Definition of a Thelemite
-
@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.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@Wilder said
"Why is it important that Aiwass delivered the message to Crowley? Isn't Liber L the core of Thelema, not how it came to be?"I agree with Crowley's view that the single most important thing about Liber L. is that, for the first time in human history, there is something close to documentation of suprahuman consciousness capable of communicating with the human."
93,
This isnt documentation at all by any standards. By these standards, Lao Tzu was in touch with the Secret Chiefs or the author of the Gita, etc. Again, thats not 'evidence' or 'documentation' at all. If Liber AL is entirely for teh purpose of proving this it fails entirely.
IAO131
-
@Wilder said
"What, in your mind, does it take for one to be accurately placed under the category of "Thelemite?" Are their specific beliefs or practices that are requisite? If so, what and why?"
the problem with the way that this is asked is that it begs for a universalism which does not exist. there are groups of people who seem to agree on it, individuals maintaining certain positions as well. the way that i use the term is that i apply it to those displaying a cognizance of true will and individual sovereignty. this simultaneously signifies that they are oriented, willful, and fully engaged in defending the integrity of their cooperative kindred. one of those things they help to diminish is a universalist delimination on liberating technologies and doctrines.@Wilder said
"Why is it important that Aiwass delivered the message to Crowley?"
generally it isn't. to Crowleyan cultists it gives a ledge off which to push in the region of practical bhakti yoga.@Wilder said
"Isn't Liber L the core of Thelema, not how it came to be?"
no, not for all. the Law which is for all is a principle of will, not a doctrine surrounding it or in reflection of it. this is not to say that one may not benefit from cults aggregating around such doctrines.@Jim Eshelman said
" ...the single most important thing about Liber L. is that, for the first time in human history, there is something close to documentation of suprahuman consciousness capable of communicating with the human."
@Aum418 said
"This isnt documentation at all by any standards."
false. it is documentation by standard of knowing about and having the written ('automatic writing') record of a human being communicating with a god (or angel). it's not at all the first time in human history this has come into being, but it may be the first recognized by those who so aggrandize or evaluate it within Crowleyan cults.@Aum418 said
"By these standards, Lao Tzu was in touch with the Secret Chiefs or the author of the Gita, etc. Again, thats not 'evidence' or 'documentation' at all. If Liber AL is entirely for {the} purpose of proving this it fails entirely."
that Star God has few indisputable human traces. far better to talk about the current batch of priests or diviners who are part of the Celestial Masters cult. any of them might be a Beast and Prophet, just not writing in the Queen's English. over-emphasis on the particulars discloses cultural myopia. familiarity with the techniques and processes should be part of a long-term study, whether as one's own career takes off or in the wake of another.@Wilder said
"Is the study of Qabalah requisite? Occultism in general?"
the purpose of adopting "Qabalah" is the stealing of fire from Western cults of antiquity, usurping popular authority by association to mystical acumen in alpha-numerological calculation. it no more participates in the supposition that the very God constructed the language (and its Letter-Numbers) than an application of Liber Astarte vel Berylli constitutes initiation to a particular and well-known cult. occultism is completely optional for the willful, though it is a demonstration of volition exercised or manifested at a symbolic remove.@Jim Eshelman said
" ...if Liber L. is consulted on the matter, "Thelemite" only appears as a {label} that other people call us. The one thing this seems to exclude is self-labelling."
logically to describe those using the term as 'doing no wrong' does not in any way set out an exclusion. call yourself what you will shall be the whole of the Law.@Jim Eshelman said
"...Why would a Thelemite use a label? ..."
as a willful influence and positioning, activating her own consciousness and social atmosphere with the stigma or connotation thereof. willful autonomy precludes establishment of motivation or restriction.@Andie said
"...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?"
there is no central authority to dub a will as 'Will'. this went the way of central religious authorities and theocracies which are on their way out in the New Aeon. you will not be able to find such ratification in any zone where disputation exists. once you identify your selection of authority then they may provide you with a rendered judgement on 'Will'. that can only rationally be assessed insofar as it comes into direct conflict with someone identifying their own trajectory as opposing and blocking it. elsewise hindsight will yield the valence or someone is playing at prophet and manipulator.as is evident from the above, i feel comfortable using the term to describe (or compliment) those who display a cognizance of true will and individual sovereignty. having heard of any given human being is unnecessary for this liberated and initiated understanding of the term (one i presume is best inferred from I.40). others will disclose other standards of use, and this is pure and perfect in every way.