"fiona o'cleirigh" <fi@...
>>> ...An accident of birth, i.e nationality, isn't something that
>>> demands absolute loyalty. Well, not in the same way as *choosing* to
>>> join an order knowing that it demands such loyalty as a fundamental
the 'knowing that it demands such loyalty' seems disputed where the
(c)OTO is concerned. my impression is that (at its best) my order does
not care what your will is, as an initiate, whether you are a spy in
our camp or have joined to fulfill our purposes, but instead we will
demonstrate to you the principles of the Law of Thelema and you will
find that these will serve well in life in ways inestimable.
at their worst, secret societies lull the initiate into a false sense
of security after initiations, dismissing questions concerning the
possibility of conflicts of interest in the future when one might be
called upon to bend hir will to that of the Mob based upon half-
understood doggerel uttered in panic and confusion during initiation
within a fantasy drama without real connection to the ordinary world.
from within that lulled complacent good-fellah membership club
context comes the unexpected revelation of new 'requirements'
that may well twist and turn the personal ethics of the initiate
inside out. suddenly all those unclear doggerel lines are put to
use as a torquing mechanism through clever interpretation toward
wresting the initiate free of hir social moorings and the sound
judgment of conscience to come under the influence of the Order.
those attempting to foist off these 'requirements', beyond the
rational administrative paperwork and fees which may be part
of the interaction and compensation-system for the service of
providing initiatic ordeals, will have a difficult time trying
to square these constraints upon membership and any association
to which they may lay claim with the Law of Thelema, on account
of the primacy of individualism which both forms its central
core and draws converts to its fringes out of the controversy
and conscription of the religions of the Slave Gods.
"fiona o'cleirigh" <fi@...
> One's nationality, as dictated by place of birth... is an accident
> of birth....
according to some metaphysics. apparently you believe in
'accidents', rather than being convinced that we humans choose
our birth circumstances, are ultimately responsible for
the bulk of both our childhood years and those of our aware
adult lives. there are merits to both paradigms.
> ...the loyalties you owe to your country... are entirely up to you
> to thresh out for yourself.
I would think that all such loyalties are so, especially given
the changing relations and changing conditions through which
one may go with one's country.
> Whereas.... a group you consciously track down and join.. as an adult..
> as a deliberate thing... that requires certain levels of loyalty...
does it? what are these "certain levels"? how can we discern what
levels of loyalty are 'sufficient'? more important than convenience?
more important than one's relationship to a country one might love?
more important than one's friends and family? more important than
one's conscience? to principles one loves and holds dear? how far
should loyalty extend?
in the name of nationalism the individual is corrosively subjected
to constraint and duty which may, as others have brought up with
rather conventionally objectionable examples, prove detrimental
both to oneself and to one's comrades of spirit. it may also serve
as a defense-mechanism behind to preserve one's principles and
and why should a membership organization, especially one which is
associated with Thelema, with principles of liberty and volition,
restrict in such an extreme fashion? what would be served in so
doing? what would be the purpose of it?
> about which you take certain oaths...
perhaps, or perhaps only the fools take the oaths, and are
therefore arguing today about their soap opera follies. maybe
the truly Thelemic group will ALWAYS support its members'
choices, even if this led to the destruction of the group
itself, as well as its reason for existing.
> Your loyalties to that group are not going to be dictated by personal
> codes of conduct.
> If you align yourself with a group which makes
> particular demands and swear oaths to meet those demands, of your own
> free will etc, then you don't really have a leg to stand on if suddenly
> you find you don't want to uphold those oaths.
conventionally, true, but how could such a bonding serve or
actually support the Law of Thelema excepting only in fantasy?
(we're not counting mere 'promulgation' which may not as a part
of its implementation in fact promote it via demonstration)
doesn't any subsuming of the individual will to the Herd ipso
facto run contrary to said Law? isn't that the lesson of 'do
what thou wilt' as the WHOLE of the Law?
> So you can either stick with them or leave, if you want to do the
> honourable thing.
having discovered the corruption of a gang into which one has
fallen, two real options do in fact present themselves: to
attempt to rectify the dissonance between the fantasy which
was originally portrayed and the reality which diverges from
said fantasy. in a 'Thelemic' community, I would think that
the Revolutionary role would also be more firmly supported
(that being one who intentionally opposes the cult from
within on particular and perhaps many points and yet continues
to be identified as a 'member' because of the fundamental
support of the right to dissent).
> ...if you don't approve of blind loyalty, maybe it isn't a
> good idea to take whatever oaths of allegiance that may
> (or may not) crop up in a magickal order.
it is never valuable to take oaths of allegiance excepting in
a temporary and discipline-bolstering act of fortitude. those
which are required of the young and ill-equiped to decide
themselves of their accuracy are the greatest evils. those
are of Thelema which support the adherence to the true will
and do not in any way even appear to compete with it.
> If you are going to break one oath... then haven't you
> broken them all by default?
that depends on what 'break one oath' means. if one is
'breaking' it with respect to the Official Interpretation
or whether one does not consider oneself to have so broken
it based upon one's meaning when having taken it, this
would make a great deal of difference.
breaking one oath could be a sign of weakness pertaining
to that specific issue, whereas the rest of any oaths one
might have sworn remain inviolate.
> Because lack of respect for an oath is also lack of respect for the
> nature of 'oathdom'. And therefore the rest of your oaths are
> redundant, aren't they?
if the breakage attaches to a lack of respect, then yes.
and if one ceases respect for oaths and makes this plain,
there ought be no problem with this by Thelemites. it is
the right of the Star to establish a relation with assent
and dissent. it is INCONSISTENCY in this regard which is
problematic (due to the inability to establish community).
> Because they just represent things that you
> haven't yet decided to jack over because they still relate nicely to
> your own personal aims and personal needs.
one's own personal aims and needs are always paramount to the
Thelemite, and if there is conflict between these and that of
society, then one must decide whether to attempt to change
society, change oneself, or live at odds within that society,
understanding the risks and potential repercussions involved
without complaint or an expectation of sympathy without having
taken some action to change the situation.
> Changes in attitudes and commitment are fine, but oaths are something
> all of their own and should not, in my opinion, be used just to show
> well meaning at the single instant in which they are sworn.
this is an important reason why initiation ordeals ought not
contain oaths unviewable and unconsidered prior to the ritual
itself. such a condition DESERVES the personal interpretation
which is provided by the candidate, and the organization has
little reason to complain on account of such genius.
((333) nigris) nagasiva@...
NOTICE: I don't read everything here; cc me if you absolutely want a response.