College of Thelema: Thelemic Education

Ok guys. OP here. Let's just chill out and please refrain from turning this into a thread about how irritating Los (or Jim Eshelman) is.

You may be surprised to learn that I have found each of your responses (concerning the nature of Hadit) helpful. Eshelman's replies AND Los' replies! Oh gosh!

And just to clear some things up, Los,

A dot on a piece of paper can symbolize Hadit in 2D. Of course, that doesn't do a good job conveying any kind of motion. A point in 3D is a better symbol. A point in 4D is even better. I don't know what # of dimensions I am picturing when I picture a ubiquitous central point to an infinite sphere, but I think that it is an even better spacial symbol for Hadit. to paraphrase Jim in a way that I think is more true to what he was saying, a logic founded on 4D time-space can't be counted on to assess (say) 5D or 8D symbols. We are talking about spacial models for Hadit, which as you say, is a symbol for something that is more than just a spacial point. But a spacial point is an alright symbol for it.

But not the only symbol I find useful. Jim, you were not quite correct when you supposed that my original questions arose out of frameworks bounded by finite definitions of space, time. Perhaps finite conditions yes.

I suppose another way to frame my question is, "Is Hadit's nature modifiable? Is Hadit touchable by conditions?" But I think all of you answered my question pretty soundly.

THANKS GUYS!

A couple things that confuse me about the theoretical nature of Hadit as described in Chapter 00.

Hadit is the "secret center", the Hidden One, the distinctive "point of view." In buddhist and yogic practice, this is often referred to as "the witness," which is unbounded and unmodified by what it witnesses, and absolutely unmoved. Yet in Thelemic discussions, Hadit goes, "as each person's point of view is continually in motion," as Jim says in the book. Perhaps I am picking hairs and there is no real philosophical value in deciding if it's "what's witnessed" that's in motion or "the witness" that's in motion. Or perhaps there is value in this distinction and "the witness" is not the same concept as "Hadit". Perhaps the apparent distinction is just a matter of wording, and the "witness" (Hadit) is "unmoved" in that it remains unmodified, and "Hadit" (the witness) continually "moves" in that its context is always in motion. Thoughts? Corrections? Are these two entirely different characteristics of Hadit as Kether (being), and Hadit as Chokmah (motion)?

I also have confusions about Hadit's described isolation and intimacy.
If Hadit is alone, existentially isolated, then how is intimacy ("experiencing each circumstance or event as intimately as possible") even remotely possible for Hadit? He desires intimate union with Nuit, but if he is by nature isolated, then any ammount of actual intimacy, and his isolated nature would cease to exist. Is this the meaning of "but whoso gives one particle of dust shall lose all in that hour"? Does any engagement with Nuit destroy Hadit, or am I being too literal about this?

Thought I would share a rephrasing of St. Francis' "Serinity Prayer," with the Three Rays, or Three Mothers.

Lord, grant me the Love (Mem) to accept and embrace what I cannot change,
the Power (Shin) to change what I can,
and the Wisdom (Aleph) to know the difference.

Thanks guys. Your comments have helped. From the wide variety of opinions people have about the ego/Ruach, it is sometimes difficult to sort out what exactly they are talking about. When one person exalts it and another person demonizes it, can seem like the two people are talking about entirely different things though using the same terms. It seems that my investigation of this matter is similar to trying to learn about a person by only studying hir when se's ill.

Admittedly, I find illnesses fascinating and they can make great stories...

Been thinking about the ego, or "self-structure" or illusory "I" a lot lately. I read Colin Low's "Notes on Kabbalah" a while ago, and I recall his description of the Ruach to be very similar to my understanding of the abstract self-structure which is divided against reality. But this seems to conflict with other descriptions of Ruach that I have read, and I'm trying to clear up some of the confusion I've got about this. Low writes of the Ruach,

The Ruach is the rational soul... [It is] not seen as something that one was given automatically, in the words of Scholem, it is a "post-natal increment"... Ruach exists in varying degrees from person to person - it is not present by default in equal measure.

The Ruach is based on the ability to create abstract models of the world in consciousness and reflect on them... If we ignore the questionable value of being able to reflect on the morality of our decisions, we are still left with the ability to reflect: we have the ability to reflect on ourselves, perhaps even to reflect ourselves, and create a "self image".... Because the Ruach can reflect upon itself, and create a self image, it can become an entity in its own right, perhaps even dissociating itself from the body and its needs... We have millions of people reflecting upon themselves and concluding that they are "wrong" in some way - the wrong shape, the wrong size, the wrong color, the wrong age.

My own view of the Ruach is profoundly negative. Our culture develops this single aspect of consciousness to such an absurd degree that the Ruach is incapable of forming a sensible notion concerning either the Nephesh or Neshamah, and turning its face away from both the lower and higher worlds, becomes obsessed with its own creations. The Ruach has a tendency to reduce the body to an object and often lives a life completely at odds with the needs of the Nephesh. Where there is a spiritual aspiration, the Ruach produces a monstrous and bloated reflection, "itself made perfect", and aspires towards this illusory caricature of itself. The Ruach is a patchwork monster, a grotesque reflection of its creator, and it lurches about the world trying to make sense of what is happening, sometimes playing like a child, sometimes leaving a trail of destruction. It is the king that needs to be slain, the god that must be sacrificed.

What do yall think? That description sounds pretty darn Yesodic to me. Might this just be one aspect of Ruach? Do you think it's accurate to associate the Ruach with the symbol of the "king that needs to be slain, the god that must be sacrificed"? Is it the same thing as the ego, or an accumulation of sensations within memory that is identified with?

Hi boys and girls! It's been a while since I've been around these here parts. So what I'm doing is working on a version of a conversation game called the Glass Plate Game ( glassplategame.com ) (yes, it is loosely based on Hess's "glass bead game," but I'm not trying to replicate that, since I haven't read his book). So how the game basically works is there are a whole slew of random cards set out on a table as a "board" sort of. Each card has a little picture and a title, and it represents some basic principle or idea, such as "Ambiguity" or "The City As Artifact" or "Monetary Value" or "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" or "unwanted relationships". Take a look at the cards yourself:
glassplategame.com/cards.ph
The players then begin to have a conversation. They may choose to pick a card to start the conversation, or they may just start talking about anything on their mind. In any case, the "topic" of discussion is indicated by placing a marker on whatever card seems to most appropriately represent it. As the conversation meanders, connections between different topics or ideas are are mapped out with successive numbered markers. It's great for mapping out conversations/discussions, or forming new mental connections between ideas and topics... Kinda like Qabalah! I noticed that the cards used in the game are actually pretty arbitrary, and when I organized the cards according to how I would associate them with the Tree of Life, I found them to be not all that all-encompassing. Some cards are so generic that they're used multiple times in every conversation, and some are so specific that they're hardly ever touched.

So my idea was to alter this game by eliminating the cards and replacing them with a board consisting of the 10 sephiroth and 22 paths.

This is what I am requesting help with.

My intention is to be able to use this board even with people who are totally unfamiliar with Qabalah and the TOL. It would probably be layed out in the form of the spheres and paths, each with a series of key-words or simple-ish descriptions (and maybe a picture??) written on them which could be used as a clear and flexible stage upon which the layman could classify whatever thought or phenomenon they may choose to discuss. And so began my attempt to clearly and simply (yet broadly) describe each sphere and path.

I'll share with y'all what I've got so far. I've given the Spheres and Paths alternate titles and summarized them with a smattering of keywords. The keywords for the paths I have separated into words that describe what they represent when going UP the path and when going DOWN the path.

OK, so here's my spheres. How are the titles of the spheres (I want a title that best summarizes the basics of the sphere to the uneducated)? Are there any words that you think don't fit? Any words you think would be better? Any words I should add? Does the format clarify the sphere? Do the words hit all the most relevant points and facets of the sphere? Etc?

“UNITY” (Kether)
One; primal point; beginning and end; source and goal; godhead; all; root and seed; existence and non-existence; union of opposites; paradox; attainment; the unattainable; undiscovered; unknowable; infinite potential; infinite expression

“PURE CREATIVE FORCE” (Chokmah)
Yang; sperm; river; wellspring; emanation; erection; will; life-force; fountains; light; raw power

“SOURCE OF CONDITIONS” (Binah)
Yin, space, time, change, death, fate, old age, infertility, limitation, containment, context, environment, womb, darkness, gestation, egg, fertility, multiplication, division, infinite ocean, potential, differences, otherness, mystery

“EMERGENCE OF CREATIVITY” (Chesed)
Inspiration; the visionary; leadership; authority; righteousness; expansion; creation of form; birth; growth; change; novelty; giving; lawless force; excess; plenty; charity; service; submission

“IMPOSITION OF STRUCTURE” (Geburah)
Severance; power of defense or destruction; full responsibility of free will; karma; justice; law; the immune system; military; severity; strength; restraint; discipline; preservation; deflation; defense

“BEING”; “ESSENCE” (having trouble finding a solid, clear title for Tiphereth)
Truth; wholeness; balance; process; perfection; spirit; root of identity; true self; centrality; the heart; the sun; peace; an empty room with nothing in it; purity; death & rebirth; renewal; life; consciousness; authenticity; appropriateness; unattached being; emptiness & fullness

“STRUCTURED ENERGY” (Netzach)
Affective responses; needs; instincts; drives; desires; the expression of energy; behavior; emotion; feelings; nurturing; intuition; response to aesthetics; passion; pleasure; sensuality

“ENERGIZED STRUCTURE” (Hod)
Intellectual fixation; abstraction; language; communication; cunning; ingenuity; reason; invention; creating structure; construction; technique; medicine; science

“THE GENERATOR”: “ESSENCE GENERATES DISTINCTION” (I'm having trouble with a good title for Yesod)
Consciousness of the world; perception; imagination; interfacing; subconsciousness; mirrors; myth; dreams; archetype; gestalt; identification; the ego; image; glamour; meaning; representation; translation; reproduction; sex; hidden infrastructure; psyche; illusion; adaptation; change

“THE DISTINCT WORLD” (Malkuth)
Practicality; material; down-to-earth; immediately apparent; diversity; physical doings; things; Mother Earth; nature; “sticks and stones”; food; wealth; multiplicity; plenty; mass; inertia; stability; home; environment; vehicle; tools

Now here's my paths. How are the titles of the Paths? Is it appropriate to describe it in different terms of “up” and “down”? Are any “up” or “down” words better suited in another category? Sometimes I've been unsure about which “direction” of the process I am thinking of, or what a path might look like going one way as opposed to another. Is the format even appropriate? Might there be better ways of summarizing the path in a clear and general way? Do the words hit all the most relevant points and facets of the path?

INNOCENCE (Aleph)
UP (words describing movement up the path)
association with all things;
DOWN (words describing movement down the path)
spontaneous beginning; pure activity; play

CLEAR TRANSMISSION (Beth)
UP
Return; letting go; authenticity
DOWN
the unexpected; story weaving

CROSSING A THRESHOLD OF ILLUSION (Gimel)
UP
Loss of self into otherness; enlightenment/dissolution
DOWN
manifestation; creation; virgin birth

LOVE AS A DOORWAY (Daleth)
UP
Embrace; acceptance; forgiveness
DOWN
phase change; genesis; conception; nourishment

THE PROCESS OF LIFE (Heh)
UP
fulfillment of all possible life experiences; encounter with the ultimate power; humility; bathing in the fountain of creativity;
DOWN
inspiration; will to live

STRENGTH IN SILENCE (Vau)
UP
learning the secret of omnipotence
DOWN
Revelation; education; communication of wisdom; indirect communication; granting blessings

THE PROCESS OF DISCOVERY (Zayin)
UP
All things “come together”; marriage; synthesis; discovering the context/substance of the self; mystical insight
DOWN
birth; the first murder; deconstruction; reflection;

THE PROCESS OF SUFFERING (Cheth)
UP
Victory through self-sacrifice; limitation meets its source;
DOWN
awareness of separation/distinction; conveying dreadful orders

CREATIVE TURBULENT BOUNDARY (Teth)
UP
social change/turbulence; compassion; interrelatedness of life
DOWN
oppositions resulting in life;

INSIGHT (Yod)
UP
balancing up, shedding power; last judgment; distillation; boiling down to the essence; learning the secret
DOWN
Innovation;

TRANSITORINESS AND CREATIVITY (Kaph)
UP
secondhand emotional response to creativity; loving reaction to newness and change; desire for creative power
DOWN
transmitting creativity to the masses; performance; divine influence; conferring blessing; the gift of change

NECESSITY AND BALANCE (Lamed)
UP
Knighthood; holy war; pursuit of justice; commitment to defending moral law; doing what's required for the best; selfless duty; work of equilibration
DOWN
Re-birth; synthesis; self-awareness; field-awareness

SYSTEMS OF CONTROL (Mem)
UP
discovering the force which maintains the limits you work with; the intellect meets its maker directly; insanity; suspension (stopping) of the mind; world turned upside down; ordeal of stasis and and awakening; trial
DOWN
the force of guidance; sustaining power; dominance

CHANGING ATTACHMENTS (Nun)
UP
Detachment from feelings; impartiality; re-considering the value we place on things; end of emotional attachment; moving on; transformation; death; “Come back, Shane!”
DOWN
Immersion into values; partiality; plugging-in

TRUTH AS AN ABSTRACTION (Ayin)
UP
detachment from ideas; abandoning rational truth; unfixation from particulars; universal joke; absurdity;
DOWN
articulation of what is true; immersion into definitions; commitment to ideas;

THE SPIRITUAL PATH (Samekh)
UP
Initiation; refinement; lifting-up; testing/trial; “do or to not, there is no try”; willingness
DOWN
Influence; Inspiration; inhabiting

WHOLE-SYSTEM TRANSITION (Peh)
UP
Chaos; loss of narrative; encountering necessary disorder; awakening; uncomfortable truth; chaotic confrontation with the experience of life's uncertainties
DOWN
Organizing; formalizing; rationalization

NEEDS VS. WANTS (Tzaddi)
UP
transition from glamorous dreams to true needs; practicality; seeing the same thing in an unfamiliar way; reassessment; reprioritization;
DOWN
glamor seen from a practical standpoint; seduction;

THE PROCESS OF BIAS (Qoph)
UP
value making;
DOWN
projection; perception of atmospheric mood; judgement; world as a mirror of subconsciousness; illusion; empathy; “cloudy visions”

THE POWER OF THE IMAGINATION (Resh)
UP
belief; narrative; subjective perception; imaginative scenarios
DOWN
storytelling?

EDUCATION (Shin)
UP
making intelligable; diversity to categories; pigeon-holing; rationalizing
DOWN
dissolving models; immersion; silence; assigning; informing

THE THRESHOLD OF POTENTIAL (Tau)
UP
Concentration; finding a fulcrum/perspective which reveals the power to change; gaining perspective on the self-in-the-universe; the power of intention; formation; limitation
DOWN
Loss of self; immersion into otherness; point of view moving into vast, impersonal manyhood; death;

Any and all feedback will be appreciated. Thanks, friends with brains!

Love as "an expression of who you are as a discrete entity, the manifestation of your true name" sounds the same as Love "in action." I think that if a discrete entity carries out "love in action", then it is necessarily an expression of the nature of that discrete entity, don't you agree?

Loving "under the power of will" to me is the same as Loving "under service of the Master".

Honestly, your dialectic would be much more interesting and effective if you wrote your opposition to be a little less idiotic. It's not difficult to build straw men and sand castles to beat down with a stick.

I dunno. Presidents can sometimes be awfully dense. yuk yuk yuk.

@Jim Eshelman said

"Assiah also includes borderland areas, generally termed "etheric" - that aspect of the "non-material" which, nonetheless, conforms in essential shape and disposition to the physical universe."

Would this be things like abstractions (i.e. "marriage", "coolness", "President of the United States")? Those are non-material, but conform in shape and disposition to the physical universe.

@Alrah said

"Munindo did a good podcast on this matter (I'm a fan of the abbot).

Ego too is just so: aruno.org//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=109&Itemid=9"

Daaamn! That podcast just united almost every one of the huge trains of thought that have been populating my mind for the past 4 months! Thanks Alrah.

"...for in the chance shape of the letters and their position to one another: in these are mysteries that no Beast shall divine."

Once, while reading the book, this line came off to me as sounding extremely sarcastic, as if to quip "if by some straaange chaaance these letters, by their shape, and their position to one another (the basic qualities of written words) happen to be saying something... well, it don't exactly require divination, fool."

I've been doing a little research on the Montessori educational method and Rudolf Steiner's Waldorf educational method. I am currently seeking volunteer positions at both the local Montessori school and the local Waldorf school in order to learn more about them from observation. I'm also considering the possibility of some day seeking teacher certification in one of these methods. This stuff just fascinates the hell out of me.

Anyway, the philosophical similarities of both Waldorf and Montessori are interesting.
In both, the child is viewed as "the father of the man" (or the mother of the woman). The child is thus viewed with great respect and reverence. It is the task of the adults to create a protective & nurturing environment for the child, much like the role that the womb plays to the fetus. The philosophy of both seems to be that child's inner guide is the real teacher, and adults are facilitators to help bring that out.
Both emphasize the education of the whole child, spiritual, mental, physical, psychological, over any particular academic curriculum.
Both systems base their education on the needs of the child, believing that this will lead to meeting the needs of society as a whole. It is the will of the child to guide humanity into the direction that we most need to go. Indeed, these are both educational systems unique, and I believe vitally important to the aeon of the child.

Perhaps more interesting still are the differences between these two educational methods. Because I don't know much about child psychology or development, I cannot say which methods sound more effective than the other. But I wonder what you folks might have to think about their respective approaches.

Academics and Fantasy
In Montessori, there is a feeling that young children have difficulty distinguishing between reality and fantasy, and therefore fantasy should be postponed until the child is firmly grounded in reality. The tasks and activities the children do are reality oriented. Montessori filled her first school of 3-6-year-olds with dolls and other traditional make-believe toys but found that when children were given the opportunity to do real work such as cooking, cleaning, caring for themselves, each other, and the environment, they completely lost interest in make-believe and preferred real work. All toys are focused towards specific learning concepts, and each has a very specific use. Intellectual focus is introduced very early on in Montessori's method. Children are introduced to the real world in all is variations in the first six years, and then use these experiences for creative endeavors in the future.

In Waldorf, there is a feeling that young children do no share the same distinction between fantasy and reality that adults have. To the child there is only one world, and that is the very real one in which and with which he plays. The tasks and activities the children do are oriented towards the creative imagination. The Waldorf curriculum of up to 7 years largely incorporates storytelling and fantasy, such as a strong emphasis on art, myths, expressive body movement, etc. Academic subjects such as reading, writing and maths aren't touched upon much until about 1st grade. The idea is that play and fantasy occurs on the surface and if the imagination is kept vibrant, the work of intellectual unfoldement takes place beneath the surface according to its own timing. The less finished and the more suggestive a toy may be, the greater its educational value, for it really enlivens the imaginative life of the child. The child can use for the most part any of the classroom materials in any way (unlike in Montessori).

Individuality and the Group
Montessori classrooms are mix-aged (groups of 0-3, 3-6, 6-9, etc) in order to facilitate realistic socialization. In the classroom you will never see an adult lecturing to a large group of children (except when telling stories perhaps). Children are free to move about at will, and the day is not divided between work periods and rest or play periods. The choice of what to study or work on at any one time is left to the child, with guidance whenever necessary by the teacher. Each child works independently, doing a different task from the other children. work is focused on individual learning tasks, performed separately, with the teacher giving lessons individually to one child at a time, and often lessons are given by one older child to another younger one. The child's choice and concentration is respected and protected from interruption by others.

Waldorf classrooms are a single age only, to facilitate the specific needs of that age group. Work in the Waldorf school is more traditional in structure, in that it is more group oriented. The teacher has the role of orchestrating how the development of the young child in the social realm happens – through modeling good social behavior with children, through joining together in movement activities, singing or games to develop group consciousness. Waldorf sees the child thriving in a rhythmical atmosphere – knowing what he/she can count on from day to day and week to week. There are times for coming together and working as a whole group, times for playing individually or with friends, times for directed activity like crafts or baking or painting, and times for creative play (such as acting a story out through movement, doing finger games, watching a puppet show). The Waldorf teacher works with the year’s seasonal rhythms and themes, weaving artistic activities, stories, songs and verses to enliven and capture the children’s interest and imaginations.

Freedom and Structure
From what I see so far, both schools recognize that the child needs structure in order to facilitate personal freedom, and both feel the physical setting needs an underlying order to help the child feel secure. But the two philosophies interpret these things in quite different ways:

Montessori allows freedom in regards to the child's choices of academic direction, and is structured in regards to the specific subject matter and methodology of learning and teaching.
Waldorf is structured in regards to the child's choices of academic direction, and allows freedom in regards to the specific subject matter.

Anyone have any thoughts on these methods?

Oh it's the Book of the L- HEEY WAIT A SECOND. huffs, puffs, LBRPs

Fun game: Try reading it all the way through without laughing. If you fail, post how far you got. I got to I:8 before cracking up.

You talk funny.

@Alrah said

"
@Bryan said
"
@Alrah said
"
@Bryan said
"And from standing on it, I can jump off into the future."

Are you sure?"

It's a feeling, really. Not a very water-tight logical statement. What I meant by the statement is that when I accept where I'm at, and forget the lingering yearnings to be somewhere else, I can more securely and calmly and powerfully choose where I want to go next."

Last year, everytime I had an idea of where I wanted to go next, I'd just stop and look at this 'want'. What wanted? And everytime a 'want' arose I saw that it would cause some sense of dissatisfaction within me. That's why I kept stopping. It was enough to 'be'. It was more than enough.

That's only why I asked. "

Oh yeah. I find that looking at where the want is coming from is very important. That's a vital part of looking at my present situation as a whole. I too find that a lot of my wants come from a very dissatisfied part of me. Want to be better, more accomplished. Want to change my shitty self-destructive habits. Want to find the love and companionship of someone who will make me feel more whole. And so on. It's sometimes hard to imagine that my dissatisfaction actually COMES FROM the fact that deep down, I secretly tell myself that I'm not good enough or accomplished enough. That I ought to regret my self-destructive habits. That I am not whole, not complete, or worthy of love and companionship at this very moment. Finding that just Being is sufficient really only comes to me when I can acknowledge where my dissatisfaction is coming from, and when I can forgive myself for creating such pain.

Because Being can be seen as process, a lot of people call it "Becoming". Becoming feels more appropriate to me because when I feel sufficient, it is a feeling that includes an acceptance of the passage of time, and an acceptance that my body, my heart, etc, truly does, at a very deep level, want to express itself in this world. I think that level of "want" might be more appropriately called Thelema. What my Becoming truly wants is what inspires Love, not what is inspired by dissatisfaction.

@Alrah said

"
@Bryan said
"And from standing on it, I can jump off into the future."

Are you sure?"

It's a feeling, really. Not a very water-tight logical statement. What I meant by the statement is that when I accept where I'm at, and forget the lingering yearnings to be somewhere else, I can more securely and calmly and powerfully choose where I want to go next.

@Jim Eshelman said

"You can't choose the future without entirely accepting the present. (And you can't get what's really true about the present without accepting it. And, when you actually "get" the present, you need to actively choose that also.)"

Oh man have I been finding out how true this is. I've had a tendency through most of my post-pubescent life to intensely dislike my present situation, to tell myself that it's not good enough- Always wanting to be doing something else, be somewhere else, be someone else. But within the past couple months I have been finding that if look at my whole situation, no matter what it is- and totally forgive myself for any mistakes or flaws or whatever that have brought me here, and say to myself "right here is just fine. It is perfect. Now is sufficient," It feels like a whole new beginning. I find that when I can accept the whole past and the present, it's like it suddenly becomes solid, and I can stand on it and rest instead of tread water in panic. And from standing on it, I can jump off into the future.

Thanks Jim, this is very interesting.

"The resulting isolation is so direct a consequence of the original, innocent impulse to intimately connect that we're compelled to call it a particular manifestation of that original impulse "

So the original impulse in this example shoots back and curls up upon itself in response (I'm reminded of the way a slug reacts when you touch its sensitive antenna). This effectively keeps the impulse from expressing itself (when retracted, the antenna cannot do its job). This seems to say that True Will can restrict itself from further expression (part of the job of a slug's antenna is to retract and protect itself). If our personalities are sort of like pattern-shells formed by the True Will ("essence of the Sephiroth"?) adapting to this bumpy, dirty world, then the personality's "won't power" does have its roots in the True Will. If there is no such thing as conflict (when it comes to True Will), then the restriction of True Will is in accord with True Will.

If this is accurate, then I guess the next question to ask would be AvshalomBinyamin's 'now what's the point of that?'

All this made me consider another way of putting a similar question:

So, for this reason or that, I have developed, as I grew up, certain psychological complexes and neuroses. I feel that due to these complexes, the nature of my True Will remains obscure to me. But then I considered: if all conditions of my birth and childhood, etc are chosen by my Self... then what does that say about my resultant blockages/neuroses/complexes? Are they manifestations of my True Will, or are they restrictions/veils covering up my True Will? Obviously, I feel like they're restrictions/veils because the more I know about them, and can clear them away, the more Love I feel capable of.

If the psychological complexes etc. that one develops through life are always manifestations of one's True Will, then how is it even possible for one person to restrict the True Will of another/ thwart their Rights? The best example I can imagine of someone thwarting the Rights/restricting the True Will of another is the example of child abuse. The more severe forms of child abuse are almost guaranteed to create an adult who's psychological complexes will remain uncleared, and their True Will will remain unknown and not done for the remainder of their life.

How could it be someone's True Will to never know and do their True Will? If all the conditions of one's childhood (in this example) were the Self's choice (i.e. True Will), then this paradox seems to come into play, and there is no such thing as restriction.