Diversity of Thelema
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@gurugeorge said
"Thelema is ultimately an anarchy, or it should be - or rather, by golly, it WILL be."FWIW, I really disagree with this. Though Theleme is freedom-oriented, it's not anarchical. It's core principles are only operative in a context of almost pristine order. There is no "absence of a cohesive principle" in the universe as described by Liber Legis.
It is chaotic - in the since that the pristine order is not generally visible at a level where it can be seen."
"Anarchy" in a political context means "absence of rulers" - you can have spontaneous social order without central direction and control, and that is the way the world is going, and will go.
IOW, we need to see how little government we can get away with - it's an ideal that we may never fully reach, but we should aim to have as much of the order in society be spontaneous as possible, and as little as absolutely necessary be ordered from the centre.
The reason for this is epistemological: it's simply functionally better to have 3 billion brains thinking about what's good for 3 billion people than half a dozen brains thinking about what's good for 3 billions people, plus the 3 billion people severally have unique knowledge about their local conditions that are inaccessible to any central control (though this might become possible in the future with sufficiently advanced technology). This is also why the institution of several (private) property enables societies upholding it to progress faster.
-
@Alrah said
"Of course - 3 billion people wouldn't be thinking about what's good for 3 billion people. If we're thinking about semi-direct democracy, people will vote about what they know about. "
Agreed, that's what I'm saying. 1 brain per person is quite sufficient
Well, maybe a few brains (family, friends, workmates, SIG-mates (special interest groups)).But it's all to do with local knowledge about local conditions - and not just local knowledge, but local knowledge some of which is tacit, and/or embodied in individuals and couldn't even in principle be gatherable by a central intelligence to aid its calculations (unless one is talking about some kind of deus ex machina AI with feeds from all our several streams of experience, and a tap into our thinking processes).
Basically, democracy only works when the people involved know each others' asses. It's highly local, and more and more vulnerable to gaming by "free riders" at higher and higher levels.
OTOH, one can construct a sort of ascending ladder of abstraction. What I mean is, democracy can work at higher and higher level groupings IF the things voted on are at a sufficiently abstract level. e.g., if there were two "parties", one of which was pacifist and wouldn't defend the highest-level relevant geogrpahical grouping (let's imagine something like nations still exist, at least in a linguistic-cultural sense), the other of which proclaimed its willingness to organise national defence, then the populace would have a clear choice at an abstract level about which it would be possible to seek a "General Will" (cf. Rousseau). Things like national defence, some public infrastructure, perhaps a safety net - those kinds of high-level questions (whether we want such things, and what broad form they should take) can be decided by large-scale democracies; and they are also (perhaps - of course it's all arguable) things that couldn't be supplied by a totally pure anarchy (at present levels of technology).
But questions like (e.g.) how much food *this *individual should have, are best suited to the decision of *that individual *(and/or family, etc.); moving up the scale, the question of, e.g., whether the local community should have a public bath, is a question that can be decided at a more concrete level by that community. And so on and so forth. Because of this, and because of the simple fact of diversity of interests and goals, as you get to more and more concrete levels of "what is to be done", it is less and less possible to discern a true General Will (i.e. an opinion and will about the matter, formed at a national level).
At any rate, the real road to anarchy is to focus on how little government can we get away with. Sort of like political Jenga
But we must never forget Uncle Ben's admonition to Peter Parker: "with great power comes great responsibility". "Power" is of course freedom!
-
I fear the day Thelema goes through it's Council of Nicaea.
-
@Shiva Tseba'oth said
"I fear the day Thelema goes through it's Council of Nicaea."
-
I think Magicians can be naturally testy and strong-minded and sometimes get in each other's way. That said, rather than "wishing for unity" I wish people would stop being so petty about personal or pseud-political disputes that they cannot put larger goals before their own egos. I think much division comes from much insecurity along the lines of "i didn't get picked for your team first so I'm leaving". Maybe just my perception. But shouldn't strong-willed individuals be able to put aside (even rather large) differences if the success or failure of Thelema as a movement is at stake? I certainly hope so--and I'm a bitch.
-
Thanks for you replies and the Netzach quote was fitting. Yes, I just had this happen today when I tried to share a past life experience and instead of someone getting my meaning, they rather went for the "thanks for keeping it real, Ron."
I don't think Thelema will ever go through its council of Nicea, at least I hope not. Different organizations might attept this.
I feel we've barely scratched the surface of what the Book of the Law means, and to each individual this is intensely personal.
All myths, beliefs, cultural stories shared have value, imo.
I think the whole group dynamic gets caught up in idealology and misses out on the individual a lot of times.
I'll just put it this way:
Which is more important, promulgating thelema or helping an individual find their true will?
I am a big believer in past lives, I also feel someone could choose to cease to exist too, and even undo that at a later time. I think past/present/future and alternative time lines exist simultaenously, and there are still reality tunnels that spring into being anew too.
It would be interesting, like how the Dali Lama is sometimes picked out by the buddhists priests as the reincarnation of a previous Lama, if that would start happening in Thelemic circles. After all Thelema is over 100 years old.
-
@Frater Sabaechi said
"I don't think Thelema will ever go through its council of Nicea, at least I hope not. Different organizations might attept this."
Remember that the original Council of Nicea was just one particular organization... Don't underestimate the risk from individual organizations.
"I think the whole group dynamic gets caught up in idealology and misses out on the individual a lot of times. "
Yes. Similarly, the whole individualism dynamic gets caught up in ideology and misses out on the collective a lot of the time.
"Which is more important, promulgating thelema or helping an individual find their true will?"
While this is a false question (meaning, it requires one to buy into an artificial division), I'd actually have to say that the former is more important - because that has the capacity to transform the whole planet. Gradually changing the "baseline" makes it easier for more individuals to make the shift.
-
"Which is more important, promulgating thelema or helping an individual find their true will"
Isn't that what Thelema is about? Even in sectarianism, Thelema still takes us a step closer to helping the indivisual find their true will. I'm not saying that it CAN'T become another slave system, and eventually likely will, but the basis of Thelema still comes down to the individual in core principle.
-
The desire for all to come together as one religion, or one sect, is unrealistic, ignores individuality, and reveals a subconscious, infantile wish to be parented.
Religion is not God/dess, it is not Deity; it is an institution created by and for certain individuals with certain related interests, values, temperments, i.e. culture. To have a varied and diverse religious, and I might add, political and economic systems, is healthy and conducive to human growth and evolution, individually, which is inherent in the evolution of the species.
How many dishes of chicken and rice are there throughout the world? There is Pacific Islander, Japanese, Chinese, Thai, Afgahn, Persian, Indian, Palistinian, African, Italian, Spanish, Greek, Mexican etc. Some taste better to one than another; some are too spicy for one, too bland for another. Would you want to have one dish, one choice? What about in future lives?
In biology, economics and other sciences, usually diversity is a strength. The Constitution is based on the idea of diverse governing power; would you put the power of religion in one group's hands?
-
93, Well, speaking for myself, I said not a thing about patening Thelema under one power. I do believe I said I support a unity , but I do not agree in some canonical format created for all Thelemites and would-be Thelemites.
Too, anyone on this site surely must have some that "infantile" desire for brotherhood. Else you wouldn't be on here. When it comes down to it, it is all up to the individual on whether they choose to become involved in anything, or not.
It is
"unrealistic, ignores individuality, and reveals a subconscious, infantile wish"
to expect all to conform to your idea of what is and is not individual, what the individual chooses to do to conform to your ideas, and to put down any others who do choose to join something... That's all your opinion.Just my opinion...
-
"anyone on this site surely must have some that "infantile" desire for brotherhood. Else you wouldn't be on here."
That's an excellent point.
-
93,
When this topic comes up, I always detect a subtle desperation. It relates to the fear that somehow a particular Thelemic perspective will be imposed on us: we'll all have to memorize the same chapter of the same Holy Book, or agree on a given interpretation of RSPTOVAL etc. The thing that we need, then, is the realization that no-one but ourselves is going to limit us.
I do think if we view Thelema as an emerging *social *convention, there's a danger. I've always looked askance at people who exhibit a great need to propagate Thelemic philosophy, especially the kind that involves dogmatic libertarianism. That strikes me as the shortest road to the dead hand of imposed rule. I think of it as "The NRA model for social enlightenment," where you raise huge amounts of cash, and then intimidate all your opponents for not supporting total 'freedom.'
If, on the other hand, the goal is capital-E Enlightenment, the possibility of effective networks becomes much more likely.
93 93/93,
Edward
-
@Edward Mason said
"93,
When this topic comes up, I always detect a subtle desperation. It relates to the fear that somehow a particular Thelemic perspective will be imposed on us: we'll all have to memorize the same chapter of the same Holy Book, or agree on a given interpretation of RSPTOVAL etc. The thing that we need, then, is the realization that no-one but ourselves is going to limit us.
I do think if we view Thelema as an emerging *social *convention, there's a danger. I've always looked askance at people who exhibit a great need to propagate Thelemic philosophy, especially the kind that involves dogmatic libertarianism. That strikes me as the shortest road to the dead hand of imposed rule. I think of it as "The NRA model for social enlightenment," where you raise huge amounts of cash, and then intimidate all your opponents for not supporting total 'freedom.'
If, on the other hand, the goal is capital-E Enlightenment, the possibility of effective networks becomes much more likely.
93 93/93,
Edward"
93,
You probably would have spent a lot of time looking askance at Crowley then.
""O my Son, in the Promulgation of the Law lieth the Reward of our Chief Work, the making whole of Mankind from the Conscience of Sin which divideth him, and afflicteth his Spirit." -Aleister Crowley, Liber Aleph
"The open preaching of this Law, and the practice of these precepts, will arouse discussion and animosity, and thus place thee upon a rostrum whence thou mayst speak unto the people." -Aleister Crowley, "Liber CCC: Khabs Am Pehkt"
"Note also, pray thee, this word: "The Law is for all." Do not therefore "select suitable persons" in thy worldly wisdom; preach openly the Law to all men.' and 'All those who have accepted the Law should announce the same in daily intercourse. "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law" shall be the invariable form of greeting. These words, especially in the case of strangers, should be pronounced in a clear, firm, and articulate voice, with the eyes frankly fixed upon the bearer." -Aleister Crowley, "Liber CCC: Khabs Am Pehkt"
"The special tracts written by Us, or authorized by Us, should be distributed to all persons with whom those who have accepted the Law may be in contact." -Aleister Crowley, "Liber CCC: Khabs Am Pehkt""For more such quotes: ararita.org/content/promulgation-law-thelema
93, 93/93
-
@FiliusBestia said
"93, Well, speaking for myself, I said not a thing about patening Thelema under one power. I do believe I said I support a unity , but I do not agree in some canonical format created for all Thelemites and would-be Thelemites.
Too, anyone on this site surely must have some that "infantile" desire for brotherhood. Else you wouldn't be on here. When it comes down to it, it is all up to the individual on whether they choose to become involved in anything, or not.
It is
"unrealistic, ignores individuality, and reveals a subconscious, infantile wish"
to expect all to conform to your idea of what is and is not individual, what the individual chooses to do to conform to your ideas, and to put down any others who do choose to join something... That's all your opinion.Just my opinion..."
Hey FiliusBestia, I wasn't commenting directly at you or anyone else, so don't take it too personally. However, I will say that people (including myself) often say things unaware of the consequences of their actions or statements. This is a case in point, unity is unity regardless of what you call it, what power structure is placed on it etc. and my point is that unity is anathema to me; diversity is where our future lies. I've given you an analogy to help illustrate the point, and sited the conclusions that various sciences support as well.
Also, I am highly critical of all propaganda systems, such as Political Correctness that attempt to stifle analytical thinking, or weaken argument. I don't need to preface every post or every statement where I know there might be disagreement with, "in my opinion..." . It's useless, it weakens the argument, it's poor grammar and it is evidence of fear. The best approach is to decide on an argument, apply it with all one's being, and be ready to abandon it for something better. I fail to see the necessity to tie ones self-esteem to how whether the group validates a certain statement as true or not; it is all absurd anyhow. The larger one fails, blunders etc. the larger one learns.
-
@Puck
I wouldn't recommend that anyone choose as their motto: "What would Crowley do"...
He had many goals; some failed and some succeeded. It's not incumbent upon any of us to take up the mantle of any of them, unless it's part of our true will. Of course, had you known him personally, I'm sure he would have accepted your money and obedience whether or not it was your true will....
The problem I see, is that nascent religions usually start off with supreme goals of truth and personal development, but inevitably abandon these for more exoteric, tangible goals. In fact, the ability to do so is often the hallmark of a successful religion. The Catholic church has already been brought up in this thread. And I would be wary of any one who would see the Catholic church as an example of success. Because the success seems primarily rooted in power and money.
Of course, this cycle is repeated, and each new group seems to imagine that their "truth" is powerful enough to protect them from the fate of others. But this seems naive to me.
-
@AvshalomBinyamin said
"@Puck
I wouldn't recommend that anyone choose as their motto: "What would Crowley do"...
He had many goals; some failed and some succeeded. It's not incumbent upon any of us to take up the mantle of any of them, unless it's part of our true will. Of course, had you known him personally, I'm sure he would have accepted your money and obedience whether or not it was your true will....
The problem I see, is that nascent religions usually start off with supreme goals of truth and personal development, but inevitably abandon these for more exoteric, tangible goals. In fact, the ability to do so is often the hallmark of a successful religion. The Catholic church has already been brought up in this thread. And I would be wary of any one who would see the Catholic church as an example of success. Because the success seems primarily rooted in power and money.
Of course, this cycle is repeated, and each new group seems to imagine that their "truth" is powerful enough to protect them from the fate of others. But this seems naive to me."
93,
Success in anything temporal is rooted in power and money.
As far as seeing the Roman Catholic Church as being an example of success...well, it depends on what you mean by success. Success as far as having shaped western civilization seems a check. Success as far as persisting as an institution and worldview for millennia seems a check, too. Sure, they have misused the fruits of their success again and again, from the Crusades to modern molestation issues, but their success as far as actually being able to accomplish what they wish cannot be contested.
If you aren't interested in organized Thelema, that's fine, to each their own.
As far as asking "what would Crowley do"...Crowley attained. He used specific methods to do so. Why would I not pay attention them if my goal is to attain? I pay attention to what all of those who have attained did and consider what they would have done. It's funny how this always seems to apply to magick and spirituality and not something like playing guitar or coding. I suppose this depends on your goals, though. I have no interest in reinventing wheels when not only have others invented perfectly functional ones but they have, in fact, progressed to jets. I wish to accomplish the Great Work, not feed my postmodern, oh-so-cool need to reject the very notion that other people may have known things I do not and that if I didn't invent it myself it is some sort of weakness or concession to weakness. In various other spiritual traditions we see gurus and chelas, masters and apprentices, etc, and in those traditions people actually attain. These oh-so-cool views, some of which stem from American individualism and some from the chaos magick current, simply don't produce the results, at least not for me (I did try, for many years).
93, 93/93
-
@Alrah said
"
@hepuck said
"
Success in anything temporal is rooted in power and money."Just a form of energy. Kept in one place it dissapates and stagnates. Dissapated it holds no force. So you might say that success in anything temporal is an appreciation of the balance between movement and inertia and the skillfull management of energy between these two states.
I think money and power sometimes have very different meanings to women and men."
93
Valid point. I actually argued something similar in a political philosophy paper a few years back. I would be interested in a little more of your thought on the notion of wealth as dynamic exchanges of energy. For example, all wealth, from a physical asset to an intellectual asset, is essentially "stored up" value; however, as you point out, this "storing up" seems to tend towards the dissipation of value at the most and diminishing returns on the invested energy versus the energy recoverable at the least...we are always putting more into wealth than we are getting out of it. However, as Foucault points out, this is because of how we deal with the notion of "security" and stems from some specific changes that happened as feudal societies gave way to merchant economies. This means, or at least I think it means (I am not a thinker of a class with Foucault) that this methodology of wealth is constructed and voluntary, which means we can change it. In what way do you think the notion could be changed to get a more efficient methodology of wealth?
I don't particularly care for money or power as a part of my personal goals. I'm primarily motivated by knowledge and art, and power over others usually leads to responsibility I would rather not have over the lives of others. I mean, c'mon, I studied philosophy in school and I am a writer...if I actually was worried about money I would have made some very different choices. However, without money many, many options aren't available for making choices, and the kind of power I seek is the ability to have and actualize more choices. Insofar as money can get me that, then I think I need it.
93, 93/93
-
ThePuck, 93
"You probably would have spent a lot of time looking askance at Crowley then."
Not necessarily. I did say 'doctrinaire libertarianism.' There's a particular variety that I come across a lot that is nowhere near as flexible as Crowley's own thinking. It looks down its nose at those who are not smart enough to appreciate its superiority to all other forms of thinking, then gets nasty when it's challenged.
I'm quite okay being a classic somewhat-leftie anarchist, however.93 93/93,
Edward
-
@hepuck said
"
@AvshalomBinyamin said
"@PuckI
93,Success in anything temporal is rooted in power and money.
As far as seeing the Roman Catholic Church as being an example of success...well, it depends on what you mean by success. Success as far as having shaped western civilization seems a check. Success as far as persisting as an institution and worldview for millennia seems a check, too. Sure, they have misused the fruits of their success again and again, from the Crusades to modern molestation issues, but their success as far as actually being able to accomplish what they wish cannot be contested.
93, 93/93"
Hey thePuck, I agree that success in antyhing temporal is rooted in power in money ( I think Crowley alludes to this in "The Book of Thoth"), what I disagree with is your perspective on this. The Catholic Church is only a success from one perspective, but not from the peoples' perspective whose wealth, money, power, and sons and daughters they stole (I refer all readers to the movie, "The Mission", for a perspective on this). You see, the Church is one arm of a two arm system of colonisation, the other arm being the political/military structure. All roads lead to Rome, at one time the center of all political and religious power in the western world, for one reason and one reason only, to transfer wealth and power from one group, (at the time they were called the country folk, or pagans), to the center or the top, with every one who helps, military officers, religious leaders etc., getting a little slice of the action as their reward for giving up their freedom and enslaving others.
"As far as asking "what would Crowley do"...Crowley attained. He used specific methods to do so. Why would I not pay attention them if my goal is to attain? I pay attention to what all of those who have attained did and consider what they would have done. It's funny how this always seems to apply to magick and spirituality and not something like playing guitar or coding."
"Agreed....
-
@hepuck said
"
Success in anything temporal is rooted in power and money."As a means, not an ends. It's hard to keep them as a means, both as an individual, and an organization.
@hepuck said
"
As far as seeing the Roman Catholic Church as being an example of success...well, it depends on what you mean by success. Success as far as having shaped western civilization seems a check. Success as far as persisting as an institution and worldview for millennia seems a check, too. Sure, they have misused the fruits of their success again and again, from the Crusades to modern molestation issues, but their success as far as actually being able to accomplish what they wish cannot be contested.
"Sure they're a good example of succeeding at their goals. I'm not criticizing someone who says that a Thelemic organization should have goals to work toward. I'm saying that one might want to scrutinize the goals themselves.
@hepuck said
"
If you aren't interested in organized Thelema, that's fine, to each their own."You can have organized Thelema without Orthodox Thelema. You can host a potluck without prescribing the dishes people bring too.
@hepuck said
"
Why would I not pay attention them if my goal is to attain? I pay attention to what all of those who have attained did and consider what they would have done. It's funny how this always seems to apply to magick and spirituality and not something like playing guitar or coding. I suppose this depends on your goals, though. I have no interest in reinventing wheels when not only have others invented perfectly functional ones but they have, in fact, progressed to jets. I wish to accomplish the Great Work, not feed my postmodern, oh-so-cool need to reject the very notion that other people may have known things I do not and that if I didn't invent it myself it is some sort of weakness or concession to weakness. In various other spiritual traditions we see gurus and chelas, masters and apprentices, etc, and in those traditions people actually attain. These oh-so-cool views, some of which stem from American individualism and some from the chaos magick current, simply don't produce the results, at least not for me (I did try, for many years).
"Here's the thing. I'm not trying to be cooler than anyone else. And we both have the same individual goal: personal attainment. We probably have a similar secondary goal/obligation of wanting to help others also attain, to pay forward the assistance we get from someone else.
That's terrific.
However, having been in a cult myself before, and having devoted much of my life in service (I spent ever weekend from 5 to 23 trying to teach others my "truth", and spent 2 1/2 years slaving for free in a factory to print literature ) I know firsthand how easily an organization's goals can become a substitute for personal goals, and how easily the secondary goals can replace the primary goals. How did the Catholic church spread their culture around the globe? By channeling the devotional energy of their members into physical labor.
Sometimes, an organization will have every intention to help the members attain to their spiritual goals in exchange for some effort toward the group's secondary goals. Sometimes, the organization will deliberately play on a person's individual spiritual yearnings to subvert their energy to their own power and money goals.
In either case, it's simple. Just find out what percentage of members attain to the spiritual stage you wish to attain to, and why.
Finally, if one's primary goal is personal attainment, and an organization's mission statement does not include helping their members reach a level of personal attainment, and one's involvement in said organization is their primary spiritual investment, then some hard thinking would be a good idea.