"A Thelemic Utopia"
-
That may be true JPF. But when a speculation on the nature of the afterlife arrives at a conclusion that fully supports a status quo for the wealthy and powerful, it is suspect. It's no different than the little mind-games we play with ourselves to convince ourselves that we are doing what is best.
Just because a person is in once circumstance at a period in their life, doesn't mean that it's necessarily their true will to be in that state their entire life, or that their whole life should be one big karmic debt payoff program.
Justification is beside the point anyway.
-
@AvshalomBinyamin said
"That may be true JPF. But when a speculation on the nature of the afterlife arrives at a conclusion that fully supports a status quo for the wealthy and powerful, it is suspect."
Who speculates?
I couched those ideas in speculative form for the sake of the ignorant. Power can be won, and wealth earned, if one Wills. So the average man is too stupid to investigate his nature, realize his abilities, and act in accordance with his nature--what odds? Any human being with a shred of courage and intelligence is able to raise themselves to whatever heights they Will, providing they act in accord with Nature.
-
Power and wealth can also be obtained through murder and stealing.
People can live contrary to their true wills, and can hurt each other. You have to acknowledge that this happens at least some of the time.
Otherwise, true will is just a meaningless tautology.
-
"Otherwise, true will is just a meaningless tautology."
I kind of understand it as just accepting your own preferences and their function in the universe and going with it. The gods play their sport through us. We are bread for God's sacred feast. Figs plucked from a tree in the Garden. When I need to go there, I can find myself there sometimes, but not always. And when I can't, I still have to worry about things like eating and pooping and working.
The argument seems to always retreat from itself. Learn to oppose every thought, and all that. If it gets concrete, force it to the higher (yes, I'm guilty). If it gets too abstract, force it to the lower. We keep chasing this discussion up and down through the planes. Or, if I'm using the wrong words, does that make sense?
Personally, I think our own ability to do this with this argument demonstrates once again that a concrete "Thelemic utopia" necessarily depends on the time, geography, culture, circumstances, etc. for what it would look like. In fact, I am convinced we already live in one: Three-pointed balance of power, one point judges between the other two. Our whole system of government reflects occult geometry, and the rules are flexible enough to adapt it to whatever comes next - as long as the people can be made to agree upon it - and I chose those words carefully.
So, I suggest another thread, but you may ignore this if you like.
What if other lifeforms are already evolving and we don't see it? We argue about corporations being "persons," but do they not function like amoeba? And aren't amoeba the kind of hunger-led organisms that will deplete their food supply and die? Are they another form of life that needs to be controlled? I'm not worried so much about creating a Thelemic utopia as much as losing the one we already live in.
"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
"Personally, I wonder if the evolution and empowerment of another, larger (but less adaptable) form is occurring without our realization. Corporations are about to be equal to nations. And, yes, there are Thelemites on either side. And, yes, either can make the case that they are seeking to preserve human life on Earth. And that currently puts me personally on both sides of the issue.
But that's just me wanting to evolve the discussion. Perhaps I am simply waking up to a very old one. I can't tell.
lol... The future looks like Star Wars to me.
-
Here at a certain point I know that several of you (if not all of you in this thread) have not read Magick Without Tears and The Law is for All (I'm sure any edition of it will suffice) for to say that Crowley believed every "man and woman equal" is a farce. Quite frankly he writes in Magick Without Tears (I'll beg you to seek it out where for your self) that although Aiwass has spoken that every man and every woman is a star, not every so-call homo-sapient is a man or a woman. He explains his thesis on this very topic this entire thread is about in his commentaries to the Law - so I suggest you read them before accusing him of having an opinion. Meanwhile, feel free to discuss your own opinions on this topic - but let's not lose sight that all we can have are theories, wishes, and opinions.
-
Well, I for one, confess my ignorance of those works. Just shooting the bull and having a think, man. It's whatever...
Peace.
-
Frater LA, your response to my comment went over my head, and I missed it's connection to my point.
-
Yeah, my bad. I just keep hearing an argument between people who are more concerned or less concerned about their connectedness to others. There's the feeling part of that argument - do you feel with them - and don't only monsters not feel? And there's the practical part of that argument - will you survive without them - and to what depths are you willing to go in order to survive? I tried to demonstrate that in my debate with Labyrinthus. I even unconsciously called my shot beforehand. I just knew how to beat his argument.
This argument goes to the nature of Hadit vs Nuit always. In my mind, Hadit is more linear, individual consciousness. Nuit is more global, collective consciousness. I mean, we're supposed to practice each so that we can control them, but it also generates the ability to see the situation from each of the perspectives. And once you can do that, you can simply take the alternate viewpoint to the one presented. Who knows why we have our preferences? Family of origin? Genetics? Temperament?
But we always just end up playing Vampire and Wolfboy with each other as long as we are only working from our emotional level, with its preferences. We have to find some kind of mathematical point of agreement to base any concrete decision upon.
Otherwise, it's simply verbal fencing to stay in shape.
-
@Takamba said
"Here at a certain point I know that several of you (if not all of you in this thread) have not read Magick Without Tears and The Law is for All (I'm sure any edition of it will suffice) for to say that Crowley believed every "man and woman equal" is a farce."
As much of a farce as, say, condemning "congenital homosexuality" in his later work?
The post-comment Crowley smacks of egotism and self-ignorance, I'm afraid. (This isn't to say, however, that his work is without merit; indeed, despite his conundrums, ego trips, and contradiction, he still retains his literary genius.)
"Meanwhile, feel free to discuss your own opinions on this topic."
I'm glad we have your permission.
-
@JPF said
"
@Takamba said
"Here at a certain point I know that several of you (if not all of you in this thread) have not read Magick Without Tears and The Law is for All (I'm sure any edition of it will suffice) for to say that Crowley believed every "man and woman equal" is a farce."As much of a farce as, say, condemning "congenital homosexuality" in his later work?"
Find me one work he produced later than Magick Without Tears (his last work). Secondly, if he condemns "congenital homesxuality" (as also I do - well I don't condem so-called "born gay," I condemn the belief in it), what has that to do with what I said? That's an entirely different topic altogether and no one is making or dismissing the claim that he condemned "congenital homesexuality," so there's no farce. What I said (for those who do not know how to read what I wrote) was that claiming Crowley ever said every man and woman is equal (meaning they should be given equal right etc etc etc) is not observant of the fact that he doesn't believe that every bipedal creature with the capacity to vote qualifies as being defined as either a man or a woman. Or to put it to you bluntly, he states that some "people" are merely animals roaming this planet and do not deserve "the rights of Man" (aka Liber OZ) and that any claim contrary that being stated as his is the farce. So no, no farce in his "condeming 'congenital homosexuality'" as I fail to see how claiming to be born without a choice in one's sexual preferences is in alignment with the Law as proclaimed by Liber Legis. Being gay or acting gay via one's Will (or will) to do so is one thing, being "forced" is a farce.
@JPF said
"The post-comment Crowley smacks of egotism and self-ignorance, I'm afraid. (This isn't to say, however, that his work is without merit; indeed, despite his conundrums, ego trips, and contradiction, he still retains his literary genius.)"
What is this "post-comment Crowley?" Please be more specific if you desire to rid Thelema of Crowley.
@JPF said
"
@Takamba said
"Meanwhile, feel free to discuss your own opinions on this topic."I'm glad we have your permission.
"You know I was only teasing, right?
-
While it is correct that Crowley most certainly was no believer in equality of character between all men and women. He did not believe that people should be abused or mistreated either. Rather it is than everyone has a unique purpose or niche and should be treaded accordingly. A horse may not be equal to a gentleman of higher learning and sophistication, and while we do not invite the horse out for brandy and cigars and we do not attempt to tie a plow to the gentleman. We also respect the biological limits of the horse, we realize that it needs time to rest, it needs a healthy diet, etc. It would be a violation of Thelema (The law of fitness) to claim since a horse is less than a man, that it should be severely beaten and driven to plow until it collapses and dies.
Crowley envisioned a meritocracy where the enlightened, the physically fit, the mentally adroit, the spiritually aware, etc would be promoted to a higher class based on passing sever ordeals and having their faculties refined by training, all done according to effective principles discovered by applied science to social and psychological situations. The Grade or degree system would be a means to discern the refinement and proper place of individuals merited social and political caste. (Of course the higher grades teach service to the lower, just as the properly refined farmer serves the needs of the work animals, rather than abusing them.)
Thus the Rule in a Thelemic society is by those who have refined them selves and have mastered their mind, body and emotions to the whip of their TRUE WILL. Such that they are properly able to comport themselves as leaders of men, not so refined and self controlled. Giving them a role model to look up to, showing them guidance in life and in specialized art, crafts, science etc. That they will rule with a firm but kind hand, not abusing the natural qualities of the "slaves" who serve. Rather helping the slaves to refine them selves and to express their highest potential within the field they work. When the workers are happy, treated well, and expressing their fullest potential, then the society as a whole prospers, including those with higher ranking roles.When the ruling class is cruel and mistreats the working class, you get vindictive workers who are lazy and rebellious, who may slack off, purposely injure themselves to get out of work, became addicts to self medicate dis-satisfaction, even may riot and revolt, ether violently or in the form of trade unions using political power.
-
@Froclown said
"While it is correct that Crowley most certainly was no believer in equality of character between all men and women. He did not believe that people should be abused or mistreated either. Rather it is than everyone has a unique purpose or niche and should be treaded accordingly. A horse may not be equal to a gentleman of higher learning and sophistication, and while we do not invite the horse out for brandy and cigars and we do not attempt to tie a plow to the gentleman. We also respect the biological limits of the horse, we realize that it needs time to rest, it needs a healthy diet, etc. It would be a violation of Thelema (The law of fitness) to claim since a horse is less than a man, that it should be severely beaten and driven to plow until it collapses and dies.
Crowley envisioned a meritocracy where the enlightened, the physically fit, the mentally adroit, the spiritually aware, etc would be promoted to a higher class based on passing sever ordeals and having their faculties refined by training, all done according to effective principles discovered by applied science to social and psychological situations. The Grade or degree system would be a means to discern the refinement and proper place of individuals merited social and political caste. (Of course the higher grades teach service to the lower, just as the properly refined farmer serves the needs of the work animals, rather than abusing them.)
Thus the Rule in a Thelemic society is by those who have refined them selves and have mastered their mind, body and emotions to the whip of their TRUE WILL. Such that they are properly able to comport themselves as leaders of men, not so refined and self controlled. Giving them a role model to look up to, showing them guidance in life and in specialized art, crafts, science etc. That they will rule with a firm but kind hand, not abusing the natural qualities of the "slaves" who serve. Rather helping the slaves to refine them selves and to express their highest potential within the field they work. When the workers are happy, treated well, and expressing their fullest potential, then the society as a whole prospers, including those with higher ranking roles.When the ruling class is cruel and mistreats the working class, you get vindictive workers who are lazy and rebellious, who may slack off, purposely injure themselves to get out of work, became addicts to self medicate dis-satisfaction, even may riot and revolt, ether violently or in the form of trade unions using political power."
Begone! ye mockers; even though ye laugh in my honour ye shall laugh not long: then when ye are sad know that I have forsaken you.
He that is righteous shall be righteous still; he that is filthy shall be filthy still.
Yea! deem not of change: ye shall be as ye are, & not other. Therefore the kings of the earth shall be Kings for ever: the slaves shall serve. There is none that shall be cast down or lifted up: all is ever as it was. Yet there are masked ones my servants: it may be that yonder beggar is a King. A King may choose his garment as he will: there is no certain test: but a beggar cannot hide his poverty.
Beware therefore! Love all, lest perchance is a King concealed! Say you so? Fool! If he be a King, thou canst not hurt him.
Therefore strike hard & low, and to hell with them, master!
"It has naturally been objected to by economists that our Law, in declaring every man and every woman to be a star, reduces society to its elements, and makes hierarchy or even democracy impossible. The view is superficial. Each star has a function in its galaxy proper to its own nature. Much mischief has come from our ignorance in insisting, on the contrary, that each citizen is fit for any and every social duty. But also our Law teaches that a star often veils itself from its nature. Thus the vast bulk of humanity is obsessed by an abject fear of freedom; the principal objections hitherto urged against my Law have been those of people who cannot bear to imagine the horrors which would result if they were free to do their own wills. The sense of sin, shame, self-distrust, this is what makes folk cling to Christianity-slavery. People believe in a medicine just insofar as it is a nasty; the meta-physical root of the this idea is in sexual degeneracy of the masochistic type. Now "the Law is for all"; but such defectives will refuse it, and serve us who are free with a fidelity the more dog-like as the simplicity of our freedom denotes their abjection."
- Aleister Crowley (stated. Believe what thou will) -
Right, so even the slave class who are unable to seek out the ordeals and mastery of their own WILL, are still acting according to their natural orbit and function by serving, and the difference between old and new aeon slavery is that the new aeon masters work to provide labor and opportunity to as close an approximation of the right and proper function of the slave, as anyone can ascertain for anyone else.
The shall serve with dog like loyalty, and a dog will often serve a loving master equally as an abusive one, but the proper master will tread a dog according to it's needs and use a dog according to it's function. Likewise the slaves shall serve, but the reward of service is being treated with kindness and the service requested is within the ability and nature of the slave called upon to perform the activity. (One would not call upon a male slave to give birth and then beat him senseless for failing to get pregnant, any more than one would expect a slave with no hands to perform a piano recital, or a retarded person to perform mathematical equations, or a timid person to express hostility and anger.) The work must be attributed according the the general WILL of the individual, taking into account, the physical prowess, psychological state, education, gender, race, nationality, and social class of the individual.
-
So keeping in mind that this meritocracy is also itself restricting, that is - one does not become President of the Nation simply because of one's skill at Basketball - and many other topics about class system and judgments written by Crowley, we admit that neither the golden rule nor the golden mean are accurate descriptions of anything (except in cases of the Golden Mean seen in works of nature, art & magick, but not in politics).
-
Yes, of course each person can not be and do everything, that is what makes us one particular being and not BEING itself.
The universe (Nuit) creates limits and division in herself in order to manifest as a particular perspective (Hadit).
If everyone where limitless and equal, there would not be anyone at all, there would only be ayn soph or Nuit, just one amorphous plastic nothingness.
That is why liberalism shows as Nietzsche put it "A will to nothingness", that is a will to not exist, to destroy all existence, by removing all distinctions. They want to remove these distinctions because of a strong sense that they are themselves inferior and if judged on their own merit they would be unworthy of life. Thus they express this as extreme sensitivity and empathy, even for inanimate objects and perspectives and prepositions. They will not allow even a distinction of TRUE and False, instead everyones "opinion" must be accepted as equally true, out of fear that anyone or anything might be "Judged" and found less than anything else. If the liberal sees anything deemed unworthy, "he or more often she" gets upset, because he is reminded of his own sense of inferiority. Thus the liberal takes up all kinds of causes than are not her own, and often hurts those causes by interfering it ways that make them feel like they are compassionate and thus a temporary sense of worth, in there crusade to destroy all values and judgments
Too often people believe "Do what thou wilt" means than anyone can do anything and we are all equal and the same, ie they interpret Thelema as a liberal mandate. The Liber-al, spelling is not much of a help, even if we insist that it was originally Liber L, as in Life, Love, Liberty and Law. In any effect, the liberal interpretation is very far from the actual sentiments expressed in Liber L and it is actually an expression of the forces of degeneration rather that regeneration of the occult tradition. Thus this liberal interpretation is an expression against True WILL, it is the dispersion of Choronzon, the activity of the black brotherhood.
Unfortunately it seems like all of the Thelemic orders are heavily influenced by this liberal slave mentality, but it seems the tides are changing. We need to get behind people like Keith418, John Crow, and Tau Omphallos, Erwin Hessle, Ash and IAO131, I am sure there are others. But these are a few I have met whom have the right star in sight, and have the dedication to seek it out. These might be the Exorcists we need, the St. Patricks whom might chase the snakes out of Emerald city.
-
I have called myself a liberal from time to time... and I judge your last post as pure rubbish and FALSE.
You say All Liberals don't do X.
I say, I will call myself a Liberal and do X.Care to be wrong some more?
-
@Tinman said
"You say All Liberals don't do X."
Timan, I did not see where Froclown said that. Can you please quote him exactly to demonstrate your point?
@Froclown said
"They will not allow even a distinction of TRUE and False, instead everyones "opinion" must be accepted as equally true,"
In my experience this is an accurate observation, along with most of your other comments. Of course these are to be understood as general in nature and there is the odd exception now and then.
-
"Froclown wrote:
They will not allow even a distinction of TRUE and False, instead everyones "opinion" must be accepted as equally true,In my experience this is an accurate observation, along with most of your other comments. Of course these are to be understood as general in nature and there is the odd exception now and then."
I am reminded of the story of the blind men, feeling different parts of an elephant and asserting what they percieve an elephant to be...
the one grabbing his tale says an elephant is like a snake
the one with his ear, says it is like a fan....ect.
all based on limited perceptionsOpinions are based on perceptions, and unfortunately not many on this plane have clear, unbaised perceptions.
-
"the difference between old and new aeon slavery is that the new aeon masters work to provide labor and opportunity to as close an approximation of the right and proper function of the slave, as anyone can ascertain for anyone else."
And I completely challenge your personal ability to make that appoximation. Will you make slaves of others? Based on what?
Do not pass up this challenge. Accept it, or your entire argument is simply masturbating into the wind and blindness to the other perspective. It is not worthy of debate. This is when argument and debate is forbidden. Success is your proof. Shut up and put your money where your mouth is. That, sir, is my gauntlet across your face. If you be a true human being and not a mere parasite, prove it to me.
Believing that something like you suggest is possible is completely different from the individuality-destroying ordeal of having it done TO you - having another's ideas FORCED UPON YOUR CONSCIOUSNESS BEFORE YOUR SANITY HAS THE ABILITY TO DEAL WITH IT. It suggests to me that you while you believe in the possibility of a theory, you have never personally experienced it for yourself. You have not tested nor proven your theory. You present no results. No statistics. No peer-reviewed scholarship. No understanding of the pointless madness that can errupt when untrained minds are forced to deal with the illusions of their own individuality.
Even Masters students in academia defend before a panel of three - that's how deep the ancient wisdom goes. Earn your stripes, commander. Show me you know the rules before you try to pick and force the lock of MY mind. Give me statistics. Give me results. I demand them before God and before my own heart.
Give us science. Keep your faith.
From my apparently oh-so-flawed watery and salty perspective? You don't know the heavenly language. You can't speak it because you don't know the stories of the Father in Autumn. You know the stories of the Child, and that is all. But who will teach your child to survive? Other children? Children eat with the same fingers they clean themselves with. This, sir, is why the Father in Autumn has ordained strict and difficult ordeals - to make sure he is understood clearly - and not disrespected as a mumbling old man. There are reasons for the boundaries, and you do not show me your familiarity with them.
Instead, you prefer to believe yourself to be separate from everything else, and to act as if that side of the illusion is the only side. You do not fully realise your interdependence, nor the threat to your own longterm happiness, success, and survival, as well as that of LIFE, if you reject without analysis the opinions and understanding of those who are more experientially convinced of that perfected interdependence.
I challenge you on the criteria you personally base your selection. For there hinges your entire argument. For you are all Shin, and have not shown any respect for Mem. You are all Sulpher, and have not shown any respect for Salt. You are all Son, and have not shown any respect for Mother. But the stories of the old father warn us of such as you.
Give us science. Keep your faith.
The boundaries of consciousness prevent us from going insane, they keep the chariot together, they are the hedge of protection that keeps us from being awash in an unknown sea of fear and nightmare. To me, I just see you pushing in one direction. You're like a child who has found the pleasure of his penis and believes that everyone should have only penises so that you don't have to be ashamed of the pleasure of your own. But you don't realize the consequences for yourself and others.
May I please refer you to the *****, *******, and ******** argument found in Team America. Or the "breathe in union, so as one survive another day and season" argument found in the song Jambi on Tool's 10,000 Days project. For there is the wisdom of the old father in the language of the child.
"If everyone where limitless and equal, there would not be anyone at all, there would only be ayn soph or Nuit, just one amorphous plastic nothingness. "
This is precisely what I argue that we are, from the perspective of Mem, Salt, Nuit, and Mother.
You try to confine, to limit us, to RESTRICT us to being Shin, Fire, Hadit, and Father alone, and you draw a boundary line against us if we don't restrict ourselves to your own labels and language for us. Careful. I resist such brain-washing from the core of my very existence, both for myself and for others. For the right to resist such thinking, I am willing to be forever barred from the A.'.A.'. I am willing to fight, I am willing to die, and I am willing to deserve eternal damnation if I am only allowed your perspective of myself.Now. Speak reasonably. Your insults and disrespect of other stars reveals your character.
I've warned before that this is a trick of language only. It is shadow-boxing, fencing for sport, defining all others in respect to your own perspective, and attempting to force them to accept your own opinion of them. You are not open to the possibility that you require guidance from the past, nor from more "sensitive" stars.
Tell me, do you prefer sensitive antennae, or dull ones?
Speaking metaphysically and metaphorically, you are in danger of losing your *memory *- that which preserves the very stability of consciousness itself. Well, I know the old stories. I learn from the old stories, and I respect the Wheel of Time. You don't seem to have any respect for the Father in Autumn or his Wisdom. Is your ear not tuned to his voice? Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
"They want to remove these distinctions because of a strong sense that they are themselves inferior and if judged on their own merit they would be unworthy of life. Thus they express this as extreme sensitivity and empathy, even for inanimate objects and perspectives and prepositions."
Yes, precisely, we've already had the shadow conversation. Were you not reading along? Have you no memory of it? Can you not see when you do it yourself? Perhaps you need more sensitive antennae:
"Unfortunately it seems like all of the Thelemic orders are heavily influenced by this liberal slave mentality, but it seems the tides are changing. We need to get behind people like Keith418, John Crow, and Tau Omphallos, Erwin Hessle, Ash and IAO131, I am sure there are others. But these are a few I have met whom have the right star in sight, and have the dedication to seek it out. These might be the Exorcists we need, the St. Patricks whom might chase the snakes out of Emerald city."
The above is my citation of an example of you doing the precise thing of which you accuse your shadow self. Don't say you didn't say that. This has been your technique for the years I have known you and the various names under which you have debated.
I continually and faithfully point you to the perpetual flaw in your unbalanced reasoning, which you continuously spew out to us because of your blindness to your own insecurities and motives.
" Yea! deem not of change: ye shall be as ye are, & not other.
THEREFORE!
the kings of the earth shall be Kings for ever: the slaves shall serve. There is none that shall be cast down or lifted up: all is ever as it was. Yet there are masked ones my servants: it may be that yonder beggar is a King. A King may choose his garment as he will: there is no certain test: but a beggar cannot hide his poverty. [emphasis mine]"Give me science. Keep your faith. And don't you cite those other names unless you are willing to be bound by their standards. Because before God I bind you to them. I happen to know that they are infinitely higher than your own, since you provide not one scrap of empirical support for the theoretical process of selection into "slaves" and "kings."
I will remind you that your own perspective is based entirely on your personal preferences alone, and upon much science fiction.
"Nietzsche put it "A will to nothingness""
That, sir, is the very will to Nuit. And your blindness to that reveals the very heart and nature of your fundamentalism.
A free man owns no slaves.
-
Two statements;
a. Vanilla is the best flavor of ice cream
b. water at sea level boils at 100C
One is an opinion and the other is a fact. I think Froclown was commenting on how modern liberalism has confused the two somewhat, but beyond this he ought to step in and speak for himself.
Personally, from what I have seen, the degree to which some liberals lack the capacity to separate opinion from fact borders on insanity. The "maybe my Truth isn't your Truth" reply is often the last line of defense for modern liberals desperately seeking some way to prop up their house of deep denial cards.