I'm here to learn.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"CR, I just want to point out that you were the person who first used "parole," leading to the understandable misunderstanding that followed."
Why... your absolutely right. I misspoke. Misunderstandings completely understood now.
@Jim Eshelman said
"Well, that IS what this forum is all about
"Lol, sorry, I think I'm funny.
@Jim Eshelman said
"No, but it does indicate a choice for some set of phenomena that would naturally arise out of the context. This could be (for example): quiet compliance with the law; noisy compliance with the law; a covert, secretive lifestyle hiding from the law; setting yourself up for confrontations with the law; taking on the law to challenge it; or moving to another location where there is a more desirable set of conditions. (And, of course, many more.)
It may also imply a need to punish oneself, the need for a lesson in humility, a setup for political activism, a need to be where other suffering and suppressed people need support, a motivation to leave the area, a positioning of oneself to be a witness to that phase of history, or countless other things. In any case, it isn't inconsequential and isn't without choice."
So... either getting busted in this way is a fumble on my behalf, a failure to follow my true will... or it was some sort of horrible booby-trap that I set up for myself whilst floating in the void between life and death in order to teach myself a lesson in... using my turn signal? Or am I looking at this on too small a scale?
Please don't take my tone as one of mockery. I'm taking these concepts seriously... it's just that life is hilarious to me.
I'm familiar with a concept of "limited free-will", the idea of being cast into life with a certain amount of forward momentum and inertia... uni-directional travel through the fourth dimension. Being born male, in Somalia, in poverty (not me, hypothetical). Circumstances of birth can be limiting, but within the three dimensional inner-tube of possible reality (is this making sense?), there's a certain amount of steering involved... choices made that both limit some possibilities and make some new ones available. At least, that's how I've been imagining it.
However, when you speak of choosing the circumstances of one's birth, it seems to imply that the choices I make here and now were in some way... predetermined? Plotted out in advance by some other Crazy Rockwell I do not remember?
And what of those who would impose their will upon me? I certainly don't mean to shirk responsibility for my own life, but why would Liber Oz bother addressing the matter (quite gravely, at that) if the bad things in my life are either (A.) my fault for not following my true will, (B.) some sort of sabotage I set up for myself as a punishment, something to learn from, something to grow from.
This seems to imply that, literally, everything that happens is justified and "right", for lack of a better word.
Are there no circumstances of injustice?This concept, whether or not I'm fully understanding it, raises some interesting questions about free will.
-
@Takamba said
"CrazyRockwellXCIII, this is not "a trifling matter" (as you so warmly describe it). And yes, as Jim pointed out - you are the one who introduced the concept of Parole into this conversation. Now you are describing probation - and on top of that, something even less intrusive than probation. Really? Like a visiting social worker? Oh please - don't whine to me about trifles.
"...who's whining? See my last post, I'm openly acknowledging that I misspoke. I had meant "probation officer." I have to visit him once a month.
@Takamba said
"
Your interpretation of the Law of Thelema, so far as I am able to understand you, is that you believe you should be free from the Wheel of Karma (ie - not suffer punishment as punishment violates your right to liberty - so you say).
"Oh no, certainly not! I apologize if I gave you that impression. My understanding, and I thought it was pretty clearly spelled out in what I read, is that I have the right to "eat, drink, etc as I will."
Now, quite obviously, I committed a crime. My crime, however, was not against a person. In Constitutional terms, I believe in the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and in that order. In the pursuit of my happiness, I did not impede anybody's rights to life, liberty, or happiness, and therefore, think punishment in this particular circumstance is unjustified.@Takamba said
"
So as I understand your circumstances, it goes something like this: you received a gift from someone that happens to be illegal to posses. Was this gift given to you against your will? Did you carry this gift from place to place against your will?
"It was 100% my choice to receive, possess, and carry this gift. I'm failing to see the problem with that... or why these decisions make my arrest justifiable in the cosmic scale of things. Do you mean to say that if something is illegal, it's illegal, and if the standard punishment is over the top I'm still deserving of it because I was aware of the potential consequences?
@Takamba said
"
No it's not double talk.
"@Takamba said
"
Did you will yourself to prison? In a way, you did (and of course, in a way, you didn't).
"I said it sounds like double talk. A deeper understanding of your philosophical points may change that perspective for me, but as we all know, I'm new to this. Please don't be offended.
@Takamba said
"
You are not a victim, you are a perpetrator who got caught. So that kind of comparison is rather offensive to victims of actual physical assaults. You committed, willingly, a misdemeanor crime and got caught. So now you have a type of "yoga" you are required to live by. For all you and I know, this is going to help you discover your True Will (not to be confused with your desire to smoke a bowl or go to the bar)."I certainly didn't mean to offend... I'm simply trying to make a comparison. This is an exercise in logic and philosophy for me, not an excuse to justify myself to strangers. I'm sorry if you dislike my example, but it seems to me like an accessible and easily understood comparison... but I'm DEFINITELY NOT trying to say that getting busted for weed is like getting sexually assaulted, in terms of severity.
Am I to understand, though, that the fact that possession of weed is a misdemeanor crime trumps my human right to "eat/drink/etc as I will"?
Let me also be clear that I don't confuse my desire to enjoy the things I find pleasurable with my True Will.
Thank you for engaging in this dialogue with me. I'd like to continue to hear your thoughts on the matter.
-
....pointless, invisible post deleted....
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"With a caveat that I'm not putting words in Takamba's mouth but, rather, springboarding off his post to speak for myself...
"You broke the law, you got caught, there are consequences" probably sounds like a defense of the law. (At least, it probably sounds that way to somebody who eventually will read this <g>.) It isn't. It's just stating facts, circumstances in which you exist.
Given the fact that it is raining on a particular day, should you choose to go out in the rain without an umbrella or hat, and walk several blocks, you will get your head wet.
This is, philosophically, exactly the same as:
Given the fact that you live where the possession of ABC is illegal, carrying ABC on your person will result in your getting arrested."
CRYSTAL CLEAR... and completely understood. If I sounded like I was debating something like that, I apologize.
However Takamba, and I don't want to put words into his mouth, seems to be implying that I should feel that my punishment was just. Is it not possible that I can fully acknowledge the undeniable fact that my actions led to the consequences and yet feel that consequence is not justifiable, and a violation of my human rights?
-
@CrazyRockwellXCIII said
"
@Takamba said
"
Your interpretation of the Law of Thelema, so far as I am able to understand you, is that you believe you should be free from the Wheel of Karma (ie - not suffer punishment as punishment violates your right to liberty - so you say).
"Oh no, certainly not! I apologize if I gave you that impression. My understanding, and I thought it was pretty clearly spelled out in what I read, is that I have the right to "eat, drink, etc as I will."
Now, quite obviously, I committed a crime. My crime, however, was not against a person. In Constitutional terms, I believe in the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and in that order. In the pursuit of my happiness, I did not impede anybody's rights to life, liberty, or happiness, and therefore, think punishment in this particular circumstance is unjustified.@Takamba said
"
So as I understand your circumstances, it goes something like this: you received a gift from someone that happens to be illegal to posses. Was this gift given to you against your will? Did you carry this gift from place to place against your will?
"It was 100% my choice to receive, possess, and carry this gift. I'm failing to see the problem with that... or why these decisions make my arrest justifiable in the cosmic scale of things. Do you mean to say that if something is illegal, it's illegal, and if the standard punishment is over the top I'm still deserving of it because I was aware of the potential consequences?
I certainly didn't mean to offend... I'm simply trying to make a comparison. This is an exercise in logic and philosophy for me, not an excuse to justify myself to strangers. I'm sorry if you dislike my example, but it seems to me like an accessible and easily understood comparison... but I'm DEFINITELY NOT trying to say that getting busted for weed is like getting sexually assaulted, in terms of severity.Am I to understand, though, that the fact that possession of weed is a misdemeanor crime trumps my human right to "eat/drink/etc as I will"?"
A couple of things to say: When it comes to Liber OZ, specifically that very popular phrase that it is "man's right" to "kill those who would thwart these rights" I pondered deeply and reached the conclusion that only ideas, laws, and the gods have any power equivalent to being able to "thwart these rights." Individuals do not have such power, and so are exempt from this alleged death penalty. Only by agreement did you get cited with criminal behavior (you could have flown, lived on the lam, fought it out tooth and nail, but you didn't). You are agreeing to a certain level of conformity with your neighbors.
Personally I'm 100 percent with you that Man has the right to hunt, mold, dress, dance, and eat and drink as He wills to do, but Liber Oz is for Man as a total and not just any one man in particular - so it's a kind of dance when we think in terms of personal liberties and laws (of course, when Crowley wrote Liber Oz, I think it was still legal to purchase opium products and marijuana - and alcohol in the United States had been legalized again for over 7 years by this time). Being that it is your will and your right is no guarantee of ease nor abundance. (By the way, the right to pursue happiness and everything else you quoted is not Constitutional, it is from the Declaration of Independence.) You gotta fight for your right..... to par----take.
So... like I've mentioned before, these inconveniences on your will that currently exist may in fact (actually, I'm quite sure they do) point in the direction of your True Will. Maybe you're a protester type, a warrior of a different kind, or maybe you're to eventually become clean and sober and see something that was brilliantly concealed from you until then. Personally, I can't answer that for you, but being as "this is the law of the strong," it likely doesn't come without a fight.
-
@CrazyRockwellXCIII said
"
However Takamba, and I don't want to put words into his mouth, seems to be implying that I should feel that my punishment was just. Is it not possible that I can fully acknowledge the undeniable fact that my actions led to the consequences and yet feel that consequence is not justifiable, and a violation of my human rights?"If I can successfully teach one thing to any one person on this earth, and it sticks, and results follow, then I will say I have done my Will. Rather than resent the past mistakes that led to where we are now, why don't we decide to act in directions more suitable to our intent?
You haven't told me how long your supervised (probation) status is to be. One or more years? Since the crime was already on the books before you committed it, you willed a crime to be committed. Yes? Sentencing is a complicated procedure (I have had Judges share beer with me, so I know from them that it is as I believe it is.) You seem to be fixated on fairness regarding your sentence (as well as the rightness or wrongness of the actual law itself in this case). Considering that you have explained that it was a misdemeanor, you may very well have faced a maximum penalty of one full year in jail and a severe fine (probably $1000). Supervised release seems pretty fair (although I personally would prefer $100 fine - but that only happened on my first possession case).
To sum up my stance: Do I think it was fair (your sentence)? I suspect it was. Do I agree that the law should be on the books? No. Are you here to learn, or to win your case? I hope you find something you can learn.
-
@CrazyRockwellXCIII said
"I'm familiar with a concept of "limited free-will""
Or, to take that a different way: One of the most common errors that people make is that they think of "themselves" as something different from "everybody else." Think of Hadit as a single point within infinite space: That point isn't separate from infinite space, it's simply one distinguished location (or point of view) within the space. Similarly, none of us (no point) is separate from all of us (infinite space). Our True Will is a particularized expression, through a distinguished point, of a pattern that is infinitely larger than the most sublime idea of ourselves (let alone the idea of what we usually think of as ourselves).
"However, when you speak of choosing the circumstances of one's birth, it seems to imply that the choices I make here and now were in some way... predetermined? Plotted out in advance by some other Crazy Rockwell I do not remember?"
Predetermined by the nature of who we inherently are - which is interwoven with (but not the same as) what we have done. I am convinced that the conditions of incarnation are entirely a matter of choice; but by "choice" (in this case) I mean something not too different from what you probably meant by "momentum" - that is, I mean the natural next step consequential to who we inherently are, in the same way that breathing in is the usual next consequence of having breathed out.
Fate IS free will when that will is truly free - because you are inherently an omnipotent being. You set the whole thing in motion.
"And what of those who would impose their will upon me?"
Illusions within illusions. They are just working out the expression of who THEY are, to the limits of their present consciousness. The thing for YOU to get in all of this is that you have voluntarily entered into a system which has these circumstances. That doesn't mean you have agreed to what happens in those circumstances, but does mean that you have voluntarily entered into the circumstances themselves, with some amount of collusion about who certain interactions will play out (that's part of the circumstances). How you perceive things, react to things, and act in the context of things will then determine where you step next.
Consider (as an example) entering into a new relationship. You are excited, you are adoring and charged up about it, you unreservedly enter into the new relationship. And (at some level) you enter in with far more knowledge and insight into the other person's character than you will let yourself consciously see up front; but that unconscious insight is part of what is incorporated into your decision. What you would probably say from the conscious level is that you didn't choose to later get lied to, ripped off, dumped, humiliated - but all of those things were inherent in the original decision (and some part of you knows, going in, that the character of the other person is consistent with this). Philosophically, I would therefore say that you knowingly chose to be lied to, ripped off, dumped, and humiliated.
"I certainly don't mean to shirk responsibility for my own life, but why would Liber Oz bother addressing the matter..."
For what it's worth, I personally find huge flaws in Liber OZ and consider it a relatively minor (failed) literary experiment by Crowley. It has some very good ideas but - just so we're discussing on the same level - I should say that I put the above statement in about the same place as if you'd said, "then way does Luke 5 say...?" (In other words, I'd respond to the idea itself, not giving any extra weight to where it came from.)
"This seems to imply that, literally, everything that happens is justified and "right", for lack of a better word.
Are there no circumstances of injustice?"Injustice is a matter of imbalance. There is little (some would say no) evil in the world. Circumstances are just if they are the natural consequences of certain action(s) being taken with their particular context(s); for example, it is just that you die if you fall from a 300 foot height and lend on concrete slab.
"This concept, whether or not I'm fully understanding it, raises some interesting questions about free will."
Just don't confuse free will (let alone True Will) with conscious choice.
-
@Takamba said
"A couple of things to say: When it comes to Liber OZ, specifically that very popular phrase that it is "man's right" to "kill those who would thwart these rights" I pondered deeply and reached the conclusion that only ideas, laws, and the gods have any power equivalent to being able to "thwart these rights." Individuals do not have such power, and so are exempt from this alleged death penalty. Only by agreement did you get cited with criminal behavior (you could have flown, lived on the lam, fought it out tooth and nail, but you didn't). You are agreeing to a certain level of conformity with your neighbors."
THAT makes excellent sense. Much more sense than the interpretation that seems to suggest one has the right to "off" the legislative branch of the government, lol. I mean, that doesn't quite seem right
Okay, well this gives me a much clearer understanding of what you've been getting at... that and a valuable insight into interpreting Liber Oz. Much gratitude. And on a side note, I love your dap to the Beastie Boys... I'm going to deeply miss Adam "MCA" Yauch.
In any case, since my run-in with the law in October of 2010, I've actually been 100% sober... although the occasional intoxication has never impeded my ability to achieve the things I sought after. So while I comfortable with the sobriety of my current lifestyle, I'm not sure it has any direct value in my development.
Circumstantially, that may be an entirely different story.
In any case, I can definitely appreciate the value of a life fraught with struggle... I certainly wouldn't want to live an "easy" life, so in that regard I'm certainly getting what deserve.
I've always felt that comfort leads to stagnation... that one should live life like a flowing river rather than like a scummy, stationary pond.
Thank you for your insight. -
@Takamba said
"
You haven't told me how long your supervised (probation) status is to be.
"It began in November 2010... it will be finished by November this year. I was fined approximately $2500.
@Takamba said
"
I hope you find something you can learn."I'm definitely finding all of this educational.
I'm also hoping, that unless you all find this particular subject to be particularly relevant to my "early education", we can veer away from the topic of my legal issues because, as I said before, it's a very small part of my life... and one that's going to be quite resolved relatively soon.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
Or, to take that a different way: One of the most common errors that people make is that they think of "themselves" as something different from "everybody else." Think of Hadit as a single point within infinite space: That point isn't separate from infinite space, it's simply one distinguished location (or point of view) within the space. Similarly, none of us (no point) is separate from all of us (infinite space). Our True Will is a particularized expression, through a distinguished point, of a pattern that is infinitely larger than the most sublime idea of ourselves (let alone the idea of what we usually think of as ourselves).
"Many years ago... approximately a decade ago actually, I had an experience that I believe Buddhists call a "satori" experience during a meditative state.
It felt as if the equation that makes up reality was being simplified... not unlike an algebra problem being simplified to it's lowest common denominator (forgive me if that makes no sense, math is not my strong suite). Once it had reached this "simplest term", it was represented by a sound, an image, and a sensation. It was accompanied with a single unit of knowledge that seemed to explain, quite literally, everything, with a solution so simple and obvious that it seemed impossible to miss... stupid to miss even, and impossible to forget.
There was a sensation of being both incredibly, infinitely expansive and large, yet infinitesimally tiny.
The moment was perhaps the briefest and longest of my life, but the moment it was over, the everything began to rapidly unfold once again as I desperately grabbed for the slipping and expanding pieces.Despite this experience, over the years I've found myself becoming increasingly individualistic... or to use a term I'm just beginning to understand, far more "Hadit" than "Nuit."
Is this something that should concern me? What steps should I take to even this balance? -
Ego expansion is, I think, a common side effect of spiritual experiences.
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"Ego expansion is, I think, a common side effect of spiritual experiences."
Funny that you say that, because had I not experienced it directly I would have suspected ego-death. It's my understanding that ego-death is, in fact, precisely what Buddhists seek in severing themselves from the Samsara cycle of re-birth.
Would Thelemites argue that re-birth is desirable? Or at least preferable to the alternative?
-
@CrazyRockwellXCIII said
"Would Thelemites argue that re-birth is desirable? Or at least preferable to the alternative?"
I would argue that being born, anytime,
implies that some sort of reproduction has taken place,
hopefully between the sheets,
and that pleasure and love is always a good thing.If the single sum of my existence is reduced to the fact that my mom and dad had a moment of love and rapture then I lived a great life.
But then again, I might be able to argue against that....
-
@CrazyRockwellXCIII said
"
Funny that you say that, because had I not experienced it directly I would have suspected ego-death. It's my understanding that ego-death is, in fact, precisely what Buddhists seek in severing themselves from the Samsara cycle of re-birth.Would Thelemites argue that re-birth is desirable? Or at least preferable to the alternative?"
Yes, I think many spiritual paths (like Buddhism and Thelema) are aimed at progressively outgrowing the illusion of a "discreet individual identity". But it's not until very far in the Thelemic path that one shifts from being "a human having spiritual experiences" to being "a spiritual being having human experiences" or something similar, from what I remember reading somewhere (Jim's A:.A:. book, maybe?)
At the same time, the ego construct seems to be still used in everyday life. Just like other parts of our personality that we outgrow, we don't lop them off, they just become a less central part of our identity.
Just my opinion.
-
@CrazyRockwellXCIII said
"Would Thelemites argue that re-birth is desirable? Or at least preferable to the alternative?"
The way you structured your question pleads for an "official" answer, so I'll start with the closest thing to an official doctrinal answer. The following passage from The Thelemic Mass is nearly identical to the corresponding collect in Crowley's mass, and addresses post mortem existence:
"Unto them from whose eyes the veil of physical life hath fallen, may there be granted the accomplishment of their true Wills; whether they will absorption in the Infinite, or to be united with their chosen and preferred, or to be in contemplation, or to be at peace, or to achieve the labor and heroism of incarnation on this planet or another, or in any Star, or aught else, unto them may there be granted the accomplish-ment of their wills; yea, the accomplishment of their wills."
So the answer is... there are options. And, doctrinally, Thelema doesn't presume to dictate what is "preferable" for one being or another. The phrase "or aught else" is the most telling.
The consistent theme, though, is that existence continues as an unending journey. Also, it isn't necessary to extinguish distinction in the ancient sense (implying "once and for all"). First of all, within infinite space, each of the infinite nondimensional poionts - each point of view - continues to exist, whether bearing characteristics or not. Secondly, an ultimate extinguishing union with Nuit isn't necessary when one is living one's life in frequent (theoretically continuous) intimate union with Nuit (by uniting oneself fully with each experience). Thirdly, much that passes for extinction is actually the shedding of characteristics and phenomena ("clothing"), rather than cessation.
From a more personal angle, I'd say that, yes, existence is continual (and vaster than generally experienced from the angle of one lifetime or one chain of lifetimes constituting "a particular being") - and that reincarnation is simply a fact of existence.
-
This is quite an interesting thread.
So, to sum up, whatever happens to one is factual "True Will", regardless of ANY circumstances.
Is this an accurate assessment?
Thanks!
-
@moonchilde said
"So, to sum up, whatever happens to one is factual "True Will", regardless of ANY circumstances.
Is this an accurate assessment?"
No, I wouldn't say it is at all.
Although... just maybe... you mean something different from your words than I see in them.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@moonchilde said
"So, to sum up, whatever happens to one is factual "True Will", regardless of ANY circumstances.Is this an accurate assessment?"
No, I wouldn't say it is at all.
Although... just maybe... you mean something different from your words than I see in them."
Here is a survey of some quote on the board.
I am not asking you to take responsibility for anyone's comments, but to express your understanding of how Thelema supports the viewpoint.
So we start with a clean strawman to work with, I would suggest that getting caught for drug posession has equal Choice and Will content as getting hit by a car walking across the street or perhaps getting a cold.
If anyone believes this is not the case, please explain.
Given that, some quotes:
*If you are imprisoned (on parole), this suggests you violated the Law of Will to get yourself to that point and you will have to endure its consequences until you learn better.
*
Among the many, many implications of all of this is that you, as an individual, are also inseparable from the societyDid you will yourself to prison? In a way, you did (and of course, in a way, you didn't). In any case, by whatever means, you did not do what is called "True Will" unless going to prison is what you want to call your True Will.
"
"Being born in Jim Crow's America, for example, would not imply complicity and subservience to racial segregation."It MIGHT imply either of those. It may also imply a need to punish oneself, the need for a lesson in humility, a setup for political activism, a need to be where other suffering and suppressed people need support, a motivation to leave the area, a positioning of oneself to be a witness to that phase of history, or countless other things. In any case, it isn't inconsequential and isn't without choice."
You are not a victim, you are a perpetrator who got caught.
"You broke the law, you got caught, there are consequences" probably sounds like a defense of the law. (At least, it probably sounds that way to somebody who eventually will read this <g>.) It isn't. It's just stating facts, circumstances in which you exist.
*So... like I've mentioned before, these inconveniences on your will that currently exist may in fact (actually, I'm quite sure they do) point in the direction of your True Will. *
The thing for YOU to get in all of this is that you have voluntarily entered into a system which has these circumstances.
Perhaps you could see where I might infer that?
Please clear up my confusion, thanks.
-
Moonchilde, since a great number of statements above are my own, let me explain them from what I understand (and I do believe that Jim and I agree on these several points).
The facts are not your True Will. Going to prison is not your True Will (more than likely, that is - but who am I to know, maybe for someone it actually is) but that the circumstances surrounding the situation (the "facts" as you put them) are sign posts indicating the nature or natures involved with your True Will. As Jim's quotes point out (if you read them carefully), the "facts" can lead to any direction toward or away from them - whichever way is actually "True Will" is the one that will in the end make the most of the "facts." In his example of being born in a Jim Crow society, that fact could indicate anything. It could indicate a need to suffer, it could indicate a will to abolish systems that stand, it could also indicate a will toward dominance. The facts or circumstances alone do not dictate this.
-
That makes a great deal of sense.
In whatever environment you find yourself, your True Will is obviously to take the best advantage of that situation to guide yourself.
However, I think that there is no need to pretend that the game that we are playing as humanity currently aligns with True Will.
There also appeared to be another level of meaning in the quotes that drove towards the "choice" of those scenarios, or settings, one might say.
In addition, there appeard to be a philosophical axiom that one has impllicitly agreed with all tue rules here, and a possible conclusion that therefore any consequences are ones own.
As I said, I see no difference between being thrown in jail for posession of pot to catching a cold.
Each had a risk behaviour associated with it that was statistically triggered. But, everything has some sort of risk profile. Ask the actuaries.
The tragedy to me appears to be that the former is accepted with the same status and level of Authority as the latter, when in fact we can actually do more about it.
Namaste.