Literalism and Thelema
-
@sebastian said
"1) Suppose there's a community of Thelemites who sacrifice all manner of animals and the occasional most 'efficacious' sacrifice,would you have any problems ?"
I eat meat. I have no problem with the killing of animals for a purpose. A ceremonial sacrifice, properly carried out, would, in most instances, be far more humane than most of the conditions of commercial slaughter.
That said, it would be rare that this would be the most magically effective approach. (It's also damned expensive! <g>)
"2) Whether you agree or not, do you consider a literal blood sacrifice as 'effective' ?"
Yes. Any sudden release of a great quantity of life-force, especially if it has a physical medium to capture and carry it, provides power that can be employed effectively in magick. This does include the literal bloody sacrifice.
"3) If the above is effective do you agree with AC that male child would make a more efficacious substitute ?"
I agree with what he meant when he wrote that, but not with the simplest, superficial reading of the words he used. (I am only being obscure because I have actual oaths of secrecy attached to this specific text.) As you know, Crowley was quite explicit the passages in question were normally not going to be understood correctly - they were intentionally obscured.
"Of course if you,or any one else here advocated child sacrifice in no uncertain terms,then its gona make things a wee bit difficult
"It would, yes. Fortunately, that's one problem I don't have to worry about, because we do not advocate it. Quite the opposite.
Fundamental to the philosophy of Thelema is non-interference with the True Will of others. There is probably no action that interferes with the True Will of another more thoroughly than killing them.
"The above is my understanding of what constitutes black magic. Put simply anything that you do which harms another, is black magic. Expanded anything you do to **any creature **that harms it is black magick, in **particular if torture is inflicted **on the animal; like AC did with the frog.
4 ) Do you agree with the above definition of black magic"
Your definition isn't bad. I think it would cover the topic in most circumstances.
I wouldn't agree unconditionally without first analyzing the definition more carefully - the curse of a legally trained mind. On a cursory look, for example, I'd have to exclude examples that were consistent with the target's choice, and we'd have to go around the barn a couple of times sorting out what "harm" means - but, broadly, it's pretty good. (For example, it articulates why I am against war and the death penalty in nearly all situations.)
"and if so do you believe that's what AC did on occasion, i.e the 'crucifixion' of the frog ritual ?"
Simple answer: Yes, regarding the frog.
A less simple answer: I'm almost transfixed at the logic of his most singular act of black magick being the specific ritual he performed for the overthrow of Christianity. That's so very much like the late Sen. Robert Byrd proposing an openly unconstitutional law to force his life-passion of compelling people to study the U.S. Constitution. The irony is sublime! (The underlying magick principle BTW is that you gain access to assail someone's fortress by operating within the universe as they, themselves, have constituted it.)
-
"Your words imply that I am insincere. Quite the contrary. I am entirely sincere."
"I am only being obscure because I have actual oaths attached to this specific text"
So you're being obscure (because of oaths
) but NOT insincere !So in you're little mind **deliberate obfuscation **doesn't mean insincerity.
Did i mention smoke and mirrors ?
Here's the defintion of obfuscation:
Obfuscation (or beclouding) is the hiding of intended meaning in communication, making communication confusing, wilfully ambiguous, and harder to interpret.
So AC was being obscure, on top of it others were being obscure, and on top of all that, you're being obscure
Now everything is clarified.
So on one end of the spectrum, there are people like you, full of self importance because they imagine they are privy to an ultimate secret, and are bound by oaths.
On the other end are the novices who are trying to make sense of this material, but they can't be helped because you have oaths to honour.
So what's the **point **of any discussion.
Endless going around in circles.
As i said, gota give it to Aiwaz
-
Jim, here's you and your 'great secret'.
-
@sebastian said
"So you're being obscure (because of oaths
) but NOT insincere !"
The two aren't incompatible. And I'm only being obscure on the specific matter addressed in MT&P Chapter 12, not the discussion in general. (Even in obscurity, I'm being completely sincere: Not falsifying anything, just not openly saying some things.)"So in you're little mind **deliberate obfuscation **doesn't mean insincerity."
Correct. Obfuscation does not mean insincerity. In my statements there is no deceit or hypocrisy. There is incompletion (withholding some statements), not adulterating with noise.
"So AC was being obscure, on top of it others were being obscure, and on top of all that, you're being obscure
Now everything is clarified.
"Excellent!
Notice that there is no deceit. He openly said he was being obscure. There are some things that it is not permissible to say clearly for various reasons, not the least of which is honor; i.e., one gave one's word.
BTW I am very sensitive to the fact that we appear to be moving farther from the thread's original topic. Or, maybe this is the type of thing Robert had in mind? In any case, I leave it to him whether I excise this particular sub-thread to its own space. In the meantime, I'm endeavoring to be responsive.
"So on one end of the spectrum, there are people like you, full of self importance because they imagine they are privy to an ultimate secret, and are bound by oaths.
On the other end are the novices who are trying to make sense of this material, but they can't be helped because you have oaths to honour."Of course they can be helped! That's what the entire delivery system of the Order is about. (My only claim here BTW is that I know precisely what Crowley meant by the section under discussion of MT&P. I know this because I have his specific explanation of it.)
"So what's the **point **of any discussion. Endless going around in circles."
That would be like someone relatively ignorant of electrical wiring hiring an electrical contractor with decades of experience, then starting an argument on current density. One can blame neither the contractor nor the electricity for any "going around in circles" that results.
"
As i said, gota give it to Aiwaz" -
@Veronica said
"Open up and say aahhn,
Doctors used to analysis health by looking at your tou ge, a lost art to some, but one I am skilled at.
Actually, no not all human being have five tastes. Most all human beings have three regions of the tounge, some may have two other regions. Salt and sweet share a region. The three regions correspond to the three primary cells in our body, the heart, the brain, and the skin, and the three taste correspond to the three primary components of food, fats, carbohydrates and proteins."
Apparently I wasn't as efficient a librarian as you to have learned to discern a person's health simply by looking at their tongues. My doctor still uses a tongue suppressor and makes me go "aaahhh" but he's not looking at my tongue, he's looking at the back of my throat.
Besides that, let me direct you to a little something called taste: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taste_bud
I hope you do get to read Jim's article, but in case you don't let me kind of sum it up:
The Scarlet Woman is an officer of Thelema, a "role" played not by everyone but only ONE - and in context of equality with The Beast this role is prototypical in Crowley and Rose and archetypal in general. It isn't to all women these verses apply, but to that One Type of woman (who when she hears them will already feel an affinity to the ideal of it). She is to be the ultimate woman girt with sword (whereas all other women can also be girt with the sword, but not necessarily wed to it as The Scarlet Woman would be).
-
"That would be like someone relatively ignorant of electrical wiring hiring an electrical contractor with decades of experience, then starting an argument on current density. One can blame neither the contractor nor the electricity for any "going around in circles" that results."
Totaly wrong analogy,but who cares, if you can obscure more.
The right analogy would be, a student learning electrical engineering.
He asks a question, and the lecturer comes out with some bull about oaths he took.
The student would have a right to ask for a refund, and tell the prof to go **** himself for wasting his time.This carrot of a secret only works for donkeys.
" I know precisely what Crowley meant by the section under discussion of MT&P. I know this because I have his specific explanation of it"
And who told you that !
God, there's not **a **sucker born every minute; there's tens of thousands born!
You need to be given the same treatment that AC gave to the frog.
That'll take care of the secret. -
I would say that you got a ridiculously good deal on your investment of $0 and bad manners.
I would also say that I know very few occultists who give as clear and direct answers as Jim consistently, to non-initiates like me. Your history of 7 posts indicate that your sample size is too small, and that you're projecting when you talk smack about "obfuscation".
-
@sebastian said
"The student would have a right to ask for a refund, and tell the prof to go **** himself for wasting his time."
While you're entitled to your opinion of others responses, if you find it a waste of time, then please cease engaging in conversation or even reading this forum. If you're already knowledgable of the secret(s) mentioned here, then surely you can find something better to do with your time than to post on a online forum being intentionally rude to someone who is taking time to thoroughly (as well as he is able via obligation) answer your questions.
On the topic:
I say it seems obvious that taking most of Crowley's writings literally would be a huge mistake. Lately, I've been reading through Magick Without Tears, and he says in the note on Qabalah that there is a depth to the Book of the Law that he doesn't even understand and didn't expect to within this incarnation. With this thought coming Crowley himself, doesn't it seem unreasonable to think that one would be able to read a verse of the Book of the Law and just immediately know based on first impression?? Crowley also seems to mock the idea of how some people will read things and take them literally, I see this as perhaps one of the reasons to obscure a passage like this. Making his motives akin to the use of the frog ritual regarding Christianity (if I'm understanding Jim correctly).
-
"While you're entitled to your opinion "
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"I would say that you got a ridiculously good deal on your investment of $0 and bad manners."
@ANEA said
"surely you can find something better to do with your time than to post on a online forum being intentionally rude"
As you've so eloquently pointed out, no one here has an issue with you having a different opinion. But, if you'd see the above quotes, it's your approach that won't get you far here. Jim is the admin of these forums, and he has demanded that members engage these topics with respect towards each other.
I told you to cease posting and reading because you clearly said that this was wasting your time. Should you volunteer to waste your time, then so be it, but don't take that out on others here by being rude.
Very sorry to post totally off topic. Just thought I'd like to clarify my earlier post.
-
"I told you to cease posting and reading because you clearly said that this was wasting your time"
No,never claimed that.
I gave an analogy countering Jim's."but don't take that out on others here by being rude."
If anything is rude than it's the passages under discussion, and attempts made to white wash them.
"I would say that you got a ridiculously good deal on your investment of $0 and bad manners."
Did I ?
What did I get, care to enlighten.
All i got was i have to be obscure, because of alleged oaths !"surely you can find something better to do with your time than to post on a online forum being intentionally rude"
I'm sure we all could.
But it is as it isAfter all we're discussing blood baths gore and sacrifice here.
-
"I would also say that I know very few occultists who give as **clear and direct answers **as Jim consistently, to non-initiates like me"
-
@sebastian said
"
Did I ?What did I get, care to enlighten.
"Yes, you got clear, direct answers to your questions. And your insults were ignored.
-
"The right analogy would be, a student learning electrical engineering.
He asks a question, and the lecturer comes out with some bull about oaths he took.
The student would have a right to ask for a refund, and tell the prof to go **** himself for wasting his time."This analogy is incorrect. There are no prohibitive oaths in electrical engineering. There are, however, the necessary degrees and licensing procedures in which the student must demonstrate competency before being allowed to do the actual work.
That would be a better analogy, since the only thing that seems to be able to keep an occult student from performing this particular work without the proper degrees is enforced ignorance, unlike the state's regulation of electrical engineers.
-
(In case you didn't know, sebastian was soofi.)
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"(In case you didn't know, sebastian was soofi.)"
Yes. Certain misspellings and other hints gave that away.
oh, I also see what you did to a certain "sub-thread" within the overall derailment there. I'm not hurt.
-
lol
His disappointment at receiving frogs instead of skulls was palpable. I confess a moment of schadenfreude (or Shadow-glee, as I am now calling it).
And yes so appropriate.
Even the lives of trolls are filled with magick.
You'll have to forgive me; I woke up from my nap at exactly 4:18, and am feeling it
-
I was traveling, just got back a few hours ago...
A couple of magical curiosities:
The person without a gun—a weapon of any sort, something that is based on inflicting blunt physical trauma—has proved dramatically more powerful, and more effective than a person with a gun. This is a historical fact. Only in the crudest measure of success—dead or alive—is the opposite true (i.e. that guns are a source of power.) (Sorry for the repeated reference to gun ownership, it's just easier to use this as a symbol for being a macho prick—the kind of thing I think Thelema is not about.)
A true individual is the weakest and most ineffective thing imaginable. Individuals only have power by virtue of their ability to identify themselves with and direct much larger currents of energy, generally created by the common interests and shared goals of others. Hence power is only possible to the degree a person stops being an individual. This idea is almost pure Magick in Theory and Prcatice.
Exceptions to the above often involve very wealthy individuals who can create change by forcing or buying the cooperation of others. By contrast, Thelema, and Crowley as well, imagined a class of ‘individual’ who could lead because they commanded love and respect. The wealthy person is the lesser of the two and ultimately subject to catastrophic failure, even if they seem to prosper for a limited period of time—see the doctrine of the Black Brother, and the general, magical problem of making bargains with lesser spirits for limited, short term gains.
Behind all esoteric doctrines, including Thelema, is a "love for the world" framework in which all strategies and teachings must of necessity be understood. In other words, if this base-line desire to heal and generally make things better is not appreciated, and does not form the background for an action, that action is black, and links the person directly to all other persons with guns, or the individual who believes they can simply take what they want for themselves: "I'm not worried about the coming chaos because I have a gun."
EDIT: I was tired when I posted, and most of the post was so badly written I decided I would just delete it, leaving only the not quite as bad parts. I'm aware that what I am saying makes little sense to the general movement of the thread at this point. So it goes...
Love and Will
-
I have repeatedly stated that I worked in a library, ran one for the most part...but I am not a librarian.
I am trained, as a professional holistic healthcare practioner.
From the teachings that I have been a part of we examine the three regions, of the Tounge as most all of the human population can experience those three.
But what ever...
Hope you enjoyed your self, as you seemed to pick up on some trivia issue from my original contribution, and nit picked again at me.
I m beginning to wonder why I take the risk of posting and contributing at all any more, seriously. You seem to delight in pointing out what you perceive as errors.
You asked what I found offensive, and I told you..
Glad I have friends in real life.....
The friends I have in real life, if they think I am wrong, or may need correction don't engage me in a public sphere....@Takamba said
"
@Veronica said
"Open up and say aahhn,Doctors used to analysis health by looking at your tou ge, a lost art to some, but one I am skilled at.
Actually, no not all human being have five tastes. Most all human beings have three regions of the tounge, some may have two other regions. Salt and sweet share a region. The three regions correspond to the three primary cells in our body, the heart, the brain, and the skin, and the three taste correspond to the three primary components of food, fats, carbohydrates and proteins."
Apparently I wasn't as efficient a librarian as you to have learned to discern a person's health simply by looking at their tongues. My doctor still uses a tongue suppressor and makes me go "aaahhh" but he's not looking at my tongue, he's looking at the back of my throat.
Besides that, let me direct you to a little something called taste: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taste_bud
I hope you do get to read Jim's article, but in case you don't let me kind of sum it up:
The Scarlet Woman is an officer of Thelema, a "role" played not by everyone but only ONE - and in context of equality with The Beast this role is prototypical in Crowley and Rose and archetypal in general. It isn't to all women these verses apply, but to that One Type of woman (who when she hears them will already feel an affinity to the ideal of it). She is to be the ultimate woman girt with sword (whereas all other women can also be girt with the sword, but not necessarily wed to it as The Scarlet Woman would be)."
-
Interesting, and somewhat on topic.
Soofi's original criticism, as Soofi, was about corrupted tradition, etc..
When we got closer to it, it was disgust over rituals that use bodily fluids.
There was strength in his determination to do only what he was comfortable with, but ...how to say it...? He couldn't see himself as an indivdual with a Will to do or not do within the "system." ...?
I think it's common to have that nagging fear in the back of your head. "If I really invest in Thelema and give my heart and mind to it, is it all going to lead to me being coerced into unwanted sex acts and having to eat other people's ...um stuff... all the time."
His fear that all of it is literal isn't lessened by making it metaphorical for other things.
Part of me wants to be able to say something like, "his fear of literal child sacrifice suggests a blockage at such and such a stage of development, and his fear of metaphorical child sacrifice suggests a blockage at this other (or same) stage of development."
I don't know. It just seems like something like that. At the end of the day, it seems a matter of trust, when you have experienced people saying "No, it means this not this, and then only if you want to..." You know? But I don't know that.
And part of this is me too, of course. I worried about a lot of all that before I tested you guys against everything I could think of for, oh, years and found that it really is about a person's Will.