Function of Gratitude in Magick
-
@Legis said
"
@Alrah said
"The problem with a external standard that has been internalized such as "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is that living up to it requires a certain dogmatic rigidity of the mindset that is ultimately self-defeating. Any dogmatic rigidity will simply be exploited by people who have any of the dark triad personality traits.
"And what of the injunctions, advice, "standards" if you will, of Liber Legis?
"Let there be no difference made among you between any one thing & any other thing; for thereby there cometh hurt."
"Obey my prophet!"
"Pity not the fallen! I never knew them."
"Mercy let be off: damn them who pity! Kill and torture; spare not; be upon them!"May these not also be misunderstood? Do they also, when internalized, "require a certain dogmatic rigidity of the mindset that is ultimately self-defeating"?
In my opinion, any spiritual injunction may be misinterpreted, "standardized," and abused by those who wish to manipulate others for their own benefit. If I were a "dark triad" type, oh how I might abuse them to manipulate others into being an enforcer of my ego's own kingdom.
I do agree that Thelema as a whole is more resistant to being abused by manipulations of compassion. It does, however, exhibit some weaknesses,* when specific injunctions are taken out of their context and abused *as "do unto others" has been, in creating a blindness to the potentials of the "dark triad" in oneself."
Well, you're assuming there is a standard to be had from Liber Al vel Legis that everyone understands in the same way... and yet - take the line which says "Pity not the fallen! I never knew them." I have no idea what you think this means, but to me I interpret it as saying "I never knew the 'fallen' Tree of Life - don't pity letting it go!" And the 'them' in this line is not about people to me but sephiroth! lol. I might even subject the words 'pity not' to analysis by gematria or anagram analysis to reveal a completely different meaning.
If there is a 'standard' about the Book of the Law then it's in the way it defaces the apparent meaning of the text so it is not apprehendable by strict rationalism - as do many Kabbalistic works.
-
@Alrah said
"
Well, you're assuming there is a standard to be had from Liber Al vel Legis that everyone understands in the same way... "Not me personally. I refer to the potential of abusing the text of* Liber Legis *in the same manner that is currently being done with the Bible and "Do unto others as you would have them do to you" in this discussion.
In this discussion, the assumption is that those who have interpreted the Bible and Jesus' words in the fashion you, Los, and perhaps even Crowley describe are actually giving the "correct" way of interpreting the Bible and Jesus' words - therefore, the injunction "Do unto others" itself must necessarily be precisely as base and destructive as the worst interpretation and application of the masses.
I hope that this principle will not be applied to* Liber Legis*, but in my experience such a misreading is the primary response.
To paraphrase Mr. Mackey: "Christianity is bad, m'kay? And everything Jesus said is bad - because Christianity is bad, m'kay?"
-
@Legis said
"
@Alrah said
"
Well, you're assuming there is a standard to be had from Liber Al vel Legis that everyone understands in the same way... "Not me personally. I refer to the potential of abusing the text of* Liber Legis *in the same manner that is currently being done with the Bible and "Do unto others as you would have them do to you" in this discussion.
In this discussion, the assumption is that those who have interpreted the Bible and Jesus' words in the fashion you, Los, and perhaps even Crowley describe are actually giving the "correct" way of interpreting the Bible and Jesus' words - therefore, the injunction "Do unto others" itself must necessarily be precisely as base and destructive as the worst interpretation and application of the masses.
I hope that this principle will not be applied to* Liber Legis*, but in my experience such a misreading is the primary response.
To paraphrase Mr. Mackey: "Christianity is bad, m'kay? And everything Jesus said is bad - because Christianity is bad, m'kay?""
I see the distinction yo're making here and understand. There is an argument to be made that all things in the bible, although written apparently in ordinary language are not about ordinary things or even a historical record, but are about theosophy - the psychodynamics of God, which would make Jesus's words a commentary about how God interacts with himself rather than moral or ethical guidance to be followed dogmatically by mankind.
As I understand it - 'the comment' is intended to make us alive to the possibility of standardizing our interpretation of the text which may lead to an exoteric understanding of the book. It's good to be reminded of this on occasion. Thanks for bringing it up.
-
@Legis said
"There is also the theory that the only records we have left of the appearance of an Enlightened One (Buddha, what-have-you) are those voted on by the majority who destroyed the rest, preferring a ...less gnostic agenda."
Well... when you have gnostic texts calling Adam, Abraham, Moses etc 'laughingstock' ... well!
-
"The Christian Old testament laws were man made but Do what thou wilt is to command vines to grow grapes"
Only if it is in accordance to the true will of the vine. Nature changes, everything changes, I do not think that a vine will always have to grow grapes. It took plants millions of years to flower, who can even speculate on the true will or potential of an organism over such a period of time.
In the context of the original topic, which was the function of gratitude in magic, I am reminded that magic is little more then Nature. In nature we humans, and most all other forms of life are gifted with the expierence of joy, bliss, peace, satisfaction and pleasure. In nature we have the ability to find value, grace and appreciation. Those who can easily find value in nature, in appreciation will have an easy time with magic, with Thelema because they are deeply correlated and entangled. Nature is the supreme teacher of Thelema because it is the master to which everything else we know conforms. If it serves the vine to grow grapes it will, because the vine has learned the mechanics of translation. Yet if there is no reason to translate that information anymore, the vine will find something else to translate to serve it's will.
Your statement Kasper seemed to ring to me that you were imply the vine could only ever grow grapes (commanded from above), and while I agree that the vines true will at this moment in time might be to grow a grape, I do not agree that that is the end all be all of the potential of the vine.
As human beings who seem to strive to do what is our Will, our True Will, I believe that it should be understood that ones Will, and True Will changes, sometimes slowly, sometimes radically as our needs change, specifically as our ability to translate information changes. -
Hi folks, thought I'd throw in my two cents, ...
as I understand the like-treats-like thing ...be it good, or be it bad, it's kinda like a reflector. So if I am grateful in my magick, I trust that it has already worked for me, I am showing gratitude in the extent that my desires have been made manifest, I am offering love to the Goddess of my working, by bringing gifts of gratitude from the heart, things like... milk, honey, flowers, hand made crafts... or items directly related to the work. I give freely and* know* she will freely give back.
BB, Flora -
“Know then, o my Son, that all Laws, all Systems, all Customs, all Ideals and Standards which tend to produce Uniformity, being in direct Opposition to Nature’s Will to change and to develop through Variety, are accursèd. Do thou with all thy Might of Manhood strive against these Forces, for they resist Change, which is Life; and thus they are of Death.”
Aleister Crowley - Liber Aleph, “De Lege Motus”*emphasis added
-
Is this just a general comment? Because I would* tend* to agree, allowing myself room to defy even that standard, however, when in accordance with my Will.
Or, I wonder.. Is it pointed at my supposed "suggestion" that I accept "Do unto others" as a rigid personal "standard." If so, it would be buying to one of Los' projections. Sorry for the possible tangent, I just never appropriately addressed that yesterday, as I feel it's weak to feel the need to respond to his every accusation.
-
@Legis said
"Is this just a general comment? Because I would* tend* to agree, allowing myself room to defy even that standard, however, when in accordance with my Will.
Or, I wonder.. Is it pointed at my supposed "suggestion" that I accept "Do unto others" as a rigid personal "standard." If so, it would be buying to one of Los' projections. Sorry for the possible tangent, I just never appropriately addressed that yesterday, as I feel it's weak to feel the need to respond to his every accusation."
Are you responding to me and my quote of Crowley? If so, you may have missed the mark.
What is a Law? A Law, as in law of nature, is not a decision to be made, an agreement you must consign yourself to, a philosophy - it is a factual truth, with built in results. There is but one Law and it is Do what thou wilt. You have no room to decide here, no agreement to make, you do or do not act in accordance with that Law. If you act in accordance with the law of gravity, for instance, you either smash on the ground or fly in accordance to the rules of aerodynamics. Likewise, if you act in accordance to the Law of Thelema you either find yourself gaining no ground at all or you soar seemingly effortlessly to your destination.
Now any action or belief or rule that answers everything right here and now once and for all (ie, any "standards which tend to produce Uniformity,") destroys will. If will stops and asks why? Why do we do this father? Because the Bible told us so, Jessie. No. No. No.!!! Why do we do this father? I do this because it is my will to do this, you do this only *if it is your will also. Ah, then your charity I would agree.
-
@Legis said
"I've missed no mark but that of judging the ability of others to appreciate the irony of words when it comes to their own deeply held beliefs.
But thank you for your concern."
Sad. You seem not to know the meaning of "irony" nor the word "standard." You're degenerating this conversation to the level of troll.
-
Check yourself.
Standard - something established by authority, custom, or general consent as a model or example (def 3, Webster).
For example: a quotation from the Prophet of the Aeon speaking in Liber Aleph concerning the Will. If the quotation was not to be taken as an authority, custom, model, or example, speaking on one's relationships to authorities, customs, models, or examples, then what purpose did you quote it?
Irony - incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result (def 3, Webster)
For example: "the irony of words," here intended to refer to the actual result, as opposed to the expected result, of using words in general. In this particular case - the attempt to try to explain how standards are bad, which statement cannot help but itself be understood very literally and correctly as a standard.
I have no intention of being a troll.
In all honesty... In all sincerity... as I said, I do think that I have misjudged the ability of others to appreciate the irony of words when it comes to their own deeply held beliefs.
That being said, I will admit that I have exhausted my own patience on the matter, and I will seek to refresh that elsewhere for a while.
-
@Legis said
"Standard - something established by authority, custom, or general consent as a model or example (def 3, Webster).
For example: a quotation from the Prophet of the Aeon speaking in Liber Aleph concerning the Will. If the quotation was not to be taken as an authority, custom, model, or example, speaking on one's relationships to authorities, customs, models, or examples, then what purpose did you quote it?
Irony [...] the attempt to try to explain how standards are bad, which statement cannot help but itself be understood very literally and correctly as a standard."
In the context of our discussion above, a "standard" is a kind of behavior that an individual thinks he "should" do because it's "good" to do it (such as "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you").
The Law of Thelema -- Do what thou wilt -- isn't a standard in that sense, because it's not something an individual "should" do. It's the way things are. Everyone is always trying to accomplish their Will, but their minds hamper the expression of it (by setting up these standards and convincing the Self that it "should" act in ways not consistent with the natural inclinations of the Self).
Those people who want to do that Will better can practice methods of seeing through the illusion of these standards in order to perceive their Will (natural inclinations, as opposed to what they think they "should" be doing), but there is no requirement that anybody do this. There is no "should" about it, no implication that standards are "bad" and that Thelema is "good."
-
@Los said
"In the context of our discussion above, a "standard" is a kind of behavior that an individual thinks he "should" do because it's "good" to do it ... There is no "should" about it, no implication that standards are "bad" and that Thelema is "good.""
Confined to the context of the discussion in which the following was quoted?
@Crowley said
"“Know then, o my Son, that all Laws, all Systems, all Customs, all Ideals and Standards which tend to produce Uniformity, being in direct Opposition to Nature’s Will to change and to develop through Variety, are accursèd. Do thou with all thy Might of Manhood strive against these Forces, for they resist Change, which is Life; and thus they are of Death.”
Aleister Crowley - Liber Aleph, “De Lege Motus”"Is "accursed" not "bad"? Is "striv* against these Forces" because "they are of Death" not presented as the "good" and correct thing to do?
Once again, I will confess that I do understand the difference between the intent and the outcome of this instruction.
My intent, from the point in which this conversation implemented a negative interpretation of "do unto others," has been simply to reveal bias in interpreting non-Thelemic instruction as solely bad and Thelemic instruction as solely good. The goal is to reveal that ANY instruction whatsoever may be misinterpreted and misapplied as a "standard" and used as Alrah stated here:
@Alrah said
"The problem with a external standard that has been internalized such as "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is that living up to it requires a certain dogmatic rigidity of the mindset that is ultimately self-defeating. Any dogmatic rigidity will simply be exploited by people who have any of the dark triad personality traits."
For instance, if the instruction from *Liber Aleph, *quoted above, is misinterpreted to say that any and all standards whatsoever are always in every case bad (as it superficially can be understood as saying) and that they should always and in every case be resisted, then I may misapply that instruction as a "standard" and misinterpret as saying, for instance, that the "standards" for discussion here on the forum are "accursed," "of Death," and should be striven against, *even in the case *where my Will may be better served by following them. The true meaning remains. But any instruction whatsoever, including that of rejecting standards in favor of the Will, may be misunderstood as a "standard" and misapplied with dogmatic rigidity.
And with that, I'll leave it to those who choose to understand me to sort out how it could have best been stated for them.
Retrograde Mercury, have your way.
I've said all I'm gonna try to say.Peace.
-
*Magick is less liable to lead to error than any other Science, because its terms are interchangeable, by definition, so that it is based on relativity from the start. We run no risk of asserting absolute propositions. Furthermore we make our measurements in terms of the object measured, thus avoiding the absurdity of defining metaphysical ideas by mutable standards, (Cf. Eddington "Space, Time, and Gravitation". Prologue.) of being forced to attribute the qualities of human consciousness to inanimate things (Poincare, "La mesure du temps"), and of asserting that we know anything of the universe in itself, though the nature of our senses and our minds necessarily determines our observations, so that the limit of our knowledge is subjective, just as a thermometer can record nothing but its own reaction to one particular type of Energy.
Magick recognizes frankly (1) that truth is relative, subjective, and apparent; (2) that Truth implies Omniscience, which is unattainable by mind, being transfinite; just as if one tried to make an exact map of England in England, that map must contain a map of the map, and so on, ad infinitum; (3) that logical contradiction is inherent in reason, (Russell, "Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy", p. 136; Crowley, "Eleusis", and elsewhere); (4) that a Continuum requires a Continuum to be commensurable with it: (5) that Empiricism is ineluctable, and therefore that adjustment is the only possible method of action; and (6) that error may be avoided by opposing no resistance to change, and registering observed phenomena in their own language.
The elasticity of Magick makes it equal to all possible kinds of environment, and therefore biologically perfect. "Do what thou wilt..." implies self-adjustment, so that failure cannot occur. One's true Will is necessarily fitted to the whole Universe with the utmost exactitude, because each term in the equation a+b+c=0 must be equal and opposite to the sum of all the other terms. No individual can ever be aught than himself, or do aught else than his Will, which is his necessary relation with his environment, dynamically considered. **All error is no more than an illusion proper to him to dissipate the mirage, and it is a general law that the method of accomplishing this operation is to realize, and to acquiesce in, the order of the Universe, and to refrain from attempting the impossible task of overcoming the inertia of the forces which oppose, and therefore are identical with, one's self. *Error in thought is therefore failure to understand, and in action to perform, one's own true Will.
-- MTP Part III Chap. 9 (my bold)
There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt...
So, according to our British Buggerer, someone can be "objectively" wrong (by the crowd, so to speak), yet still be following their True Will. There is no "evil" -- it is most likely "confusion" in regard to the True Will. However, there are some Truths (what Crowley describes here as a "general law") that seem to have a consensus -- although, to me, the Golden Rule isn't one of them...
“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 action." -- Crowley
Lord Alfred Douglas and Oscar Wilde liked to bone.
But, in another context, it seems in my experience (and others who I've asked), that restrictions and judgments evoked tend to have the same effect on the person that projects the spell. As if our psychology further restricts us, regardless of when this judgment is applied to "self or other." These can take the forms of limiting beliefs and can further confound the relationship to the True Will. Anyway, recent neuroscience seems to echo this idea of the relationship between "self and other," according to research into mirror neurons, and it goes beyond judgments and into actual emotions and physiological reactions. The new studies are very intriguing.
Also, with the "do unto others" idea, the strange attractor principle comes to mind...people that invoke disharmony seem to evoke disharmony, and vice versa...and that's just another perspective when it comes to observing the phenomena of interaction between the "within and without."
Cool subject.
-
@Legis said
"For instance, if the instruction from *Liber Aleph, *quoted above, is misinterpreted to say that any and all standards whatsoever are always in every case bad (as it superficially can be understood as saying) and that they should always and in every case be resisted"
The point isn't that standards are always "bad" -- the point is that standards always prevent an individual from perceiving his or her True Will. Always.
If a person is trying to live up to a standard, that person is not paying attention to his or her True Will. By definition.
It's not "bad" to not follow your Will. But if you want to follow your Will, you must strive to break the hold that your mind and its standards have over your behavior.
-
Legis, I see where you are getting the quote from Crowley wrong. He doesn't say "all standards...are accursed." He says, "all standards...which tend toward Uniformity" are accursed. In other words, my personal standard for allowing for diversity in expression, allowed to fail or succeed on its own merits, is a standard (of my own, and not demanded of others) but does nothing to "tend toward Uniformity" but on the contrary.
Might I suggest that instead of "nay saying" someone else, try pro-saying whatever it is you have to say.
