Function of Gratitude in Magick
-
@Alrah said
"
@Takamba said
"Well said, Alrah."Thanks Takamba. I glad you enjoyed my response.
It also struck me this morning that Thelema is automatically resistant to manipulation from the 'dark triad' of personality traits, whereas the former Christian ethic was often manipulated by these personality types. (I'd been reading up on Machiavelli.)
93's!
"Fascinating.
My mother and I had a very detailed conversation yesterday about these three constructs, and the type of person who embraces them. We also wondered why we were different and not afflicted when so many in our circles were. It reminded us of an idea we had read about back in 93, in a book called Ishmael. The author Quinn presents the idea that the world is populated with two types of people, the Takers and the Leavers. I can see a deep correlation between the tenants of Thelema and the Leavers. I also can see a deeper correlation with the tenants of Abrahamic Salvationist traditions ( as practiced and ingrained in non Thelemic people) and the Takers.This Dark Triad construct that seems to be growing in prevalence and acceptance (IMO) is a core ( if not the core) dis-ease of the Human condition, a symptom (IMO again) of humanities denial and fear of nature itself. In that I mean specifically how it would appear that our not so ancient ancestors deliberately denied and aggressively persecuted ways of life that were in accordance with both the feminine and the masculine nature. It is well known how some civilizations violently oppressed the feminine and exalted the masculine and I believe that this schism in the nature balance of life and death, feast and famine, active and passive has instigated these psychological constructs, giving rise to what many could call a global mental health epidemic.
What I believe is the remedy for this, and what is more then just resistant to this Dark Triad is the core understanding of nature, which is the core of Thelema, which is the core of what Quinn called The Leavers. Thelema from my personal experience is not only resistant to this construct, (a barrier, like a coat of oil) but is also a repellant, acting like the opposite end of a magnet, acting with a force ( fueled by love under will) to drive away any and all who are not of a like kind.
That was the gist of what mom and I discussed, and part of our conclusion as to why others are so forcefully repelled by us, and it also explaines (as Quinn tells) of their initial overpowering desire to attempt to control, manipulate and forcefully change (assimilate) us and our natures. Because they have chosen a consumption pattern which is unsustainable with out recruits ( conquest) they have no other choice, much like non Thelemic people have no apparent choice because they deny the only real choice which is DWTW.
-
@Los said
"
@Legis said
"The Christian injunction is to "Do unto others as you would have them do to you." It is not dependent on the expectation of returned favor. It is most properly understood as an injunction to act as if the other person is yourself, in spite of the fact that no return of favor may ever be offered. But it does place its hope in a world ultimately transformed by such proactive acts of compassion. Christianity, when properly understood, is also a religion of The Beloved."The so-called "Golden rule" is an awful piece of advice, presuming as it does that others would want the same things that you would want or that you should even care what others would want in the first place."
Yes, it may make that mistake. But if it comes down to me treating a drug-addicted beggar as I would want to be treated myself or merely as he or she would want to be treated in the moment of their addicted desperation, I will opt for treating them as I would wish to be treated myself, for I have no greater standard of love than that which I have for myself, regardless of how he or she would wish to be treated.
If I interpret "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" as suggesting that I should leave the beggar in their poverty to become more desperate in hopes that this will force them to correct the error of their ways (because that is how I would wish to be treated if I were in such a state), then the ethic still stands, regardless of whether or not it fits with the bleeding-hearted preachings of the inappropriately compassionate.
"You are not other people, and other people are not you."
Revealing. You, of course, are free to believe so if you wish though I believe you are interpreting the statement in physically distinctive rather than in spiritually inclusive terms.
"Teachers who tell you "we are all one" usually just want to use your wallet as if it were their wallet."
To the extent that this reflects your own actual experience rather than a simplistic skeptical pessimism, I respect your belief. But I have experienced otherwise, and so I believe otherwise.
@Aleister Crowley said
"The Golden Rule is silly. If Lord Alfred Douglas (for example) did to others what he would like them to do to him, many would resent his action."
I believe the esoteric Christ would say, yes, do exactly that if that is your greatest understanding of love. The fact that homosexual love was rejected by the theologian Paul and, therefore, by most Christians has no bearing on how I interpret the ethics of the esoteric Christ, which I see as a beginner's guide to the Way of Loving the Beloved.
@Los said
"
@Legis said
"But how long will I defend the true Way of Christ"I don't know. How long until you wish to pursue wisdom and put aside these childish things?"
Teach more more of this wisdom of making differences between things. Whoso availeth in this achieves what?
-
@Legis said
"But if it comes down to me treating a drug-addicted beggar as I would want to be treated myself or merely as he or she would want to be treated in the moment of their addicted desperation, I will opt for treating them as I would wish to be treated myself, for I have no greater standard of love than that which I have for myself, regardless of how he or she would wish to be treated."
I would opt for treating them as I Will.
You're talking about acting according to certain "standards," which are mental categories and constructs. Acting according to one's Will, in contrast, is about learning to identify these mental constructs as such and preventing them from influencing the natural manifestation of one's Will.
"Teach more more of this wisdom of making differences between things."
AL I:22 (which contains the line "Let there be no difference made among you between any one thing & any other thing") does not mean "everything is identical," nor does it mean "you are other people."
It means that one is not to make a "difference" between two things by arbitrarily declaring that one thing (or one way of action) is "better" than another.
Obviously, sausages aren't "better" than rugs -- they're each something unique, with different functions, that will be appropriate in different situations. Everyone can see that, but people tend to have trouble seeing that acting with compassion is similarly not "better" than acting like a jerk. In different contexts -- in the contexts of different Wills -- any action might be appropriate.
As long as you're being guided by some mental model of "standards," you're making a difference by presuming that some standard is better than others.
-
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
Love is the law, love under will.
@Los said
"I would opt for treating them as I Will."
I make no necessary distinction between Will and Love unless lesser desires are mislabelled Love and therefore need to be placed under Will. Of course, I could also mislabel these lesser desires as Will instead.
But ultimately Agape = Thelema = 93. However, where "love" is not Agape and is merely Eros or Phileos, then it is appropriately placed under Thelema. This is the essence of Thelema as I see it.
"You're talking about acting according to certain "standards," which are mental categories and constructs. Acting according to one's Will, in contrast, is about learning to identify these mental constructs as such and preventing them from influencing the natural manifestation of one's Will.
"Perhaps that's a decent argument, but I will refer to my explanation above. And I will also point to what I said previously: "...the ethics of the esoteric Christ, which I see as a *beginner's guide *to the Way of Loving the Beloved."
I have no problem with accepting that Thelema is more than a beginner's guide, especially when compared to Christianity stripped of its gnosis.
-
@Legis said
"I make no necessary distinction between Will and Love unless lesser desires are mislabelled Love and therefore need to be placed under Will."
Well, "Love," in Thelema, is not about a standard for action or even an emotion. It refers, specifically, to the expansion of the individual into Nuit (that is, growth through experience of possibility).
When the Book says that love should be "under will," it doesn't mean, "Be nice to people because that's your Will cause everybody's one big family." Rather, it's saying that one's experience (that is, one's acts of Love) should be placed under the direction of that individual's Will (the natural inclinations).
In other words, while any course of action is equally an act of Love -- an act of experiencing possibility -- at any given time, only one action (or maybe set of actions) will fulfill the nature of the individual (that is, place those acts of love "under will").
This remains true regardless of the specific acts under discussion. It pertains to everything from interacting with others to making toast.
In all things, Thelema is about removing mental "standards" from action. When you do that, you'll naturally act according to your nature (that is, you will put your acts of love under will). Now, how this "love under will" manifests will vary from individual to individual. Some will do nice things for people, while others may act like (what some people consider) jerks. There's no sure way to tell because there are no standards.
In other words, if you're trying to live up to some ideal of "love," then you're by definition not acting in accordance with your True Will.
"the ethics of the esoteric Christ, which I see as a *beginner's guide *to the Way of Loving the Beloved."
Well, I think you're wrong, here. The best "guide" I can give to beginners is to encourage them to stop looking for guides, stop trying to model themselves in any particular way.
The Old Aeon idea is that one has to change the self into something different. One has to be "saved," one has to model one's behavior after certain specific figures (WWJD, and all that).
But the New Aeon has an entirely different notion of attainment: "The Khabs is in the Khu," we are told. The goal is inside what we usually call the self, veiled by our thoughts about how we should be different. In the New Aeon, attainment is actually a kind of "de-attainment": we're not trying to become something we're not. We're trying to clear away the distractions -- the standards of behavior --so that we can become more who we already are.
The sooner you wean yourself off this idea that "love of the Beloved" is supposed to look like anything in particular, the sooner you'll attain. Because all attainment requires is that you drop all of these mental distractions, all of these cherished beliefs, hopes, fears, concerns, and all other mental constructs, which are nothing more than illusory productions of the mind that are veiling the glory of your Self from yourself.
-
"In other words, if you're trying to live up to some ideal of "love," then you're by definition not acting in accordance with your True Will."
I understand the phantom you are attempting to debate, but it is not me.
I have sought to explain one Lover's advice for Loving the Beloved that I believe was misinterpreted. I have not suggested that anyone follow any particular standard.
-
@Legis said
"I have not suggested that anyone follow any particular standard."
You've suggested that you yourself follow the standard of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you.
From a Thelemic perspective, the problem with standards is not that someone is going to impose them onto somebody else. The problem is that standards mislead the person who privately holds these standards by leading him astray from his True Will. A person who follows a standard -- even his own personal standard that he's dreamed up -- is following a creation of the mind instead of attending to his inclinations in the moment.
-
Your "conception" of Thelema is just a mental construct, like every one else's.
Oh, the irony.
-
@Los said
"
@Legis said
"I have not suggested that anyone follow any particular standard."You've suggested that you yourself follow the standard of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Perhaps. But what is that to you? - unless you are attempting to convert me not only to follow your own standard, but also to think of your standard as you would have me think of it, and to speak of your standard as you would have me speak of it?
@Los said
"From a Thelemic perspective, the problem with standards is not that someone is going to impose them onto somebody else. The problem is that standards mislead the person who privately holds these standards by leading him astray from his True Will. A person who follows a standard -- even his own personal standard that he's dreamed up -- is following a creation of the mind instead of attending to his inclinations in the moment."
I reject your standard. I reject that your standard is the essence of Thelema. I reject your interpretation of True Will. I reject your selective use of quotes for Crowley used to intellectually impose your standard of True Will on others.
My true will has specifically to do with dreams, and symbols, and magic, and everything you call vain and useless to the Will.
By my Sun in Libra and Moon in Pisces I reject your attempts at enslaving my mind by your words.
Am I not free to do so even by your own standard? And if by following your standard I reject your standard, then what have you left to say that does not simply attempt to bind more of me to your standards for thinking, and interpreting, and speaking, and acting for myself?
Be gone from here, slaver. I am a free man.
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"Your "conception" of Thelema is just a mental construct, like every one else's."
Obviously. When we have a discussion, we must discuss concepts, of necessity.
But my conception of Thelema doesn't guide my actions -- my Will does that.
-
@Legis said
"
@Los said
"
@Legis said
"I have not suggested that anyone follow any particular standard."You've suggested that you yourself follow the standard of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Perhaps. But what is that to you?"
It's evidently part of my Will to critique things people say in public on a supposedly Thelemic messageboard.
In this specific example, you at least claim to be interested in Thelema, but your explanation of what you're doing flies in the face of actual Thelemic practice. So I'm pointing that out.
"unless you are attempting to convert me not only to follow your own standard"
I could care less what you do. My interest is entirely in discussing your ideas.
"I reject your standard."
I don't have a standard.
"I reject your interpretation of True Will."
You mean the one I've thoroughly supported with reference to Crowley's writings spanning his entire career? Ah, yes. Obviously, "True Will" is more likely to mean whatever the heck a person wants it to mean, just because. How silly of me to use the definition given by the guy who made the term up.
"My true will has specifically to do with dreams, and symbols, and magic, and everything you call vain and useless to the Will."
I've called those things useless in discovering the Will. It might very well be part of carrying out your True Will to perform magick or to study symbology or to study dream interpretation.
"Am I not free to do so even by your own standard?"
You can do whatever you want. Who's stopping you? I'm just having a discussion on a board that is designed for discussions (imagine that!)
This is the kind of thing I'm talking about: you insist on reading reality through the prism of your imagination instead of seeing through these mental phantasms and perceiving what is actually happening. No one is trying to "enslave" you or "persecute" you (overdramatic, much?). We're just talking about ideas.
And you're going to keep floundering in the prison of your own mind until you acquire the courage to admit to yourself that you could be totally wrong about some of these positions of yours.
"Be gone from here, slaver. I am a free man."
No one who is a prisoner to the standards of his mind is free.
-
Los, what you term "discussion" most term "preaching conversion."
To the degree that you mock and belittle those who hold differing opinions, you are not having a discussion, you are attempting to manipulate others through shame, which is the worst form of preaching conversion.
You are against "illusion" and people having "fancy ideas of themselves." Then allow me to follow my Will with firm Love and disabuse you, Beloved, of fantasies that are apparent to all but yourself.
The idea that you are merely participating in discussion instead of actively trying to convert others through shame to your own understanding and description of Will, and thus your own standard of Willing, is your fancy idea of yourself.
-
The problem with a external standard that has been internalized such as "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is that living up to it requires a certain dogmatic rigidity of the mindset that is ultimately self-defeating. Any dogmatic rigidity will simply be exploited by people who have any of the dark triad personality traits.
We are programmed by the popular culture - a thousand feel good movies, and the naive ethical programming of childhood socialization, to believe that if we adhere to some external standard of 'goodness' or an external standard of altruism and if we simply keep on giving and displaying love to people through good works then eventually any selfish bastard on earth can be 'saved' with enough persistence and they will eventually start to appreciate, internalize and replicate the ethic behind it instead of taking what is offered and saying "Thanks.... suckers!"
That' not practical or realistic and it turns people into victims and self made martyrs.
This is not an argument against altruism per se when it is in line with the will, but it is an argument against any *dogmatic and rigid *forms of altruism that are derived from an external standard that is intended to be a universal guide to action.
Ultimately, you cannot teach or demonstrate love to others if you are unwilling to be loving and considerate to yourself first. As it is a dogmatic standard you are adhering to then the dark triad sense the ultimate dichotomy of self against self and reject it. They see that sort of love for what it ultimately is - a method of coercion and manipulation which is cloaking its own selfishness in altruistic clothes.
I'm with Los and Veronica on this one and I think they have made some excellent points.
The conception of Thelema is a mental construct but it points back to the Will rather than embracing any external and dogmatic standard that can be exploited by others, and that alone is something which should reduce the prevalence of the dark triad instead of encouraging it by feeding it new dogmatically minded victims ready for exploitation.
Thelema is "The Law of the Strong!"
-
@Alrah said
"The problem with a external standard that has been internalized such as "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is that living up to it requires a certain dogmatic rigidity of the mindset that is ultimately self-defeating. Any dogmatic rigidity will simply be exploited by people who have any of the dark triad personality traits."
And not only will it be exploited by others, it will make an individual think that he should be acting according to certain principals when, in fact, if he would cease to pay attention to those ideas, the Will would flow naturally.
“For until we become innocent, we are certain to try to judge our Will by some Canon of what seems ‘right’ or ‘wrong’; in other words, we are apt to criticise our Will from the outside, whereas True Will should spring, a fountain of Light, from within, and flow unchecked, seething with Love, into the Ocean of Life.” –- Crowley, Little Essays Towards Truth
-
@Alrah said
"The problem with a external standard that has been internalized such as "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is that living up to it requires a certain dogmatic rigidity of the mindset that is ultimately self-defeating. Any dogmatic rigidity will simply be exploited by people who have any of the dark triad personality traits.
"And what of the injunctions, advice, "standards" if you will, of Liber Legis?
"Let there be no difference made among you between any one thing & any other thing; for thereby there cometh hurt."
"Obey my prophet!"
"Pity not the fallen! I never knew them."
"Mercy let be off: damn them who pity! Kill and torture; spare not; be upon them!"May these not also be misunderstood? Do they also, when internalized, "require a certain dogmatic rigidity of the mindset that is ultimately self-defeating"?
In my opinion, any spiritual injunction may be misinterpreted, "standardized," and abused by those who wish to manipulate others for their own benefit. If I were a "dark triad" type, oh how I might abuse them to manipulate others into being an enforcer of my ego's own kingdom.
I do agree that Thelema as a whole is more resistant to being abused by manipulations of compassion. It does, however, exhibit some weaknesses,* when specific injunctions are taken out of their context and abused *as "do unto others" has been, in creating a blindness to the potentials of the "dark triad" in oneself.
-
@Legis said
"And what of the injunctions, advice, "standards" if you will, of Liber Legis?"
The Book of the Law does not contain standards to which the aspirant is instructed to live up. The Book contains one primary injunction, "Do what thou wilt," and it's defined in such a way that doing what one wills entails not attempting to adhere to any standards at all.
You might be better off understanding this not as a command to be followed but as a simple statement of fact. People do act according to their nature/Will. The only problem is that this Will gets hampered in its expression (because people falsely assume that the Khu is in the Khabs, rather than the Khabs in the Khu; that is, they falsely assume the solution is "out there" in some ideal that they have to live up to, when in fact, the Will is already within them and they simply have to get their mind -- with its "standards" -- to shut up already).
Part of what's making this difficult for you is that you probably have nothing to go on but the appearance of the words: my strong suspicion is that you don't have any direct experience of perceiving and learning to see through the creations of your mind. If you did, you would grasp the difference between Will and mental constructs, at least to some extent, and you wouldn't be having the problems that you're having in understanding, nor would you be forced to recourse to the appearance of words as opposed to the substance represented by those words.
"May these not also be misunderstood? [...] any spiritual injunction may be misinterpreted "
You're still not understanding. Thelema is opposed to standards not because those standards are "misunderstood' -- which would imply that there's a correct way to understand them and that following them according to this correct way would be conducive to the Law of the Thelema -- rather, Thelema is opposed to standards because all actions motivated by standards are not being guided by the individual's True Will.
Again, if you acquired some elementary experience in observing your Will, this would be easier for you to understand.
-
@Legis said
"
@Alrah said
"The problem with a external standard that has been internalized such as "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is that living up to it requires a certain dogmatic rigidity of the mindset that is ultimately self-defeating. Any dogmatic rigidity will simply be exploited by people who have any of the dark triad personality traits.
"And what of the injunctions, advice, "standards" if you will, of Liber Legis?
"Let there be no difference made among you between any one thing & any other thing; for thereby there cometh hurt."
"Obey my prophet!"
"Pity not the fallen! I never knew them."
"Mercy let be off: damn them who pity! Kill and torture; spare not; be upon them!"May these not also be misunderstood? Do they also, when internalized, "require a certain dogmatic rigidity of the mindset that is ultimately self-defeating"?
In my opinion, any spiritual injunction may be misinterpreted, "standardized," and abused by those who wish to manipulate others for their own benefit. If I were a "dark triad" type, oh how I might abuse them to manipulate others into being an enforcer of my ego's own kingdom.
I do agree that Thelema as a whole is more resistant to being abused by manipulations of compassion. It does, however, exhibit some weaknesses,* when specific injunctions are taken out of their context and abused *as "do unto others" has been, in creating a blindness to the potentials of the "dark triad" in oneself."
Well, you're assuming there is a standard to be had from Liber Al vel Legis that everyone understands in the same way... and yet - take the line which says "Pity not the fallen! I never knew them." I have no idea what you think this means, but to me I interpret it as saying "I never knew the 'fallen' Tree of Life - don't pity letting it go!" And the 'them' in this line is not about people to me but sephiroth! lol. I might even subject the words 'pity not' to analysis by gematria or anagram analysis to reveal a completely different meaning.
If there is a 'standard' about the Book of the Law then it's in the way it defaces the apparent meaning of the text so it is not apprehendable by strict rationalism - as do many Kabbalistic works.
-
@Alrah said
"
Well, you're assuming there is a standard to be had from Liber Al vel Legis that everyone understands in the same way... "Not me personally. I refer to the potential of abusing the text of* Liber Legis *in the same manner that is currently being done with the Bible and "Do unto others as you would have them do to you" in this discussion.
In this discussion, the assumption is that those who have interpreted the Bible and Jesus' words in the fashion you, Los, and perhaps even Crowley describe are actually giving the "correct" way of interpreting the Bible and Jesus' words - therefore, the injunction "Do unto others" itself must necessarily be precisely as base and destructive as the worst interpretation and application of the masses.
I hope that this principle will not be applied to* Liber Legis*, but in my experience such a misreading is the primary response.
To paraphrase Mr. Mackey: "Christianity is bad, m'kay? And everything Jesus said is bad - because Christianity is bad, m'kay?"
-
@Legis said
"
@Alrah said
"
Well, you're assuming there is a standard to be had from Liber Al vel Legis that everyone understands in the same way... "Not me personally. I refer to the potential of abusing the text of* Liber Legis *in the same manner that is currently being done with the Bible and "Do unto others as you would have them do to you" in this discussion.
In this discussion, the assumption is that those who have interpreted the Bible and Jesus' words in the fashion you, Los, and perhaps even Crowley describe are actually giving the "correct" way of interpreting the Bible and Jesus' words - therefore, the injunction "Do unto others" itself must necessarily be precisely as base and destructive as the worst interpretation and application of the masses.
I hope that this principle will not be applied to* Liber Legis*, but in my experience such a misreading is the primary response.
To paraphrase Mr. Mackey: "Christianity is bad, m'kay? And everything Jesus said is bad - because Christianity is bad, m'kay?""
I see the distinction yo're making here and understand. There is an argument to be made that all things in the bible, although written apparently in ordinary language are not about ordinary things or even a historical record, but are about theosophy - the psychodynamics of God, which would make Jesus's words a commentary about how God interacts with himself rather than moral or ethical guidance to be followed dogmatically by mankind.
As I understand it - 'the comment' is intended to make us alive to the possibility of standardizing our interpretation of the text which may lead to an exoteric understanding of the book. It's good to be reminded of this on occasion. Thanks for bringing it up.