Function of Gratitude in Magick
-
Check yourself.
Standard - something established by authority, custom, or general consent as a model or example (def 3, Webster).
For example: a quotation from the Prophet of the Aeon speaking in Liber Aleph concerning the Will. If the quotation was not to be taken as an authority, custom, model, or example, speaking on one's relationships to authorities, customs, models, or examples, then what purpose did you quote it?
Irony - incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result (def 3, Webster)
For example: "the irony of words," here intended to refer to the actual result, as opposed to the expected result, of using words in general. In this particular case - the attempt to try to explain how standards are bad, which statement cannot help but itself be understood very literally and correctly as a standard.
I have no intention of being a troll.
In all honesty... In all sincerity... as I said, I do think that I have misjudged the ability of others to appreciate the irony of words when it comes to their own deeply held beliefs.
That being said, I will admit that I have exhausted my own patience on the matter, and I will seek to refresh that elsewhere for a while.
-
@Legis said
"Standard - something established by authority, custom, or general consent as a model or example (def 3, Webster).
For example: a quotation from the Prophet of the Aeon speaking in Liber Aleph concerning the Will. If the quotation was not to be taken as an authority, custom, model, or example, speaking on one's relationships to authorities, customs, models, or examples, then what purpose did you quote it?
Irony [...] the attempt to try to explain how standards are bad, which statement cannot help but itself be understood very literally and correctly as a standard."
In the context of our discussion above, a "standard" is a kind of behavior that an individual thinks he "should" do because it's "good" to do it (such as "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you").
The Law of Thelema -- Do what thou wilt -- isn't a standard in that sense, because it's not something an individual "should" do. It's the way things are. Everyone is always trying to accomplish their Will, but their minds hamper the expression of it (by setting up these standards and convincing the Self that it "should" act in ways not consistent with the natural inclinations of the Self).
Those people who want to do that Will better can practice methods of seeing through the illusion of these standards in order to perceive their Will (natural inclinations, as opposed to what they think they "should" be doing), but there is no requirement that anybody do this. There is no "should" about it, no implication that standards are "bad" and that Thelema is "good."
-
@Los said
"In the context of our discussion above, a "standard" is a kind of behavior that an individual thinks he "should" do because it's "good" to do it ... There is no "should" about it, no implication that standards are "bad" and that Thelema is "good.""
Confined to the context of the discussion in which the following was quoted?
@Crowley said
"“Know then, o my Son, that all Laws, all Systems, all Customs, all Ideals and Standards which tend to produce Uniformity, being in direct Opposition to Nature’s Will to change and to develop through Variety, are accursèd. Do thou with all thy Might of Manhood strive against these Forces, for they resist Change, which is Life; and thus they are of Death.”
Aleister Crowley - Liber Aleph, “De Lege Motus”"Is "accursed" not "bad"? Is "striv* against these Forces" because "they are of Death" not presented as the "good" and correct thing to do?
Once again, I will confess that I do understand the difference between the intent and the outcome of this instruction.
My intent, from the point in which this conversation implemented a negative interpretation of "do unto others," has been simply to reveal bias in interpreting non-Thelemic instruction as solely bad and Thelemic instruction as solely good. The goal is to reveal that ANY instruction whatsoever may be misinterpreted and misapplied as a "standard" and used as Alrah stated here:
@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."
For instance, if the instruction from *Liber Aleph, *quoted above, is misinterpreted to say that any and all standards whatsoever are always in every case bad (as it superficially can be understood as saying) and that they should always and in every case be resisted, then I may misapply that instruction as a "standard" and misinterpret as saying, for instance, that the "standards" for discussion here on the forum are "accursed," "of Death," and should be striven against, *even in the case *where my Will may be better served by following them. The true meaning remains. But any instruction whatsoever, including that of rejecting standards in favor of the Will, may be misunderstood as a "standard" and misapplied with dogmatic rigidity.
And with that, I'll leave it to those who choose to understand me to sort out how it could have best been stated for them.
Retrograde Mercury, have your way.
I've said all I'm gonna try to say.Peace.
-
*Magick is less liable to lead to error than any other Science, because its terms are interchangeable, by definition, so that it is based on relativity from the start. We run no risk of asserting absolute propositions. Furthermore we make our measurements in terms of the object measured, thus avoiding the absurdity of defining metaphysical ideas by mutable standards, (Cf. Eddington "Space, Time, and Gravitation". Prologue.) of being forced to attribute the qualities of human consciousness to inanimate things (Poincare, "La mesure du temps"), and of asserting that we know anything of the universe in itself, though the nature of our senses and our minds necessarily determines our observations, so that the limit of our knowledge is subjective, just as a thermometer can record nothing but its own reaction to one particular type of Energy.
Magick recognizes frankly (1) that truth is relative, subjective, and apparent; (2) that Truth implies Omniscience, which is unattainable by mind, being transfinite; just as if one tried to make an exact map of England in England, that map must contain a map of the map, and so on, ad infinitum; (3) that logical contradiction is inherent in reason, (Russell, "Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy", p. 136; Crowley, "Eleusis", and elsewhere); (4) that a Continuum requires a Continuum to be commensurable with it: (5) that Empiricism is ineluctable, and therefore that adjustment is the only possible method of action; and (6) that error may be avoided by opposing no resistance to change, and registering observed phenomena in their own language.
The elasticity of Magick makes it equal to all possible kinds of environment, and therefore biologically perfect. "Do what thou wilt..." implies self-adjustment, so that failure cannot occur. One's true Will is necessarily fitted to the whole Universe with the utmost exactitude, because each term in the equation a+b+c=0 must be equal and opposite to the sum of all the other terms. No individual can ever be aught than himself, or do aught else than his Will, which is his necessary relation with his environment, dynamically considered. **All error is no more than an illusion proper to him to dissipate the mirage, and it is a general law that the method of accomplishing this operation is to realize, and to acquiesce in, the order of the Universe, and to refrain from attempting the impossible task of overcoming the inertia of the forces which oppose, and therefore are identical with, one's self. *Error in thought is therefore failure to understand, and in action to perform, one's own true Will.
-- MTP Part III Chap. 9 (my bold)
There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt...
So, according to our British Buggerer, someone can be "objectively" wrong (by the crowd, so to speak), yet still be following their True Will. There is no "evil" -- it is most likely "confusion" in regard to the True Will. However, there are some Truths (what Crowley describes here as a "general law") that seem to have a consensus -- although, to me, the Golden Rule isn't one of them...
“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." -- Crowley
Lord Alfred Douglas and Oscar Wilde liked to bone.
But, in another context, it seems in my experience (and others who I've asked), that restrictions and judgments evoked tend to have the same effect on the person that projects the spell. As if our psychology further restricts us, regardless of when this judgment is applied to "self or other." These can take the forms of limiting beliefs and can further confound the relationship to the True Will. Anyway, recent neuroscience seems to echo this idea of the relationship between "self and other," according to research into mirror neurons, and it goes beyond judgments and into actual emotions and physiological reactions. The new studies are very intriguing.
Also, with the "do unto others" idea, the strange attractor principle comes to mind...people that invoke disharmony seem to evoke disharmony, and vice versa...and that's just another perspective when it comes to observing the phenomena of interaction between the "within and without."
Cool subject.
-
@Legis said
"For instance, if the instruction from *Liber Aleph, *quoted above, is misinterpreted to say that any and all standards whatsoever are always in every case bad (as it superficially can be understood as saying) and that they should always and in every case be resisted"
The point isn't that standards are always "bad" -- the point is that standards always prevent an individual from perceiving his or her True Will. Always.
If a person is trying to live up to a standard, that person is not paying attention to his or her True Will. By definition.
It's not "bad" to not follow your Will. But if you want to follow your Will, you must strive to break the hold that your mind and its standards have over your behavior.
-
Legis, I see where you are getting the quote from Crowley wrong. He doesn't say "all standards...are accursed." He says, "all standards...which tend toward Uniformity" are accursed. In other words, my personal standard for allowing for diversity in expression, allowed to fail or succeed on its own merits, is a standard (of my own, and not demanded of others) but does nothing to "tend toward Uniformity" but on the contrary.
Might I suggest that instead of "nay saying" someone else, try pro-saying whatever it is you have to say.
-
@Los said
"The point isn't that standards are always "bad" -- the point is that standards always prevent an individual from perceiving his or her True Will. Always.
If a person is trying to live up to a standard, that person is not paying attention to his or her True Will. By definition.It's not "bad" to not follow your Will.
But if you want to follow your Will, you must strive to break the hold that your mind and its standards have over your behavior."
Completely agree. I'll even omit the angel emoticon.
-
@Los said
"The point isn't that standards are always "bad" -- the point is that standards always prevent an individual from perceiving his or her True Will."
@Takamba said
"I see where you are getting the quote from Crowley wrong."
Do you guys realize that I used the word "misinterpreted" three times and the word "misapplied" twice, and in every case they were italicized for emphasis?
Yet Los seems to speak as if contradiction of my interpretation while Takamba tells me he sees where I'm getting it wrong?
I don't know what to say... Thank you for demonstrating the interpretive bias I've been trying to point out...?
-
@Frater 639 said
"
@Los said
"The point isn't that standards are always "bad" -- the point is that standards always prevent an individual from perceiving his or her True Will. Always.If a person is trying to live up to a standard, that person is not paying attention to his or her True Will. By definition.It's not "bad" to not follow your Will.
But if you want to follow your Will, you must strive to break the hold that your mind and its standards have over your behavior."
Completely agree..."
I competely agree too - which is why
Any instruction, however, may be* misunderstood *and misapplied as a standard, not merely those of the hated, cursed, reaction-stimulating, dreaded Christianity.
That is not nay-saying. That is what I am saying.
-
@Legis said
"
@Los said
"The point isn't that standards are always "bad" -- the point is that standards always prevent an individual from perceiving his or her True Will."@Takamba said
"I see where you are getting the quote from Crowley wrong."
Do you guys realize that I used the word "misinterpreted" three times and the word "misapplied" twice, and in every case they were italicized for emphasis?
Yet Los seems to speak as if contradiction of my interpretation while Takamba tells me he sees where I'm getting it wrong?
I don't know what to say... Thank you for demonstrating the interpretive bias I've been trying to point out...?"
You've been pointing out your own interpretive bias? What a waste of time. Let me quote (quote, not interpret) again.
“Know then, o my Son, that all Laws, all Systems, all Customs, all Ideals and Standards which tend to produce Uniformity, being in direct Opposition to Nature’s Will to change and to develop through Variety, are accursèd."
See? No interpretation. "all systems, ...customs,...ideals and standards WHICH TEND TO PRODUCE UNIFORMITY" (those kinds of systems, customs, ideals and standards and not those that don't behave such). Otherwise, the custom of tying one's shoe is accursed - yes? No, it is not such an ideal as described which would "resist change" (velcro shoes anyone? Slip ons?)
You miss the mark.
-
If you have an argument against my actual point instead of merely demonstrating the bias of believing such Thelemic instructions are impervious to misinterpretation as standards, I'll hear it.
Otherwise, I'll just refer you to Los' embrace of "skepticism."
-
Hint: Los says "by definition" whenever he has constructed an argument without any empirical evidence.
-
@Legis said
"If you have an argument against my actual point instead of merely demonstrating the bias of believing such Thelemic instructions are impervious to misinterpretation as standards, I'll hear it.
"Evidence you've missed the mark. I never said "such Thelemic instructions are impervious to misinterpretation." Why would I say that when your previous posts point out your own misinterpretation of "standards" which "tend toward Uniformity" as equal to "all standards of any kind." You're barking up some other tree than the ones I've planted.
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"Hint: Los says "by definition" whenever he has constructed an argument without any empirical evidence."
No, I say "be definition" when one of my conclusions is derived from the definitions of the terms under discussion.
If you think I'm wrong, then you've really only got two angles to refute me: 1) show that I'm using an incorrect definition, or 2) show that I'm incorrectly drawing the conclusion from the definition.
Of course, you won't be able to do that because I'm correct on both points.
-
@Legis said
"Any instruction, however, may be* misunderstood *and misapplied as a standard"
If all you're trying to say is that people can misunderstand Thelema and turn it into some kind of ideal that they should live up to, you're entirely correct. A look through online Thelemic forums -- not naming any ones in particular, mind you -- demonstrates that there's no end of idiots who have absolutely no idea what Thelema is about.
A good example would be that Keith418 character, who thinks that Thelema is all about living up to a particular political standard (in his case, a wackadoo right-wing politics).
I just saw a post on a forum the other day in which a someone was saying that his idea of Thelema was inventing your own morality that suits you. He couldn't possibly be more wrong.
A big part of the problem is that there are Thelemites who think that Thelema can mean anything that a person wants or that it's "tyranny" to suggest that there is a consistent, correct interpretation of what terms like "True Will" actually mean.
-
@Los said
"
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"Hint: Los says "by definition" whenever he has constructed an argument without any empirical evidence."No, I say "be definition" when one of my conclusions is derived from the definitions of the terms under discussion.
If you think I'm wrong, then you've really only got two angles to refute me: 1) show that I'm using an incorrect definition, or 2) show that I'm incorrectly drawing the conclusion from the definition.
Of course, you won't be able to do that because I'm correct on both points."
You've supplied zero evidence that a person who holds themselves to standards can't be following their true will.
It's silly nonsense.
-
@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."
This is how this discussion began. If you've lost track of it, this was and has always been my point.
Goodbye to the topic!
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"
You've supplied zero evidence that a person who holds themselves to standards can't be following their true will.It's silly nonsense."
If that's all Los has suggested, that "holding yourself to a standard inhibits the discovering and following of one's True Will," I agree. One exception would be any standard that allows for fluid utilization, which means it can be applied when and where and in what degree necessary for the moment. Any other application of a standard leads to stagnation, or, at least, doing "the standard thing" instead of one's Will.
Let me give you some examples, this might help. One should have a standard for what one calls a straight line, but we must be cautious less this prevent us from understanding that space is actually curved. Or, on a more practical level, one does well to have a standard in mathematics when balancing one's accounts so as not to go into debt to the bank, but this is not the same as indicating a person should follow a standard on what is a valuable purchase and what is not - that's individual choice, one's will, and possibly in line with one's True Will to determine. We mustn't confuse the word "standard" with all of it's dictionary definitions when I'm only using the word as it applies to just one of its definitions: "morals, ethics, habits, etc., established by authority, custom, or an individual as acceptable" If the standard is "serve your neighbor, by god!" then you do your neighbor's will and God's will (assuming, of course). In an of itself this is not a "bad" thing, but since you may not have discovered this "act of will" of serving on your own, may have been taught it as the standard, it prevents you from surfacing to your own Will. Doing that is not itself "bad" or necessarily even "accursed" (Crowley's words) but if it is a standard (moral, ethical, customary) requirement, it is not individual - now is it? What about the point in time when you've gotten yourself down to your last nickle and final shirt on your back. Are you still to be required to uphold the standard?
-
Takamba,
I don't disagree with much of what you're saying.
However, I think it's easy to confuse the goal with the method.
It's very easy to imagine that a distorted reflection of our inclination is our true will, and if we don't choose to hold ourself to a standard, we can easily lead ourselves away from our true will.
For example, my natural sense of justice may stir me to anger over a person's unjust behavior. That inclination is unconsciously warped by fears and insecurities I haven't completely purged yet. So the outcome is that I would like to engage in harsh retribution. I want to attack someone, physically or magically.
Yet I consciously remind myself of some standards I have chosen to try to live up to. That I will focus on my will, instead of worrying about others. That violent confrontation is a last resort that I can almost certainly avoid. I choose to express my anger within the ethical limitations I an imposing on myself.
Reality and my nature will constantly test the limits of my adopted standards, allowing me more settings to discover more of my true will. Success is my guide.
Unless someone had really and truly learned to listen to their true will without distortion (which is a life long task for most), abandoning all ethical standards is crazy dumb.
-
Have you seen the James Franco movie 127 Hours? Spoiler alert for anyone who hasn't watched it (in other words, move along, there's nothing for you to see here).
In 127 Hours, a hiker finds himself trapped by a boulder while hiking alone, and without having told anyone where he'd be, in the Utah desert. The boulder pins his right arm against the canyon wall. He tries desperately every imaginable measure within his means to escape his current fate, but to no avail, until the last desperate measure - that of amputating his forearm and eventually walking out of the desert to civilization.
Now, no one would call the self-mutilation of a necessary limb a workable standard, far less would it be considered civilized - but it did become the required objective in order to continue on with the True Will we all share; the will to live.
Take the Donner Party as another example, and also that soccer team that crashed in the Andes as an equal example - in both cases the behavior that they found required in order to survive they would later refuse to be able to even speak of (truly the definition of an unspeakable act). By many a standard, these people would be considered to have no rights to be alive - now isn't that true?
The above stories, which may be allowed to only be "stories" for all that is concerned, do illustrate the point that being held to standards (morals and ethics as approved by the majority or the superior authorities) would have prevented the protagonists involved from achieving their True Will, which in these cases I remind you is the basic one we all must share (to stay alive).