Crowley- Violator of others' Wills?
-
I think it can boil down to "personality worship" is so old-aeon. If you have enough self-loathing in yourself to see hate in you when you look at another personality, that's not liberation.
-
Yes.
Crowley (like Blavatsky, for example) had the distinction that no sane person would want to emulate being like him. "Living a Crowley-like life" is not a part of the new dispensation! That's highly advantageous.
There is a traditional view that being more spiritual means setting a higher standard of "being good." However, understanding "more spiritual" as "having access to higher levels of consciousness," makes it immediately obvious that this is a dubious assumption. For example, it should be pretty obvious that being smarter doesn't mean that one sets a higher standard of "being good." Being a superior athlete doesn't mean that one sets a higher standard of "being good." Playing the trumpet awesomely doesn't mean that one sets a higher standard of "being good." And "being more spiritual" is simply a different human capacity taken, by innate talent or training, to a higher level of performance.
One can see farther than everyone else and still make wrong choices!
-
true/true
There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt.
-
"There is a traditional view that being more spiritual means setting a higher standard of "being good." However, understanding "more spiritual" as "having access to higher levels of consciousness," makes it immediately obvious that this is a dubious assumption. For example, it should be pretty obvious that being smarter doesn't mean that one sets a higher standard of "being good." Being a superior athlete doesn't mean that one sets a higher standard of "being good." Playing the trumpet awesomely doesn't mean that one sets a higher standard of "being good." And "being more spiritual" is simply a different human capacity taken, by innate talent or training, to a higher level of performance.
One can see farther than everyone else and still make wrong choices!
"Now this is interesting as a topic...
-
I have often thought about the this, Crowley was a man that grew and changed as we all do, spiritual experience may create change, also it may effect each individual differently. Maybe he felt messing with the profanes head's would not create any problem for his view of the big picture. There seems to be cause and effect with All, and I personally feel that we would not have came into the physical if we did not have work to do.
Sometimes it seems the bigger the mistake the more I learn, and people who preach being good seem to do otherwise. As far as who holds the Light, it seems that the Light matters more than it's bearer. I personally could care less what faults one has, if they have something I can learn from. I shy away from criticizing those who I don't know everything about, everyone usually justifies there actions and feels they had a reason.
Maybe I am careless or could care less, I stopped fearing "evil" a long time ago, ignorance scares me most, mostly my own.
peace
-
@MagickMason said
"As far as who holds the Light, it seems that the Light matters more than it's bearer."
Kind of like the zen quote "If one points a finger at the moon, the fool looks at the finger."
I think there's a certain poetic brilliance to an Aeon that starts off with a person who could be so eye-rollingly melodramatic and arrogant as it's chief prophet. Really seems to help drive home the point that "heaven" isn't just for the boys and girls that fold their hands in class and smile sanctimoniously.
It's taken me 5 years to get over that, myself. I'm reading his Confessions right now, and I'm finally at the point where I can just laugh at him, and still accept him, and still be amazed at what he dared to do, and still be dumbstruck by thelema as a philosophy.
-
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
@Jim Eshelman said
"One can see farther than everyone else and still make wrong choices!
"Nice!
I would even go as far as to say, "One can make wrong choices because one can see farther than everyone else."
It would seem its our own guilt and apprehensive inclination to classify every experience as either good or evil, right or wrong, beneficial or not, etc. that's generally most restrictive to Our Will.
Love is the law, love under will.
-
Where in the book of the law does it say we can't abuse or hurt other people. Neuburg obeyed Crowley's sadistic demands, so Crowley treated him like dirt. "Strike hard and low, to hell with them"
Thelema is not liberal humanism, the values of thelema are not aimed at making people comfortable or reducing displeasure or hurt. They aim at making people more confident, stronger, developing hubris, and removing all guilt, self doubt and hesitation. It is teaching to use logic and strength to achieve goals and not be distracted by feelings and biases, it is about learning for yourself by direct experience and challenging your limits, if it makes you feel disgusted, guilty, or unclean, Thelema says force yourself to do it until you can do it with NO such reaction. (That includes kicking the dog and not feeling sorry for it, even if the Dog is Victor Neuberg).
-
You are an idiot
Crowley treated Neuburg the way he did "Because" he obeyed his sadistic demands.
Apart from the fact that Crowley admitted that being the first Thelemite he was also more or less the worst Thelemite.
If you think that Calling yourself a Thelemite is an excuse to treat people like shit for the sake of it then you need your head seeing to.
Compassion is the vice of Kings, I,e, if you are indeed a King then you can allow yourself the vice of compassion; if, on the other hand your are not a King, then your sole business is to mind your own affairs, and you have no right whatsoever to meddle in the affairs of others.
The slaves shall serve.
-
@Solitarius said
"You are an idiot
Crowley treated Neuburg the way he did "Because" he obeyed his sadistic demands.
Apart from the fact that Crowley admitted that being the first Thelemite he was also more or less the worst Thelemite.
If you think that Calling yourself a Thelemite is an excuse to treat people like (****) for the sake of it then you need your head seeing to.
Compassion is the vice of Kings, I,e, if you are indeed a King then you can allow yourself the vice of compassion; if, on the other hand your are not a King, then your sole business is to mind your own affairs, and you have no right whatsoever to meddle in the affairs of others.
The slaves shall serve."
A vice grips and restricts.
Compassion is the vice of kings: stamp down the wretched & the weak: this is the law of the strong: this is our law and the joy of the world. -
Nueburg was acting as a masochist and slave, he was being a sycophant, so Crowley use him to practice his sadistic urges. There is nothing in the book of the law about not interfering with other people at all. There is the notion of minding your own business, but as for as I know it was Crowely's business to treat Neuburg as he did to learn about the psychology of masochists as well as to explore his own sadism.
I mean on the one hand he says not to practice pick pocketing because it's dishonest on the other he treats Neuburg as his slave, dragging him naked through the streets. It seems a contradiction. Then we look at why he says stealing is wrong, he says it is because it carries the notions that one is inferior to some one else, it's an expression of slave mentality and resentment of those who have money. Rather than to rise up an earn money yourself. Where as treating Neuburg as a slave was not Crowley bowing or cowering or making himself less than Neuburg. That others want to kiss your feet and act inferior to you is their fault and the consequence of their acting like slaves is that you beat them like slaves and humiliate them.
Thelema is not about liberal values of not hurting people or upsetting their feelings. It is the law of the strong. it is Nietzschean and Aristocratic. If subjugating people actually aids your Will, there is no law against it. it fact the law clearly states "The slaves shall serve"
-
@Froclown said
"There is nothing in the book of the law about not interfering with other people at all."
The word of Sin is Restriction. O man! refuse not thy wife, if she will! O lover, if thou wilt, depart! There is no bond that can unite the divided but love: all else is a curse. Accursed! Accursed be it to the aeons! Hell.
So with thy all; thou hast no right but to do thy will.
AL I:41-42If you are thinking in the parity of left vs right, conservative vs liberal, you are quite well missing a lot of useful points. Instead it is right, it is strong, and it is juicy (meaning, it can be many flavors if you like).
To one it is the Will of man to flourish as a team, to another is the Will of man to allow him or her to flourish as an individual. I do not see these at odds. Should YOU see these at odds, I advise you to choose your battles wisely. There is many a man who would love to kill you just to watch a man die.
-
Sounds like advice not to get sex bound up with legal contracts to me. So that you are not bound by sex, religion or law, to restrict your own WILL. It is also a restriction of your own Will to worry about what your wife is doing, let her "cheat" if she wants, don't worry about what others do sexually, since that worry is itself a bond that only restricts you.
No I'm not talking what you mean by left and right politics.
I mean The Traditional in the sense of Julius Evola and Rene Geunon vs the forces of egalitarianism and degeneration to base physical needs and money power, displacing the power of higher values and virtues.I am talking what Nietzsche calls the WILL to nothingness vs the Will to power. The master vs the slave morality, and the "last man" vs the "ubermensch".
The difference between a society and culture than creates and encourages the last man (modern liberalism) vs the culture than encourages and creates the Next men, the over men.
Crowley called the last man (Troglodytes) and in the letter to probationers he called the next man or ubermensch (Christs or Geniuses) which the A.'.A.'. was the means of refining and creating. The OTO was meant to be a society that supported the values than produce these superior men and discourage the slave mentality that leads to the last men.
The GREAT WORK is the process of building such an ideal society and the ideal aristocratic men who are the highest fruits of such a society.
-
Froclown, you have a poor habit of compartmentalizing and degrading any idea to its smallest useful component. "So with thy all," and thus with everything, you reduce it to nothing of value.
I wish you the best. That's my liberalism speaking, my compassion for a fellow space/time traveler. But you're an idiot and I shall never expect a best of anything from you. That's my superiority talking.
I'm sure I'm quite right.
-
-
Another thing I don't need the book of the law or Thelema to justify my actions.
It does not propose to do such a thing, The book removes restrictions and the need for any authority of any kind, be it man, god or text, to grant authority to do anything. It leave it up to You to decide. If you want to murder and rape your way into infamy, there is no moral injunction in Thelema that forbids it. Rather it has to be up to YOU to chose not to do such things and your own Will that holds you back. Not your fear and Cowardice, if the only thing holding you back from such crimes is fear of the laws or fear of punishment or some kind, then Thelema says to get over the fear and go be a criminal. Rather Out of your own courage and Will power you choose not to do such things, as they are not in line with your own higher self image and your ideal goals and virtues, that is you find such acts distracting and restricting who you want to be, That is the Thelemic reason to abstain. If you are acting out of fear of punishment out of base desire for comfort and security, that is a slaves motive, not a Thelemic one.In a fight the warrior loses by being killed, the dishonorable slave loses by crying uncle and bartering a way out of death.
-
No not institutions, communities, organic societies, based on aristocratic virtues, link to the solar-phallic expression of organic tradition, the respect for the virtuous rather than the degenerates. A community with common values and practices, based on what is life affirming and healthy, and the rule of law based on what is practical as discerned scientifically.
Respect for honourable men and not for degenerates and a media that portrays proudly examples of virtue and strength, not for us to envy and resent, but as examples to emulate in our own way in our own lives.
-
Happy? Your pushing my buttons...
@Froclown said
"Respect for honourable men and not for degenerates and a media that portrays proudly examples of virtue and strength, not for us to envy and resent, but as examples to emulate in our own way in our own lives."
It's the language dude; it's all but identical in tone and substance to the propaganda of the Nazis. The only redeeming part of the above is this: **in our own way in our own lives. **
But here is where I think, even with the clause of individual preference, you don't really want people to be free. It has to do with the main thrust of your argument in so far as you evince to know how we should live, which makes the individual option you mention a lie, especially since you also want to limit what types of images the media will be able to display.
Love and Will
-
@Froclown said
"AIf you want to murder and rape your way into infamy, there is no moral injunction in Thelema that forbids it."
Here again I find you quite easily mistaken, and so sad it is that this is very easy mistake. To become a prisoner is to become no longer free to Do Your Will - ergo, to become a prisoner is to go against your own will. Pretty simple, no?
-
The Philosopher King with the caste system is the organic community.
I mean it is "semi-anarchical" in that the rulers do not need the ruled, it's the men of higher virtue than show the men of lesser virtue an example of what they lack and give them an ideal to strive for.
The higher aristocrat of which the King is the highest example in the land, are self sufficient, free because they are able to use their skills to support their own needs are fundamentally self driven, not need. They are able to use their excess and over flow of virtue as well as wealth to aid others who are not as well adept as they are.
The bum who lives totally off the charity of other's and gives nothing back would be the example of the low man while the king who has by his own merits expanded his power such that his business supplies the whole community and his virtue and wisdom guide the whole kingdom is the example of a man of highest virtue.
People are not born with virtue they must learn it and it grows in them with practice, and not all people have the same potential for virtue, nor are all virtues the same. There is specialisation and differentiation of virtues, which in the Traditional society was the caste system.
It is not that the kings and leaders are demanding sycophants to kiss their feet and slave for them under threat of the whip. It is that they higher noble class gives structure and meaning to the lower classes, the people are motivated by the good and virtuous deeds of the higher man, they are motivated by his courage and strength, by his wisdom and justice. To emulate him.
The slave values are those than claim "all men are to be equal" and so the slave mind is not inspired by great men of virtue, he is offended by them, he resents their power and strength. "How dare he put an airs and claim to be better than other men, better than ME, I should have what he has" The slaves wants to be entitled just by existing, to what the virtuous man had to work for and cultivate himself to earn. When the slave mentality becomes the common ideal, then the people rebel against the better men and steal from him, you have robin hood type mentality, We will take back by hook or by crook, what we are entitled to by virtue of our humanity or by virtue of our equality before the cross. There is disdain for virtue itself, goodness, strength, wisdom, skill, are all held in contempt because they serve to make some men set apart from and superior to others. This is the "Liberal" and the "Modernist" perspective than Thelema is against.
An interesting note, is than the entitlement mentality, says there should be no authority, no men of power above other men and in the same breath demands than "SOMEONE" redistribute wealth and power to secure their entitlements? Who then or by what non-authority will these entitlements by ensured and by what power will the non-authority of the government ensure equality is kept against the natural tendency for some individual to outshine others?