Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law - selfish?
-
It is a safe assumption than Crowley got the idea of true Will from Liber Legis.
Their is no deity or other such deified principle, which one must submit to or else feel guilty by falling short of.
However, that does not mean anything goes, because if you don't focus yourself on a goal and take measures to achieve that goal you set upon, you will never achieve anything, you will feel like a failure, that you are incompetent etc.
"choose ye an island" could this not mean pick a paradigm or ideology than supports your intentions, and act as if it were an absolute truth or deified principle. "dung it about with the enginery of war" could this not mean learn all the defenses of your choses belief and be prepared it fight it the name of your chosen flag. "I will give you a war engine" = I will give you a powerful argument or principle that can be used to defend any ideal of point of view. (Magick)
This it is equally thelemic to be a nazi, a communist, a Christian faith healer, etc. So long as you use the belief and its practice to as a tool to achieve your personal goal. In any case a thelemite is first an egoist, a Machiavellian "The price-Priest the Beast". Their is no principle under the sun, beneath the earth, on dry land or in the water, of rushing air or thrusting fire, which is not a tool obedient to the WILL. That includes every "spell and scourge of God" which in to say every thought-belief and every physical action of the body.
The when a thought or act is aligned to the ones own WILL then it is TRUE to the WILL like an arrow true to its target. The WILL is TRUE when it guides the thought and action to the intended goal. When the WILL wavers due to various forces, distractions and seductions away from the intent, then it is not TRUE WILL, but deviant WILL.
If one allows any King or God, or principle of law, to deviate one from the dead set target goal that is natural to the individual, then that God or King may create a deviation in the WILL.
Likewise take a fish out of water and it can not do its WILL, part of a fishes WILL includes its food and the predators it lives with. So to do ones TRUE WILL, one needs to be in ones natural physical and social environment, such as natural leaders that encourage those underneath to keep to their proper orbits and achieve their natural ends.
-
@Secret Asian Man said
"As others have alluded to, following your True Will (a phrase not in Liber Legis) need not be all selfish; a person may be generous if they choose to do so of their own free will. AC went to great lengths to try and explain what "True Will" is, but in Liber Legis I believe the meaning of Do What Thou Wilt is fairly simple; it means that in the New Aeon, no deity would be calling the shots."
Personally, I believe it means something that has always been so...
That is, that each "center of expression" has a unique function to fulfill.
That is, what we typically refer to as "I" , is a creation of something much greater than what we typically know to be ourselves and this creation was/is for a specific function or purpose.
To fulfill this function "is the whole of the Law", i.e. what makes each of us whole and complete; there is nothing other than this that we should be concerned with.
To fulfill what you have been created to do is the highest Service of which you are capable; doing anything else is a distraction.
-
93, Um, perhaps I'll just refer you to Liber II. In more than one of Crowley's works, the will of the ego was differentiated from that True Will of the Higher Self(the HGA). In many works,too, this Will's aims differ by far from that of the ego will, which the majority of man follow. I suppose it would be easy to confuse the two if you are one who hasn't looked past the vulgar will. The old fool and wise man addage revisited. 939393, Fra. OIO
-
as far as this "harm none" nonsense, what does that even actually mean. In order to harm something one must know what it's purpose is, and to know that one must know the whole scheme of the entire universe (God's plan) which is impossible, save perhaps in anecdote of the magus or Ipssissimus. what I mean here is that we know that a racood does not want to say die of intestinal worm infections, however the worms want to reproduce in the racoon's stomach. Thus on a simple level we can say that the worms are doing harm to the racoon yet to flush out the worms by giving the racoon medicine we are doing harm to the worms, it seems no matter how we act here, it restricts the WILL of one or the other elements of the Equation. However if we look at nature as a whole the equation is balanced, because both the racoon and the worms are part of the natural order, and to just let them war it out and some times the worms win and kill the racoon some times the racoons immunity wins and kills the worms, but over all it is part of being a racoon to risk death by parasites that are proper to racoons. If we interfere on behalf of the worms or the racoon, we are doing harm to the natural order of things.
This same principle goes with predators and prey, and symbiotic lichen, as well as such things that are part of the natural order as males fighting for dominance over a territory of female, and even the case of animals which at times eat their won young, or chimps which brutally murder and babies where the suspected father is of a defeated tribe. Though many of these relationships seem mean spirited, cruel, and heartless, they are never the less part of (GOD's great plan) that is carefully balanced part of the natural order of things. So it may seem like you are doing a kind ethical act to save a defenseless baby chimp form being bashed to death on a rock by it's step father, but this can create imbalanced in the natural order which are far more harmful. (and in fact it may be argued that it is the TRUE WILL or natural purpose of the baby chimp to die a horrific death)
Now should not the same hold true for us humans, that our TRUE WILL not being our conscious aspirations, nor our rationalized interest, and certainly is not swayed by the base emotions, but is rather our true purpose of rather niche in the divine order of nature. That it may very Will be one's TRUE WILL to be a Homicidal brute as much as it may be ones true will to be a victim of homicide.
Their is no ethical consideration to the law of thelema, other than "DO WHAT THOU WILT". Of course it may be ones WILL to be victim of murder, but if one is to gain anything from incarnation as a murder victim, must also have a survival instinct, and it is the tension and the fight for life that is the expression of one's incarnation, not a mere moping off peacefully to one's doom.
-
@Froclown said
" That it may very Will be one's TRUE WILL to be a Homicidal brute
Their is no ethical consideration to the law of thelema, other than "DO WHAT THOU WILT"."How inconvenient that I may fall under this category.
-
@Froclown said
"In order to harm something one must know what it's purpose is, and to know that one must know the whole scheme of the entire universe (God's plan) which is impossible
...
However if we look at nature as a whole the equation is balanced
...
This same principle goes with predators and prey, and symbiotic lichen, as well as such things that are part of the natural order as males fighting for dominance over a territory of female"
- to know the whole scheme is impossible
- then you look at the whole equation
- and then you apply that vision to all of nature
I don't mean to pick Froclown, but without "God's plan", how do you know the equation balances? How do you know the same principle applies...?
-
Frater Fro,
It's always strange to me how you equate the animal instincts to True Will. In my mind, True Will is what separates us from the animals.
Animals don't Individuate. They don't rise above the delusions of the "mass mind" to find their True Will and pursue it. They don't consciously restrain and direct their energies toward an existentially meaningful and satisfying goal that fits their unique set of capabilities. In my mind, at least, True Will is a conception limited to self-aware beings who have the ability to ponder their grander purpose.
I don't deny the fundamental realization that you had during your RAW experience. I just don't name it "True Will." I would perhaps name it karma - the law of action and reaction - the equilibrating principle in the universe. Everything does fulfill this law perfectly as you suggest - even those things that are terrifyingly brutal. Such is the law of action and reaction. Such balance and perfection in the universe occurs automatically - without individual consciousness. You could even say the universe's tendency to seek balance produced individual consciousness, whose job is to establish equilibrium within the realm of experience (whether by creating stability or instability) more efficiently and effectively than brute math and vast expanses of time.
But to equate animal will, or the deluded, over-passionate acts of a homicidal maniac to True Will is to lose the very distinctions of quality of life, freedom from delusion, self-conscious direction, existential meaningfulness, and efficiency of power that the term was created to suggest. True Will is a purposeful organization of otherwise unorganized, competing, and potentially self-defeating drives.
I do agree with you that our individual True Wills are the result of a larger, cosmic, karmic law and drive, but to fully equate the two levels of Willpower only serves to confuse the whole purpose of having a path of instruction involving both mental and physical discipline.
I understand that sense of perfection and "how could it be otherwise" that one is able to experience. But that experience lies in ...what do you want to call it? ...a quality of Mind that is outside the illusion of personal will. Indeed, how could anyone ever have willed otherwise? But, the conversation about knowing and finding one's True Will can only really take place in the "realm" of action. One might attempt to dwell continually in the bliss of that greater awareness, but one would crash one's car (and probably not mind in the least - until the pain set in). The pain brings us back down into the world of action, where personal will, even if ultimately illusory, must be dealt with. And it is here in this more common realm, that the term True Will finds its usefulness.
my two.
-
I have never said it to my self, though I have told many people.
-
lol...
Our self is the only one we ever attempt to convince.
-
Is it not said the second to last step is to sacrifice one's personal will to the Greater Will of the cosmos. Also to do ones Will means to have the whole of the universe (Karmic law) to back you up. Then of course the ultimate ends is to destroy all duality between Microcosm of personal Will and Macrocosm of Karmic WILL. "Not my Will but Thine be done"
Is not the essence of Thelema that we are to do ANYthing whatsoever an feel no existential Guilt or shame as all acts are lawful.
Now the fact that it may not be a SIN to be a lying, stealing, gambling, rapist, murdering son of a bitch, does not mean that the social order will appreciate it. And those who plan to run an abbey, a city, or a culture would be best in employ some rules of mutual benefits and reciprocation as customs and laws. That weans something like Liber OZ and Duty would be social contracts, but they do not supersede the absolute freedom of Liber Legis, "There is no law beyond do what thou Wilt". Their is no Law in heaven that says you can't be a no good shit, but our primate human laws on the other hand will put a stop to your behavior when it starts te interfere with other peoples interests.
The only thing is you can sit in a jail cell waiting to be hung, with a clear moral conscious, even if your legal record is full of trespasses.
-
@Froclown said
"Is not the essence of Thelema that we are to do ANYthing whatsoever an feel no existential Guilt or shame as all acts are lawful. "
Well, yeah, guilt and shame don't do much good and tend to get in the way.
But no, not anything whatsoever. We are to discover the ONE THING that is distinctly ours to do, and then do that (and things essential to its undertaking) and nothing else.
-
As for the as you put it RAW experience I had, what that taught we was nothing about the external world or the word of science or whatever. It but rather was a direct experience of how my brain takes raw input data and transforms it into semantic awareness. And that it is possible to alter, had and remove layers of semantic overtones, and contextual meanings from events, that I never know were being unconsciously integrated into my experiences prior to that experience. It seems I learned some degree of direct conscious manipulation of the temporal lobe functions, seems to relate to what Leary and R.A.W. referred to as the 6th neuro-circuit the psycho-semantic circuit, that allows one to consciously imprint the meta-programming ability of the mind, to create and alternate between different reality-tunnels or paradigms. Or I would say to shift semantic contexts in which to interpret perceptions, holding parallel meanings without contradiction. (I don't think I have developed this ability much more than to have opened access in it, mostly as I don't really know how to train it, but I suspect Kabbalah study uses this faculty, to hold practical meanings and tree of life correspondences at the same time.)
-
I understand that any one person at any one time as one thing to which they are pledged, to which their WILL in dedicated, and to nothing else.
What I am saying is that what that one thing might possibly be in general for any person, can be anything. If you as an individual have as your WILL to be a great doctor and heal the sick, it would conflict with your WILL if you are to contract a plague, or go stealing, upon which you risk going to jail and losing your chance to learn and practice medicine.
However what is to prevent some one like a Hannibal Lector from dedicating their life the art of serial killing and cannibalism. To which even his medical training was a means and preparation to his WILL to be a great killer.
Thus his killing, and his medical training were "ever unto me" and he refined his rapture in killing and killed by the "the eight and ninety rules of art".
in any event you see, that Thelema does not set up some happy hippie utopia, it is a means by which an individual may more effectively persue any ends whatsoever, via refinement of his character and his art that art being the general art of Magick which can be specified to anything from writing an opera, to hunting deer, from blowing ones nose to cannibalism.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"We are to discover the ONE THING that is distinctly ours to do, and then do that (and things essential to its undertaking) and nothing else."
Only ONE thing?
-
As I under stand it , that one thing becomes every thing.
-
@Tornado93 said
"Only ONE thing?"
Yes. But not "things" in the separate sort of way we usually think of them. Perhaps it's easier to think of as "fulfilling a single, central motive."
Every thing of substance and value and enjoyment I do (and, for that matter, have ever done), and most of the fiddling and diddling in between - all the variations and seemingly diverse "things" have done - have really all been one single thing that I can summarize in 10 or 11 words.
-
@Tornado93 said
"I am arguing with a friend about "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." He thinks it's selfish. "
Some thoughts, FWIW:
-
If you look at the context, the "Law" is something given to another, or that another gives to you. The Star Goddess gives it to us in Liber AL, and we are supposed to give it to others. So it's like, as you go through life, you are nodding at every entity you come across and saying "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law". It is you granting freedom to others, as the Star goddess granted it to you. Like a baton race, or like the Olympic flame being lit from torch to torch. So that's one thing: in effect, you cease to have a quarrel with the Universe, you are (at least in a metaphysical sense) letting everything be as it is. (The political extension is a social structure in which this situation of letting each other be is reflected in a more or less *laissez-faire *set of social rules, liberalism in the broadest sense. Think of one of those Escher "tiling" drawings, or of "cellular automata": it's like, a pattern arises, that is composed of mutual adjustment between parts following simple rules.)
-
The other thing is, who or what is the "thou" being addressed, and what would "selfish" mean in that context? When the Star Goddess gives the Law to us, what does it mean we are supposed to do? Well, who are you, who is the "I"? Say, normally, we think of ourselves as an etherial somewhat, somewhere in the skull, controlling the bag of flesh and bone that houses it. Is that right? Is that the way it *really *is? Who am I really? Who is it who is really being addressed by this exhortation?
-
Altruism is a tricky blighter. I would say that Thelema is definitely against self-sacrifice to others held as an absolute ideal. In some senses, Thelema is a standard form ethical egoism (in philosophical terms) and a Thelemite have as much abhorrence for absolutist Altruism as Nietzsche or Ayn Rand would. However, as Nietzsche pointed out, the truly great-souled person is not a bully, doesn't prey on the weak - on the contrary, seeks out the strong to contest with, and is usually kind-hearted. So, Thelema isn't after a cruel bloodbath in which the strong exploit the weak, it's after stable, progressive and prosperous social structures (that will enable our future incarnations to get on with the practice of mysticism and magick better, or enable more people to do magick more easily - a synergetic acceleration of our evolution). The fundamental problem with altruism, at the metaphysical level, is that, again, it's not really clear on who the "self" that's either being sacrificed, or benefitted by sacrifice, is. At the end of the day, suffering is illusory, so any form of absolutist Altruism is actually a form of arrogance, denying the other's godhood, denying that they are clever enough to see the truth for themselves. It's not that you *should *help others, it's that when you are strong enough you will *naturally *help others (overflow, abundance). But you will only get that strength if you make yourself your primary moral concern (i.e. the idea would be, in a trope, that the only moral "shoulds" that are coherent relate to what you should be doing wrt yourself; you have no moral obligations to others, you merely have obligations you have undertaken as part of the "social contract".)
-