Function of Gratitude in Magick
-
While the conversation here has been intriguing, I am confused how this all pertains to "gratitude in magic" as per the OP.
Flora -
@floralfirebird said
"While the conversation here has been intriguing, I am confused how this all pertains to "gratitude in magic" as per the OP.
Flora"I know. It should totally have its own thread.
Alrah tried to point out a moral judgment in the conversation and made a comparison to a Christian ethic.
I pointed out the real Christian teaching on that ethic.
Los said it was a stupid ethic.
Conversation went to "standards."
Nobody complained - that's the key.And then, in a puff of smoke, the conversation was gone...
-
@Legis said
"Your argument seems to run along the lines that any invocation of the* feeling *of love regarding Willful action necessarily invokes a corresponding, restrictive morality being imposed on Will."
I have no idea where you're getting this from or even what you're talking about, really. I don't think I've ever said that "any invocation of the feeling of love [...] invokes a corresponding, restrictive morality." To the extent that those words even make sense in that order, it's downright false.
You're criticizing me for discussing love as an "abstraction"...but we're talking on a messageboard. Everything we discuss on a messageboard is an abstraction. The term "Love" is an abstraction, but it doesn't refer to an abstraction: it refers to experience (any and all experience).
-
@Legis said
"I was talking about any consideration of the feeling of love in terms of acting in accordance with one's Will."
This is still far too vague to be of any practical use.
True Will isn't a feeling in the sense of being an emotion. If you want a more substantial response, you'll have to be clearer about what you mean, probably with examples.
-
@Los (on Lashtal) said
"In closing, let me add that it’s common in so-called “Thelemic” circles to find people yammering on and on about their precious feelings and being nice to others when the subject of “love” comes up, but we can now see that such reactions are, at best, misguided. “Love,” in the context of Thelema, is emphatically not a sentimental feeling or an injunction to be kind to others. In fact, in many situations, it is precisely the opposite: it is an injunction to rid oneself of the delusory ideas of “good” and “evil” that taint one’s ability to perceive and carry out the true will and to cease to restrict one’s experience by imposing arbitrary restrictions upon it."
In both links you presented, any reference to the feeling kind of love is always in reference to how it restricts Will or is subject to false value judgements of "good" or "evil."
@Los (on Lashtal) said
"So if all experience is love, and everything that happens to you is experience, then how is it possible not to love? Why even bother talking about love?"
Personally, I think it's too easy to simply discount feeling-love from the equation. If one chooses only the love of the experience one may generate for oneself (calling that Nuit) and leaves out the factor of actually feeling love for the things and people that are a part of that experience (also Nuit), then one chooses only partially to love Nuit.
In my opinion, one's will-power may only appropriately be understood as True Will when it finds its expression in an attempt to actively love Nuit, both in her experiences and in her people. Until then, in my opinion, it is only a partially understood Will.
Without some sense of* feeling*-love as a goal, this is impossible.
-
@Legis said
"In both links you presented, any reference to the feeling kind of love is always in reference to how it restricts Will or is subject to false value judgements of "good" or "evil.""
Right, because in those instances I'm talking about "love" in the common, everyday, sentimental sense. That kind of "love" is distinct from what Thelema terms Love and Will, and blindly following that kind of love will indeed distract you from your True Will.
" If one chooses only the love of the experience one may generate for oneself (calling that Nuit) and leaves out the factor of actually feeling love for the things and people that are a part of that experience (also Nuit), then one chooses only partially to love Nuit."
I didn't say "leave out [...] feeling love for things and people," as if a person should never feel love for things and people. I said that those feelings should not guide action (according to Thelema, anyway)
Obviously, you're likely going to feel love for your family or pets or whatever, and those feelings are part of the totality, but you don't discover your Will by paying attention to those feelings, and you definitely don't discover your Will by paying attention to ideas like "loving your neighbor" or "being nice to all people" or "let's all have a group hug because Thelema's about Love! Hurray!"
-
In support of Los on this point (cough, spit, ahem)
All this talk about "suffering humanity" is principally drivel based on the error of transferring one's own psychology to one's neighbor. The Golden Rule is silly. If Lord Alfred Douglas (for example) did to others what he would like them to do to him, many would resent his actions.
The development of the Adept is by Expansion - out to Nuit - in all directions equally. The small man has little experience, little capacity for either pain or pleasure. The bourgeois is a clod. I know better (at least) than to suppose that to torture him is either beneficial or amusing to myselfy.
This thesis concerning compassion is of the most palmary importance to the ethics of Thelema. It is necessary that we stop, once for all, this ignorant meddling with other people's business.
- Crowley's comment on Chapter I, Verse 31
...further...
But we of Thelema, like the artist, the true lover of Love, shameless and fearless, seeing God face to face alike in our own souls within and in all Nature without, though we use, as the bourgeois does, the word Love, we hold not the word "too often profaned for us to profane it"; it burns inviolate in its sanctuary, being reborn immaculate with every breath of life. But by "Love" we mean a thing which the eye of the bourgeois hath not seen, nor his ear heard; neither hath his heart conceived it.
= Crowley's comment on Chapter I, Verse 52.
Further, my own comment on the word "bourgeois." It means not today what it meant when Crowley wrote of it. In his time, and in the movement of Marx, it meant the "middle class." Your average business owner, middle management education level person (me and, I am assuming, most of you) are this class.
Take that what you think it means.
-
"I said that those feelings should not guide action (according to Thelema, anyway) "
I would say those feelings (as they are in the process of being perfected) should not* limit *any action.
I would also say those feelings (as they are in the process of being perfected) should motivate every action.
-
@Legis said
"Takamba, I said nothing of suffering humanity.
To hell with them all. I will master this love."
"Do unto others (for their sake) as you would have them do unto you" is "Suffering humanity." So yes, you said. And I was only quoting Crowley in his most human examination of the Liber Legis.
-
It was not I who was required to alter the wording of a statement in order to contradict it.
Your blind, irrational loathing of anything associated with Christianity is a constantly resurfacing weakness of mind that interferes with your intepretation of what I am saying.
If you desired to understand what I am actually saying, not only would you be able to do so, but you would have to admit that there is wisdom in the previous Aeon, indeed, even in Christianity, when it is not corrupted and force-fed by those who desire power over your mind.
God forbid that anyone should attempt to see all these things from above, where there seems nothing to choose between Buddha and Mohammed, between Atheism and Theism, Christianity and Thelema.
Indeed, tell me how such an attempt represents a lack of expansion.
Your blocked mind represents a lack of expansion.
This too is love.
-
@Takamba said
"Legis, as far as I can see, you are the only one here among you and I using accusation. That enough speaks volumes of your ability to relate to me."
Well, honestly, I experienced you twist my words and then *accuse *me of saying something I have explicitly not said.
Then, I merely pointed to what, knowing my own words and meaning, I can only experience as your projection.
And then I experienced you *accuse *me of a "lack of expansion."Words, words, words...
In fact, I'm tired of them and their inherent lies, and I'm tired of people's reactions to their inherent lies, ..and I'll be done with them for a few days.
I've said my peace anyway.
For anyone else, I hope you maybe understood a piece of what I was trying to say.
But for you, Takamba, you accused me of preaching compassion to suffering humanity. Did I offer you compassion, or did I give you the kind of love you demanded? Did I speak to you as if you were weak or as if you could bear it?
I expressed myself freely, as you claim to desire. I expressed a severe love, which you seemed to prefer. I held back no punches and spoke to you from my own experience and perspective man to man.
And then you say, Behold the Beast!
Was that not what you were seeking from me? Was that not what you have claimed to prefer?
Takamba, no one is willing to suffer a double-minded accuser.
-
@Legis said
"
But for you, Takamba, you accused me of preaching compassion to suffering humanity. "I accused you not. el oh el (that means "god my god"). I quoted Crowley for you to read. That is all. All else that you've built upon this "theme" of me "accusing you of suffering humanity" is a phantasm of your own fearful thinking.
Rebuild everything else you "doubly" (el oh el) accuse me of.