to it's highest state. But we are not to expect to see anything like the collective salvation of the type propounded by "Liberation Theology".
Indeed if anything we are to see a return of Hadit consciousness of individualized incomplete self-consciousness raised to it's highest pitch, as it Aspires to expand it's Horizion of being into Nuit and to increase it's own personal power over the world as Ra-Hoor-Khuit.
The Thelemic state is one full of kings and slaves, and Dominance-submissive relationships. Where My "I" and your "I" are interact to discern our own relative identity, and thus to form a striated and hierarchical society, where each individual finds it's place like gears in a clock and is held into that place by the strictest Military discipline.
How do we discern who is a master and who is a slave?
Well just like in Hegel of course, by FIGHTING. -
-
"How do we discern who is a master and who is a slave?
Well just like in Hegel of course, by FIGHTING."Why waste your time fighting? Thou hast no right but to do thy will. Do that and no other shall say neigh. (EDIT: neigh? lol)
-
because your WILL is determined relative to all other WILLs.
Each star is directed on it's course by the interfering gravitation of all other stars. Only by fighting, do you find which stars you will orbit around and which stars will orbit around you.
-
@Froclown said
"because your WILL is determined relative to all other WILLs.
Each star is directed on it's course by the interfering gravitation of all other stars. Only by fighting, do you find which stars you will orbit around and which stars will orbit around you."
A star just follows it's course. Who orbits who is incidental to size and circumstance. It's the force that burns at the heart of the star that matters the most.
"As brothers fight ye! - AL III:59"
The interesting thing, is that fighting brothers oughtn't every experience a total victory over each other. Fighting as brothers seems very different from any social-darwinist concept.
To me, Jung's writings about the struggle between the conscious and unconscious to gain dominance seem apt. I notice that it doesn't say, "fight ye, and let the strongest win!" Jung also says that the individuation process depends on not letting the one side win decisively over the other side. YMMV. 93
-
As a simple matter of course Each individual must find itself supreme and claim for itself the whole universe as it's property and seek total domination of all things subject to it's WILL.
But this individual is ultimately fated to encounter other individuals and each makes an equal claim to ALL. Thus these two will FIGHT and either one will totally destroy the other, in which case the one remains supreme. But generally one reaches it's limit in fighting and cries uncle, thus agreeing to the rules of a truce, a treaty is drawn where each is able to co-exist. One subordinate to the WILL of the other, to a degree worked out in the truce.
What we call "rights" are actually just agreed upon rules which individuals or groups set up to prevent continues violence. In this way each finds it's own true orbit, it's niche in the social system. That is we limit each other, one groups use of violence is limited by the other groups control of a resource, ie if you kill me I will poison the water supply, Thus we have a truce. Or the special skill of one matches the physical power of the other, If you want me to fix your computer you had better withdraw your sword a bit and allow me a degree of liberty from your control.
In this way we all find our orbits. In relation to the greater whole. As I said in analogy the gravity, the forces that each stay put out as they move in their orbits attract, repulse and shape the orbits of all the other stars. But each sees itself as supreme and fights to it's limits to expand it's own power. Ultimately realizing that it's own nature is a product of the whole system of stars, and the others stars are members of it's own body. Thus there is no real conflict in the fighting, just as the muscles push and conflict with the skeletal system, but this is not a conflict in the body as a whole as this "fighting" is actually pitting one force against another in for the higher system.
Thus all the fighting and even killing in a society is not really in conflict because those are merely forces than grind and push against each other, to shape each element of the system into it's proper role, such that the whole operates at a higher level. The Hero and the Villain are not really in conflict they are the ebb and flow of Justice, for example.
-
what about wu wei?
-
"the Earth let her be gouerned by her parts and let there be diuision in her, that the glory of hir may be allwayes drunken and vexed in it self. Her course, let it ronne wth the hevens, and as a handmayd let her serve them. One season let it confownd an other, and let there be no creature vppon or within her the same: all her members let them differ in their qualities, and let there be no one creature aequall wth an other: the reasonable Creatures of the Erth let them vex and weede out one an other"
-
@Alrah said
"most male animals have evolved set's of ritualised behaviours that limit harm and bloodshed in respect to ones own species. The human animal also has that capacity. It's only when 'the ego' get's involved that it all get's messy and the knives come out."
I am not sure that is true.
I have seen "Wild Kingdom" type video where the dominant male struggle can get very bloody. From wolves to horses the loser can limp off and never be seen again, presumably because it died. Among chimps observers were horrified to see murder and cannibalism! Also it can be a short and rather bloodless affair, this being when the loser sees early on that he hasn't got a fighting chance.
Among humans we see a similar scenario. When the match is even or close it can get very bloody, as in WWI and WWII.
-
Good point. On a philosophical level, you can't have willful murder without believing in separateness between the individuals involved. Ergo, an ego.
-
@Froclown said
"As a simple matter of course Each individual must find itself supreme and claim for itself the whole universe as it's property and seek total domination of all things subject to it's WILL."
"As a simple matter of course [...]"? Could I ask you to expand on this a little?
- C
-
@Labyrinthus said
"
@Alrah said
"but the truth is: all murders are decided by the attitude of the ego in respect of the other that is being killed."Would that imply that suicide must involve full blown Multiple personality disorder, or MPD?"
hmm... to me it might be like Suicide is murder of the existence of all sense of other
-
@Takamba said
"hmm... to me it might be like Suicide is murder of the existence of all sense of other"
If suicide victims generally expressed a desire to wipe out otherness that might be so.
I think the desire to wipe out all sensory input is more often expressed. A presumption or hope of a peaceful nothingness is more common.
edit; another motivation that I heard in an interview years ago was expressed as a desire to "do others a favor and help the family and friends by removing such a useless, depressing character in their lives". That was about 20 years ago... they may have medication now to lift the mood a bit for cases like that.
-
Yes.
You have to learn to control the meaning before you learn to control the sensory perceptions...
I don't know who that one's for, but if I've made even a little peep in your mind, you'd better pay attention to this because it is foundational to may wy of thinking and acting at present.
-
I can't even make that last post make sense to my own mind in the current state I'm in.
But I have been inwardly trained that it is foundational to understanding the limitations of being able to communicate in this state of mind.
Namaste.
-
I see no reason why the desire to alter elements of one's environment that are not co-operating must require some sort of negative evaluation of the motive as "Ego" based.
Is it Ego based to want to tear up the soil and uproot grass and weeds in order to plant one desired crop?
Is it Ego based to want to kill and remove all fleas, ticks and mosquitoes that cause itching and spread disease?
What about to want to process plants into food.
How about the desire to kill, slaughter and eat an animal.If these actions are natural and not ego based,
Then is not the desire to Murder some one who is stealing your crops, contaminating your home with pests, or even just poking you with a stick until you get fed up with it and alter your environment to suit your own WILL to not be pestered by taking a knife and in a quick flip of the wrist putting an end to the offending element. Which may one may not be the best course to take, as it has been said the fastest way to the bottom of a cliff is to jump, but it's not the best way.All beings considered an extension of one's own WILL, means any act which puts those other beings in their place as subservient to your WILL are lawful. But keeping in mind if you KILL some one who provides you a service, then you will either have to do without that service or do it yourself. You may get annoyed with your stuttering and tenancy to get tongue tied, but if you cut out your tongue you lose the ability to speak at all. Likewise if you butcher annoys you with his price gouging and long stories, it is best to put up with him, as if you kill him, not only are you without meat, but so is the whole village. This can make the townsfolk mighty sore at you, not to mention people who might actually have enjoyed the man's company will not be pleased at his death.
So you see, the whole is an extension of yourself, if you act rashly you may end up cutting your nose to spite your face. On the other hand, some times for the good of the whole it is necessary to surgically remove growths and cancers, and disease can not be tolerated. To this extent murder is perfectly lawful, as in some cases it is in line with one's WILL to rid oneself and one's environment of a blight, a demon that does not cower before the light, is best banished totally. Exile or annihilation may be the only options.
Thelema means looking at all people places and things and elements in one's own personal cosmos which are best left to do what they are doing, until such time as you call upon them for use, each according to the nature of it's own personal motion and limits. Thus Every force and being, animal, mineral, vegetable, human, demon, elemental, or God, must be compelled obedient to one's WILL. As Frigga commanded all things in heaven and earth to swear an oath not to harm Balder, So to does one command in the name of the HGA that all things in heaven and earth swear an oath of obedience to one's WILL, by way of the Abramelin Ritual, clearly stated in Liber Samekh:
Hear Me, and make all Spirits subject unto Me: so that every Spirit of the Firmament and of the Ether: upon the Earth and under the Earth: on dry Land and in the Water: of Whirling Air, and of rushing Fire, and every Spell and Scourge of God may be obedient unto Me.
Of course if one moves outside one's orbit, then conflicts occur in which one is acting outside of one's WILL and taxes that oath of obedience. In that case there is a fight, and one is generally put back into one's place. If it was oneself than strayed. If it was the other who strayed, then that other will be put back into place by your WILL.
The only way to know your own or anyone's WILL is to test it by fighting and finding your place, being into your place and by putting others in their place, many times. Each success and each failure is a result of a test of WILL on both sides. This is the science by which one learns little by little, what is one's true place, one's true caste, and orbit. If and only if one can learn from one's past transgressions, learn by objective interpretation of one's actions and one's journal, often with aid of a superior. Only in this way can these raw data points be statistically processed and from them we can discern the course of the median, a formula of the asymptote or limit to which defines the attractor to which all the various data points, the transgressions tend to aggregate. That unmanifest line which all the points are tending towards but each marks a point of deviation from that line, that TRUE WILL.
If for example we plot every dart that hits the board and tag each one as a good of bad throw. We will see over many rounds of dart through that the darts get closer and closer to the bullseye. This shows that the TRUE WILL is to hit the bullseye, each actual dart will inevitably miss the impossible "perfect" bullseye, but when at the start we have no idea at all what we are aiming for the darts hit all over the board. But as points as each hit, each experience is identified and ranked an a scale of pleasing or displeasing results, over time we can glean what results are most pleasing, that is our aim becomes more TRUE, as we learn from our past interactions with the game. Then is such a way we can minimize low scores and maximize higher scores as we seek hone our skills and out aim to the perfect game of darts.
-
Yes, some interesting points.
But it presupposes that True Will is a zero sum game.
Exactly who do I fight when I compose a song?
And yes, the contemplation of current vs. a hypothetical "improved" reality is ego-based. That's the ego's job. There's nothing wrong with it. Just don't mistake ego for True Will.