Mskied

I cant speak on the nature of Crowley and, as you, can only infer from his writing what he was like, though some people have told stories, and of course, there must be some truth to the moniker "The Wickedest Man in the World". Still, I think in his younger days he was more inflamed and passionate and when he (wrote or received) produced the book of the Law, it could be that he was over zealous, because if you read chapter three, and even some of two, you will see that he was willing to fight and to kill over his ideals. The book that comes to mind that paints him as a gentleman is Magick Without Tears, in which he seems to be compassionate about educating and assisting his fellow human beings. I think this was always the case with Crowley- but in reading about his history, I presume that he was bullied and wanted to be certain that no one held their head low over their mild nature of love, or their weaker body, or appearance and like things. I think this is where he got his spirit of contest from, that, and the obvious history of Mankind where the war faring get their will and way, and the resources to provide good lives for their people and family. Christianity is directly opposed to violence and retaliation, and the theme from the rejection of it in Europe seems to be that its a slave religion, and strips people of their power and ability to defend themselves, and it does- for we all know that Jesus Christ is a messenger of gentle Wisdom and peace, and not a war faring God like JHVH. I think these Saints and philosophers were acutely aware of the folly of judging a situation based on our feelings or stray facts, and seem to be shy when it comes to pronouncing guilt- and so their method was to educate rather than to punish. This part of Christianity still has not taken to the main stream of society- seemingly having failed before it even got off the ground, perhaps due to the Old Testament teaching of punishment for crime, I don't know. In any case, Crowley was wise to how people with power got and held it, and he wanted all people to have that chance- to live and to love how they wanted, and not to take any shit. When it comes to individual Will, and it seems that we each have our own special blend of this, Crowley said to fight for it in Chapter Three, and that is my point about the whole of Thelema- it isn't about agreeing on a social Truth of right and wrong, its about getting your way, whatever it may be. I have pointed out passages that illustrate this but Nungali decides to brush these words off and claim that I don't understand them. Its less that Crowley meant for each person to fight over their Will with no common Good, and more that this was his motive for fighting- whether he foresaw a society of contest I do not know, though apparently he writes that the "Slaves shall serve" as in, you submit, you become enslaved. What Crowley misses on this point is that in order for a society of individuals to function properly, and this seems to be so common its hard to believe he doesn't understand it, is that we have to serve each other in order not to destroy ourselves. He doesn't seem concerned, and calls civil people "slaves", and really, that words offends everyone. I wanted to amend my argument about subjective and objective Truth and rephrase. There is objective Truth, and there is subjective perspective, which is not always true, probably hardly ever- until we investigate and understand the outcome of our actions and the actions of others. Subjective should not be tied to Truth, for it is usually only True to the individual, and therefore cannot be declared as Truth per se, but objectively, events occur that we can declare are True, and so there is objective Truth. Say I murder you, that is objectively True, what isn't known is if it was deserved. Lets say you were a murderer, and it was deserved, because socially we all declare that killing is wrong. But what if you were a murderer of murderers? Now it is not Good, or is it? What is the subjective perspective that we can rest upon as far as placing a value on something? This resides in the Law- and we return to saying "All killing is bad". Speaking of killing, I weep often at how Christians vote for war faring leaders, and neglect voting for leaders that will support charitable social programs. I really hate hypocrisy. though I am sure I am guilty to some extent, I do not claim that GOD HIMSELF said not to do something, and then do it.

You cant have it both ways. You've already argued for individual Will and subjective Truth- you cant be a proponent of objective Truth and individual Truth at the same time, the only objective Truth is that the strong dominate other peoples Will to get their way. That means the strongest person wins the Law, which is Do What Thou Wilt according to their subjective True Will. The only reason anyone agrees is because they convince, or control the Will of others. If we all have our own individual Truth and Will, according to the Book of the Law chapter 3, we are meant to fight over it to get our way and want. Crowley even advocates killing for this. Is this the book of liberty or love? IDK how you define Love, but this isn't how I do it. Its Love UNDER Will- not over it. Do your Will and Love what you like, fight for it. Law of contest and strength, just as I said. I recommend you brush up on pragmaticism and symbolic interactionism.

I would like to challenge this group to name the parts of the soul and what a soul "should" be. It seems that you are saying there is such a thing, as you are saying its possible not to have one, so... what makes a creature to have a soul? Start listing them. When we have enough attributes of a soul we can then declare what that person needs to do with these attributes to define them as a soul/spiritual being. Eventually my hope is to name a perfect entity and the society that it would live in/spawn it.

Another point that you disputed and are wrong about is when I said that Magick training is meant to be used to manipulate one another. Crowley goes through a process of identifying just how to do this by revealing his theory about laws of attraction, saying that if it is within a persons frame of experience or knowledge that you can bring it out of them through Magick.

The masses are a herd of people climbing and clamoring and yearning. You can either lead the charge and climb to what you desire, or you can mock them for their folly, or you can be sincere and assist them in their needs. I suppose you could also ignore it all. How do you want to live? What will you say to yourself when you die? Did you try? Are you satisfied? Did you take the noble path? Did you put your head in the sand and live anonymously? Which choice will make you happy? Life is now.

You do this until you reach the door, which I have shown the key to but only those that are initiated can name, and you meet with the Godhead, and you enter the Abyss, and you claim your Wisdom, and you (hopefully) cross it intact with words and ideas for the rest of humanity.

Ive said elsewhere that this whole system is anti-intellectual, and I still feel this way. Ive also said that it fits nicely with the grade of Neophyte, and I think that is a good way to put it. Investigate the description of this grade and you will see. This is intro level material. Eventually, I would hope, one finds reason, and can outline rules and laws based upon their experiences in the wild. Thelema is essentially the trust of the Lord of the Universe that we are loving beings, that will do what we love, and love whom we will, when and where we will, and that with this trust we will find what is right.

This is a Law of liberty, and that is it. It is a Law given to the lovers. If you can digest this, then follow the rest of what I pointed out. These people don't like reason, and the pit of because- that means no logic, its skew wise. They want impulse, and action. Free us from the evil and the good- that means no rules, no measure of right and wrong, impulse and intuition will tell you. There is no grace there is no guilt- no pretense of elegance and order, no time to live in harmony, no wrong doing. This is about liberty, and your right to do what you will.

Personally I think this is about lovemaking, and further from that its about those kinds of lovers and their intent to change this world into one of romance, with the trust of the God being that these people know what is right, and that is what I conceded to. However, I have seen it interpreted as being about ANYTHING you love, and that fits as well. That truly means Do What Thou Wilt, as murderers and thieves love what they do. This book is lawless. They knew it was lawless, and that's why they thought they created Hitler. This is typical occult literature, which doesn't put rules or definitions on Law, and instead tells about how there is Law, but you name it, and you have the tools to do so within the cannon.

It comes back to what I said initially: this is the law of the strong, getting their way, whatever it may be.

I suppose next youll argue that all the warfaring parts of part three aren't meant to be read as actual battle over your Will, either. So lets add it up shall we? You say Crowley says all people have their own Will, and that they are all different. The Law is Do What Thou Wilt. You somehow say that this will bring order, and that the order will be of Love. Then theres part three which says fight and kill over this. So... that's love right? And its order too? And while each person has their own Will and are told to fight over it, this will somehow be met with order and unity because True Will is cooperative? Youre off your horse, high one.

The fire dances, it's light beckons. It's warm here. But in order for me to have these things, something must burn.

Please remember rule #6

Your story reminds me of how our society is today, and one of the problems of it that I think on a lot. The letter of the Law is the Law because we need it to maintain order and peace, and when the Law is transgressed, we have to address it, lest people walk all over it. I was once a man that let nothing offend him. I used to let people walk all over me, and let them do whatever they liked, always making excuses about the things they did and said, a man of extreme Good Will and charity of spirit. Then I became a Chaos magician, and recognized that the sufferings of this world are encouraged when we fail to monitor our words and actions. Donald Trump is a great example of why this type of thing should not be tolerated.

OP that was beautiful, thank you

I haven't yet mapped out what is funny. When I was younger, mocking people was funny. Then as I got older, mocking myself was funny. Now as an adult, after all Ive been through, I find less humor in things. Instead I look for examples of kindness and love, and care for others to brighten my dreary outlook. Im always amazed at how much there is that we don't even respect or give thanks for. Its everywhere, really. Hard to see sometimes though.

Tarot with the tree is fascinating. These two systems gather most of what life will throw at anyone age 25 and up, maybe even younger. It especially is attractive to the younger people that are "on their way" and need ideas of how to handle what life brings. The magick of it is that its stuff we all encounter, more or less, and will fit most paradigms. Nothing really predictive about it, except that for most of these situations there are typical outcomes.

Youre right this is a Law of freedom for lovers to do what they wilt, for in their Love they are not wrong. I probably read too much into it, or maybe it should be that way? IDK. Love, and fight over it. I think I did misquote with the stamp out the wretched and the weak, I looked for it and couldn't find it now.

Lets take a second look at Thelema. According to Crowley, Aiwass is either a being from another dimension, an alien, his higher self, his guardian Angel, or, as it says in the book of the Law the minister of a God. He claimed to have heard it, claimed to have channeled it, and if I know Magick, probably wonders if he didn't just conjure it all up based on his own knowledge. The fact is he calls this book sacred scripture- so in his mind he is either the God that declares this, or it was given to him by a being from a higher plane, that is a God. As far as "creator" goes, I don't think Crowley or Aiwass claim to know one, but they do claim that the Universe is the playground of Hadit, and the rest of us, and that this Law means to fight for what you want, and its really that simple. You can look at things he wrote after he "received" this text, thoughts on what it might mean and how it might work, but the actual BOOK of scripture, unless you consider his writings as well to be holy, says that this is the Law: Do What Thou Wilt, stamp out those that get in your way, and get your way. Is this a book of lawlessness? Yes and no. It is a book where the strong declare the Law, and so the only Law is that the strong get their Will done, and that is as far as any of this needs to be considered. What Crowley suggests in his after works is how this might work if the strong used his reasoning to get their Will done. This is just HIS thoughts on what makes sense, and frankly I don't know enough about his Will or logic because I didn't complete my study of Liber Aleph and by the time I got to his Class A documents I lost interest in listening. I got the message- Do What Thou Wilt, and fight for what you want. If you don't take these things as scripture, then its just fiction and the musings of a man that wanted to do what he liked because he was proud, confident, and wealthy.

Law is the language of the gods. There is the material Law, there is the emotional Law, and there is the Laws of logic. Among these are the rules of kindness, strength and beauty. So far none of these truths unite as a whole, and so we have different people placing value on different Truth, and thus: Chaos.

The Christian Faith is very deep in its awareness of Desire, and its unfairness in how we wind up treating one another based on these things, but these are the things that we have, and if you want power and wealth, then sell power and wealth and beauty.

As I was considering Chaos, its cause and purpose, it finally dawned on me that desire is the cause of it. I don't see it the way I am told Buddhists see it; I do not think that having no end to desire is the cause of suffering, for I believe we like to want, and we like to get. What I recognized, thanks mostly to studying Thelema, was that it is in our acquisition of our desire that we cause suffering- to the people that hold the object of our wanting. This led me to Law, and realizing that the Law of Thelema was the Law of the strong, and that it wasn't just in light of a community of people who all have equal value as living beings. We are a long way from this Truth- for in our society people, though they are meant to be equal, are not, and they are not treated as such. Power and knowledge and wealth and beauty separate one person from the next, and these types, if not outright given privileges, have access to buying them. The story of Adam and Eve is a story of desire, for it was their wanting to be like God that cast them out of their innocent garden, and this is what I experienced, for once I was a wandering youth, in love with life and love, and when I was forced to contemplate Good and Evil, I fell from my innocence and ignorance.

yes but I wonder if you have

Well this is sort of the debatable aspect of Crowley. The definition of Will, confused with the idea of Spirit. Will is related to want, and want can mean a lot of things, and when do what thou wilt is the whole of the law, it is easy to interpret that I will do whatever I want, which is what I believe Crowley actually intends but people dispute. If it isn't to do what I like, then it is to do something that conforms to a standard, and this is where I think your Greek definition comes into play: that the hope is that when all people find the SPIRIT in common, that all people will fall in line with action that we can all agree is Good. This is not Crowley. "There is no grace there is no guilt, this is the law; do what thou wilt" "Deliver us from the Evil and the Good". These two phrases would buck the conventional "right" action of things, which is what he wants. Does he want this because he thinks the standard for right action is too restrictive and needs adjustment? YES! Does he hope that a new standard for right action will emerge? I think so- as his wisdom is all observations about what makes sense in light of Truth. So his neophyte introduction is to encourage people to break social norms and find what is right action, and as you climb into the cockpit and try, you find your own Wisdom. You may or may not come to agree with his personal flavor of it, and as that is one aspect of Crowley that I am not familiar enough to comment on, I cannot say if I agree or not- but what holds true is that he advocates YOU to find it for yourself, which can lead us.... anywhere. The Spirit in which we interact, in combination with Good Law and standards, is not Will- it is Law, and it is Spirit, but it is the Spirit that can motivate the Will, and so the Spirit of Crowley is liberty, and not the Spirit of the Greeks as you explained, which, if we all adopted that Spirit, would lead us to acting the same, but with different obligations and duties in society. He probably feels, as it seems to be how he lived, that if humanity knows they are free, then their Spirit will be of the nature of loving the self and one another. I don't know what kind of Wisdom he entertained, but I got the impression from the first half of his system that he didn't have a focus for this, but he speculated that it would all come together in the end. Those that want to be masters will find their slaves, those that want to be slaves will find their masters.

It isn't about emitting Good Will to people, hoping to change the world with Love. When things are correct, which is what we should focus on, rather than blinding ourselves with feeling Good for one another, the True emotion of Love will come.