@Froclown said
"As a simple matter of course Each individual must find itself supreme and claim for itself the whole universe as it's property and seek total domination of all things subject to it's WILL."
"As a simple matter of course [...]"? Could I ask you to expand on this a little?
Ha... The really funny thing, TwoMoccasins, is that I'm currently in a psychodynamically-oriented graduate program in psychology. Imagine...
93,
It always interests me when people start talking about kings and slaves because I have such a hard time squaring it with "Every man and every woman is a star." The contention that it is the natural Will of certain people to be slaves strikes me as too convenient and rather unconvincing. It seems to serve the purpose of glorifying the egos of those in positions of power and also of absolving them of their own culpability. "It's those other people, those slaves that are the problem, certainly. Gosh no, it couldn't be me. I'm a king."
The only way for me to deal with it is to return to The Book of the Law. I find it very interesting that the prophet himself is described as a slave in I:26. Furthermore, the verse from which most of this slave-king stuff seems to derive is II:58, which reads, "Therefore the kings of the earth shall be Kings forever: the slaves shall serve." For me, the interpretation of the verse hinges on the function of the colon, and it seems perfectly reasonable to interpret it as appositive in function, and thus interpret that the kings are also the slaves (although I would suggest that this interpretation is still possible even if the colon is syntactical-deductive.) It would, in my opinion, take kingly courage to become a slave to one's own Will.
I know this thread has been more about the king-slave dichotomy generally and less about The Book of the Law, so, hope this wasn't too much of a digression.
Love = Law
@Law said
"Well I just find it funny that Crowley starts this "religion" and gives no central tenants, and doesnt even explain his symbol. What is the significance of the "union of opposites" ?"
93,
I believe in the thread titled "Thelema Tattoo" we recently discussed why the Unicursal Hexagram is not the symbol of Thelema.
If you would like to enlighten yourself as to the central tenets of this "religion," and/or the concept of the union of opposites I refer you to the following link:
www.sacred-texts.com/oto/index.htm
love=law
@Froclown said
"I don't see how you don't see why Feudal systems are Thelemic.
A caste is an orbit, a specialized role or path.
So we have a star in every orbit, and we try to make sure we have an orbit open to every star."
93,
I think the reason not everyone is jumping onto your Feudal System bandwagon, Froclown, is that there are at least two fundamental disagreements at work.
1 - What is and is not "Thelemic." You claim that this type of government is clearly "Thelemic," yet there is no kind of agreement on what the term "Thelemic" means, or what it encompasses, much less the issue of what is or is not "Thelemic." Further, I doubt that this forum, or any forum of modern Thelemites would be able to come to a consensus on this issue.
For example, months ago on Lashtal this very issue of "Thelemic Government" came up. To give just two pespectives, as I recall Erwin argued that a Thelemic Government's function would be to prevent people from doing anything other than their True Will, while Aum 418 asserted that Thelemic Government was more akin to Libertarianism. (Forgive me if I misquote anyone).
2 - There is a fundamental disagreement about the nature of Free Will, which Scarecrow has valiantly attempted to clear up. You seem to be saying that the True Will of people is akin to that of fish, dogs, and other animals. Many of us disagree.
While I can't speak for others, I can speak briefly about why I disagree.
According to various personality tests I have participated in over the years, my personality is categorized as INFP, or "The Healer," as Keirsey terms it. Now this dictates certain career choices that would seem suitable to me - IE Teacher, Therapist, Writer - and some that seem unsuitable - IE Soldier, Litigator, even Chef (not sure why). Now assume for a moment that these tests are 99% accurate. It seems perfectly reasonable to give them to children, and then sort those children into different schools in order to cultivate their unique talents. I wish someone had done it to me when I was a kid so I could have spent more time studying T. S. Eliot and less time flunking out of Pre-Calculus.
It seems to me that you're saying that this is it, great, now we have a Thelemic Society. But even though my personality may be an element of my True Will, it is not the totality of it, and it cannot be so easily categorizied. You may be able to predict and categorize someone's personality, but I do not think you will ever be able to easily categorize someone's True Will. Crowley expressed his own True Will as "To teach the next step." The beauty of such a statement is that it is almost infinitely applicable, because the step is always changing. What caste would you put Crowley into? I dare say he would have made an awful professor.
I just think that while it's a nice idea, a feudal caste system is far too restrictive to accommodate the True Wills of such a government's citizens, and would inevitably collapse under the weight of the conflict between caste and True Will.
I know you will argue that the Will can be objectively determined and we've already been over that, but perhaps now you understand why we do not agree?
Love=Law
@Edward Mason said
"93,
ThatNarrowFellow wrote:
"Edward Mason (or, as I like to call him, "E to the M")"
Not sure I get the reference here, other than some altered version of E-MC squared.
I'm just curious.
93 93/93,
EM"
93,
No need to be curious, just a joke.
Aum: You're right, and I think this is why I prefer the word "Way." Even though intellectually I understand that there is the will of volition and the metaphysical concept of Will and that they are different (just look at their initial letters) in terms of understanding where the lower will of my animal desires ends and the higher Will of my Higher Self (to choose one of many insufficient terms) is something that still escapes me.
I also think that because of language, and the way in which language informs thought, no matter how clear I think I am on the different uses of this English word "(W)will," I still catch myself falling into confusion. The fact is, the word "will" implies a certain conception of what we're striving for, and on days when I feel particularly clear-headed it seems like a wonderful vision and I attain to it, but on days when I am more muddled I find it helps for me to go back to "Way" as a means to encapsulate what I am striving for, because it is easier to sort out, and clearer in definition. I'm not likely to mistake the path to the subway as my individually-expressed "Way," or "Dao," as it were.
Love=Law
93,
I would like to add a yes, yes, and yes to pretty much everything Edward Mason (or, as I like to call him, "E to the M") just said. I will also add a few thoughts of my own.
I think it's unconscionably arrogant and indefensible to assert that Crowley and TBOTL are correct, while every other mystic philosopher and his/her accompanying path is wrong. I don't even think Crowley was the first to realize that different people have different paths - even the Buddha is remembered as saying that he could not teach the path to enlightenment, he could only teach his path and it was up to others to see whether or not it worked.
While I would never argue that every religion is at its core the same, I do believe that if you limit your search to mystic thinkers and mystic means of attainment there is a surprising degree of conformity. In the end, I think it's different people looking at different parts of the same elephant. The knowledge and conversation of my HGA and the knowledge and conversation of yours may be so different that we barely recognize them as the same experience. How much different must it be to encapsulate such a subjective moment in a way people in the West will understand, to the way people in the East will understand?
This is why, although I enjoy dreaming up Thelemic social systems as much as the next guy, deep down I think we all might benefit from a little less day-dreaming and a little more half-lotus (or full lotus, if that's your bag). I think to come at Thelema and try to use it as a means to master the external world is putting the cart before the horse. Use it to master yourself, and the rest will fall into place, or the rest won't fall into place, but what the f@ck will you care, you're already where you want to be, doing what you want to be doing.
For me, the problem with saying the universe has one Will is the word "Will." To be perfectly frank, I don't care much for the word Will, and much prefer the term "Way," to borrow from the Taoists. I also believe the two concepts are entirely analogous in the broader definitions, although I recognize there is no absolute consensus even among Taoist philosophers as to the Way's essential nature.
While it seems perfectly reasonable to argue that the universe does not have a Will, it seems impossible to me to argue that the universe does not have a way. Even if one asserts that the universe is completely random, this is still a way - randomness - that the universe exists, or doesn't exist, depending.
This is why, for me, someone who makes no claims to having discovered his True Will, the experience cannot possibly be "Oh, that's why I've been so unhappy; I'm supposed to have been living in Budapest for the past 5 years." Rather, I expect it will come as something far less concrete, far less amenable to definition, or even understanding.
Now if anyone needs me I'll be reviewing the vocabulary for my finals next week, which I have, for some reason, decided is more important that the half-lotus I mentioned a few paragraphs up. Certainly I am not meant for greatness.
Love=Law
93 David,
I'm sorry to hear that this time in your life is difficult, as Froclown pointed out, it can be helpful to remember that even dark times will pass. Sometimes it helps to compare what's going on now with other difficult times, and remember how those difficult times also passed, and how the many months or even years of suffering are in some way balanced by the joy and relief of the return to normalcy.
I don't know of any specific Thelemic texts that might help you; I expect everyone has different texts that resonate with them. All I can say is that one benefit I have gotten from Thelemic philosophy is a sense of freedom in dealing with suffering. When I suffer I don't feel guilty about suffering or the way that I suffer. I embrace it, I weep, I blow off work and go for long walks, I spend extra time meditating, I watch cartoons I used to enjoy as a kid, I listen to music and sing really loudly. It all sounds so trivial, but in times of great adversity a lot of time the small comforts are all we have left.
I think you have to be free to explore your own individual response to your suffering, and to not be afraid to embrace it, work through it, and then let it pass.
I hope this helps in some small way.
love=law
@Froclown said
"but it does make my point that True WILL is an objective scientific discovery "
93,
I wouldn't go that far. All you've really proven is that according to the A.'A.' system objective reflection or supervision is useful in directing one towards the True Will. If the discovery itself were objective, then you might as well turn everything over to your master and wait 4 to 6 weeks for him to process and encapsulate your True Will for you.
I hope that's not what we're moving towards.
Love=Law
"Oh? Check out today's news (Iraq, Afgan, Assorted African Nations, Korea, etc, etc) - Not much has changed. No agreement - human nature was and is aggressive and it turns violent whenever it thinks it can get away with it. "
93 Sphynx,
I think you've misunderstood my point. I'm not saying that human nature does not include violence (although I'm not sure it does to the point you suggest); I'm saying that at the time The Book of the Law was written society was much more restrictive in regards both to the nature of sexuality and the healthy expression of aggression. The effect of writing extensively on sexual license and violence would have been sharper on the average 19th century Londoner than it is on the 21st century New Yorker. Honestly, compared to today's HBO programming TBOTL is pretty tame.
My point in bringing it up is not to argue that Thelema is some kind of pacifist, hippie philosophy, but rather to offer an objection to Froclown's model. My objection is not the caste system, per se, but the implication that everyone should be solving their differences by beating the snot out of each other. It makes no sense for us to expect Stephen Hawking to defend his position as Lucasian Professor of Mathematics every year through mortal combat.
I think Froclown has rendered my objection null by quoting that bit from Crowley in which mention is made of arbitration committees or some such.
Hope this clears up my position.
Love=Law
@Sphynx said
"
@ThatNarrowFellow said
"Why is there so much emphasis on violence and conquest in this utopian society of yours?"
Why is there so much emphasis on violence and conquest in Liber AL?"
93,
I expect because it was written during the Victorian era, and during a time when Christianity and turn the other cheek were far more ubiquitous than they are today.
We should not follow the Christians' error of refusing to recognize that our holy book was written in a specific time and place. It seems like some people would like to say, "Everyone's got their own individual true Will, but it has to be violent and orgiastic." This is a mistake.
Love=Law
93,
You've got an interesting vision, Froclown, but it seems to me your overlooking a glaring contradiction; you're arguing for a caste-based society of warriors.
Why is there so much emphasis on violence and conquest in this utopian society of yours? No caste-based society that I am aware of is made up of only a warrior caste. Is there, then, no legal system? No venue for the resolving of disputes besides brute violence?
It seems to me that in practice, such a system would result in something like what we see in Zimbabwe - rule of the strong rather than the qualified.
Sounds lovely. Cholera, anyone?
Love=Law
93,
It's not much, but I did track down the Chinese for you. The sentence is:
"美言可以市尊，美行可以加人."
It comes from chapter 62, and in the Legge translation at Sacred Texts it is translated:
"(Its) admirable words can purchase honour; (its) admirable deeds
can raise their performer above others."
The "Its" refer to the Tao, as could be expected.
Love=Law
93,
Ah... Mention of coprophagia always sends me back to my college days...
I went to a state school.
Love=Law
93,
I also purchased and read the book and found it extremely helpful. I think Quakers are awesome.
As to your question, I think it depends on how you qualify the term "spiritual." When Crowley defined Magick as "Bringing about change in accordance with will," (not sure if that "will" should be capitalized), he essentially argued that even the most mundane actions could be an act of magick if resulting from one's will, or True Will... whichever.
Likewise, I think almost any act can be considered spiritual depending on how one defines "spiritual.". Writing to me can be a very spiritual act, as can sex, listening to music, even sitting around doing nothing (as the Quakers would argue.) If you define a spiritual act more narrowly as any act that tends to bring one in closer contact to one's True Will, then I still think anything could be considered spiritual. In Hinduism there is the Karma, I forget which one, of using philosophical discourse to reach enlightenment. Not particularly suitable for me, but, there it is.
As for why certain people may seem to be moving "faster" than others, I think Jim hit the nail on the head. Who can say why a spiritual being is on the course that it is? As an example, I have a friend who has the same Myers-Briggs personality type as I. This means, for those who believe in the legitimacy of personality tests, that our preferences, ways of thinking, and general life pattern should be similar. However I've always felt like her life better reflected this set of personality preferences more than mine ever has, that is, she has always gravitated directly towards stereotypical "INFP" activities and decisions while I have more often attempted to cram myself into molds that didn't fit, after some time realized my error, and moved on.
At the risk of sounding self-aggrandizing I nevertheless feel that it is a mistake to claim that she is clearer about things than I, or that she is closer to her True Will than I. Perhaps it is part of my True Will to fail often, which as Parker's excellent book points out, is a perfectly valid means to increase your understanding of yourself.
Now one of my underlying assumptions here is that True Will and the Law of Thelema exist independently of Crowley's conception, or The Book of the Law's explanation. As a result I am rejecting wholesale the contention that one needs any externally-dictated practice, philosophy, or whatever in order to know and accomplish one's True Will. The only practice any individual being needs is the one that will lead to success, and who can say which that will be?
On a final note thanks to whoever posted the original book recommendation (sorry, I forgot who). I thoroughly enjoyed the book, and I rarely enjoy recreational reading these days.
Love=Law
@h3fall3n777 said
"Does anyone see a contradiction here?"
I don't, but I'm intrigued. What contradiction do you see?
Love=Law
93,
In response to your question, Frater P, I would say that the Bush administration is in the pocket of the fundamentalist Christians, so, aside from his stance against abortion, he (the President) is an actively supporting member of a religious group that not only denies women equal standing in its own congregations (which I have no problem with provided people are choosing to be there), but also by denying and attempting to undermine the basic tenets of a pluralistic society characterized by freedom of choice. Fundamentalists do this by protesting at gay funerals, bombing the houses of abortion doctors, and saying ridiculous and inflammatory things, such as when Falwell referred to the NOW as "The National Order of Witches" (to name a few).
Furthermore I suspect it is obvious to most people that homophobia and misogyny are closely-related phenomenon - both rooted in an attempt to maintain a patriarchal social order, so I'd throw in comments made by Falwell, Robertson, and others that tragedies such as Katrina, 9/11, and even the flooding in the Midwest are the judgment of God upon our big, gay nation.
As for radical Islam, I cannot agree with you that because the culture is different, it somehow acquires the right to execute women who are raped, prevent them from driving cars, or even from converting to a different religion. If these women chose this life it would be one thing, but they are forced into it, and the Law of Thelema, in my view, is just as applicable in the Middle East as it is here.
Love=Law
93,
I'm pretty sure I was remembering The Scientific Solution to the Problems of Government, and simply threw in some other stuff that came from other documents. It was years ago that I read it.
Anyway, the real issue I wanted to get as was whether or not the birth chart is useful in determining the true Will, and if so, how?
There's no reason to appeal to Crowley to answer that question, anyway.
love=law
93,
Who is fighting against women? I'd start with fundamentalist Christianity, Islamic extremists, the Bush administration...
While I agree the general trend in the modern era is towards greater recognition of the rights of women, as well as gays and lesbians, that doesn't mean it's going to be a smooth ride. Backlashes are inevitable, and historically speaking poor economies tend to foment conservative and backwards-thinking sentiment, as well as violence.
We'll see how this thing pans out.
love=law
93,
Can anyone tell me if I am remembering this right? I read a document on a website that I now can't locate that was attributed to Crowley, and that spelled out his vision for an ideal Thelemic society.
In it, he explained his notion of the slave race being a perfectly well-fed and industrious group kept under control by the more enlightened. I believe he used the phrase, "let them have their mutton." Or something to that effect. He further argued that the state should try to determine the true Will of children by a variety of means, including analysis of their birth charts.
I remember the background of the website was black, which irritated me. Anyway, does anyone have any idea what this document was? If it was real, how, if at all, does it relate to astrology and true Will?
love=law