50030702 viii om Pisces-Age-Y2006
> 93 all,
> Given that we are supposed to have a 'Great Work' work-ethic, I
> think it is not accurate to see Thelemites as always being lazy.
what is a "'Great Work' work-ethic"? what are its ideals/problems?
adherence to true will facilitates laziness. it makes getting
things that need to be done easier, with less resistance, and
thereby minimizes unwanted stress and strain. it makes what
might be encountered in a corporate 'can-do' white-water-rapids
environment into a languid, lazy summer day with time to say hi
and smell the flowers.
you're talking about the problem of avoided responsibility when
proceeding without overarching coercive authorities to motivate.
that's a real problem to be sure.
> However, it is hard for the hard-working people to avoid being
> mooched off of by parasites when they feel unable to assert
> standards or hold people accountable.
'do what you please' (or the more conventional 'Do what thou wilt'
or more conservative 'Do what you Will'!) becomes a kind of way of
excusing such parasitic moochingness, doesn't it? how can we make
anyone responsible if, ultimately, they aren't? where do our real
responsibilities lie? do fabulous documents like "Liber OZ" help
with that in any way? or are they unworkable and distracting?
> This has more to do with their
> egalitarian belief systems and the idea that judging people is
> somehow "unThelemic" even when they screw you over.
isn't whatever happens what someone's true will was? if we get
screwed over, wasn't it our true wills to have been so? if not,
when does coercion and violence become someone's true will? if
you like the Prophet Crowley, he suggested that it could be in
the lives of conquerors like Napoleon, for example (in Book 4).
does Thelemic mean 'lack of force'? or does it just mean that
one somehow has access to reservoirs of energy that others don't?
> Getting over
> those sorts of issues requires many things, but I think that having
> serious goals and plans will be a way to start that process - if it
> is something we really want.
isn't the 'Thelemicness Card' usually played in order to get someone
to do what you want, conform to your desires, and generally to have
them come into line with your vision of the Perfect Universe? if not,
how can we tell what is truly egalitarian, what is truly Thelemic,
and where these two conflict, if they do?
> Yet we can find plenty of instances where we read and learn that
> self-discipline is the only thing leading to gnosis or magical
what lies behind that, do you think? I mean, it makes sense to me that
self-discipline and grounding are required to get anywhere, else the
energies directed to any given aim or goal would be dissolved in a
sea of contention and disrupted will. is "gnosis" something real?
or is it like "adeptship" or "sagehood" -- a kind of projected goal
toward which some find it convenient to aim? how do we identify this
'magical power'? do those with fanciful social positions and titles
really have magical power? is there some evidence of it?
> I think the expectations are also different with the Quakers.
> If you live in a romantic fantasy land world, you don't need a
> building. The OTO really needs buildings to perform its rites and
> rituals, and the Quakers, technically - do not. Yet we continue to
> meet, for the most part, in living rooms and garages and they have
> buildings. Why is this? The Quakers know they need to make things
> happen in the real world. Magicians and Thelemites are often ticked
> off at the real world and rather than trying to change it, seek to
> escape from it into a "Harry Potter" universe of their own
I'm inclined to agree, but are you aware that some of these fantasies
are considered to *be* more real than what you're calling 'the real
world'? Platonic Ideas, for example, ostensibly projections outward
as originating the manifested universe, are part of a cosmology wherein
things more subtle than we can sense are the reality behind it all.
some magicians and mystics pay a greater amount of attention to what
we might consider 'fantasies' in part *because* of these concepts,
and how they see that their time is best spent, rather than playing
with the 'foliage' of the world as it unfolds from these roots.
you think there is some easy way to reconcile all these perspectives?
> Do the community and its leaders encourage this by indulging it?
is it truly escape, or is it abstraction from your position as it
deals with things more attuned to the Ground of Being? I don't think
extreme contentions by anyone on the Circle of Perspective are really
convincing to those on the Other Side. some might accuse you of
trying to undermine the Great Work here! ;>
> Or does it set up strict rules about accountability
> and real results?
given some kind of cosmological axioms, such a question might be
possible to answer. if you want to draw, for example, from the
perspective of traditional Hermetic mystics, then the method of
assessing these 'real results' may vary dramatically between you
and those with whom you are dealing.
let me put it this way: treating the physical world as the 'real
world' may satisfy you (and me), and maybe your Quaker kindred
too, but it is a classical and foolish error to do this in the
eyes a great number of mystics, some of whom are using magical
methods to achieve their mystical ends. by and large, those who
identify as 'Thelemites' are not materialists, I find, and are,
because of their traditions' roots, more than likely to doubt
the value of physical establishments as indicators of success.
>> ...Thelemites do not enjoy earning money to pay in support
>> of their favorite non-profit organizations.
some seem to.
> Do we accept that or reject it and set high standards?
> If we don't, why don't we?
given the axioms:
Thelemites may be identified
Thelemites are contained within a subculture
that uses such terminology to self-identify
Thelemites distrust non-profit societal constructs
as mediators of their will
it makes sense to recognize this and work around or with it.
reasons that it might not be so recognized/abided include:
the axioms above aren't all agreed
or some interpose a 'faking' caveat to the axioms, allowing
for the possibility that some are not involved
to help out or don't know their will, being the
Slaves of mega-corporate puppet-masters
or rejecting the apparent standards sets one up for the
criticism that one is "against Thelema" because
Thelema is identified with the status quo within
the subculture(s) which accept these axioms
or setting high standards would also imply making some kind
of method to test whether the standards were being
met: this is quite difficult for some of the
fanciful aims and goals projected on the cosmos,
perhaps even like 'the Great Work'.