Crowley- Violator of others' Wills?
-
-
Another thing I don't need the book of the law or Thelema to justify my actions.
It does not propose to do such a thing, The book removes restrictions and the need for any authority of any kind, be it man, god or text, to grant authority to do anything. It leave it up to You to decide. If you want to murder and rape your way into infamy, there is no moral injunction in Thelema that forbids it. Rather it has to be up to YOU to chose not to do such things and your own Will that holds you back. Not your fear and Cowardice, if the only thing holding you back from such crimes is fear of the laws or fear of punishment or some kind, then Thelema says to get over the fear and go be a criminal. Rather Out of your own courage and Will power you choose not to do such things, as they are not in line with your own higher self image and your ideal goals and virtues, that is you find such acts distracting and restricting who you want to be, That is the Thelemic reason to abstain. If you are acting out of fear of punishment out of base desire for comfort and security, that is a slaves motive, not a Thelemic one.In a fight the warrior loses by being killed, the dishonorable slave loses by crying uncle and bartering a way out of death.
-
No not institutions, communities, organic societies, based on aristocratic virtues, link to the solar-phallic expression of organic tradition, the respect for the virtuous rather than the degenerates. A community with common values and practices, based on what is life affirming and healthy, and the rule of law based on what is practical as discerned scientifically.
Respect for honourable men and not for degenerates and a media that portrays proudly examples of virtue and strength, not for us to envy and resent, but as examples to emulate in our own way in our own lives.
-
Happy? Your pushing my buttons...
@Froclown said
"Respect for honourable men and not for degenerates and a media that portrays proudly examples of virtue and strength, not for us to envy and resent, but as examples to emulate in our own way in our own lives."
It's the language dude; it's all but identical in tone and substance to the propaganda of the Nazis. The only redeeming part of the above is this: **in our own way in our own lives. **
But here is where I think, even with the clause of individual preference, you don't really want people to be free. It has to do with the main thrust of your argument in so far as you evince to know how we should live, which makes the individual option you mention a lie, especially since you also want to limit what types of images the media will be able to display.
Love and Will
-
@Froclown said
"AIf you want to murder and rape your way into infamy, there is no moral injunction in Thelema that forbids it."
Here again I find you quite easily mistaken, and so sad it is that this is very easy mistake. To become a prisoner is to become no longer free to Do Your Will - ergo, to become a prisoner is to go against your own will. Pretty simple, no?
-
The Philosopher King with the caste system is the organic community.
I mean it is "semi-anarchical" in that the rulers do not need the ruled, it's the men of higher virtue than show the men of lesser virtue an example of what they lack and give them an ideal to strive for.
The higher aristocrat of which the King is the highest example in the land, are self sufficient, free because they are able to use their skills to support their own needs are fundamentally self driven, not need. They are able to use their excess and over flow of virtue as well as wealth to aid others who are not as well adept as they are.
The bum who lives totally off the charity of other's and gives nothing back would be the example of the low man while the king who has by his own merits expanded his power such that his business supplies the whole community and his virtue and wisdom guide the whole kingdom is the example of a man of highest virtue.
People are not born with virtue they must learn it and it grows in them with practice, and not all people have the same potential for virtue, nor are all virtues the same. There is specialisation and differentiation of virtues, which in the Traditional society was the caste system.
It is not that the kings and leaders are demanding sycophants to kiss their feet and slave for them under threat of the whip. It is that they higher noble class gives structure and meaning to the lower classes, the people are motivated by the good and virtuous deeds of the higher man, they are motivated by his courage and strength, by his wisdom and justice. To emulate him.
The slave values are those than claim "all men are to be equal" and so the slave mind is not inspired by great men of virtue, he is offended by them, he resents their power and strength. "How dare he put an airs and claim to be better than other men, better than ME, I should have what he has" The slaves wants to be entitled just by existing, to what the virtuous man had to work for and cultivate himself to earn. When the slave mentality becomes the common ideal, then the people rebel against the better men and steal from him, you have robin hood type mentality, We will take back by hook or by crook, what we are entitled to by virtue of our humanity or by virtue of our equality before the cross. There is disdain for virtue itself, goodness, strength, wisdom, skill, are all held in contempt because they serve to make some men set apart from and superior to others. This is the "Liberal" and the "Modernist" perspective than Thelema is against.
An interesting note, is than the entitlement mentality, says there should be no authority, no men of power above other men and in the same breath demands than "SOMEONE" redistribute wealth and power to secure their entitlements? Who then or by what non-authority will these entitlements by ensured and by what power will the non-authority of the government ensure equality is kept against the natural tendency for some individual to outshine others?
-
Thelema does not specifically forbid subjugating people or abusing people for the hell of it, the same as it does not specifically forbid smoking crack or playing Russian roulette.
Those things have consequences it is left totally up to you, your Will and your "Relationship with your HGA" Which is to say your notion of your own higher self, that you want to became in action and in fact as well as in ideal. There is no authority, no god or moral command that says, Thou shalt not take sport with a loaded rifle. Nor is there any command that says Thou must not harm, abuse or restrict the freedom of others. You may, and in the end YOU have to deal with the consequences.
Now there are injunctions like bind nothing and restriction is the word of sin, and these are instructions to attain the "NUIT" type of awareness. The state of "making no difference" that we are told is the criteria of the King or "Chief of all" that he be initiated into this state or mode of awareness.
Likewise the Hadit state it is said to attain it one must "Drink wine and take strange drugs" that is we discern the awareness of the continuity perspective by releasing all restrictions and we learn of the discrete dissociated perspective by binding oneself with intoxication. In other instructions Crowley teaches that we transcend absolute liberty and absolute binding volition, and learn the are identical, but these are meditation and ritual practices that aid a deeper philosophical understanding of the metaphysics and ethics of Thelema, that can only be fully realised by direct personal experience.
-
@Dar said
"
- And be excellent to each other! "
That has to be the single most important "Commandment" in that list. Party on dude!
- And be excellent to each other!
-
@Froclown said
"I mean it is "semi-anarchical" in that the rulers do not need the ruled, it's the men of higher virtue than show the men of lesser virtue an example of what they lack and give them an ideal to strive for.
The higher aristocrat of which the King is the highest example in the land, are self sufficient, free because they are able to use their skills to support their own needs are fundamentally self driven, not need. They are able to use their excess and over flow of virtue as well as wealth to aid others who are not as well adept as they are.
The bum who lives totally off the charity of other's and gives nothing back would be the example of the low man while the king who has by his own merits expanded his power such that his business supplies the whole community and his virtue and wisdom guide the whole kingdom is the example of a man of highest virtue.
People are not born with virtue they must learn it and it grows in them with practice, and not all people have the same potential for virtue, nor are all virtues the same. There is specialisation and differentiation of virtues, which in the Traditional society was the caste system.
It is not that the kings and leaders are demanding sycophants to kiss their feet and slave for them under threat of the whip. It is that they higher noble class gives structure and meaning to the lower classes, the people are motivated by the good and virtuous deeds of the higher man, they are motivated by his courage and strength, by his wisdom and justice. To emulate him.
The slave values are those than claim "all men are to be equal" and so the slave mind is not inspired by great men of virtue, he is offended by them, he resents their power and strength. "How dare he put an airs and claim to be better than other men, better than ME, I should have what he has" The slaves wants to be entitled just by existing, to what the virtuous man had to work for and cultivate himself to earn. When the slave mentality becomes the common ideal, then the people rebel against the better men and steal from him, you have robin hood type mentality, We will take back by hook or by crook, what we are entitled to by virtue of our humanity or by virtue of our equality before the cross. There is disdain for virtue itself, goodness, strength, wisdom, skill, are all held in contempt because they serve to make some men set apart from and superior to others. This is the "Liberal" and the "Modernist" perspective than Thelema is against.
An interesting note, is than the entitlement mentality, says there should be no authority, no men of power above other men and in the same breath demands than "SOMEONE" redistribute wealth and power to secure their entitlements? Who then or by what non-authority will these entitlements by ensured and by what power will the non-authority of the government ensure equality is kept against the natural tendency for some individual to outshine others?"
The latitude, the freedom to operate and improve oneself, which can only be guaranteed by a generous and liberal form of government is missing. Without an ethical institution empowered with the means and the mandate to protect liberties and provide core entitlements, we might as well consent to the lobotomies, live in debt and servitude our entire lives, get hooked on the drug that makes us docile, happy workers...
Not sure, because the word was not specifically used, but in the event you are covertly promoting a libertarian agenda, I just want to point out that as a philosophy it only sounds good to people without an education that includes an accurate historical perspective. In realty it is a subtle gambit by those with the most money and influence to monopolize all power and influence. People in Kansas are fooled into thinking that the government is holding them back, and they vote to end all regulation and safety net programs. Frankly, I don't buy it. The first thing people do when they manage to amass a fair bit of wealth is to tell themselves they earned it, that's it's all theirs, and that those who probably actually did the work, like the people working in their factories, had nothing to do with it. They also invoke their superior freedom of speech via their ability to 'buy elections' as a cost effective way to change the laws, which will in turn allow them to shamelessly exploit these workers even more so they can become even richer. It's a downward spiral to the kind of governments we see in Southeast Asia where a small upper class controls the army and the army brutalizes the populace.
I suspect, when Crowley produced much of his speculative political writing he was still very much in love with the British Empire—he believed the hype. Because Froclown, lets face it, you are just restating the rationale of the British Empire: we are civilized, they are savages, we are doing them a favor by making them a colony; our superior morality will serve as an example to them and they will be inspired to be more like us!
Love and Will
-
@Dar said
"
@Froclown said
"The Philosopher King with the caste system is the organic community. "Ah. sadly The caste system is not organic but an artificially imposed hierarchy that does not presume that every man and woman is a star.
"Every man and every woman is a star (please start quoting it correctly) - it is NOT Every couple is a star, it is Every Individual is a star. Every Man and Every Woman.... not Every man and woman.
And yes, caste system, even for all the bad taste it leaves in your mouth, is quite natural. Remember that thread that disappeared a while back? The one with the topic of hierarchy and my nifty little poems? Yes, it's that subject, it's natural order. Part of my brain is superior to other parts of my brain, and this may change from day to day. Some monkeys are better at this or that than other monkeys and monkeys that play together are monkeys that stay together. Even in a marriage there has to be place for every thing and every thing in its place. I know Dar that you don't take fondly to orders, but you give them and live them every day - so you might as well come to terms (know thyself, as they say) and admit to loving orders. Trust me, there will be so much less to argue about.
-
@Dar said
"Don't try and teach me English mate."
Is that an order?
@Dar said
"
The only time I take 'orders' are the non verbal ones when I have the right man's cock inside of me... otherwise all bets are off.[Added] - And why should I trust you again?"
So red lights and green lights and speed limits mean nothing to you? I'll remember to watch out for you the next time I'm riding my bicycle.
-
@Dar said
"
@Takamba said
"
@Dar said
"Don't try and teach me English mate."Is that an order?"
You've accorded me no authority over you - so that's a silly question. It may be evidence of my hackles rising however...
"
@Dar said
"
The only time I take 'orders' are the non verbal ones when I have the right man's cock inside of me... otherwise all bets are off.[Added] - And why should I trust you again?"
So red lights and green lights and speed limits mean nothing to you?"
Yes. They're signals that convey information about the social conventions of the road. They aren't 'orders'. Sometimes the lights break and they stick on Red. People use their common sense - look - be safe - and drive through. They don't sit there at the lights thinking 'I must obey the red blesher... I must obey the red blesher...'
" I'll remember to watch out for you the next time I'm riding my bicycle.
"wtf? I'll be the one walking!
So... do you have a 'little woman' that you boss around the Takamba household while you sit on your {***} and be the head monkey?
"Now who's making assumptions. I currently do not have a partner, but when I do, we partner. I for one enjoy what other people add to my life, I don't need another me in my house. i have two arms and two legs and can cook and clean after myself. I always have. Unlike you, I wasn't raised to imagine men/women roles. I only know of things to do - not men things and women things.
-
@Dar said
"
@Takamba said
"I currently do not have a partner, but when I do, we partner. I for one enjoy what other people add to my life, I don't need another me in my house. i have two arms and two legs and can cook and clean after myself. I always have. ...I only know of things to do - not men things and women things."Good.
Now what do you mean when you say that I 'love orders'?"
the human mind loves order. We all do it, we categorize, label, order and systemically explain things to ourselves. Alphabets, numbers, even musical scales all prove this to us. I'm merely suggesting that you are unconsciously destroying yourself in some way or another when you believe you are against orders (hierarchies) for isn't it with order you do your magic (both great and small)?
-
Ok let me clarify again.
The claims made are that economic powers displace the values and virtues of the Traditional ruling class. The arguments made are that the current capitalist economic system does not allow or support the ruling class system.
It seems to me that what you have done is made my argument for me. I am not for the capitalist system at all, nor for placing the highest or worse ONLY values on material wealth distribution. One can be rich and still be a slob, subject to avarice and pettiness and one can be a poor peasant and possess the highest moral virtues. I believe there is a verse in the book an that issue as well.
What I am saying is we need to kill the notion of entitlements all together, you are only entitled to what you earn with your own hands, no one has "Natural or God gives rights". Rather your right to do anything whatsoever is based on your might to uphold that right. "Man has a right to kill..." addresses the issue that it is your ability to defend even unto death your actions that grants you the right to them.
There is NO moral authority at all, there is no God but Man. That means there is no government, no state, no nation, no moral majority, no principle or law, than entitles anyone to anything at all. The only God is Man himself, his own interests and WILL guides him and it is only by "The force and vigour of his arms" that he succeeds of fails.
-
@Froclown said
"What I am saying is we need to kill the notion of entitlements all together, you are only entitled to what you earn with your own hands, no one has "Natural or God gives rights"."
Yes, it's long been clear that this is what you believe. It is the Hadit-only principle, isolated from and denying the equal Nuit principle, especially by being based on the lie that there is actual separation, or difference, between you and anyone else. You're furthering the one-sidedness of imbalanced politics.
We are all individuals entitled to (expected to!) fulfill our individuality with the minimum of interference AND we are all part of a greater whole and wholly responsible to and for each other.
"Rather your right to do anything whatsoever is based on your might to uphold that right."
Thelema is not a right to do anything whatsoever. It's almost the opposite!
Thelema represents that there is only one thing that you have a right to do, and that is the singlular expression of your distinctive True Will (incorporating all those other "things" necessary to fulfill it).
"There is NO moral authority at all, there is no God but Man."
If I were to set aside debate on what those words actually mean and take you at face value: That is moral authority! Thelema is one of the most rigidly moral systems ever articulated in the history of the world.
-
That moral structure is inherent in the nature of the individual (His biology) which is a product of the whole natural world as such it is an expression of the natural law.
I was speaking that in general the right to do anything, what I mean is the ability to do your ONE WILL, is not grated to you by an entitlement you have to actively use might and force to achieve it for yourself, no one gives you your WILL, YOU have to take it.
You are given the tools and the drive by nature as an element of who you are, but to make your ideal into a reality, You have to rely only on yourself and your own power.
-
@Froclown said
"The claims made are that economic powers displace the values and virtues of the Traditional ruling class. The arguments made are that the current capitalist economic system does not allow or support the ruling class system. "
Who claims that? Bullshit! The economy is there to be manipulated for what it is worth, and without controls is one of the greatest sources of exploitation by unscrupulous persons imaginable. You can only claim these unscrupulous persons are superior, or else they are scum (my position). The traditional ruling class buys expert opinion and guidance with their wealth, producing more wealth, etc...
@Froclown said
"It seems to me that what you have done is made my argument for me. I am not for the capitalist system at all, nor for placing the highest or worse ONLY values on material wealth distribution. One can be rich and still be a slob, subject to avarice and pettiness and one can be a poor peasant and possess the highest moral virtues. I believe there is a verse in the book an that issue as well. "
Who are you calling 'you' white boy? I say, eat the rich! And as far as your utopian pipe-dream is concerned, if the wealthy have the army in their pockets, which is the norm, you will have no opportunity to make the case for poor peasants possessed of the highest moral virtues! So screw that!
@Froclown said
"What I am saying is we need to kill the notion of entitlements all together, you are only entitled to what you earn with your own hands, no one has "Natural or God gives rights". Rather your right to do anything whatsoever is based on your might to uphold that right. "Man has a right to kill..." addresses the issue that it is your ability to defend even unto death your actions that grants you the right to them. "
More Libertarian bull-crap! It seems you haven't been paying attention, not even to recent history—say, the last fifteen years? Dude, you have to be able to enforce this: "you are only entitled to what you earn with your own hands." And who or what is going to do that? Jeeeez, it's like shooting fish in a barrel.
@Froclown said
"There is NO moral authority at all, there is no God but Man. That means there is no government, no state, no nation, no moral majority, no principle or law, than entitles anyone to anything at all. The only God is Man himself, his own interests and WILL guides him and it is only by "The force and vigour of his arms" that he succeeds of fails."
I don't care that 'technically' there is no moral authority. I just want to be on hand when you explain this to those governments and militias that use rape as a weapon of war! Your statement is supposed to imply, what? That's it's your own fault if you get gang raped in the arse? Fortunately, life is a lot more complicated than you want to make it out to be. Shouting platitudes will not change anything.
As always,
Love and Will
-
@Froclown said
"I was speaking that in general the right to do anything, what I mean is the ability to do your ONE WILL, is not grated to you by an entitlement you have to actively use might and force to achieve it for yourself, no one gives you your WILL, YOU have to take it."
If you mean like Ghandi took it, then I agree with you, otherwise you are farting out of a place higher than your butt hole.
Love and will
-
I apologize for my last post, it was rude.
Love and Will
-
@Froclown said
"I was speaking that in general the right to do anything, what I mean is the ability to do your ONE WILL, is not grated to you by an entitlement you have to actively use might and force to achieve it for yourself, no one gives you your WILL, YOU have to take it."
I was with you until the last phrase. What's all this need to fight? Certainly sometime - in some contexts, with some people - that's necessary, but (also certainly) not as a generalization. You preach such a conflictual world, and that conflict is entirely unnecessary in most cases. You don't have to take anything.
BTW, while I would agree that the right (and necessity!) to do your will is innate, I'd also agree that unless society also identified this as a general entitlement, then there would be a need for conflict most of the time. That's a silly waste of energy.
"You are given the tools and the drive by nature as an element of who you are, but to make your ideal into a reality, You have to rely only on yourself and your own power."
You say this as if you exist separate from the rest of humanity. You don't. Your actions as an individual and the context and assistance of society as a whole are required for this achievement. (Even at the sociological level, this is becoming much more evident. Singular individual achievement rarely exists except in a context that enables and supports it.)