The Solar Phallic King
-
@Froclown said
"No matter what set of laws you say I SHOULD grant to other people, or people SHOULD live by, no matter what IDEALS you pur forth, people are only every ACTUALLY going to do what the HAVE to do, not what they SHOULD DO."
Completely true for those that have satisfied fundamental 'deficit' needs. But, these being met, people do spontaneously make different decisions.
"The only reason I would allow you to walk in my yard, and maybe step on by garden, it that you carry a sword and I an a weak fighter."
You skipped over the more basic question: Why in the world would I ever want to walk in your yard and step into your garden?
-
@Froclown said
" Thus the wise king, takes the orange, gives it to the hungry boy, and takes the resentful boy aside and tells him a parable, a myth or story that is part of the community culture, this story consoles the boy, and he relates to the characters in the story, and finds a productive way to express his resentment. Perhaps by learning chess or basketball, which the boy has more natural talent and interest in, where he can show off his skills. "
I've never been impressed with the parable of the orange, not even when Crowley tells it. My Grandma was not a very educated or philosophical woman, though I consider her to have been a very wise matriarch and competent magician (as she had to be, to keep a very large household fed on a small farm's output, and my feisty cousins and I from injuring each other too severely.) But even she could tell you this solution isn't going to fly, and that wisdom is stepping in and showing the greedy infants that the orange is divisible into parts so that each can enjoy it as a treat until supper is ready. The temporary sweetness it offers will not satisfy the real hunger of the one, nor the deep resentment/need for attention of the other, so why use it as an unrealistic and naive comparison for complex problems like global economics or human relationships?
In Light, Life, Love, and Liberty ~ Manami
-
@Froclown said
"actually I think the fundamental difference in the two ways of view thelema stems from what it means that Everyone is a unique star its own orbit... if two stars are on a collision course, then both shall charge full steam ahead, and if need be they will collide, but generally one or the other will be weaker or less determined and the fight will not last long, one will cry uncle and the other will continue on his way. The one simply did not want it enough to risk death of sever injury. (See Hegel's Master-slave dialectic.) "
This discussion demonstrates what I meant in a previous post about being careful about imaginaries, or the way that we bond ideas and assumptions to these images. Contemplating the stars in their orbits and reflecting on how this illustrates one's path in life can lead to some useful things, but there is a critical difference that makes this inaccurate for the way it's being used here. Namely, stars are passive subjects to the forces that move them in their orbits, and as such, their peace or conflict is fated and occurs without desire, self-reflection or recognition. They have no rights to enforce or resign. However charming or poetic the metaphor may be, as humans - especially as those engaged in the Hermetic or Thelemic tradition - we do not share their nature, being more kin to the Intelligence that is historically credited with setting them in motion. There may be a suggestive idea in there to play with in regard to how much control I have vs. how much control I think I have, but it doesn't tell me much about how to be a conscious being intent on realizing my own God-like essence, and thus freeing myself from the illusion of separation or powerlessness.
It pays to be careful with what images one falls in love with. What you've described, Froclown, - a world where two people cannot even pass each other in the street without behaving like animals asserting their dominance, where social order is neatly filed and sorted into enforced "niches" under an all-powerful godhead, where hospitality is given only at swordpoint - is for me in no way at step forward into a New Aeon. In fact, it sounds like a repeat of the failure and fall of the Carolingian empire to me, with nothing learned in the process. Even dressing it up in some nice Gorian garb isn't going to make it Thelemic in my book.
People confident in their power can afford to be gracious without it being self-debasing - we are sharing light and passion and delight with each other, and if I am Sun-like in my nature, then it doesn't matter to me what the flower thinks when I shine on it. I'm too intent on getting where I'm going to care if you thought that I sidestepped you when you attempted to plow through me because I thought myself inferior to you. There are many obstacles that regularly impose themselves between me and my desire, and as a human, I work through, around, over, under or with them according to what seems wise and most efficient to me in my way.
In the discussions of Hegel's Master/Slave dialectic I've seen, the point made by it is that the relationship is not satisfying or beneficial to either side - especially to the Master, whose power begins to be drained and diminished from the moment the slave is bonded into his/her identity. The Master must produce the resources for the upkeep of the slave as a trophy, or consign to it labor (as you've suggested)...and thus the slave gains the means to a measure of control over the Master's existence that will increase and push towards synthesis until one day transforming the Master/slave dichotomy. If forced to accept a temporary domination by another due to lack of equitable power, there will always be those who will use the opportunity to undermine their oppressor's strength and take them when they get flabby and lax and turn their back.
Beyond my own self-interests, if I care about ending the Aeon where suffering is deemed to be good for the soul, and aiding the advent of one in which I will thrive joyfully, then I would want to use the sympathetic magick of decreasing the suffering of others wherever it was within my power to do so, thus weakening the power that imprisons all I Love. If such changes are beyond my range and I am truly just fated to play out my time on this run, then my intent may not make a difference to the Powers That Be but it makes a considerable difference to my quality of life during my time here.
In Light, Life, Love, and Liberty ~ Manami
-
Nice commentary. Well said.
In L.V.X.,
chrys333 -
Such sentimentalism for others is exactly what restricts their WILL, keeping the babies in the nest for fear they may get hurt on falling. If they do die they were not fit to be birds in the first place, having to keep them save rather than let them die is a waste of resources and that millstone on your neck will restrict your own WILL.
Freedom and liberty, means being free to be harsh and kind as you will, my Liberty includes my ability to be a jerk and kick people in the head for no reason at all. Their in no RIGHT to not be kicked in the head. However you have liberty to wear a helmet, to turn the other cheek, run away, or fight/kill me. Liberty has nothing to do with sentimentalism, nor in allowing others their "Rights".
I knowing that you may turn against me if I kick you, and knowing that co-operating will better serve my purposes, it is not in my WILL to kick you without cause, but I am free to do so, with no ethical repercussions, no sense of guilt or shame, no fear that I went against God's Will, or the Cosmic WILL, or my own WILL, as if I could turn against my own WILL.
Thu purpose of a king is not to force you to sacrifice your own WILL to his WILL. The King is the figure who passes down wisdom, who teaches the customs and gives advice that relates to the culture and traditions (also racial memories) of the people he rules. The King help people see past their ego games and shortsightedness to realize what ones natural place is within a social order and second how best to conduct ones actions to fit that order.
Since the SELF is a constructed identity both of DNA and of environment, including the social environment, then ones TRUE SELF is devised within the social order and the orbit of ones WILL is set within that order as well. Now shall we impose an edict that everyone is of equal value, shall the mob rule who is fit for what social role? Or shall some one with Wisdom, and a method shown to word, which the people will accept (preferably scientific Illuminism) pass down the traditions and stories, and help each individual find his proper place in the society.
Here is John Crow again
www.thelema.nu/archives/245“To judge the sick by the healthy is pregnant with error. The wretched and the weak are simply not real beings; they cannot be helped or mended. They must be expunged as falsehoods likely to infect the truth. This is the law of Nature, and it is the Law of the Lords of the Aeon. Put into force it will fill the world with joy.” (Crowley)
-
"He that is righteous shall be righteous still. He that is filthy shall be filthy still."
As much as my own mind and heart have been enlarged and filled with an image of Beauty by Thelema, I can never get away from the fact that this Beauty is a balance struck by opposites, and the Law favors neither.
Soror, I loved your response. You spoke only in terms of the kind of life you would like for yourself to have.
-
@Froclown said
"
Thu purpose of a king is not to force you to sacrifice your own WILL to his WILL. The King is the figure who passes down wisdom, who teaches the customs and gives advice that relates to the culture and traditions (also racial memories) of the people he rules. The King help people see past their ego games and shortsightedness to realize what ones natural place is within a social order and second how best to conduct ones actions to fit that order.
"You know Froclown, My main problem with your philosophy is that something in me is repulsed by any theory that seems unbalanced, there is too much emphasis on the male-energy, and further this system has repeatedly failed in the past. I for one am no shrinking violet, and I doubt if many here have more reason to agree with you than I. But my own personal experiences are necessarily relative, and so i look upon them in that light. Trust me, I am no fan of democracy/corporatism, as human value has evidently decreased under this system; in fact I am seriously beginning to doubt the need for any type of government soever, I think anarchy is a myth, merely propagated to "scare us straight" to provide a reason why we need "Big Brother", there is no evidence of anarchy in nature, just phases and seasons. I am presently thinking along the terms of some type of post-modern peasantry class, with each individual as Land Owner and Individual King/and or Queen, a multi-lateral self-organizing network, a complete decentralization of power, ideally with a high level of initiates. Usury and Land Lordship(being compelled to pay rent) is the foundation of the modern slavery we have today IMO. Politics is a very passionate topic for me but I am still developing my model, I have just started reading Plato's "the republic" amongst others. I will give updates on my thoughts periodically.
-
that is not far from what I am driving at.
Rather than large global world wide empires, driven by economic domination, and justified under the notion than we all because we breath and bleed are equal sheep that must be tended and protected by powerful economic masters.
I propose we for small organic communities, where our individual Brutishnesses are organized along a common transcendent vision shared by a Race or group of people with a common history and tradition. A tradition into which one can be more or less initiated, the less initiated the more individual and brutish one is, the less part of the social sphere, that is one can be a total out caste to like alone and without Rule of the King.
However the more one contributes and abides by the tradition of the local community the more "Rights" one is granted it reciprocation. Those outside the Walls (real or figurative) of the city, have no innate rights within the city, and are basically seen as enemies of the city, or at least distrusted and not seen as fully persons. The King or Highest initiates are held up as protectors of the way or life, the elder(s) whose wisdom was earned by pasing ordeals, proving higher loyalty and understanding of the Tradition that the others, and the Ability to apply the tradition.
Now each small city-state will have castes, ie levels of initiation and each level will have specializations, each based on the nature and ability of the person. the King being the highest initiate and the more a role deals with the community as a whole, like a scribe entrusted with city records vs a merchant who lives mostly autonomous but relies on the city to sell wares and its police to protect his business. The more vital or community based ones work, the higher the caste, as ones level of community initiation will be higher. This is exactly what Crowley Chartered into the OTO.
The nature of the specific structures, the rituals, the myths, the traditions, the regalia, etc will differ from one state to another, based on the shared culture and history of the people in the area. Certainly alliances can form between cities and trade agreements etc. Sure antagonisms may from as well. However each state is free to practice its own system, and each individual determines his own level of involvement in the social hierarchy by determination and natural ability. Natural ability being that which finds ones horizontal movement and ones earned level of trust and honor in the community ones vertical location in the caste system.
At no point is anyone subject to shame or guilt, or any demand to be other than one is, everyone finds a place inside or outside the system.
-
@Frater LR said
" You spoke only in terms of the kind of life you would like for yourself to have."
Thank you, Frater....the life I that I have -right here and right now- created from how I respond to the forces at play in it is the only thing I have control over.
If the point under debate here is that no one can truly make another person do something unless that person either consents or lacks the power to resist another's intentions, then sure, I agree. And if one is willing to live with the consequences of their actions, then there's really not a lot that can be done about it. If someone wants to get their friends together and go create a place where they can live by their own myths and customs (be it treehugging or headkicking), and they can pull off the organization it requires to be anything but a pipe dream -- then they are certainly at liberty to try it. I avidly study intentional communities and organization theory, so it will be interesting and edifying to watch their results, regardless of if it's something I would personally enlist in or not.
" As much as my own mind and heart have been enlarged and filled with an image of Beauty by Thelema, I can never get away from the fact that this Beauty is a balance struck by opposites, and the Law favors neither."
This is a very important observation, and well put. One of the problems with Utopianism is that it is too often driven by a limiting definition of Beauty which is based in artificiality, not in the reality which is dependent upon the interplay of opposites. Through it, people project their own distortion into the World rather than reflect the influence of the Reality which is perfect via their Work and thus nourish it: "This shall regenerate the world, the little world my sister, my heart & my tongue, unto whom I send this kiss."
And yes, no one has to worry about nourishing anything if they don't want to...but for those of us who view our presence here as an obligation to participate according to the Law, it's a tendency that demands constant vigilance and critical reflection.
In Light, Life, Love, and Liberty ~ Manami
-
Well my point is that just because something breaths and bleeds does not mean I must try to make it happy, In fact I have no obligation to make anyone or anything happy. Peta although good intentioned is seems to thing animals have rights as liberals define rights as that no creature that can feel pain will ever feel any pain anywhere ever, which these self proclaimed Bodhisattvas can be quite violent in their persecution of anyone they perceive as mean or negative, calling them usually the term the use is Fascist. Which is really Ironic that the tree-hugging Nazis would choose to denigrate Fascism.
But back to my main point is that a dog has no rights, other than the rights it receives under protection from its Master, and the extension of social protection as property of its owner, If and only if that owner is a member of the protected social class. The same is true of Humans, just being a human does not give you right, and does not afford you any protection other than what you can provide with your own fists. Neither the police nor the army have any duty or responsibility to risk their lives to protect the rights of people who are not officially under their protection. The Mafia does not stop your store being robbed, if you don't pay your protection fees, do they? The Private security guard does not protect the property outside the community limits he was hired to watch. The police protect the community, because their is reciprocity, not because he has a soft spot for damsels in distress, or desire to break up gunfights between thugs. He would prefer the thugs shoot each other and leave his community of friends and family in peace. But if people outside want to kill each other than is no more his business or concern than if two stray dogs kill each other.This does not mean he may not have empathy, but we should not constitute our social order and political law around open ended empathy, as if we have to stop all "negative energy" of any kind anywhere in the world. When in fact this very negative energy is very necessary, we need harsh experiences because the JOY of the world is on a personal level to be victorious over the hardship, to conquer others gives self confidence and finds ones place in the world. If we have only games with no winners and no losers, and we constantly patronize each other with compliments and pats on the back, we only became soft and useless.
That which does not kill me only makes me stronger. That which tried and failed to kill me in my youth, made me strong in spirit and in body, without antagonism, insults, strife, physical confrontations, defeats and victories, I would not be who I am. I would be a hippie, because thats how hippies are made, from spoiled brats who have no challenges and take on causes than are not their own, and are so overly sentimental they don't know their own WILL from the plight of the new guinea tribes man.
-
@Sr_MNA said
"Namely, stars are passive subjects to the forces that move them in their orbits, and as such, their peace or conflict is fated and occurs without desire, self-reflection or recognition. They have no rights to enforce or resign. However charming or poetic the metaphor may be, as humans - especially as those engaged in the Hermetic or Thelemic tradition - we do not share their nature, being more kin to the Intelligence that is historically credited with setting them in motion. There may be a suggestive idea in there to play with in regard to how much control I have vs. how much control I think I have, but it doesn't tell me much about how to be a conscious being intent on realizing my own God-like essence, and thus freeing myself from the illusion of separation or powerlessness.
"Greetings Soror,
And welcome.. it is nice to have such an intelligent female perspective/contribution to this debate. I do see generally where you are coming from, my questions are in regard just to some specifics. from the classical perspective you are right to say that stars are passive subjects to the forces that move them in their orbits, but then as you point out this would ultimately imply an initial cause, yet with new understanding in quantum theory and mathematics, the notion of causality is questionable; Space-Time at the Planck scale is not a continuum, this counter-intuitive fact is lost on most C21st scientists. It is actually an assumption that "stars" may not be "conscious" in and of themselves, firstly because no one as yet has given a satisfactory definition for "Consciousness". I personally see "Humanity' as an extension of the "consciousness" of the Sun, as our energy is both directly and indirectly derived from the Sun as is the "timing" and "intensity" of our "conscious activity" directly related to Earth's movement in relation to the "Sun"; the Sun is the primary energy source for all life on Earth. Now here is a theory, when one dreams, one may be said to experience split-consciousness which includes other derivative personalities experienced as non-self, further there is some kind of "light" in dreams that is not related to external stimuli, i could speculate that this "light" is the image of "waking consciousness" in dreams. and by "as below so above" analogy infer that we are the split-consciousness, or rather "Dreaming of the Sun" but I digress. I mean to say that their peace or conflict may be indeed be "Willed" by an exponentially stronger Will, that due to the exponentially larger scale appears to us to be "fated' but rather is simply a relative "ideal' for us to aspire to; desire, self-reflection or recognition may be limitations of this split-consciousness, as we are admonished "Pure Will without the lust of result is in every way perfect" now this may better describe the motion of said stars which are beyond the distortions of human ego. Also they are enforcing their rights by doing what they will which because of the perfection of such exponential wills creates little conflict, I personally am inimical to any theory of fate on any level. This is corroborated by the advanced Ancient Egyptian world-view which ascribed consciousness to the Sun as the god "Ra"
-
@Froclown said
"Rather than large global world wide empires, driven by economic domination, and justified under the notion than we all because we breath and bleed are equal sheep that must be tended and protected by powerful economic masters. I propose we for small organic communities, where our individual Brutishnesses are organized along a common transcendent vision shared by a Race or group of people with a common history and tradition. A tradition into which one can be more or less initiated, the less initiated the more individual and brutish one is, the less part of the social sphere, that is one can be a total out caste to like alone and without Rule of the King. "
Thank you, Froclown, for the the expanded illustration of the ideal community you've given - it is helpful for the discussion of the original point of the thread. Look, I get the point you've been making, and in that...as you Will. I am perfectly comfortable letting survival of the fittest sort out the difference in views.
I do, however, hold a deep conviction that the progress of the Aeon will transform the top-down hierarchical structure that Crowley envisioned in the Utopian manner of his times (from the pyramid structure to the circle, basically.) If true, it has a lot of implications for dealing with life in a period of transition and efforts toward long-term reorganization into compatible models. Whatever the theorists think "should" be the rights of individuals in a Thelemic world, right now we are karmically bound to the conditions and conventions of our country of residence, which presents us with challenges requiring both courage in conflict and accountability in cooperation.
I would love to hear how others are experiencing that or what has worked, for those experimenting with models of Thelemic society in their own lives. I also am a wee bit curious as to how those who see it otherwise envision actually pulling off the societal takeover it would require to convince a large population to return to monarchy - even symbolically - for anything other than weekend entertainment.
@Froclown said
"However the more one contributes and abides by the tradition of the local community the more "Rights" one is granted it reciprocation. Those outside the Walls (real or figurative) of the city, have no innate rights within the city, and are basically seen as enemies of the city, or at least distrusted and not seen as fully persons. The King or Highest initiates are held up as protectors of the way or life, the elder(s) whose wisdom was earned by pasing ordeals, proving higher loyalty and understanding of the Tradition that the others, and the Ability to apply the tradition. "
I see little difference between this structure and what I grew up with in the rural Deep South: a small organic community, as self-sufficient as it is going to get in this day and age, xenophobic and kinship based, homogeneous in culture and ethnicity (and kept that way by intentional effort), stratified social caste enforced by heavy socialization/initiation into community institutions and roles, leadership via elders and a few powerful individuals, and the local peace enforced as necessary by use of force under a untouchable control. While I recognize such a structure's strengths, due to the ease with which it becomes restrictive and limiting, I - like most of my generation - couldn't wait to get out of it. Those with the talent and ability to succeed elsewhere* fled*. As the town lives by the old "if you don't like it, leave" rule...the youth left in droves, and today it is an industry-less void kept barely alive by corporate farming, discount retailers and meth manufacture, whose only future hope is that sprawl from a neighboring city will one day invade and raise the property value enough to make a suburb out of it. No thanks - a Crowley quoting version of that isn't any less miserable. I demand the right - as Frater I-ness suggested - be sovereign on my own ground and to treasure Wisdom in whatever form She takes. For the love of Babalon, man....do you not understand how inherently promiscuous this force is?
I am very skeptical of the viability of any model that requires obedience, acceptance of rigid structures, or role division based on "fated" circumstances (race, gender, culture, etc.)...regardless of what people can read into Crowley's writings as justifying that, the tendency of the Aeon itself seems to be eating such structures alive. Currently, organizations are having to revise their entire outlook on hiring and retention to deal with the new generation which values personal freedom and the flexibility to play and explore over what has traditionally been "givens" - security, institutional belonging/tradition, order and firm chain of command. The most cutting edge leadership programs center on self-leadership, dynamic leadership, chaordic organization structure, game theory - all variants on the theme of flexibility and individual initiative, and promoting a self-reflective awareness of one's power and choice. While a heavy shock in the economy could change that somewhat (as in companies favoring "safer" older workers or people being more reluctant to make changes), there's also no reason to expect that it won't just fuel the creativity and lead to even greater independence from traditional structures.
In my area, people are forming organic communities where those who choose this life and have the resources to pursue it find their unique niche as they see fit and proceed to do what pleases them in mutual benefit -- they are not waiting on some Supreme and Holy Scientific Illuminist King to lead the way. I'm not talking about far-fetched idealistic communes, either - these are successful businesses applying this principle to co-housing development, community sustained farming operations, employee-owned and operated corporations...increasingly mainstream and supported across a wide and diverse population and very much in demand. The gains that have come with being able to exchange across distance (and thus cultural boundaries) doesn't bode well for xenophobic model, and the pace at which technology changes the culture can radically change a local caste system overnight.
The only way I see this changing, personally - especially if it's supposed to be part of cosmic evolution beginning an Aeon of the Child - is to insert either a catastrophic event blows things back to a primitive state of survival, or the appearance of a person with the overwhelming power to get things done his way (which would need to be considerable both in terms of military might and marketing acumen). Either way, for my taste, that is just way too much like waiting on the Tribulation to bring Jesus back so he can fix things for us.
In Light, Life, Love and Liberty ~ Manami
-
Most excellent post Soror. Aum
-
I protest that what you call the progression of the aeon is actual the progression or rather the inertia of forces than started long before this aeon began and those forces bust wind down, reach their end before the currently slight influences of the new aeon can take hold. According to Evola we are living in a cycle of kali yuga, which is the the iron age before a new golden age. The Iron age will end with total degeneracy that is as for as liberal humanism can go, then new transcendent kings will emerge to take us back to a golden age,
-
Thank you for the warm welcome, Frater I-Ness. I'm coming off a good long break from debates and it's made me a little hyper, especially when it's summer and I'm getting a luxurious six hours sleep. I am really glad to see this forum isn't lost in the lethargy that has overtaken so many and greatly appreciate all I've gained from the discussions so far - as well as everyone's tolerance for me jumping in full blast.
@Frater I-Ness said
"yet with new understanding in quantum theory and mathematics, the notion of causality is questionable; Space-Time at the Planck scale is not a continuum, this counter-intuitive fact is lost on most C21st scientists. It is actually an assumption that "stars" may not be "conscious" in and of themselves, firstly because no one as yet has given a satisfactory definition for "Consciousness". "
You have me here.
Because we can't really know at this point what the consciousness of a star is, nor to what extent it resembles our own, I erred on the side of empirical data for this specific instance. I'm not nearly as Newtonian as that.What I mean in this case is that I don't agree with the use of the image to imply that conflict is either non-occurring when people are properly in their "orbit" (which is one way it's been applied in an overly literal sense) or else that it means that two people heading towards each other on the same course are necessarily obligated to conflict (which is the other way.) The imagery Crowley uses is beautiful, and much can be gained from contemplation of it, but I would argue that regardless of a star's Consciousness, it does not have choice as we know it. My Soul may well have laid out a star-like path by which it will collect all the experiences and sensations that it needs to accomplish its Will in all the lifetimes beyond this one, and those may include experiences which I just have to push forward through regardless of whether it ends in my explosion or someone else's (doesn't matter, it's just one dream among countless others) -- the image does hold very true for that.
But one of the problems in the discussion at hand is that its not very clear where people are talking about Will (..."Twue Will"...) vs. Desire...and the metaphor holds true for one better than the other. My Will may be star-like in its orbit, but Desire (and it's conspirator, Intellect) can initiate changes and patterns of thinking that are foreign to the nature of a star. I know this opens up a whole new area (either dreaded or beloved) in Thelemic debate....hence I was just trying to get a way with a drier version of stellar mechanics.
The main point I was after was that in my view, conflict can be consciously mediated in ways that expand my evolution and awareness of Will by the recognition of the specific choices available to me and the skillful application of my intent. But it's game theory - some are won by conflict, some by cooperation. Holding on to an interpretation of Crowley's metaphor that doesn't include the possibility of the latter is a dead end, in my book.
You raise an excellent point about how quantum theory can change a lot of these ideas we inherit - in ways that could not at the time be anticipated by those we look to for guidance, and thus puts us in an open, new field where we're going have to figure this out ourselves. If the topic of the New Aeon and quantum theory hasn't been exhausted yet in other threads, I would enjoy pulling the rest of this over to a new discussion. I wonder how the Liber Aleph passage would read if Michio Kaku had been on Crowley's bookshelf?
In Light, Life, Love and Liberty ~ Manami
-
@Sr_MNA said
"Thank you for the warm welcome, Frater I-Ness. I'm coming off a good long break from debates and it's made me a little hyper, especially when it's summer and I'm getting a luxurious six hours sleep. I am really glad to see this forum isn't lost in the lethargy that has overtaken so many and greatly appreciate all I've gained from the discussions so far - as well as everyone's tolerance for me jumping in full blast. "
Soror, you are a breath of fresh air!!! I am very passionate about male-female energy balance, and you have given us the most realistic-practical example thus far. I quote below
"In my area, people are forming organic communities where those who choose this life and have the resources to pursue it find their unique niche as they see fit and proceed to do what pleases them in mutual benefit -- they are not waiting on some Supreme and Holy Scientific Illuminist King to lead the way.** I'm not talking about far-fetched idealistic communes**, either - these are successful businesses applying this principle to co-housing development, community sustained farming operations, employee-owned and operated corporations...increasingly mainstream and supported across a wide and diverse population and very much in demand. The gains that have come with being able to exchange across distance (and thus cultural boundaries) doesn't bode well for xenophobic model, and the pace at which technology changes the culture can radically change a local caste system overnight.
""
@Frater I-Ness said
"yet with new understanding in quantum theory and mathematics, the notion of causality is questionable; Space-Time at the Planck scale is not a continuum, this counter-intuitive fact is lost on most C21st scientists. It is actually an assumption that "stars" may not be "conscious" in and of themselves, firstly because no one as yet has given a satisfactory definition for "Consciousness". "You have me here.
Because we can't really know at this point what the consciousness of a star is, nor to what extent it resembles our own, I erred on the side of empirical data for this specific instance. I'm not nearly as Newtonian as that."True, we cannot for certain, but I think the analogy i presented above is a start; the hermetic axiom "As Above so Below" is the only means we have to contemplate such mysteries.
"What I mean in this case is that I don't agree with the use of the image to imply that conflict is either non-occurring when people are properly in their "orbit" (which is one way it's been applied in an overly literal sense) or else that it means that two people heading towards each other on the same course are necessarily obligated to conflict (which is the other way.) The imagery Crowley uses is beautiful, and much can be gained from contemplation of it, but I would argue that regardless of a star's
Consciousness, it does not have choice as we know it. "What you say seems accurate; The Will of the Stars must be supra-rational, I suppose our "choices" are the direct product of a finite intellect;"also reason is a lie" moreover there are mathematical considerations, celestial bodies existing within "infinite space" mainly have a "platonic" relationship, whereas within this finite space there is inevitable contact, osmosis, synergy and symbiosis, such that the "individual will" is somewhat subject to the "collective will" and this would imply that our politics are supremely important. I believe we should be approaching inter-stellar travel by now instead of squabbling over this insignificant dust particle, that way our options become exponential. our individual "True Wills" may simply be derivative functions of the ideal "Will of Mankind".
"
But one of the problems in the discussion at hand is that its not very clear where people are talking about Will (..."Twue Will"...) vs. Desire...and the metaphor holds true for one better than the other. My Will may be star-like in its orbit, but Desire (and it's conspirator, Intellect) can initiate changes and patterns of thinking that are foreign to the nature of a star. I know this opens up a whole new area (either dreaded or beloved) in Thelemic debate....hence I was just trying to get a way with a drier version of stellar mechanics."Don't you think desire is directly related to the short-sightedness of the ego? I think intellect may be the main obstacle to the inertia of "True Will", and further that a distortion of the "collective will' translates to a perversion of "Individual will" by directly limiting or otherwise changing the options available. so therefore practicality becomes of supreme importance as you rightly point out, as opposed to the celestial ideal.
"The main point I was after was that in my view, conflict can be consciously mediated in ways that expand my evolution and awareness of Will by the recognition of the specific choices available to me and the skillful application of my intent. But it's game theory - some are won by conflict, some by cooperation. Holding on to an interpretation of Crowley's metaphor that doesn't include the possibility of the latter is a dead end, in my book."
It seems plausible that the more distorted the "collective will" the less befitting the metaphor of individual "true will" becomes; as in the language of "catastrophe theory" there is likely to have been a bifurcation in the dynamical system. so ultimately we arrive at the same destination via different routes, as I said in the beginning I generally agree with you, please note i can be persnickety at times, it is an annoying idiosyncrasy I know!:roll: maybe a new metaphor like "Temporary True Will" relative to one's immediate position may be beneficial
"You raise an excellent point about how quantum theory can change a lot of these ideas we inherit - in ways that could not at the time be anticipated by those we look to for guidance, and thus puts us in an open, new field where we're going have to figure this out ourselves. If the topic of the New Aeon and quantum theory hasn't been exhausted yet in other threads, I would enjoy pulling the rest of this over to a new discussion. I wonder how the Liber Aleph passage would read if Michio Kaku had been on Crowley's bookshelf?"
This is one of my main areas of interest Soror, I am always interested in exchanging ideas within this metaphor, so feel free to go ahead and present your take on this topic in a new thread!
thank you once again for your input, it is greatly appreciated, you are welcome also once again!
-
In the old comment for AL III:18 Crowley writes:
"An end to the humanitarian mawkishness which is destroying the human race by the deliberate artificial protection of the unfit."In the new comment he expands on this statement.
"In the good old days there was some sort of natural selection; brains and stamina were necessary to survival. The race, as such consequently improved. But we thought we knew oh! so much better, and we had “Christ’s law” and other slush. So the unfit crowded and contaminated the fit, until Earth herself grew nauseated with the mess. We had not only a war which killed some eight million men, in the flower of their age, picked men at that, in four years, but a pestilence which killed six million in six months. Should we not rather breed humanity for quality by killing off any tainted stock, as we do with other cattle? And exterminating the vermin which infect it, especially Jews and Protestant Christians? Catholic Christians are really Pagans at heart; there is usually good stuff in them, particularly in Latin countries. They only need to be instructed in the true meaning of their faith to reflect the false veils."Of course "exterminating jews" can be done in a lest gristly and far more effective way by replacing Judaism with a more effective and appealing law, which would entice and coerce the Jew to give up his allegiance to the "fiendish Jehovah".
Again from John Crow
www.thelema.nu/archives/257I fail to see how you can insist on separating Thelema from Crowley, or soy something absurd like Crowley did not understand the book of the law, when he wrote the book. His comment even says to appeal ONLY to his works in interpreting the book, not to the works of liberal humanism or Quantum mechanics.
-
@Froclown said
"
I fail to see how you can insist on separating Thelema from Crowley, or soy something absurd like Crowley did not understand the book of the law, when he wrote the book. His comment even says to appeal ONLY to his works in interpreting the book, not to the works of liberal humanism or Quantum mechanics."
Well finally you admit that your philosophy is a product of your own short-sightedness. I have no interest in "Cults of Personality", and even if i did, Crowley would not be my first choice. To me Thelema and Crowley are a paradox, and as a fan of paradoxes this is what attracts me to Thelema, according to you, if I as a physicist employ Einstein's theory of relativity i must also be a Zionist!? if you cannot see how absurd that statement is? then you are truly delusional?! in my book you are a Crowleyan not a Thelemite
-
No you don't have to be a zionist, but you must realize that Einsteins Zionism and came from the same place as his genius. That you can not approve of his physics ability and deny his Zionism. That if you want to rise to the intellectual level of Einstein, to catch a glimpse of his genius, and the world as he saw it, You must accept take on Zionism.
Can you really invoke The Wisdom of Jupiter and reject the Wrath of Zeus.
-
@Froclown said
"No you don't have to be a zionist, but you must realize that Einsteins Zionism and came from the same place as his genius. That you can not approve of his physics ability and deny his Zionism. That if you want to rise to the intellectual level of Einstein, to catch a glimpse of his genius, and the world as he saw it, You must accept take on Zionism.
Can you really invoke The Wisdom of Jupiter and reject the Wrath of Zeus."
Ok then stop contradicting yourself. I can realize and acknowledge the complexity of individuality, and recognize the permutations and combinations of how the specifics play out, and still figure out what is most applicable to me from my particular position in Space-Time. I don't need to deny his Zionism, yet his Zionism is not particularly relevant from where I stand, moreover I elevate neither Crowley nor even Einstein above myself, I may be a genius in my own right, and as such even speculate that ideas are not internally generated but rather the brain/mind is just a transmitter-receiver such that no ideas are essentially our own, and hence no two ideas from one person are necessarily directly related. Science has failed to provide physical evidence for memory storage, and this has led some pioneers such as "Rupert Sheldrake" www.sheldrake.org/homepage.html to speculate along with his theory of morphogenetic fields that memories are stored in such "non-local fields" let alone imagination. Ultimately within or without the metaphor of Thelema I will reach MY OWN CONCLUSIONS. I may decide to reject Thelema entirely tomorrow! like you say Thelema is merely a tool for my Will via my intellect, to be used and discarded.