Liber L & self defeating imagery question
-
93 Everyone,
Alright, I realize this question no doubt has been brought up before, many times, yet I couldnt find it on the forum. Its the question of why AC (and or Awaiss) uses such socially tainted imagery for the message?
If it was Crowleys Will to promulgate the Law, why couch it in such a way that almost insures rejection? Why would AC use such shocking imagery, obviously misleading in what he truly meant, if his goal was to get others to follow? I feel the Book of the Law would have been much more successful and effective if it were simply stripped of the "Beast" & "Babalon" imagery, already seen as "evil" etc., by the masses even if they were misunderstood.
The usual course of conversation regarding Thelema usually goes something like this:
"What is a Thelemite?"
"Its a person following a philosophy based upon finding and performing ones True Will."
"Oh cool, where do you learn about all that?"
"From a book called Liber L, it was recieved by Aleister Crowley."
"Oh, thats not that guy the wickedest man in the world is it? Wasnt he a drug addict, and a wanna be anti-christ that thought he was the Beast?"
"Yeah, exactly!"
Isnt this sort of self defeating as a promotional plan? Splain! Lol
93 93/93
-
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
LMAO
Well, I think part of the point is to not attract those with closed minds who can't understand such symbolism. And anyway, I don't think whatever forces are in charge, such as Aiwass, would've let Crowley do this if it wasn't meant to be this way. Unless he somehow could supersede spiritual authority.
Love is the law, love under will.
-
@J L Romer said
"Alright, I realize this question no doubt has been brought up before, many times, yet I couldnt find it on the forum. Its the question of why AC (and or Awaiss) uses such socially tainted imagery for the message?
If it was Crowleys Will to promulgate the Law, why couch it in such a way that almost insures rejection? Why would AC use such shocking imagery, obviously misleading in what he truly meant, if his goal was to get others to follow? I feel the Book of the Law would have been much more successful and effective if it were simply stripped of the "Beast" & "Babalon" imagery, already seen as "evil" etc., by the masses even if they were misunderstood."
First, Crowley didn't write this. It was given to him. (You did pay a brief, passing respect to this point, and then went on as if it were all Crowley.)
I think the main point, though, is this: I don't think this language "almost insures rejection" at all - except by people holding tightly to old values that the book challenges. I agree that its imagery is "socially tainted" but only in the context of a society that collectively holds to views and values that the Book comes to overthrow.
It clearly challenges antisexual perspectives. It clearly confronts and challenges Christianity to a large extent (perhaps even more than other religions, since Christianity is so solidly entrenched in Western culture). It certainly brooks no room for compromise: Nothing in the Book hints that, "Y'know, if you really think that sex is evil and immoral, we can probably work something out about it." Quite the contrary.
Also, I don't think Crowley's goals was "to get others to follow." And the Book itself doesn't call for toadies: It says, "There is success." It's a 'done deal.' The law is in place. Anyone standing against it has lost. It's just a matter of time for the ideas deeply seeded into humanity's mass mind, and embraced by far more than a hundred monkeys, to flash-point through every aspect of human society, every avenue of consciousness. The pain and conflict in the interim are just the severe friction burns of our individual and collective resistence to what is already more fundamentally true for us. The real question is: How long will any significant part of humanity continue to struggle against this? (*We have centuries to sort it out.)
""Oh, thats not that guy the wickedest man in the world is it? Wasnt he a drug addict, and a wanna be anti-christ that thought he was the Beast?"
"Yeah, exactly!"
Isnt this sort of self defeating as a promotional plan? Splain! Lol"
I think it's exactly the right approach for people who don't want followers - especialy emptyheaded Athenians.
-
93 Jim,
Yes! Ok, makes lot more sense. Also, I should have perhaps worded that better, I meant that ACs actions, and symbols he used himself as well as those in Liber L. Anyway, yes I agree, and makes sense in that it is not asking us to "join" (and I guess nor is any Thelemite) this philosophy, its a statement, its telling us. I suppose my mistake (and many others who ask outside) is that Crowley was selling something, trying to convert, when thats not at all what he was doing! Yet, still, I feel at a disadvantage, handicapped when trying to overcome these questions about the apparent "evilness" when discissing Thelemic ideas with outsiders, who may benifit from it.
However, as you say, we have a long road ahead for rhe stigma and ignorance to subside, and society to grow into Thelemic ideas, so that its not as "shocking" but more witty and symbolically rich. Thanks for helping me at least reformulate somewhat of a response to this question myself that isnt simply dogmatic.
93 93/93
-
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
"It certainly brooks no room for compromise: Nothing in the Book hints that, "Y'know, if you really think that sex is evil and immoral, we can probably work something out about it." Quite the contrary."
"And the Book itself doesn't call for toadies: It says, "There is success." It's a 'done deal.' The law is in place. Anyone standing against it has lost."
Loved that.
Love is the law, love under will.
-
@Ethar said
"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
LMAO
Well, I think part of the point is to not attract those with closed minds who can't understand such symbolism. And anyway, I don't think whatever forces are in charge, such as Aiwass, would've let Crowley do this if it wasn't meant to be this way. Unless he somehow could supersede spiritual authority.
Love is the law, love under will."
Yes, of course your right. I mean, as a Thelemite of course I understand theres a reason for it ultimately. But, when this question is posed to myself by others, I felt somewhat at a loss, simply giving a somewhat xtian type dogmatic answer along the lines of their usual "well, we dont know, its Gods will. His ways arent our ways." Lol you know what I mean? Always hated that arguement
So, I figured id ask, and see if there were a more logical answer. I think Jim did a great job at helping me with that, in that the new answer is it directly challenges the ideals of the outgoing Aeon, making those with the ability to think, and prevent "toadies" (love that term lol), & its telling us, not asking us.
93 93/93
-
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
That's why I don't talk about Thelema as something separate from me, I talk about me, what stuff means to me and what and why I believe in, (I'm not known as evil or satanic, so that helps) and if a conversation ensues I can build it from there.
Love is the law, love under will.
-
@Ethar said
"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
That's why I don't talk about Thelema as something separate from me, I talk about me, what stuff means to me and what and why I believe in, (I'm not known as evil or satanic, so that helps) and if a conversation ensues I can build it from there.
Love is the law, love under will."
Lol im the same! Just easier to get across your points without silly distractions etc. However, once they make it into my house and see my shelf of books, well ill start using Jims help for wording lol. Sometimes people get so interested after talking generically, they start to want more details on how to DO it etc., which of course presses for more specifics, and out pops AC in all his "wickedness"
-
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
Well, if they're willing to listen that far then you just have to explain where this myth came from, and make it clear that Thelema is not Crowley and you're not "following" him by being a Thelemite. (Well, you are, but only in the sense that you're following every Thelemite before you.)
Love is the law, love under will.
-
@Ethar said
"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
Well, if they're willing to listen that far then you just have to explain where this myth came from, and make it clear that Thelema is not Crowley and you're not "following" him by being a Thelemite. (Well, you are, but only in the sense that you're following every Thelemite before you.)
Love is the law, love under will."
Yes, very true. Usually thats exactly what I do, usually thats the case, and all is well. People are a lot more open these days, and I feel actually xtianity is being seen as more in a negative "controlling/guilt" light. Even if ultimately I was able to "explain" it all, it still raised the question of "why" was that obsticle there in the first place? It seemed a stumbling block tward "converting" I guess lol, which was my own misunderstanding.
93 93/93
-
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
@kasper81 said
"With that said AC's writings are full of such outrageous "jokes" or jolts /shocks and of course the BOLaw is a prime example."
Uh, again, the Book of the Law isn't Crowley's.
Love is the law, love under will.
-
@Iamus said
"And it's not Liber L it's Liber AL, hence the "sub figura XXXI" in the full title of the manuscript."
I actually disagree with that, Iamus. The title page was part of the original manuscript, so I hold it to the same standard of "Change not as much as the style of a letter." The title page said Liber L.
I accept the Aleph-Lamed key as an important interpretation of the name, but not as the name.
The number 31 was added by modern post-Crowley people to distinguish the manuscript. The original title page of the manuscript read, βLiber L. vel Legis. given from the mouth of Aiwass to the ear of The Beast on April 8, 9, & 10, 1904 O.S.β
-
@Frater Potater said
"
@Ethar said
"Uh, again, the Book of the Law isn't Crowley's. "Not everyone believes that Aiwass was a discarnate being who dictated the book. Some say Aiwass was an aspect of Crowley's own mind... Others go as far as to say Aiwass was a fabrication.
Just try to keep in mind that others share differing views."
Nonetheless - belief aside - there was only one witness who testified, and his testimony was unequivocal.
The bench finds for Mr. Crowley.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@Iamus said
"And it's not Liber L it's Liber AL, hence the "sub figura XXXI" in the full title of the manuscript."I actually disagree with that, Iamus. The title page was part of the original manuscript, so I hold it to the same standard of "Change not as much as the style of a letter." The title page said Liber L.
I accept the Aleph-Lamed key as an important interpretation of the name, but not as the name.
The number 31 was added by modern post-Crowley people to distinguish the manuscript. The original title page of the manuscript read, βLiber L. vel Legis. given from the mouth of Aiwass to the ear of The Beast on April 8, 9, & 10, 1904 O.S.β"
See, I'd been under the impression that Crowley himself retitled it to AL (Liber Legis) The Book of the Law sub figurΓ’ XXXI as delivered by 93 β Χ’ΧΧΧ β ΞΞΉΟΞ±ΟΟ β 418 to Ankh-af-na-Khonsu The Priest of the Princes, which I took to indicate that Crowely only thought it was called Liber L. because he had only heard the title spoken aloud, but it was Liber AL all along, thus the "change" was really a correction of an error and not a change at all. Is that not correct, or do we simply disagree?
-
@Iamus said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@Iamus said
"And it's not Liber L it's Liber AL, hence the "sub figura XXXI" in the full title of the manuscript."I actually disagree with that, Iamus. The title page was part of the original manuscript, so I hold it to the same standard of "Change not as much as the style of a letter." The title page said Liber L.
I accept the Aleph-Lamed key as an important interpretation of the name, but not as the name.
The number 31 was added by modern post-Crowley people to distinguish the manuscript. The original title page of the manuscript read, βLiber L. vel Legis. given from the mouth of Aiwass to the ear of The Beast on April 8, 9, & 10, 1904 O.S.β"
See, I'd been under the impression that Crowley himself retitled it to AL (Liber Legis) The Book of the Law sub figurΓ’ XXXI as delivered by 93 β Χ’ΧΧΧ β ΞΞΉΟΞ±ΟΟ β 418 to Ankh-af-na-Khonsu The Priest of the Princes, which I took to indicate that Crowely only thought it was called Liber L. because he had only heard the title spoken aloud, but it was Liber AL all along, thus the "change" was really a correction of an error and not a change at all. Is that not correct, or do we simply disagree?"
93 Iamus,
Just a thought here, but even if the title was later "decided" to be AL, at the actual time of writing it was entitled L. If we give the excuse of later deciding what something "should" have been, and "correct" it, thats changing it regardless, which the Book specifically warns against. If we are allowed to "correct" then seems AC would have corrected a lot more (then again we excuse the later addition of verse numbers in the last two chapters).
The title "Liber L" was heard, and written down, just as AC says he had written down "Harder" when he said it was probably "Harden", but said he left it uncorrected in order to obey the directive of not changing as much as the style of a letter.
93 93/93
-
Debate not of the Image, saying : Beyond! Beyond!
It is unfortunate that people so often find it neccesary to push people into little boxes.
Squeeze them into certain labels.I mean, if I really wished to 'defend' Crowley, I could say:
The drugs he used were entirely legal,
You could purchase them over the counter -
(They also did not have a developed notion of addiction - they use to give the stuff to children!)
Crowley also admitted to playing for both teams,
A big NO NO, which these days,
Does not cause much of an up-roar.Thus, in Victorian times, perhaps one might have seen him as a "wicked beast"
These days he is no stranger than your standard rock muscianThough, I feel our time can be better spent not defending a person who is no longer around
For it is not Crowley that we follow, it is our True Will
One thing I am all ways sure to do , when a person becomes curious,
Is to try and direct them towards knowing and doing their True Will
Whether it be through Christianity, Buddhism, Wood-Working, Singing...
The Law is for ALL , not ALL for the Law -
@Iamus said
"See, I'd been under the impression that Crowley himself retitled it to AL (Liber Legis) The Book of the Law sub figurΓ’ XXXI as delivered by 93 β Χ’ΧΧΧ β ΞΞΉΟΞ±ΟΟ β 418 to Ankh-af-na-Khonsu The Priest of the Princes, which I took to indicate that Crowely only thought it was called Liber L. because he had only heard the title spoken aloud, but it was Liber AL all along, thus the "change" was really a correction of an error and not a change at all. Is that not correct, or do we simply disagree?"
Yes, Crowley did accept the new name - many years after the dictation, when Achad came up with a solution to many of the Qabalistic mysteries.
I hold that, under the very explicit rules the Book set for itself, he had no right to do so. Rose made immediate changes - a couple of things he got wrong or incomplete (which I take to be part of the original retrieval process), and Crowley was very explicitly told to change nothing at all - not even the style of amy of the letters - and was only given latitude on the "space marks-marks."
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"I hold that, under the very explicit rules the Book set for itself, he had no right to do so. Rose made immediate changes - a couple of things he got wrong or incomplete (which I take to be part of the original retrieval process), and Crowley was very explicitly told to change nothing at all - not even the style of amy of the letters - and was only given latitude on the "space marks-marks.""
You know, I guess I never saw the title of the work falling under the same restrictions as the text itself, but without really critically considering it. I'll have to think about that. Thanks.