Re: [t93] Re: Thelema, OTOs and AAs
- View SourceIn a message dated 4/12/2006 9:14:08 PM Pacific Standard Time,
>Okay... but 93, nevertheless.
> 50060412 ix om Hail Satan!
>Yes, thank you. I was cutting to the core of your online crusade here, as I
> #> few are willing to escape the peculiarity of
> #> the religiomagical and mystical inculcation and
> #> set out into Thelema without these trappings.
> #> very often this is described as 'engaging the
> #> philosophy of Thelema' and very often also
> #> separated from Crowley and the cultists in his
> #> wake (who may be considered a kind of counter-
> #> productive, rescidivist or ignorant Herd, or a
> #> or useful brood from whom to recruit; after
> #> all, scripture sez: "the Slaves shall serve!").
> interesting selection from that 500-line post. ;)
> I'll ignore your meta-discussion.
see it. ;)
>You seem to have missed the point that Thelema will continue to be identified
> # ...some of the most obviously objectionable
> # trappings of Thelema
> you seem to have missed the point that 'Thelema'
> is possible to identify in numerous quarters.
by its association with Crowley, despite your efforts to the contrary.
>Most people, being people, need a certain sort of "trapping" to evolve at
> those most cultic and ridiculous will surely
> continue to wear funny clothes and pay tribute
> to blowhards who impress with publishing efforts.
> this doesn't in the slightest make it worth
> paying much attention to their 'principles of
> will' and their application in doing real (rather
> than merely imaginary, fanciful) things in the
> real world, exercizing will beyond the ability
> to draw catcalls and become a target for names
> like 'the wickedest man in the world' or simply
all, albeit slowly, in terms of spiritual development.
>No, it indicates my understanding of human spiritual evolution by way of
> that you identify obviously objectionable
> trappings *as* of Thelema describes your
> interest in following in the wake of
> masters of dubious value.
otherwise unsavory means. It is always two steps forward followed by one step
backward. Do the math. Progress is progress.
>Obviously, you are a Thelemic purest, and a bright, if obscure, beacon amid
> # will remain inseparable from it.
> there is no reason that this should be true.
> because the Beast made a mess of himself, this
> is no reason for all those who consider him a
> prophet to do likewise.
> # I accept this as inevitable.
> your standards are becoming more plain, yes.
this prevailing fog. I too am a Thelemic purist, but a realistic one. You are
far from realistic, my friend.
>These are the unavoidable trappings of religion, in the outer crust of even
> # You refuse to do so.
> I refuse to accept things people haphazardly
> claim as inevitable, this is quie true. what
> reason is there believe that will must make
> of one a clownish fop, or spooky movie monster?
the noblest religions. People, being people, *need* new religion to replace old
ones, or temporary lack of one. Spoons full of sugar to help the medicine go
>The admirable qualities will always remain for the individuals that develop
> let's re-insert the admirable qualities that
> have almost always been part of mysticism the
> world over in evaluating traditional masters.
the ability to apprehend and eventually sustain them. These qualities will not
immediately or completely appeal to the majority of the adherents, however.
>Ignore as thou wilt, but you will remain in the minority among
> let's ignore the contention and aggressive
> polarizations inherent to certain left-over
> occultists and authors as unnecessary, and
> come to understand the pure valor of will that
> is unimpeded by the trite ornamentation of the
> arcane and mysterious. while these latter are
> at times fun, they fulfill the interests and
> glories moreso of juveniles and rebellious
> children than they do the maturely spiritual.
self-proclaimed Thelemites for some time to come. The foul and silly trappings will endure
and only slowly be transcended by most, one individual at a time. I do not
believe, however, that the seeds of truth will be permanently obscured by all that
fertilizer. They never are.
>What I am saying can be appreciated only if one steps back and observes the
> # Truly, only time will tell.
> when things aren't obvious, or what one says
> is true cannot be seen, we are told to 'wait
> and see' how true they are. time won't tell
> anything but how false claims may be as long
> as 'inevitability' pertains to endurance. no
> 'check time' will ever suffice as conclusive.
bigger picture. Sometimes we lose our perspective of history being made when we
are too close to the moment.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- View SourceHorned God 93 wrote:
>You seem to have missed the point that Thelema will continue to beThat this is true is obvious enough. Thelema will indeed continue to be
>identified by its association with Crowley, despite your efforts to the
identified by some through its association with the writings of Aleister
Crowley. That this will be universally true or that everyone investigating
all of the material associated with that label will come to the same
conclusion is not true and one cannot even say that, on the planetary scale,
more people have not become familiar with the term through its appearance in
Gargantua and Pantagruel as there is little doubt that more people have some
familiarity of that work than those who are familiar with the Book of the
Law or Crowley's other writings. This is bolstered by the fact that the
impetus originating from Rabelais has been periodically re-invigorated in
European literary circles such as The Rabelais Club whose membership
featured the most prominant names in literature for that age.
It would be historically false to claim that Crowley invented Thelema or is
even the most definitive word on the subject. It is easily demonstrable and
generally accepted that Crowley didn't invent the term or even the context
in which he used it. As to what the most definitive word on the subject
would be is a matter of personal preference and insight. Also, it cannot be
ascertained that those who have adopted Crowley's context under the label of
'magick' are the ones who have the best understanding or application of the
word, or the humanist and mirthful paradigm that it has successfully evoked
for well over four hundred years.
One could argue that the simple educational model put forth by Rabelais'
Abbey of Thelema has exerted a more useful, if less touted social benefit
than the entire corpus of Crowley's writings; one example being the
educational model advocated by the Summerhill school and another being the
communal/socialistic models espoused by William Morris or John Ruskin.
All of this said, it would be an incomplete survey that didn't consider
Crowley's appropriation of the word in any treatment of the subject matter,
just as it is, in my opinion, an incomplete and even potentially damaging
approach to ONLY consider Crowley's appropriation of the term.