Definition of a Thelemite
-
@Froclown said
"What I do not integrate will with, are economics, religion, laws, politics, corporate bureaucracy, social cliques, consumerist lifestyle and other such abstractions that move away from the real actual material substance of the actual world and disguise the actual beneath a imposed layer of the artificial, of ephemeral projections of human fancy, at the expense of the natural world. "
If you can see this distinction wouldn't you be better suited to integrate with society than someone who is under the illusion? Perhaps you see society as something to avoid, but I think that society is the 'self' of humankind. If a Thelemite infuses their own personality with their Will, then they may, by extension, also infuse society with its Will (i.e. the application of Yoga/Magick to humankind as a collective being). I guess I just don't see the point of existence if you elect not to integrate with society. A star without a galaxy?
-
@jw said
"
@Froclown said
"What I do not integrate will with, are economics, religion, laws, politics, corporate bureaucracy, social cliques, consumerist lifestyle and other such abstractions that move away from the real actual material substance of the actual world and disguise the actual beneath a imposed layer of the artificial, of ephemeral projections of human fancy, at the expense of the natural world. "If you can see this distinction wouldn't you be better suited to integrate with society than someone who is under the illusion? Perhaps you see society as something to avoid, but I think that society is the 'self' of humankind. If a Thelemite infuses their own personality with their Will, then they may, by extension, also infuse society with its Will (i.e. the application of Yoga/Magick to humankind as a collective being). I guess I just don't see the point of existence if you elect not to integrate with society. A star without a galaxy?
"I dont htink he is saying 'avoid society at all costs.' In fact, hes saying the same thing over and over and over and over: Avoid all forms of authority that is not your Will. And this doesnt mean move out of the city and into the forest, it means do not let the rules and restrictions of a soceiety, or a group, usurp the sovereignty of the Will.
I do not agree, though, with the list of things Froclown lists as evil 'ephemeral' apparitions trying to cover up reality. Your True Will and politics... your Will and social cliques, they can co-exist quite easily.
-
Society should not be something that I have to integrate into, as if society is this think that I am alien to and must become a part of.
Society proper should be the vector sum of individual WILLs. It should emerge from the acts of individuals, rather than the individual act being shaped by the pre-existing notion of a social order.
Existence precedes essence as Sartre says.
If we look at say an ant colony, there is no political system, each ant does not strive to fit in with the colony, each is not assigned a task by the queen, nor are there anything like elections or churches which dictate policies and moral injunctions to the ants.
The way an ant colony works is that each individual ant has a unique nature and biology. It just so happens that when each ant does what that sort of ant does, all the different classes of ants with similar biological structures and inclinations perform different functions which complement each other in such a way as to result in the ant society.
An ant colony is far from simple, it has a complex dynamic interaction between environmental factors, class system, and internal affairs that reflects the cycles of nature, the organism as a whole, and is even inherent in the free market.
Thus, the emergence of complex systems is reliant upon the absolute autonomy of the individual WILL to act according to it's own unique properties, biology, inclination, education, etc.
If the queen started making demands over the worker ants, then the whole colony would become inefficient and may die out.
Just as when controls are used to regulate the free market leading to catastrophe.
A Thelemite is one who is consciously in touch which his natural properties and strives to apply himself according to his natural function, and secondly looks to reduce instances where this law of fitness is not being adequately respected.
For example the libertarian economics is most compatible with Thelema, and as a Thelemite I promote libertarianism.
Others who are not Thelemites may be performing their natural functions, they may be in perfect adherence to "DO what thou WILT" yet not be consciously aware of the law, nor actively engaged in promoting it.
-
A thelemite is an Austrailian food spread that tastes bad, or is a Vegemite a Vegan Thelemite? Boy, this mixes me up.
A Thelemite IS!
The funny thing is that there is no way to get an answer to this. Look at a very structured, strict, dogmatic religion like Catholicism. Even if you ask 100 catholics what does it means to be a Catholic, you will get 100 different answers. So just think how impossible it is with something so flexible and non-dogmatic as thelema.
Ah......I have the answer......Thelema is......
-
@Froclown said
"Others who are not Thelemites may be performing their natural functions, they may be in perfect adherence to "DO what thou WILT" yet not be consciously aware of the law, nor actively engaged in promoting it."
My questions are: Do you have to know about the BotL in order for the Will you're doing to be called "Will"? Do you have to know about Crowley to be called a Thelemite?
-
Do you have to know about Jesus to be a Christian?
Just because you treat your friends and enemies as brothers and never break the ten commandments, if you don't know about Jesus or those commandments, you are not a Christian.
Do be a Thelemite means to actively and consciously follow the ideals of Thelema, and to promote those ideals to others.
Those ideals are that individual WILL liberated from collectivism, creates the most natural and free flowing relations between individuals. That an imposed regulation on conduct no matter how good intentioned stifles individual expression and results in an inefficient system, full of conflicts and undesired situations.
-
@Froclown said
"Do be a Thelemite means to actively and consciously follow the ideals of Thelema, and to promote those ideals to others."
Thank you for your definition - it's at least one definition, and not the only one.
And the answer to Andie's questions, I think, must be: It depends on the definition.
It is not hard for me to conceive of or accept a definition of "Thelemite" that requires no knowledge of The Book of the Law or any of its contents. - I'm not stuck on that definition, either (and, as I said at the top, defining this label is ultra-low priority for me anyway). I'm just saying that I'm not convinced your definition has any more merit than one that requires to conscious familiarity at all.
I think part of this boils down to that other recurring question, "Is Thelema a religion?" If the answer is "yes," then your definition makes the most sense. To be a Christian involves consciously affirming Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. To be a Muslin requires open affirmation that there is one God and that Mohammed is His prophet. - But if we are not regarding Thelema as a religion per se then using religions as the basis of comparison may not be the most reasonable approach.
"Those ideals are that individual WILL liberated from collectivism,"
I dispute this fierecely! Ferociously! Individual Will is existing continously in the context of collectivism. Will is inseparably intertwined with Love in the philosophy of Thelema, and, at root, love is union. The scope of isolation you articulated is dualism at its worst and is technical insanity.
"That an imposed regulation on conduct no matter how good intentioned stifles individual expression and results in an inefficient system, full of conflicts and undesired situations."
Whether or not this is part of the definition of Thelema, it is quite at odds with many of the writings of Aleister Crowley. (I understand fully that those two might not always be the same thing.) Crowley wrote extensively about new codes of social conduct, social structuralization, new laws and governmental forms etc. which he saw as specific moving forces in the providing an improved context for Thelema's growth. Crowley wasn't an anarchist, he was a social reformer, and he stood frequently for "imposed regulation on conduct" which he seemed to think was essential for the masses in a free Thelemic culture.
-
Sure imposed regulations for those who are not yet in touch with the HGA, once one achieves knowledge and conversations one is instructed to "get out" of the system.
Thelema has two classes in it, those who get it and those who don't get it yet.
There is a system in place to impose rules over those who do not get it, until they do get it.
Those rules however are slowly taken away with each initiation, and each set of rules and ideals is such that it leads one to epiphanies that transcend those rules.
Thus, a system like the A.'. A.'. works to decondition the individual, to educate him as a king, where as the system of the OTO works more to provide a context for the slaves who serve, to serve the kings, as is the WILL of the slave. They are free to serve or not serve and the higher degrees do use the lower degrees against their WILL for ends that benefit only the elite few at the expense of the many. (Or even worse benefit no individual entities only the state egregore).
Ultimately however even the OTO does not impose forced rules it is working with the needs of the Slaves to provide them with a place to fit in, rather than seeking to impose by force or trickery any sort of collective WILL over them.
I do not see where you get the notion that love is the law, means that individuals would be wise to sacrifice their own WILL to an abstract collectivism, such that the abstraction is propagated while every individual is impoverished.
How does this differ from Christianity where the individual WILL is sacrificed to the WILL of "GOD". Or Totalitarian Fascism where the individual WILL is sacrificed to the State.
Thelema suggests a meritocracy to be sure, and even hints at an aristocracy, however it also shows that these social roles will be chosen freely by the individual based on his own innate properties. That higher ranks require greater risk will keep the lower sort of man from coveting them.
-
@Froclown said
"I do not see where you get the notion that love is the law, means that individuals would be wise to sacrifice their own WILL to an abstract collectivism, such that the abstraction is propagated while every individual is impoverished."
The human collective is not abstract. The truth of the matter is that one cannot help but Love, given that is the reality in which we find ourselves. Like so many other things, however, the realization of the fact is something else entirely; until then, the delusion of plurality holds sway.
This ties into the fact that your idea of individual WILL is a fiction; as if your finger could decide to poke your eye out of its own accord.
-
@Froclown said
"Sure imposed regulations for those who are not yet in touch with the HGA, once one achieves knowledge and conversations one is instructed to "get out" of the system. "
Well, no - but it does change the nature of the system.
The plan was for Thelema to become the template of society. Therefore, society would be remolded to a new form supportive of Thelemic principles and living. But it's still a system - just a different one.
"Thelema has two classes in it, those who get it and those who don't get it yet. "
But that's not something we want to perpetuate, right?
"There is a system in place to impose rules over those who do not get it, until they do get it."
They're called "children."
"Those rules however are slowly taken away with each initiation, and each set of rules and ideals is such that it leads one to epiphanies that transcend those rules."
Society still needs its rules. Probably way fewer IMO, and certainly different ones.
"Thus, a system like the A.'. A.'. works to decondition the individual, to educate him as a king, where as the system of the OTO works more to provide a context for the slaves who serve, to serve the kings, as is the WILL of the slave."
Though I have a reputation as a critic of O.T.O. in many ways, I have to say that what you've written isn't representative either of the organization's goals or means, or the messages communicated in its degree ceremonies. The purposes of the O.T.O. are to make citizens free.
"They are free to serve or not serve and the higher degrees do use the lower degrees against their WILL for ends that benefit only the elite few at the expense of the many. (Or even worse benefit no individual entities only the state egregore). "
I'm not in a position to defend them regarding any gaps that may exist between the organization's goals and principles on the one hand, and actual events on the other.
"Ultimately however even the OTO does not impose forced rules it is working with the needs of the Slaves to provide them with a place to fit in, rather than seeking to impose by force or trickery any sort of collective WILL over them."
Rules don't have to be trickery. In fact, they can't be. They aren't rules unless they are disclosed. And what you've described is the way such societal rules should work, i.e., to meet the needs. (Also, please don't confuse service with slavery!)
"I do not see where you get the notion that love is the law, means that individuals would be wise to sacrifice their own WILL to an abstract collectivism,"
I didn't say that. Read again exactly what I said.
"such that the abstraction is propagated while every individual is impoverished. "
I definitely didn't say that! That's your interpretation of it.
'
"How does this differ from Christianity where the individual WILL is sacrificed to the WILL of "GOD". Or Totalitarian Fascism where the individual WILL is sacrificed to the State."
For one thing, Thelema recognizes that the divine to which on surrenders oneself is within oneself - not some outside Something-Or-Other.
"Thelema suggests a meritocracy to be sure, and even hints at an aristocracy, however it also shows that these social roles will be chosen freely by the individual based on his own innate properties. That higher ranks require greater risk will keep the lower sort of man from coveting them."
Thelema is an inclusive aristocracy. It includes rather than excludes, rasiing the baseline for all.
BTW, you are aware, aren't you, that Crowley's provocative published plan for the refornmation of government is that the government should mobilize all the forces of science to find a way to test people so that the government could efficiently and absolutely assign them a role in life? <vbg> I see more than a few flaws in it myself LOL, but as long as we're both making strong statements about Thelema and society, I think we should note that (once upon a time) the Prophet proposed that the government assign each citizen the roles they should fulfill in society!
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"I think we should note that (once upon a time) the Prophet proposed that the government assign each citizen the roles they should fulfill in society!"
Wow, I am totally shocked. Seems like that goes against Thelema at it's core. How can a State know someones will better than them. It urks me to know end when government thinks it can run my life better than myself, or know where I should spend my own earned money better than I, LET alone, decide my "role" in society!!!!! Ouch!
-
Has anyone ever read Walden II by Skinner?
It is a social system that uses science and behaviorism to assign rolls for each individual on analysis of that individuals merits, skills, inclinations, personality, behavioral norms etc.
Yet there is no force or coersion, as when an individual is presented with a roll that fits his interests, he will be happy to fill it.
Rather than the state using people for the propagation of the state, is it is the individual who uses the state to propagate the individual WILL.
In fact the STATE is not to have any WILL of it's own.
The state should not ask, why can you do for me, it should say My joy is in your joy.
-
@Froclown said
"Has anyone ever read Walden II by Skinner?
It is a social system that uses science and behaviorism to assign rolls for each individual on analysis of that individuals merits, skills, inclinations, personality, behavioral norms etc.
Yet there is no force or coersion, as when an individual is presented with a roll that fits his interests, he will be happy to fill it.
Rather than the state using people for the propagation of the state, is it is the individual who uses the state to propagate the individual WILL.
In fact the STATE is not to have any WILL of it's own.
The state should not ask, why can you do for me, it should say My joy is in your joy."
In the words of Comte de Fenix:
"The absolute rule of the state shall be a function of the absolute liberty of each individual will."
By teh way, I think Jim is referring to THIS essay by Crowley/Fenix.
93 93/93
-
Yup! That's the one
-
93,
DavidH wrote:
"Wow, I am totally shocked. Seems like that goes against Thelema at it's core. How can a State know someones will better than them. It urks me to know end when government thinks it can run my life better than myself, or know where I should spend my own earned money better than I, LET alone, decide my "role" in society!!!!! Ouch! "
In this context, it might be important to recall that Crowley (as a human being) was an Englishman. Margaret Thatcher notwithstanding, Libertarian ideas have never taken hold much in Britain, where they are often seen as an impractical American affectation that shouldn't be taken too seriously.
The state there has not been overthrown in almost four centuries, and the last time republican forces managed to take over, the people ended up rejecting the resulting dominance by what today we'd call the religious right. But Britain has gone through a number of changes of constitutional order, and the basic <i>idea</i> of government intinsically being okay is more deep-rooted than in North America. This continent belives in the future and constant renewal, Britain and Europe generally tend to look more to heritage and the past. This has an effect on how the powers of the state are vieweed.
93 93/93,
Edward
-
...
"Each man is therefore absolutely justified in regarding himself as the centre of the universe, and acting accordingly. To displace this centre, to break the harmony of a human system (which corresponds with strange precision, on-the one hand, to the Sidereal Universe, and, on the other, to that of electrons) is to break the Law of Thelema, to blaspheme oneself. And, so far as anyone can tell, there is no other self. His fellow- percipients, whether God or his neighbour, are - so far as he knows them - only ideas created by the chemical and mechanical changes in his brain; and he does not really know that!
But assuming he knows anything at all, he knows himself. Therefore to sin against himself is his only possible sin. If I commit this crime (whatever external form it may assume) it is not against the law of man, against an alien law that I blaspheme; it is against my own law, the cornerstone of my life, the complete development of my personality." ... (Crowley on how to apply the law) -
@Edward Mason said
"In this context, it might be important to recall that Crowley (as a human being) was an Englishman. Margaret Thatcher notwithstanding, Libertarian ideas have never taken hold much in Britain, where they are often seen as an impractical American affectation that shouldn't be taken too seriously.
The state there has not been overthrown in almost four centuries, and the last time republican forces managed to take over, the people ended up rejecting the resulting dominance by what today we'd call the religious right. But Britain has gone through a number of changes of constitutional order, and the basic <i>idea</i> of government intinsically being okay is more deep-rooted than in North America. This continent belives in the future and constant renewal, Britain and Europe generally tend to look more to heritage and the past. This has an effect on how the powers of the state are vieweed."
I'm an Englishman and find this very amusing, even hilarious.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
" Soror Meral's point of view that you can't be a Thelemite unless you're an adept - one who has attained to the K&C of the HGA - that this is implicit in the process. "
My understanding was that Crowley thought of one as a Thelemite upon attaining to 2=9. In this context I think the term Crowleyan would be more fittiing until one has become a Zelator... I don't really remember reading Crowley make a reference to someone being a Thelemite nor do I recall any of his students calling themselves Thelemites until after Crowley had died & the term came to be in vogue in the 70s. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.