Question on Liber L
-
93,
ThatNarrowFellow wrote:
"Edward Mason (or, as I like to call him, "E to the M")"
Not sure I get the reference here, other than some altered version of E-MC squared.
I'm just curious.
93 93/93,
EM
-
*Crowley was the first Thelemite. I think that is often overlooked. *
Actually, Rabelais was the first Thelemite in spirit since he coined the term Thelemite, but in practice, the Monks of Medmenham, A.K.A. The Hellfire Club were probably the first practicing Thelemites.
-
93,
The Hellfire Club(s) - there were apparently several - consisted of a bunch of rich guys getting drunk and laid. They did, it seems, believe in stamping down the wretched and the weak, but not much beyond that and their own enjoyment.
Rabelais' status is arguable, since he did offer a laissez-faire philosophy. But I think he fell halfway between Thelema as presented by Crowley and expanded by others since, and the 18th Century rakes in the Hellfire Club. I'd give him honorary status, mostly for having coined several notions and phrases that Aiwass was able to appropriate as part of the conceptual framework in the Book of the Law.
93 93/93,
EM -
@Edward Mason said
"93,
ThatNarrowFellow wrote:
"Edward Mason (or, as I like to call him, "E to the M")"
Not sure I get the reference here, other than some altered version of E-MC squared.
I'm just curious.
93 93/93,
EM"
93,
No need to be curious, just a joke.
Aum: You're right, and I think this is why I prefer the word "Way." Even though intellectually I understand that there is the will of volition and the metaphysical concept of Will and that they are different (just look at their initial letters) in terms of understanding where the lower will of my animal desires ends and the higher Will of my Higher Self (to choose one of many insufficient terms) is something that still escapes me.
I also think that because of language, and the way in which language informs thought, no matter how clear I think I am on the different uses of this English word "(W)will," I still catch myself falling into confusion. The fact is, the word "will" implies a certain conception of what we're striving for, and on days when I feel particularly clear-headed it seems like a wonderful vision and I attain to it, but on days when I am more muddled I find it helps for me to go back to "Way" as a means to encapsulate what I am striving for, because it is easier to sort out, and clearer in definition. I'm not likely to mistake the path to the subway as my individually-expressed "Way," or "Dao," as it were.
Love=Law
- C
-
I like the concept mentioned before as the TW being a Way, a continuous and never-ending road.
I'm not sure this is what Crowley meant. He seemed to mean it as an ending. Something you can attain. (I'm not sure if you can actually attain a path, after thinking about that metaphor, since it could be argued one is ALWAYS on a path, and all of us are Gods in the midst of Going).
I also disagree strongly with the concept that:
"when you go against your TW (even if you do not know it yet) those actions will cause you pain. "
I'm sure following people's TW (whatever that is) has caused much pain, morally and otherwise.
I'd like to ask a new, but similar question of the group:
How does True Will differ from Destiny in your interpretation of the concept.
One thought I immediatly had on the subject was that destiny as it's normally understood cannot be circumvented... you are always following your destiny (or maybe I'm misguided on this subject too)... but it seems as many people have explained TW, you can NOT be following your TW.
Thoughts?
Also I've liked the different posts about Crowley and "being a thelemite"... in another thread it was posted that one could seperate the prophet Crowley from the person. I wonder if people consider Crowley the person as a prime example of a thelemite. If not why?
Thanks again folks - you all rock and so do your posts!
-
Scarecrow, 93,
"I'm not sure this is what Crowley meant. He seemed to mean it as an ending. Something you can attain."
I don't have the entire corpus of Crowley's writings memorized, but my understanding of him is that we attain or grasp the <i>formula</i> of the True Will. Then we spend the rest of our lives coming to terms with what it actually means in the context of the incarnation each of us inhabits.
"How does True Will differ from Destiny in your interpretation of the concept.
One thought I immediatly had on the subject was that destiny as it's normally understood cannot be circumvented... you are always following your destiny (or maybe I'm misguided on this subject too)... but it seems as many people have explained TW, you can NOT be following your TW."True Will defines or encompasses or encapsulates the whole of what our actual living is about. We can't simply 'figure it out'. Reason is the power we bring in at the review stage. Our lives are about fear, awe, love, mystery, joy, absurdity, hilarity, disappointment, creativity, fulfilment and so on. The term True Will refers to the essential spark that's behind our <i>living</i> all that. A fully realized being, living according to True Will, finds "ecstacy in every phenomenon," including all the above, and not just the parts of living that are outwardly fulfilling, or fit some conventional notion of success.
There is a resemblance between destiny and True Will. Both these ideas contain a sense of something far grander and more mysterious, more <b>vital</b>, than any mere <i>concept</i> we can have about being alive. But the term 'destiny' is used to describe that which is imposed on us or pre-designed for us. By opting for 'True Will,' Crowley made sure we see that we ourselves are the actors: not victims or mere recipients of grace.
The only remaining assignment is to discover Who/What is writing the script. The "Only the physical plane can exist" faction bore me stupid - not because I think they're 'wrong' exactly, but because they usually insist on putting a whole series of restrictions on the possibilities inherent in existence. Almost all of them claim we can define existence in terms of consciously perceived and definable terms. I've yet to meet anyone who, in honest moments, finds life fits that rule. The scriptwriter/director of our individual existences is <i>always</i> going to be found to be a half-dozen steps beyond the last life-conception we came up with, or the latest realization we've had about our 'real' selves.
Whether we see that as the HGA, 'God', or some similar term strikes me as a purely personal call. But once someone reaches the point where he/she sees his/her own life as a discrete whole with some kind of pattern, or theme, or common set of tendencies and outcomes, then intellect can be brought in to assess the situation. As noted above, I don't think we 'figure out' what the True Will is - it is an understanding that is revealed, or sneaks in through the back routes of consciousness. Intellect is then needed to apply that intuitive revelation or understanding to the different parts of our lives.
Doing all that (I hope and believe, anyway) leads eventually to the realization of the K&C of the HGA. That condition of consciousness seems to include something very close to a grasp of our 'destiny' since its effect is one of "lightening the girders of the soul" and then we get to see what the wider picture is about. Simply trying to figure out all the 'big' answers, though, is just going to produce a lot of mental noise: and I think it probably leads us further from our goal, not closer.
The various outcomes of doing that would resemble the pain caused by not following the True Will that - you said - you can't agree with. Such pain is often closer to Buddhist notions of *dukkha *(suffering, dissatisfaction) than conventional anguish. But it would include the perception and exprience of things like absurdity, cruelty, and hopelessness. These things come, and plentifully, but they are "but as shadows; they pass & are done; but there is that which remains."
93 93/93,
EM
-
Froclown, 93,
True Will is unique to each monad. None of us, as I understand it, can change that - rather, it is the mundane aspects in each of us that need to be changed to conform to that uniqueness.
But we have considerable choice on the level of society and the other aspects of the physical plane. We have all of Nuit in which to learn to play. And I can't understand how *you *can't see that.
93 93/93,
EM
-
Ideally a fish has the whole world to explore as well, but in practice fish are suited to be in the water. Each specific type of fish is suited best only to be in water with a specific salt contend, temperature, and only in relation to those other beings on which its digestion is fitted my nature to nourish its specific biology, and also only in relation to such predators as will work to keep the species in check but not devour the whole school to extinction.
Ideally a tree sloth has the whole rain forest to explore, but as an expression of its Will, it stays in the branches moving a mere few feet a day.
A dog can be left to its own devices, and it will eat things that are unclean, it gets into fights it can't win, messes with bees, chases cars, rolls in mud, gets rashes and diseases, etc.
But the same dog may be domesticated, put in a safe and clean environment, given special food that is nourishing, and have poisons removed from its diet.
Thus the animal in its proper environment is happy, healthier, and more able to express its potential. The animal which is places into a controlled Environment where its specific needs are discerned by science and met by technology, is happier and healthier than even an animal placed into its place designed by nature.
Mans science can do far better than the bind forces of nature, especially for suiting a physical and social environment where each type of man can grow and prosper according to its natural niche or WILL.
Also I can find example of Crowely supporting Aristocratic ideal, social castes, of him judging individual by class, gender, race, nationality, etc, and where he speaks directly against democracy and popular rule, calling for a select fow elite rulers to govern the moron masses of humanity.
I do not however see him calling for democracy, egalitarianism, or any form of liberal-anarchism.
If you have any such quotes I would like to read them -
Froclown, 93,
You and I are talking about different ideas. We aren't having a conversation at all.
Nor are we likely to have one.
93 93/93,
EM
-
@Froclown said
"I don't see how you don't see why Feudal systems are Thelemic.
A caste is an orbit, a specialized role or path.
So we have a star in every orbit, and we try to make sure we have an orbit open to every star."
93,
I think the reason not everyone is jumping onto your Feudal System bandwagon, Froclown, is that there are at least two fundamental disagreements at work.
1 - What is and is not "Thelemic." You claim that this type of government is clearly "Thelemic," yet there is no kind of agreement on what the term "Thelemic" means, or what it encompasses, much less the issue of what is or is not "Thelemic." Further, I doubt that this forum, or any forum of modern Thelemites would be able to come to a consensus on this issue.
For example, months ago on Lashtal this very issue of "Thelemic Government" came up. To give just two pespectives, as I recall Erwin argued that a Thelemic Government's function would be to prevent people from doing anything other than their True Will, while Aum 418 asserted that Thelemic Government was more akin to Libertarianism. (Forgive me if I misquote anyone).
2 - There is a fundamental disagreement about the nature of Free Will, which Scarecrow has valiantly attempted to clear up. You seem to be saying that the True Will of people is akin to that of fish, dogs, and other animals. Many of us disagree.
While I can't speak for others, I can speak briefly about why I disagree.
According to various personality tests I have participated in over the years, my personality is categorized as INFP, or "The Healer," as Keirsey terms it. Now this dictates certain career choices that would seem suitable to me - IE Teacher, Therapist, Writer - and some that seem unsuitable - IE Soldier, Litigator, even Chef (not sure why). Now assume for a moment that these tests are 99% accurate. It seems perfectly reasonable to give them to children, and then sort those children into different schools in order to cultivate their unique talents. I wish someone had done it to me when I was a kid so I could have spent more time studying T. S. Eliot and less time flunking out of Pre-Calculus.
It seems to me that you're saying that this is it, great, now we have a Thelemic Society. But even though my personality may be an element of my True Will, it is not the totality of it, and it cannot be so easily categorizied. You may be able to predict and categorize someone's personality, but I do not think you will ever be able to easily categorize someone's True Will. Crowley expressed his own True Will as "To teach the next step." The beauty of such a statement is that it is almost infinitely applicable, because the step is always changing. What caste would you put Crowley into? I dare say he would have made an awful professor.
I just think that while it's a nice idea, a feudal caste system is far too restrictive to accommodate the True Wills of such a government's citizens, and would inevitably collapse under the weight of the conflict between caste and True Will.
I know you will argue that the Will can be objectively determined and we've already been over that, but perhaps now you understand why we do not agree?
Love=Law
- C
-
Thelemic means that in the order of nature everything has a place and a purpose, and making sure that each think is perfectly placed and free to act within it's place without being forced out of its orbit.
as for Crowely, if we work with the Gorean system, he would something of a white caste, the preists and clergy who mediate between the giant insectoid masters of the planet and the gorean people.
Thelemically He would be in the grade of the hermit, atleast that was his attainment.
He was best classed an an aristocrate a wizard like merlyn, and would have done well to have worked along political power, as an occult adviser.
-
"Thelemic means that in the order of nature everything has a place and a purpose, and making sure that each think is perfectly placed and free to act within it's place without being forced out of its orbit."
It's interesting to me that I've often pondered Crowley's words on each star having it's place and orbit in the universe to be quite similar to the Albert Einstein often misquoted (by myself) bit about the universe and dice:
"Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the 'old one'. I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice. "
But then the limey bastard (AC) goes and makes Chaos his Chokmah...and a figure in his pantheon...
Makes me wonder.
Also makes me think of the 2 POVs shown in such places as the Discordian religon (ANERISTIC vs ERISTIC) or in the philosophies of Caterine Vauban vs the Jaffes in I Hear the Huckabees...
It appears to me Froclown that you are equating Thelemic with a clockwork conception of the universe... I don't know if I buy that AC had this similar view... his starsponge vision seems to me a romantic, chaotic, vision of an artist and not a scientists... but that's probably me filtering it through my own POV.
-
Each cell in the body is its awn unique cell, even i it has the same DNA' it is still a different cell from its parent cell.
That being the case however, we do know that the body has several different types of cells, where lots of individual cells can be grouped together by type. We know that the cardiac cells function in the heart to produce smooth muscle tissues, and that a cardiac cell is different than a lung cell or a red blood cell. We know that the Cardiac cell requires different nutrients, a different environment and a has a whole different life style and WILL than a red blood cell. Just because we can not plot the exact course of the life of each cell taken as an individual does not mean, we can not discern what TYPE of cell each individual is, and Invoke the nutrients that it requires, and promote the practices than benefit those types of tissues etc. While also banishing from those cell environments those elements which are harmful or toxic to those cells.
The problem as I see it, is that you admit that each human is unique, but you will not admit that their are differences between races, sexes, heredity. breeding, social class, and chance development that create classes of people, some BETTER than others in various was, and a select few better than the whole species, it is to these select few, That Thelema is most dedicated, to the breeding, nurturing, and selecting of these Few Geniuses, and to the proper placement of the lesser men in orbits around these Geniuses or "Christs" granting these elite few the control of the culture and the tools they need to advance the Race which they represent.
Each advancing its own race, advanced the progress of all mankind, the Great work, to which each member of the A.'.A.'. is supposedly taken an Oath to work towards. -
Keeping in mind I know little to nothing about stem cells, and that your cellular metaphor is exactly that... a metaphor...
I guess I would look at each individual as a sort of stem cell, with the ability to differentiate into specialized cell types, but also with the ability to continue changing, and perhaps even to hold more than one specialization at a time... (I think it's evident I'm havind a bit of a hard time continuing your metaphor...)
so I think I hear you saying something like (these are my words not yours) "it's the True Will of a red blood cell to do red blood cell things..." while I'm not convinced that humans are like specialized cells. We are not an oxygen molecule. We are not a monad. My point is we are, each of us, legion, and a continually changing legion to boot, so what's up with the idea of 1. True Will? 1. Destiny? 1. Purpose? 1. God. 1. Way to do things. 1. Path to follow. Etc.
My other point has been what makes True Will, capital T true..., which seemingly is part and parcel of the 1. problem as stated above.
I'd rather not get into an elitest argument about better in terms of classes, sexes, races, etc... maybe we can focus on why/how/with what authority we classify some Will as "better" (ie. True), versus some other will.
-
The Will of the moon to orbit the earth is not less than the Will of the earth to orbit the sun.
But the Sun is greater than the Earth and the Earth is Greater than the moon.
The WILL of the slave to serve (even if the slave may not realize his will is to serve and may not even consciously admit that he is a slave) is no better or worse than the WILL of a Master to command the slave.
The only harm is when we do not discern tho true nature of a slave or a master and we put masters who could potentially lead us to greatness and glory in the chains of slavery and we allow the hubris of a slave to lead him to sit on the throne of the master and lead us into degradation.
-
Here is another example from the master.
To return. The rarity of genius is in great part due to the destruction of its young. Even as in physical life that is a favoured plant one of whose thousand seeds ever shoots forth a blade, so do conditions all but kill the strongest shoots of genius.
But just as rabbits increased apace in Australia, where even a missionary has been known to beget ninety children in two years, so shall we be able to breed genius if we can find the conditions which hamper it, and remove them.
The obvious practical step is to restore the rites of Bacchus, Aphrodite and Apollo to their proper place. They should not be open to every one, and manhood should be the reward of ordeal and initiation.
The physical tests should be severe, and weaklings should be killed out rather than artificially preserved. The same remark applies to intellectual tests. But such tests should be as wide as possible. I was an absolute duffer at school in all forms of athletics and games, because I despised them. I held, and still hold, mumerous mountaineering world’s records. Similarly, examinations fail to test intelligence. Cecil Rhodes refused to employ any man with a University degree. That such degrees lead to honour in England is a sign of England’s decay, though even in England they are usually the stepping-stones to clerical idleness or pedagogic slavery.
Such is a dotted outline of the picture that I wish to draw. If the power to possess property depended on a man's competence, and his perception of real values, a new aristocracy would at once be created, and the deadly fact that social consideration varies with the power of purchasing champagne would cease to be a fact. Our pluto-heiro-politicocracy would fall in a day.
-
Quick thought - I honostly appreciate your replies froclown. Good on you for continuing the conversation.
Alright you raised some points which I need to think more about but which I wish others would jump in with their own insights.
- Will vs Gravity
"The Will of the moon to orbit the earth is not less than the Will of the earth to orbit the sun."
I think a lot of the reason I'm tripped up by True Will, is it's used in both a human, personal manner, and a "law of nature" manner. Scientists can theorize and then "prove" gravity... I'm still being stumped on how to prove TW. Also I flounder at the idea that we can just stamp TW or Will onto anything that happens. Obama won the election - it was the electorial process' True Will that he would... seems stretching...
I might be using humor to explain a point, but really now... it seems like there is absolutely nothing that couldn't be explained (in the manner you are using it) by saying True Will. (I just farted - It was my digestion systems True Will.), which again gets me back to Isn't that the same exact thing as saying "Gods Will" or "Destiny"??? How does it differ?
- Greater Than
"But the Sun is greater than the Earth and the Earth is Greater than the moon. "
What makes it "Greater Than"... this seems to degenerate into the kind of talk that EPrime could help do away with (in most cases)... like saying Mozart is Greater than Beethoven, etc. If we absolutely boil things down to utility, won't things always be changing in usefullness (greatness?). A knife maybe greater?/more usefull than a piece of paper when trying to cut a log, but it's not greater?/more usefull to me when I'm being attacked by someone with a knife (just don't pour lemon juice on my paper cut afterwards please).
- Slaves/Masters
"The WILL of the slave to serve (even if the slave may not realize his will is to serve and may not even consciously admit that he is a slave) is no better or worse than the WILL of a Master to command the slave."
I'm not a fan of the slave/master dichotomy and don't want to get into it, but it may help us in the True Will discussion if we consider the True Will the Master and the other wills/whims/wishes we have to be Slaves that should serve it. Now, how do we determine correctly the Master True Will? That is the question?
-
Agreed. Very good reasoning and expressing your thought processes, Froclown. I can see where you are coming from, and actually totally agree as you present things. The problem I have, as others, is that the ideal can be corrupted by the real of unaware and unconscious people implementing the idea and wrecking it. An example is communism. Karl Marx would not think the dictatorships of Stalin and Mao were what he conceived of. Party officials and the military made up elite classes, and it was the old Russian and Chinese Kaiser and Emperor again.
Yes. Good discourse, and thanks, Froclown.
chrys333 -
@DavidH said
"
- How can all experience be lawful if certain things are not. For example, killing a person is an experience, yet it is against Thelema to deprive another of their will. So, in order to get all experience, we must break our own laws? "
Isn't that what video-games are for?
Seriously, we could say that's what the entire body of fiction in literature and drama (including the Gor corpus
) is about; to give you as near as possible the experience of killing another person or committing whatever revolting trespass on another's True Will and, in the best of literature (think Nabokov's "Lolita") to take you inside the mind of one who has had that experience, without committing any such actual trespass.The best of literature or drama is also about the consequences of that act.
Parenthetically, I've just noticed that there is a curious "omission" [?] in Liber Oz
"Man has the right to think what he will:
to speak what he will:
to write what he will:
to draw, paint, carve, etch, mould, build as he will:
to dress as he will."The word "read" - or generalisations such as "receive information", included now in many nations' statements of basic rights - does not occur in Liber Oz. Is there a reason?
I notice - two layers of parentheses now - that when I GoOgle for the text, an autocomplete pops up, saying "Liber Oz publication in Class", which reminds me, I was looking for the answer to that question. Is Liber Oz a Class A publication? Is it heretical to suggest AC may have simply missed a point in not saying "read as he will"?
Exit parenthesis; exit parenthesis.
More of my thoughts on TW (particularly as regards Scarecrow's question on "Destiny") further down this thread.
OP