Function of Gratitude in Magick
-
Yea, Bob Marley had a standard too. Many religious people do, and it prevents them from making a critical choice ( medical attention in his case) at the right time to save their lives. And then the musics gone, because they believed they couldn't or shouldn't change.....
-
(@Takamba)
That doesn't contradict my point. For every one of those stories, there's another where someone abandons their ethics prematurely because they thought they had no other recourse, only to find out it was a sacrifice they regretted.
In all cases, it's our struggle that teaches us who we are. So standards are very much a part of discovering our true will.
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"That doesn't contradict my point."
I don't think these examples necessarily do either. If the events do not coincide with the True Will (which is in essence perfect), it is because the "illusion" of the observation hasn't been accepted as inherently necessary to discovering and acting in accordance with the True Will. It is up to the observer to act and observe in right relation to the True Will at all times -- which, through increased awareness, can actually make observations less "confused" over time...
@Crowley said
"
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..."
What does everyone think is meant by "failure cannot occur?"
-
@Frater 639 said
"
What does everyone think is meant by "failure cannot occur?""If one is constantly able to adjust to things, to not be rigid in one's standards of response to circumstance, one can learn and adapt and, although maybe not as quickly as imagined, get one's self to the right path for success. Even if this means that discovering one was wasting time toward a fool's errand, one can then correct one's self and still avoid failure.
On the other hand, if one is living by a rigid expectation of what one "must" be doing or accomplishing, one may spend eternal life times failing to see the light.
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"You've supplied zero evidence that a person who holds themselves to standards can't be following their true will."
I've certainly explained how my conclusion follows from the definitions. Either you think the definitions I'm using are incorrect or that I have correct definitions but am incorrectly drawing conclusions from the definitions.
Explain which one it is and demonstrate that you've got the correct approach.
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"Unless someone had really and truly learned to listen to their true will without distortion (which is a life long task for most), abandoning all ethical standards is crazy dumb."
A person cannot "learn to listen to their true will without distortion" unless that person gets rid of all ethical standards. Ethical standards are, after all, one of the primary ways that the mind distorts the True Will.
"There are no 'standards of Right.' Ethics is balderdash. Each Star must go on its orbit. To hell with 'moral Principle;' there is no such thing; that is a herd-delusion, and makes men cattle."
--Aleister Crowley -
@Takamba said
"If one is constantly able to adjust to things, to not be rigid in one's standards of response to circumstance, one can learn and adapt and, although maybe not as quickly as imagined, get one's self to the right path for success."
"Success" and "failure" aren't things that exist in the world. They're ideas about the world -- static ideas about a world constantly in flux.
It's true that "failure cannot occur," just like success cannot occur because each of those words is a label that the mind places around a state of affairs. And then we instantly have a new state of affairs to deal with. Ideas like success and failure are only useful insofar as they provide information that may be useful for planning one's next move.
Acquiescing to the elasticity of the world means that one doesn't have to get caught up in phantoms of the mind like success or failure anymore. Instead, one can get to the heart of the matter, paying attention to what's real.
-
@Takamba said
"
@Frater 639 said
"
What does everyone think is meant by "failure cannot occur?""If one is constantly able to adjust to things, to not be rigid in one's standards of response to circumstance, one can learn and adapt and, although maybe not as quickly as imagined, get one's self to the right path for success. Even if this means that discovering one was wasting time toward a fool's errand, one can then correct one's self and still avoid failure.
On the other hand, if one is living by a rigid expectation of what one "must" be doing or accomplishing, one may spend eternal life times failing to see the light."
Yes, Agreed. I usually look at these two phenomenon as "becoming" and "being," which was echoed by Los here (what a cool discussion):
@Los said
""Success" and "failure" aren't things that exist in the world. They're ideas about the world -- static ideas about a world constantly in flux.
It's true that "failure cannot occur," just like success cannot occur because each of those words is a label that the mind places around a state of affairs. And then we instantly have a new state of affairs to deal with. Ideas like success and failure are only useful insofar as they provide information that may be useful for planning one's next move.
Acquiescing to the elasticity of the world means that one doesn't have to get caught up in phantoms of the mind like success or failure anymore. Instead, one can get to the heart of the matter, paying attention to what's real."
*Sin (See Skeat's Ety. Dict.) is connected with the root "es", to be. This throws a new light on the passage. Sin is restriction, that is, it is 'being' as opposed to 'becoming'. The fundamental idea of wrong is the static as opposed to the dynamic conception of the Universe. This explanation is not only in harmony with the general teaching of the Book of the Law, but shows how profoundly the author understands Himself.
*
-- The Law is for All -- Chap. I v. 41 (footnote)I tend to look at phenomena in the same way as well. Either "Going" (becoming) or some sort of observation about "Going" which can lead to projection or recollection, which can skew action in accordance with True Will, as we all seem to agree on...
Crowley attributes this "in the moment" view to the fifth Power of the Sphinx, which he called "Ire" - which means "To Go."
-
@Los said
"
@Takamba said
"If one is constantly able to adjust to things, to not be rigid in one's standards of response to circumstance, one can learn and adapt and, although maybe not as quickly as imagined, get one's self to the right path for success.""Success" and "failure" aren't things that exist in the world. They're ideas about the world -- static ideas about a world constantly in flux.
It's true that "failure cannot occur," just like success cannot occur because each of those words is a label that the mind places around a state of affairs. And then we instantly have a new state of affairs to deal with. Ideas like success and failure are only useful insofar as they provide information that may be useful for planning one's next move.
Acquiescing to the elasticity of the world means that one doesn't have to get caught up in phantoms of the mind like success or failure anymore. Instead, one can get to the heart of the matter, paying attention to what's real."
ALL HAIL THE GREAT LOS
ALL HAIL THE GREAT LOS
Nothing here was said, he just wanted to say he was right and an other was wrong.
ALL HAIL THE GREAT LOS
success is his proof
-
I think I've come to my final answer on the "standard" bit.
Bottom line:
If it's an externally-imposed standard, to hell with it if it contradicts my Will. But neither am I deviating from my Will to contradict an externally-imposed standard without reason. I'm just not thinking about the damned thing in the first place.
If it's an internally-imposed standard, it's nobody else's business why I've chosen to use it, what changes in accordance to Will I hope to create by it, or what I hope to experience in that process. If I choose it willingly, it's just nobody else's business. Not in Thelema.
Probably not gonna play the "no failure" game.
Peace.
p.s. Notice I have used the present tense to describe a situation in which I imagine myself currently being. Please don't let this confuse anyone.
-
@ Legis - I loved watching you trying to impose a standard on yourself as the thread went on - i.e. the 'my last post' stuff, but then you seemed to find yourself driven to post anyway and thereby damned your standard each time to remain an unrealized and impotent restriction of your will...
Was that a deliberate Q.E.D.?
I enjoyed it immensely. -
@Alrah said
"@ Legis - I loved watching you trying to impose a standard on yourself as the thread went on - i.e. the 'my last post' stuff, but then you seemed to find yourself driven to post anyway and thereby damned your standard each time to remain an unrealized and impotent restriction of your will...
Was that a deliberate Q.E.D.?
I enjoyed it immensely."lol... Not deliberate. More like learning from it in the "going." Therefore, "no failure."
-
@Legis said
"If it's an externally-imposed standard, to hell with it if it contradicts my Will. But neither am I deviating from my Will to contradict an externally-imposed standard without reason. I'm just not thinking about the damned thing in the first place.
If it's an internally-imposed standard, it's nobody else's business why I've chosen to use it, what changes in accordance to Will I hope to create by it, or what I hope to experience in that process. If I choose it willingly, it's just nobody else's business. Not in Thelema."
All standards/ethics -- whether "externally imposed" or "internally imposed" -- equally hinder an individual's work in perceiving and carrying out the True Will.
If you think about it, that must necessarily be the case: the True Will consists of the individual's natural inclinations, while standards/ethics tell an individual that he or she should act in particular ways regardless of his or her inclinations in the moment.
To pay attention to the mind's ideas about how the Self should be acting is to shift attention away from the Self and get misled.
As a concrete example, let's say that you want to stay home and watch the game, but your friend has asked you to help him with a project he's working on. If you say to yourself, "Well, I'd really like to watch this game, but I'm a loyal person who always helps out his friends, and I live my life by the standard of being there for people I care about, so I'm going to put aside what I want to do and live up to that standard of behavior," then you're not following your Will in that particular instance.
-
@Los said
"All standards/ethics -- whether "externally imposed" or "internally imposed" -- equally hinder an individual's work in perceiving and carrying out the True Will."
Let me just also point out that "internally imposed" standards of behavior -- such as "personal morality," invented by the individual for the individual -- can be a much more difficult prison to escape than externally imposed standards of behavior, precisely because one tends to attach a narrative onto those internal standards along the lines of, "These are my own, personal codes that are just for me, that come from me, and only I need to live up to them, and that's how I'm true to myself, and" blah blah blah.
-
@Los said
"
@Los said
"All standards/ethics -- whether "externally imposed" or "internally imposed" -- equally hinder an individual's work in perceiving and carrying out the True Will."Let me just also point out that "internally imposed" standards of behavior -- such as "personal morality," invented by the individual for the individual -- can be a much more difficult prison to escape than externally imposed standards of behavior, precisely because one tends to attach a narrative onto those internal standards along the lines of, "These are my own, personal codes that are just for me, that come from me, and only I need to live up to them, and that's how I'm true to myself, and" blah blah blah."
But see, your concept of rejecting all standards for living in the Will in the moment, as you describe it - to me, that's an external standard. It's your standard, not mine.
That's how we got off on all this in the first place: "what's a standard?" "good standards versus bad standards," "minsterpretation as a standard" ...etc...
Because I was trying to get you to see your own standard that you refuse to call a standard.
But it doesn't suit me. It reflects your understanding, not my own. You have never mentioned the connection between Will and Love or the connection of such living according to your Will in the moment to Love. And I think attempting to answer that question is fundamental to Thelema. To me, your concept seems a smaller, less-satisfying concept than what I already understand as Will. Your idea seems to me to be nothing more than simple Id-appeasement, which can be just a million little "loves-not-under-Will" all running around and conflicting with themselves from one moment to the next. I understand Will as something more holistically organizing of each of these million little loves-not-under-Will so that they are all placed under one's True Will.
Whether I'm wrong about it or not... In short, it's your own standard. And to me, it's an external standard.
And ...lol... as it attempts to breed uniformity through preaching one and only one understanding of True Will, I resist it with all of my might.
-
I dunno, I find the societal ethic of not murdering really helps me not be murdered, so that I can continue following my true will.
-
@Legis said
"But see, your concept of rejecting all standards for living in the Will in the moment, as you describe it - to me, that's an external standard. It's your standard, not mine."
Again, it's not a "standard," in the sense we've been talking about, becomes there is no sense that one "should" do it or that it's a "good" thing to do. It just is.
"You have never mentioned the connection between Will and Love or the connection of such living according to your Will in the moment to Love."
Sure I did. Earlier in this thread, I explained how love is defined in Thelema -- in Thelema, "love" specifically refers to expansion of the Self into Nuit (that is, obtaining experience through the fulfillment of possibility). Go back and read that post.
" I understand Will as something more holistically organizing of each of these million little loves-not-under-Will so that they are all placed under one's True Will."
This is meaningless drivel. What's a practical example of what you're talking about here?
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"I dunno, I find the societal ethic of not murdering really helps me not be murdered, so that I can continue following my true will."
lol... Then, in my view, it would be okay for you to make that a functional internal standard to serve your own purposes until your Will needs to contradict that. But don't go around* not *murdering people just because society says not to. lol...
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"I dunno, I find the societal ethic of not murdering really helps me not be murdered, so that I can continue following my true will."
Well, first of all, I'm not convinced that believing "murder is bad" is what prevents most people from murdering. I don't know about you, but I don't walk around with a burning desire to commit murder while having to restrain myself by telling myself how "bad" it is.
I have no desire to commit murder. I strongly suspect that the vast majority of other people similarly have no desire to do so.
In other words, I think you've got the causality backwards: it's not that people avoid doing it because it's considered "bad"...rather, people consider it "bad" because most people normally avoid doing it.
And even in those cases where people have a desire to commit murder, I would suggest that the practical consequences of murdering someone else (such as being locked up) are far more deterrents than the abstract idea that it's "wrong" to murder.
And even if you were right and it was the belief that "murder is bad" that actually prevents others from murdering you, that still wouldn't be a reason for you to accept it. It would just be a reason for you to want others to keep accepting it.