Diversity of Thelema
-
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.
-
"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."
Nor did I take it expressly personal. More just making a point. There's always two sides to the coin... And yes, I all too often have made the mistake of letting my "alligator mouth outrun my turtle ass," so to say. Lol.
"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."
That is all you. I see no problem either way. It is a matter of that individuality and diversity of which you speak. Just because I belong to an Order does not make me a patented, cookie cutter Thelemite. The individuals make the organization, the organization does not make the individual...
"Also, I am highly critical of all propaganda systems, such as Political Correctness that attempt to stifle analytical thinking, or weaken argument. "
Agreed.
"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."
I validate by my own experience. wisdom, knowledge, and learning. I've never heard my superior say that I HAD to accept something because he said so. I also believe Crowley said to even question him, and his own conclusions, not to take him atface value.
-
@Alrah said
"
It seems as if we're wandering out the door from Thelema and way down the road to something rather more Star Trek. Thelema is such a great system, that there's a temptation to think that we can use Thelemic principles to engender a type of modern utopia of political science and economics - from some type of widespread investment into local and global mechanisms of direct democracy, or through experiments with workers democratics collectives (such as was seen shortly after the fall of the eastern block), and then there are some bartering systems that replaces skills for money, or the micro-economic innovations taking place in India. It's all very superficially exciting, although non of it looks like providing a foundation for a future trekky type society - not the individual carbon footprint idea, or the less popular science fiction theme of the information economy, and we have other rather more sinister concerns that take precidence right now...Right where we are now - it looks like we are at the foothills of a resource war. If you examine the long term political trends and ignore the bs excuses the populace has been given for recent wars (that have allowed the west to reinvest in the army - the UK forces growing by 400% (for instance) by waging war on the cheap to maintain financial dominance) - you can see a clear correlation between preperations for a world war and the time that resources become ultra scarce. You can even see political adjustments occuring as new resources are found to be exploited. What the human race desperately needs is to work together in the same way that we collaborated on the human geonome project - wasting less resources playing prisoners dilema (or whatever - it's been ages since I studied the games) and getting every university and private/public research lab in the world working on developing a source of free energy.
Maybe when we've solved ww3, then we'll have time to focus on political and financial utopia, but not until energy as a resource is made an open system. If there was ever a time for people to get politicised over this issue it is now, and it's precisely for that reason that NOBODY is taking about it. It's a non issue, because the powers that be like nice easy to control sleeping sheep. Its not thier {shagging} planet however."
93,
Well, I am not so much talking about a Thelemic take on wealth, or even a utopian "star trek" one. Just one that addresses the issue of how the storing up and exchange of value in the form of wealth is inefficient and creates a structure for behaviors which is untenable.
Foucault was a modern continental philosopher who died in the 80s and said some very interesting things about power and security. Some of those things included theories about the relation of how value is stored up as wealth, and especially how that value is allowed to move and change forms through a society. He talked about how power never exists in a person or group; instead it exists in the relations between people and groups that allow possibilities for behavior. Some things are existentially unavailable to us as choices not because of who we are but how we are able to relate. A good analogy is that of chess: the pieces have no power or ability outside of the rules of the game and their arrangement on the board. So the secret, according to Foucault, to causing change is to change the modes of interaction, the structures of possible behaviors available to people.
While I agree with some of your direful observations, I don't think global cooperation on any issue is likely, nor do I think it is desirable. Any non-catastrophic "reform" of current structures will still carry the assumptions of the old structures with it. We can't expect that any model of the world that still has concepts like nations, corporations, employment relations, life predicated on economic considerations, etc, etc, etc. to really be any better, and I would argue that we don't even have the real ability to know what better would look like...we are just as defined by our position in the system as anyone else and our ability to see or conceive of things is similarly defined. The current tensions will most likely lead to more and more conflicts over resources, sure, but the problem is not conflict or the resources but how we, as a species, use and distribute our resources. Unless we abandon the modern cults of the dollar, whether the prophet be Marx, Smith, or Keynes, then whatever the root of the value stored up in wealth, it will create the exact same possibilities for behavior.
Let us say a technology for free energy is invented. Immediately there would be a refusal by whoever developed it to just give it away...governments, companies, etc would have to pay for the rights to use it. Whoever had the ability to pay would have limitless energy reserves, while those nations, companies, and individuals who did not would have to keep...well, burning things mostly. This would lead to new conflicts and yet more disparity in standard of living between the "haves" and "have-nots", in turn leading to empire, war, crime, and so on, at the various levels of interaction. So long as the underlying structure, the one built on the exchange of wealth in markets, remains, the problem remains that even given the best of technology and resources, people will then hoard, sell, rent, and fight over those resources.
So, in my opinion, the problem is not one of energy or technology. It's not one of the environment. It's one of seeing the world and the people in it as economic units, regardless of how your particular theory says those economic units should interact. The notion of wealth itself, as the storing up of value, needs to change to be made more efficient and to remove the notion of economic competition. As is, every exchange that is not barter is theft...someone gets more out of the exchange of wealth than they put into it. Just distributing this theft around doesn't help, because the very possibilities for behavior force an underclass, who is never collecting a "profit" for their exchanges of wealth (how much profit is the average minimum-wage worker making on their investment of time and energy? I would say they are taking a loss). So long as this underclass exists, the roots of conflict are built into the society.
Note I am not advocating communism or socialism, either. I am condemning, across the board, any and all views that cut up the units of society using economic principles. We made up the notion of wealth, we made up the notions of economics (regardless of school of thought), and thus they are inherently voluntary. It wasn't always like this and it doesn't have to stay like this. However, I don't think a reform is possible. There must be a collapse, a great "turning away" from the concepts of economics, before a new mode of existence can be conceived. People will need to come to revile the cutting up of society and people into economic units and dynamics, similarly to the response to artificial intelligence in the storyline of Dune...it must be seen that the human race made a mistake that led to its near extinction and that mistake must be enshrined as a great boogeyman. As the people in Dune had the commandment "thou shalt not make a machine in imitation of a human mind" the humans of the future must have a commandment of "thou shalt not make of thyself or thy fellows a commodity".
Thank you for your thoughts on the subject, I found them interesting.
93, 93/93
-
@Alrah said
"Imagine a world where you plugged your free energy device into the wall socket instead of getting it from an industrial source...
I'm pondering the rest for the time being.
Cheers."
93,
But someone would still have to build and service those devices. So long as that was a private company, the problem remains...those who are favored and can pay get free energy, those who can't do not. "Free energy" won't be free because the technology to create/reap/whatever it won't be free.
93, 93/93
-
@Alrah said
"
@hepuck said
"
@Alrah said
"Imagine a world where you plugged your free energy device into the wall socket instead of getting it from an industrial source...I'm pondering the rest for the time being.
Cheers."
93,
But someone would still have to build and service those devices. So long as that was a private company, the problem remains...those who are favored and can pay get free energy, those who can't do not. "Free energy" won't be free because the technology to create/reap/whatever it won't be free.
93, 93/93"
They would be items that everyone wants, so according to the laws of supply and demand, once their market took off then the price of the tech wouldn't be much to buy and would be a one off fee. No different than any other mass produced piece of tech. Enought to subside plenty devices to africa and charitable donations to allieviate poverty. It's no different than computers, TV's. etc. There would be very few people who don't have one or the access to them. People would be paying for the labour and resource that went into making the devices, but the actual energy the devices produces would be free, and under the power and control of indviduals thereby loosening the hold of capitalist tyranny over thier lives.
People would still have to confront the problem of resources running out though Puck, but once energy was settled I doubt it would be an issue to spark a third world conflagration. That's the important thing here."
93,
Ah, I see, you are trying to address a specifically volatile problem. I was merely talking about the notion of wealth and the problems thereof. You are correct in this, in my opinion; a lack of dependence on oil would lead to at least the possibility of untangling the problems in the Middle East, or at least the problems caused by self-interested governments interfering in the Middle East. Some problems aren't about that, such as the Palestine/Israel affair, plus I also think that some of the cultural backlash within various radicalized political and/or religious elements is self-sustaining at this point...it got revved up too much to stop it that simply or quickly.
However, it seems your theory assumes that multiple companies would immediately have access to the technology, which would be unlikely, and that they would sell it in a portable form. What is far more likely, given the way things in the corporate, industrial, and technological markets work, is that one company would develop the technology, then license it to power plants to replace their generators. After that market was saturated through normal competition, then they would license to car manufacturers and public transportation firms. Those markets would take longer to saturate. Then the last thing would be licensing the tech to private firms who build new tech on it, which could then lead to portable, stand-alone generators. The shift off of fossil fuels would be slow and controlled, and the shift to the new technology would be in stepped stages to consolidate control by the firm in question.
Also, your supply/demand equilibrium assumes the validity of Smith's theories. Have you ever seen or heard of a true equilibrium ever really occurring? Does anything ever truly cost what it is worth, especially labor? The math works...if you assume things like perfect knowledge and rational players. But no on has perfect knowledge and no one is really a rational player. This means Smith's theories, as pleasant as they seem, are simply not made for the kind of creature humans happen to be.
In my opinion both Smith and Marx were trying to replace Christianity as the basis for culture. You've got an unseen, ineffable force guiding the process (the historical dialectic or the invisible hand, respectively), you've got something to have faith in (the wisdom of the state or the market, respectively), and you've got a new heaven and new earth (the communist utopia or the equilibrium where everything actually costs exactly what it is worth and all exchanges are perfectly efficient, respectively). Is it any wonder neither of them seem to work very well?
93, 93/93
-
93 Puck,
"
@hepuck said"
@Alrah said
"
So, in my opinion, the problem is not one of energy or technology. It's not one of the environment. It's one of seeing the world and the people in it as economic units, regardless of how your particular theory says those economic units should interact. The notion of wealth itself, as the storing up of value, needs to change to be made more efficient and to remove the notion of economic competition. ....However, I don't think a reform is possible. There must be a collapse, a great "turning away" from the concepts of economics, before a new mode of existence can be conceived. People will need to come to revile the cutting up of society and people into economic units and dynamics, similarly to the response to artificial intelligence in the storyline of Dune...it must be seen that the human race made a mistake that led to its near extinction and that mistake must be enshrined as a great boogeyman. As the people in Dune had the commandment "thou shalt not make a machine in imitation of a human mind" the humans of the future must have a commandment of "thou shalt not make of thyself or thy fellows a commodity".
Amen Brother, Amen!
Thank you for saying that, it is nice to know that whist I try in my little world to share this message with my fellow brother and sisters, there are others doing the same. I have enjoyed your posting on this, even though it has drifted OT, it is a topic that I hold dear.
I have often wondered if the magickal systems of the world should be utilized to enhance the turning away.....
yet I feel that is my ego speaking, saying "you know best dont you;)"You may be interested in reading Daniel Quinn, or Derrick Jensen. Mary Croft has an excelent pdf free book online called _ How I clobbered every cash confiscating agency known to man_ and boy is that little read a whallop!! Contract law is the bottom line, yikes that has such deep implactions.
There is also a film called What a Way to Go, the end of an Empire that you may like. I plan on checking out the author you spoke of, as he seems to resonate deeply with me.
I have been told how magick was utilized to stop the spread of fascist Germany..... I dream that we could do something to change this game we are playing. I have been taught it is a kin to Monopoly, which is an appalling game!
I have had my eyes peeled back in the last year as I learned of what has transpired in the USA in regards to our Republic. I could vent on and on, but this is not the place.
thanks for sharing your ideas and words for they are very inspirational.
-
"Right where we are now - it looks like we are at the foothills of a resource war. If you examine the long term political trends and ignore the bs excuses the populace has been given for recent wars (that have allowed the west to reinvest in the army - the UK forces growing by 400% (for instance) by waging war on the cheap to maintain financial dominance) - you can see a clear correlation between preperations for a world war and the time that resources become ultra scarce. You can even see political adjustments occuring as new resources are found to be exploited. What the human race desperately needs is to work together in the same way that we collaborated on the human geonome project - wasting less resources playing prisoners dilema (or whatever - it's been ages since I studied the games) and getting every university and private/public research lab in the world working on developing a source of free energy."
Completely agreed!
I think human societies living near each other = resource war. And we do need a good new source of energy. Good thing fusion is looking more likely than ever.
-
@Andrey said
"And we do need a good new source of energy."
I personally like the old source of energy that has been burning for a few million years, and will continue for a few million more.....
I think we need a new attitude/perspective/belief about energy....
but thats just me
93