Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [t93] Personal moral obligations

Expand Messages
  • camlion@aol.com
    93 Pamela, ... Yes, intrinsic, by definition, means inherent or essential. The Will (Thelema) of the individual is not intrinsic? If Will is not intrinsic,
    Message 1 of 25 , May 31, 2007
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      93 Pamela,

      Camlion:

      > Thelema does, indeed, involve a superficial paradox. It is both elitist and
      >
      > egalitarian at the same time.
      >
      > It is elitist in that it favors individuals who will act in accordance with
      > their own intrinsic natures, and it is egalitarian in that it grants every
      > man
      > and every woman the right and responsibility to do likewise.

      Pamela:

      >
      > Now it is I that requires clarification. For “intrinsic” by definition
      > means inherent or essential. Will is not intrinsic, that would allow the dregs of
      > society (those guilty crimes) to act according to their intrinsic nature and
      > say “It was their Will to do it”, and that is not “Do what ye will”.
      >

      Yes, "intrinsic," by definition, means inherent or essential.

      The Will (Thelema) of the individual is not intrinsic?

      If Will is not intrinsic, what do you suggest might be its source?

      Further, why would you assume that a 'criminal' act was the result of an
      intrinsic natural impulse, rather than the eventual and inevitable result of the
      of the suppression and/or perversion of the intrinsic natural impulse, of the
      Will of the 'criminal' ?

      93 93/93
      Camlion


      **************************************
      See what's free at
      http://www.aol.com


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • HornedGod93@aol.com
      93, In a message dated 5/28/2007 4:43:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time, ... In a message dated 5/31/2007 11:26:07 AM Pacific Daylight Time, ... Question for you,
      Message 2 of 25 , May 31, 2007
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        93,

        In a message dated 5/28/2007 4:43:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
        missmara@... writes:

        > To elucidate further and prolly ramble on more I am a mother of two small
        > children ( 4 and 6) my daughter does "Will" at the table before meals and is
        > very much in tune with the concertized aspects of Thelema, where as my 4
        > year old is more in tune with the changes that occur during ritual and can
        > see direct transformative distinctions of the God forms.

        In a message dated 5/31/2007 11:26:07 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
        missmara@... writes:

        > I don't think freedom is a born right, that is to say at the moment of
        > birth
        > a child is not free. It is constantly under the Will and influence of it's
        > parent(s). Constitutionally speaking Freedom is attained at the legal age
        > ascribed in which ever country state/province in which you reside, this also
        > correlates with Equinox III Vol. 10 (Free and of full age).
        >

        Question for you, Pamela. How do you justify teaching your own religion to
        children under the age of consent?

        93 93/93
        HG


        **************************************
        See what's free at
        http://www.aol.com


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Pamela Davies
        93 Camlion: ... Yes, intrinsic, by definition, means inherent or essential. The Will (Thelema) of the individual is not intrinsic? If Will is not intrinsic,
        Message 3 of 25 , May 31, 2007
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          93 Camlion:


          Camlion:

          > Thelema does, indeed, involve a superficial paradox. It is both elitist and
          >
          > egalitarian at the same time.
          >
          > It is elitist in that it favors individuals who will act in accordance with
          > their own intrinsic natures, and it is egalitarian in that it grants every
          > man
          > and every woman the right and responsibility to do likewise.

          Pamela:

          >
          > Now it is I that requires clarification. For “intrinsic” by definition
          > means inherent or essential. Will is not intrinsic, that would allow the dregs of
          > society (those guilty crimes) to act according to their intrinsic nature and
          > say “It was their Will to do it”, and that is not “Do what ye will”.
          >

          Yes, "intrinsic," by definition, means inherent or essential.

          The Will (Thelema) of the individual is not intrinsic?

          If Will is not intrinsic, what do you suggest might be its source?

          I believe the source is something more on a subconscious level. consciously we all have certain responsibilities that take priority in our lives, taking care of ourselves (working putting a roof over ones head, school, family etc.). These societal expectations get in the way of pardon the word “divining” the difference between what one wants/have to do and what their actual Will is. I’m, also inclined to follow/believe in Crowley’s affirmation that one must be in conversation with ones’ HGA in order to know what their “True Will” is. (This is just a simplified example)Mundane life gets in the way of the subconscious letting the conscious self discover may be what they really want to do as a job or career but the idea would never come forth or be given any real merit other wise.

          Further, why would you assume that a 'criminal' act was the result of an
          intrinsic natural impulse, rather than the eventual and inevitable result of the
          of the suppression and/or perversion of the intrinsic natural impulse, of the
          Will of the 'criminal' ?

          I’m not sure about the direction of this question. The example of a criminal act was to easiest and moralistically demonstrate between want and Will. Want would be the “natural intrinsic impulse” what I would refer to as the “animal self”. By of the Law of Thelema what a criminal would say is Will is actually want because with every man and every woman is a star each in our own orbit we would not interfere with the Will of another, therefore nor harm them, and most criminal acts are harmful. Now to take another view on that same statement. If you were meaning that the person committing the act had no moral or cognitive choice and saw the act as not wrong (thus being the result of suppression or perversion), that gets into a whole other realm because of the learned behaviors. I see it in my friends, and past friends child/parent dynamics. The best hope for that is lots of therapy (like sometimes several years) to counteract the negative or immoral social behavior that has been learned through demonstration.

          I hope this answers your question?

          93, 93/93

          Pamela



          ._,___



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Isabel Berg
          Dear Pamela and those that may be following this discussion. Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. Thank you for your input in which you wrote, As
          Message 4 of 25 , Jun 1, 2007
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear Pamela and those that may be following this discussion.
            Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

            Thank you for your input in which you wrote,
            "As I stated in my reply to Camlion, in order to be considered human
            by definition one must have kindness and compassion. There are many
            people who do not have these qualities, they use people, they lie,
            they steal, they commit violent crimes, or constantly try to bend
            someone's will to their own for their own self serving purpose.
            Perhaps at times they can seem as though they have kindness and
            compassion, but at their core no matter how much they may "want to
            change" they don't. "

            There are many definitions of humans. Here is Kenneth Burkes's

            Being bodies that learn language
            thereby becoming wordlings
            humans are
            the symbol-making, symbol-using, symbol-misusing animal
            inventor of the negative
            separated from our natural condition
            by instruments of our own making
            goaded by the spirit of hierarchy
            acquiring foreknowledge of death
            and rotten with perfection (qtd. in Coe 332-333).

            But I think I may lean even more towards a scientific definition
            such as:

            humanBelonging to man or mankind; having the qualities or
            attributes of a man; of or pertaining to man or to the race of man;
            as, a human voice; human shape; human nature; human sacrifices. To
            err is human; to forgive, divine. (Pope) Origin: L. Humanus; akin to
            homo man: cf. f. Humain. see homage, and cf. humane, Omber.
            From http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Human

            You believe that to be a human you must be compassionate and kind
            and this I agree with. Where I am not sure I agree is in the number
            of people that are not. I've only met a handful of people that are
            not compassionate and kind through my life. I've worked as a prison
            guard, for a short period in the army in my early years and now I
            work with troubled teenagers (those expelled from ordinary schools
            due to arson, violence, other problems) and in those areas of work –
            yet I've only met a small handful that I would say was not kind +
            compassionate. I guess in my life those that would qualify would be
            real class psychopaths whereas of cause the group that would fall
            under the class of `ignorant' or `inconsiderate' would be far
            greater in number – yet still within the class of human.

            That people lie, steal or are violent I don't see in contrast to the
            abilities mentioned, nor connected to being non-human (actually I
            consider most humans to be far worse than animals). Rather it seems
            to be different choices possible exactly for the human species (vs.
            animals, `gods' or `angels') – because we have language and concepts
            such as property rights and rights to be left alone and treated as
            equals. Because we take these things for granted we are also
            offended by people that chose to break them – but I fail to see how
            they become less human because of it.

            "As for levels of humans you only need look at the Lovers and the
            Art Atu in the Thoth Deck. It's all about transformation, there are
            many levels of transformation/stages magickally, psychologically and
            alchemically speaking of human evolution. C. G. Jung has written on
            this extensively. Many of the Saints in the Gnostic Saints list were
            alchemists, do you really think they were trying to transform lead
            to gold? They were speaking of the spiritual and psychological
            transformative mystery of what even then would be considered "The
            Great Work"."

            And now to something completely different *smile*. (Though I realize
            you are using it as a parallel). I used to think much along the
            lines you describe as your own opinion until I started my research
            of Mutus Liber which seems to indicate a form of physical alchemy
            which is at present unavailable for science in general. That said
            there need be no conflict - in short it doesn't in my view have to
            be an either/or but perhaps a both/and? I do not question that human
            nature has the option of development for better or worse, nor do I
            contest that an important part of `know thyself' will lead to
            transformations – and later transcendence.

            Love is the law, love under will,
            Isabel Munksgaard Berg
          • Isabel Berg
            In all places I compare humans to animals I am actually comparing humans to other animals as I consider the human to be one animal among many.
            Message 5 of 25 , Jun 1, 2007
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              In all places I compare humans to animals I am actually comparing
              humans to 'other animals' as I consider the human to be one animal
              among many.
            • bishop
              93! ... I find this to be a fascinating position to take since the Law of Thelema makes no distinctions as such that I can find. Maybe we re looking at
              Message 6 of 25 , Jun 1, 2007
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                93!

                --- In thelema93-l@yahoogroups.com, "Pamela Davies" <missmara@...>
                wrote:
                > Actually I [was] implying without stating and
                > perhaps being misunderstood, anyone following
                > a path of spirituality and enlightenment is human.

                I find this to be a fascinating position to take since the Law of
                Thelema makes no distinctions as such that I can find. Maybe we're
                looking at different texts?

                Your implications — that Will is not intrinsic, humans being defined as
                something other than bipedal animals with sophisticated cognitive
                skills, and the denial of violent (or even merely antinomian) Wills as
                at least natural if not acceptable — are in line with a less evolved
                approach to the human condition, to be sure, but I am at a loss to
                figure out how you support such a position outside some kind of
                personal projection (much like Crowley did in many places of his
                Commentaries to support his own prejudices).

                Given significant indicators found within the 'Holy Books' of Thelema,
                I have to wonder why anyone would want to be something "other than
                human" in the first place. This whole "more than human" or others
                being "less than human" stinks of Osirian doctrines of ascension
                (toward Heaven) and descension (into Hell). The Law of Thelema deifies
                all of humanity rather than setting out goals of salvation or damnation
                for puny little magicians. One of our "humanitarian causes", so to
                speak, is to assist others in the realization of this intrinsic
                divinity and the responsibility that goes with it. Our assumption
                should be that others are blind, not that they are less than human.

                Pax!
                bishop
              • Bjarne S. Pedersen
                Ipsa Scientia Potestas Est and 93! all, Pamela Davies wrote: As I stated in my reply to Camlion, in order to be considered human by definition one must have
                Message 7 of 25 , Jun 2, 2007
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  "Ipsa Scientia Potestas Est" and 93! all,

                  Pamela Davies wrote:

                  "As I stated in my reply to Camlion, in order to be considered human
                  by definition one must have kindness and compassion. There are many
                  people who do not have these qualities, they use people, they lie,
                  they steal, they commit violent crimes, or constantly try to bend
                  someone's will to their own for their own self serving purpose.
                  Perhaps at times they can seem as though they have kindness and
                  compassion, but at their core no matter how much they may "want to
                  change" they don't."

                  So Crowley wasn't a human after all? Try reading a few Crowley
                  biographies (including his "Confessions"), a few diaries from the
                  1920'ies, letters to Germer and Parsons etc. and you'll find a man
                  with little compassion and little kindness - a man trying to bend
                  others to his own will, a wife-beater, a liar, a violent nature (he
                  even killed a man in India), a greedy personality constantly wanting
                  people to send him money for nothing in return ... the list can go
                  on. I think Crowley was human - quite human indeed :-) - but not a
                  human being by the defínitions you give above. He never tried to hide
                  the facts. I admire his genius - and to me he's still a prophet,
                  despite his personal misadvantages, but as "the Demon Crowley" he is
                  a man I would detest ...

                  BTW most heroin addicts I've known (and I've known quite a few in my
                  time) postulate that heroin makes them "not care at all". As you no
                  doubt know, Crowley was an addict of that particular drug for many,
                  many years.

                  All best.

                  93, 93/93

                  Bjarne

                  http://www.neoluciferianchurch.org
                • Pamela Davies
                  93 HG, ... is ... also ... HornedGod asks:
                  Message 8 of 25 , Jun 5, 2007
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    93 HG,

                    Pamela Davies:
                    > To elucidate further and prolly ramble on more I am a mother of two small
                    > children ( 4 and 6) my daughter does "Will" at the table before meals and
                    is
                    > very much in tune with the concertized aspects of Thelema, where as my 4
                    > year old is more in tune with the changes that occur during ritual and can
                    > see direct transformative distinctions of the God forms.

                    Pamela Davies:
                    > I don't think freedom is a born right, that is to say at the moment of
                    > birth
                    > a child is not free. It is constantly under the Will and influence of it's
                    > parent(s). Constitutionally speaking Freedom is attained at the legal age
                    > ascribed in which ever country state/province in which you reside, this
                    also
                    > correlates with Equinox III Vol. 10 (Free and of full age).
                    >

                    HornedGod asks:

                    <<<<<Question for you, Pamela. How do you justify teaching your own religion to
                    children under the age of consent?>>>>>>

                    93HG,

                    First let me correct you in your assumption I'm teaching my children my religion. You may consider Thelema a religion but to my understanding most Thelemites consider it a philosophy, as do I.

                    My children attend many social gatherings where a number of my friends (whom also have kids) are Thelemites and we do will before eating. My daughter has chosen to memorize it and do it when she feels like it. My son is with me all day I don't have the luxury of solitude so he has seen me doing my rituals and has commented on the result. Their experience of Thelema is through observation only.

                    93, 93/93


                    [MODERATOR reformatted and re-attributed for clarity of quotation;
                    please see our "MMM" monthly document which explains quotation.]
                  • Pamela Davies
                    93, To all who are following this discussion: Pamela Davies wrote: As I stated in my reply to Camlion, in order to be considered human by definition one must
                    Message 9 of 25 , Jun 5, 2007
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      93, To all who are following this discussion:

                      "Pamela Davies wrote:

                      "As I stated in my reply to Camlion, in order to be considered human
                      by definition one must have kindness and compassion. There are many
                      people who do not have these qualities, they use people, they lie,
                      they steal, they commit violent crimes, or constantly try to bend
                      someone's will to their own for their own self serving purpose.
                      Perhaps at times they can seem as though they have kindness and
                      compassion, but at their core no matter how much they may "want to
                      change" they don't."

                      Bjarne wrote:

                      <<<<<So Crowley wasn't a human after all? Try reading a few Crowley
                      biographies (including his "Confessions"), a few diaries from the
                      1920'ies, letters to Germer and Parsons etc. and you'll find a man
                      with little compassion and little kindness - a man trying to bend
                      others to his own will, a wife-beater, a liar, a violent nature (he
                      even killed a man in India), a greedy personality constantly wanting
                      people to send him money for nothing in return ... the list can go
                      on. I think Crowley was human - quite human indeed :-) - but not a
                      human being by the defínitions you give above. He never tried to hide
                      the facts. I admire his genius - and to me he's still a prophet,
                      despite his personal misadvantages, but as "the Demon Crowley" he is
                      a man I would detest ...

                      BTW most heroin addicts I've known (and I've known quite a few in my
                      time) postulate that heroin makes them "not care at all". As you no
                      doubt know, Crowley was an addict of that particular drug for many,
                      many years.

                      All best.

                      93, 93/93

                      Bjarne>>>>>

                      93 Bajarne,

                      Actually our views on Crowley are very similar you say as a man you would
                      detest him, I say as a man he was an asshole. Regardless of what kind of
                      human he was he was as you said and I completely concur, a prophet and a
                      genius. I also think he was prolly at times either at the brink of insanity
                      or completely insane, due to genius, his various magickal workings, and the
                      drugs. Much was demanded of him and much did he accomplish. Does this
                      excuse the kind of man he was? I honestly don’t know, but despite his
                      faults as a man I do consider him human. Perhaps I’m being biased or have a
                      double-standard when it comes to this opinion and it’s direct correlation to
                      Crowley. He was being guided and following a path of spiritual
                      enlightenment.

                      As for his heroin addiction I thought that came about originally because
                      back then it was the common prescription for asthma from which he suffered?

                      93, 93/93

                      Pamela

                      [MODERATOR reformatted for quotation clarity; see our MMM doc.]
                    • camlion@aol.com
                      93 Pamela, Not very useful thus far, I m afraid... In a message dated 6/4/2007 10:58:21 PM Pacific Daylight Time, ... So... perhaps the old Nature versus
                      Message 10 of 25 , Jun 5, 2007
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        93 Pamela,

                        Not very useful thus far, I'm afraid...

                        In a message dated 6/4/2007 10:58:21 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
                        missmara@... writes:

                        > I believe the source is something more on a subconscious level. consciously
                        > we all have certain responsibilities that take priority in our lives, taking
                        > care of ourselves (working putting a roof over ones head, school, family
                        > etc.). These societal expectations get in the way of pardon the word “divining”
                        > the difference between what one wants/have to do and what their actual Will
                        > is. I’m, also inclined to follow/believe in Crowley’s affirmation that one
                        > must be in conversation with ones’ HGA in order to know what their “True Will”
                        > is. (This is just a simplified example)Mundane life gets in the way of the
                        > subconscious letting the conscious self discover may be what they really want
                        > to do as a job or career but the idea would never come forth or be given any
                        > real merit other wise.
                        >

                        So... perhaps the old 'Nature versus Nurture' game will be more helpful. Much
                        of the contents of the "subconscious" are the product of 'Nurture,' early
                        environmental influences on the individual. 'Nature' is that which the individual
                        brought into life *with* him, so to speak. Hence, 'intrinsic.' To which
                        category would you attribute Thelema, the True (Crowley's word) or Pure (Liber AL's
                        word) Will?

                        Concerning the 'Angel,' some folks find the angelic personification of Will
                        to be useful. Some do not. It is certainly not mandatory to the operation of
                        Thelema in the life of *every* individual, is it?

                        Concerning mundane life, the choice of a vocation in harmony with one's Will
                        and other issues related to the fear of poverty and death, these are very good
                        topics, but are likely to become distractions when attempting to identify the
                        origin of individual Will.

                        So, what do you say, Thelema as initially Nature (primary and intrinsic) or
                        the product of Nurture (secondary and circumstantial)?

                        93 93/93
                        Camlion


                        **************************************
                        See what's free at
                        http://www.aol.com


                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • HornedGod93@aol.com
                        93 Pamela, In a message dated 6/5/2007 3:33:43 PM Pacific Daylight Time, ... Thank you, that is always an interesting distinction. How is it that these rites
                        Message 11 of 25 , Jun 5, 2007
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          93 Pamela,

                          In a message dated 6/5/2007 3:33:43 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
                          missmara@... writes:

                          > HornedGod asks:
                          >
                          > <<<<<Question for you, Pamela. How do you justify teaching your own religion
                          > to
                          > children under the age of consent?>>>>>>
                          >
                          > 93HG,
                          >
                          > First let me correct you in your assumption I'm teaching my children my
                          > religion. You may consider Thelema a religion but to my understanding most
                          > Thelemites consider it a philosophy, as do I.
                          >
                          > My children attend many social gatherings where a number of my friends (whom
                          > also have kids) are Thelemites and we do will before eating. My daughter has
                          > chosen to memorize it and do it when she feels like it. My son is with me
                          > all day I don't have the luxury of solitude so he has seen me doing my rituals
                          > and has commented on the result. Their experience of Thelema is through
                          > observation only.
                          >
                          > 93, 93/93
                          >

                          Thank you, that is always an interesting distinction. How is it that these
                          rites and observances are philosophical and not religious?

                          Of course, the reason for my initial inquiry was that I feel that children
                          should be observed impartially for indications of their own natural tendencies,
                          which can then be encouraged and nurtured. Too much arbitrary input tends to
                          run counter to that practice. It clutters up their little heads with other
                          people's interests, interests which they may have no use for.

                          93 93/93
                          HG


                          **************************************
                          See what's free at
                          http://www.aol.com


                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Pamela Davies
                          93 To all following this discussion! Camlion wrote:
                          Message 12 of 25 , Jun 5, 2007
                          View Source
                          • 0 Attachment
                            93 To all following this discussion!

                            Camlion wrote:
                            <<<<So... perhaps the old 'Nature versus Nurture' game will be more helpful. Much
                            of the contents of the "subconscious" are the product of 'Nurture,' early
                            environmental influences on the individual. 'Nature' is that which the individual
                            brought into life *with* him, so to speak. Hence, 'intrinsic.' To which
                            category would you attribute Thelema, the True (Crowley's word) or Pure (Liber AL's
                            word) Will?

                            Concerning the 'Angel,' some folks find the angelic personification of Will
                            to be useful. Some do not. It is certainly not mandatory to the operation of
                            Thelema in the life of *every* individual, is it?

                            Concerning mundane life, the choice of a vocation in harmony with one's Will
                            and other issues related to the fear of poverty and death, these are very good
                            topics, but are likely to become distractions when attempting to identify the
                            origin of individual Will.

                            So, what do you say, Thelema as initially Nature (primary and intrinsic) or
                            the product of Nurture (secondary and circumstantial)?>>>>

                            93 Camlion,

                            Okay, Camlion I’ll take door #2 please ;) Seriously though yes the statement that Will is the product of nurture, secondary and circumstantial, thus being the produced of the subconscious like you said. Divining ones own True Will/Pure Will doesn’t come about “naturally”. I think (well at least I do) have to work on it. It’s like a piece of art that’s constantly being reworked and changing as we through our studies and rituals come to understand ourselves better, especially with in our own psyche. Though I think these opinions and thoughts go against Book Four the Chapter on the Nature and Nurture of the Magical Link, I’m not sure.

                            Hmmm Pure Will Ch. 1 verse 44, well I have a bit of a problem with that one honestly. For in the commentary in The Law is for All it states in the old comment “recommends non-attachment” and in the new comment “Unassuaged means “its edge taken off by or dulled by”. Pure Will of this kind for me would be very difficult. To act unattached unemotional of the results. Where as many of the writings of Crowley on True Will were more about being in harmony with Nature (ie flowing along with the pebble in the stream)and others doing their true will (not affecting another’s “orbit” and the ….inertia of the universe behind them. So I guess I would have to go along with “True Will”. But I think that means I’m in conflict with myself as per the nature vs. nurture question?

                            93, 93/93

                            Pamela


                            [MODERATOR removed unnecessary quoted material and added quotation-identification for easier reading. see the MMM!]
                          • bishop
                            93! ... Despite the usually heated debates on this subject, these are not mutually exclusive sides to be taken. Those who usually debate such issues or
                            Message 13 of 25 , Jun 6, 2007
                            View Source
                            • 0 Attachment
                              93!
                              --- In thelema93-l@yahoogroups.com, "Pamela Davies" <missmara@...>
                              wrote:

                              > You may consider Thelema a religion
                              > but to my understanding most Thelemites
                              > consider it a philosophy, as do I.

                              Despite the usually heated debates on this subject, these are not
                              mutually exclusive "sides" to be taken. Those who usually debate such
                              issues or denigrate "religion" — Crowley included — show far more
                              about their individual projections and hangups than any sense of
                              wisdom over the subject.

                              And I seriously doubt that "most Thelemites consider it a philosophy"
                              as opposed to considering it a "religion". There is quite a bit more
                              evidence to Thelema being a religion than being a mere philosophy. In
                              any case, one _cannot_ have a religion without having a philosophy
                              that underpins it.

                              Pax!
                              bishop
                            • camlion@aol.com
                              93 Pamela, Very interesting and curious discussion thus far... In a message dated 6/6/2007 5:00:43 PM Pacific Daylight Time, ... One wonders why it often seems
                              Message 14 of 25 , Jun 6, 2007
                              View Source
                              • 0 Attachment
                                93 Pamela,

                                Very interesting and curious discussion thus far...

                                In a message dated 6/6/2007 5:00:43 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
                                missmara@... writes:

                                > Seriously though yes the statement that Will is the product of nurture,
                                > secondary and circumstantial, thus being the produced of the subconscious like
                                > you said. Divining ones own True Will/Pure Will doesn’t come about “naturally”
                                > . I think (well at least I do) have to work on it. It’s like a piece of art
                                > that’s constantly being reworked and changing as we through our studies and
                                > rituals come to understand ourselves better, especially with in our own
                                > psyche.

                                One wonders why it often seems so difficult for people to 'reconnect' with
                                their own Will. If I may ask a somewhat personal question, where you raised by
                                your parents in the way that HG describes here:

                                In a message dated 6/6/2007 4:58:02 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
                                HornedGod93@... writes:

                                > Of course, the reason for my initial inquiry was that I feel that children
                                > should be observed impartially for indications of their own natural
                                > tendencies,
                                > which can then be encouraged and nurtured. Too much arbitrary input tends to
                                >
                                > run counter to that practice. It clutters up their little heads with other
                                > people's interests, interests which they may have no use for.
                                >

                                If not, perhaps your upbringing obscured your Will from your clear and
                                immediate view?

                                93 93/93
                                Camlion


                                **************************************
                                See what's free at
                                http://www.aol.com


                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • Pamela Davies
                                93 To all following this discussion.
                                Message 15 of 25 , Jun 7, 2007
                                View Source
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  93 To all following this discussion.


                                  <<<<<Camlion writes:
                                  ...[were] you raised by your parents in the way that HG describes here:

                                  <<HG writes:
                                  Of course, the reason for my initial inquiry was that I feel that children
                                  should be observed impartially for indications of their own natural
                                  tendencies, which can then be encouraged and nurtured. Too much arbitrary input tends to
                                  run counter to that practice. It clutters up their little heads with other people's interests, interests which they may have no use for.>>

                                  Camlion writes:
                                  If not, perhaps your upbringing obscured your Will from your clear and
                                  immediate view?

                                  93 93/93
                                  Camlion>>>>>

                                  93 Camlion

                                  Pamela writes:

                                  I’m not sure if you asking about the exposure I had to religion as a child but what exposure I did have ended with the death of my mother just before I turned 6 years old. I spent many years being afraid of death and dying and often had difficulty falling asleep because it would consume my mind. Other possible factors I was adopted (adoptees are well known to suffer from the “people pleaser complex). My father had difficulty raising 3 kids by himself and several times threatened to send us to a foster home if we didn’t behave. I do not think I was nurtured as a child at all, and was pretty much left to my own coping devises. I was an under achiever in school, and was constantly told by my sister I was dumb. Not till I went back as an adult student did I find out I was actually intelligent and smart. I’ve been on the path of Thelema for about 13 years now, with a bit of a break for 5 years up until about three years ago.

                                  I would say there could be merit in your statement of my Will being obscured.

                                  93, 93/93

                                  Pamela.




                                  [MODERATOR reformatted quoting, for greater readability; read MMM soon or your posts may not make it through moderation! first warning.]
                                • camlion@aol.com
                                  93 Pamela, In a message dated 6/7/2007 10:59:00 AM Pacific Daylight Time, ... Thank you for your candor. Yes, each of us, to some extent, seems to find
                                  Message 16 of 25 , Jun 7, 2007
                                  View Source
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    93 Pamela,

                                    In a message dated 6/7/2007 10:59:00 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
                                    missmara@... writes:

                                    > 93 To all following this discussion.
                                    >
                                    > <<<<<Camlion writes:
                                    > ...[were] you raised by your parents in the way that HG describes here:
                                    >
                                    > <<HG writes:
                                    > Of course, the reason for my initial inquiry was that I feel that children
                                    > should be observed impartially for indications of their own natural
                                    > tendencies, which can then be encouraged and nurtured. Too much arbitrary
                                    > input tends to
                                    > run counter to that practice. It clutters up their little heads with other
                                    > people's interests, interests which they may have no use for.>>
                                    >
                                    > Camlion writes:
                                    > If not, perhaps your upbringing obscured your Will from your clear and
                                    > immediate view?
                                    >
                                    > 93 93/93
                                    > Camlion>>>>>
                                    >
                                    > 93 Camlion
                                    >
                                    > Pamela writes:
                                    >
                                    > I’m not sure if you asking about the exposure I had to religion as a child
                                    > but what exposure I did have ended with the death of my mother just before I
                                    > turned 6 years old. I spent many years being afraid of death and dying and
                                    > often had difficulty falling asleep because it would consume my mind. Other
                                    > possible factors I was adopted (adoptees are well known to suffer from the “
                                    > people pleaser complex). My father had difficulty raising 3 kids by himself and
                                    > several times threatened to send us to a foster home if we didn’t behave. I do
                                    > not think I was nurtured as a child at all, and was pretty much left to my
                                    > own coping devises. I was an under achiever in school, and was constantly told
                                    > by my sister I was dumb. Not till I went back as an adult student did I find
                                    > out I was actually intelligent and smart. I’ve been on the path of Thelema
                                    > for about 13 years now, with a bit of a break for 5 years up until about three
                                    > years ago.
                                    >
                                    > I would say there could be merit in your statement of my Will being
                                    > obscured.
                                    >
                                    > 93, 93/93
                                    >
                                    > Pamela.
                                    >
                                    > [MODERATOR reformatted quoting, for greater readability; read MMM soon or
                                    > your posts may not make it through moderation! first warning.]

                                    Thank you for your candor. Yes, each of us, to some extent, seems to find
                                    ourselves in such a similar position. Each has a Great Work to perform.

                                    93 93/93
                                    Camlion




                                    **************************************
                                    See what's free at http://www.aol.com


                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  • Alamantra
                                    It is marvelously ironic and even a bit mischievous that Thelema has, over time, gone from being something that was contrary to established religious
                                    Message 17 of 25 , Jun 7, 2007
                                    View Source
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      It is marvelously ironic and even a bit mischievous that "Thelema" has, over time, gone from being something that was 'contrary' to established religious custom and practice, to being called a 'religion' and/or a 'philosophy'.
                                      In its original context, its one 'rule' was 'do what thou wilt.' Now, it is clear to anyone who has even given a brief glimpse at the historical record that this isn't something that Crowley invented. (nor did he claim to; rather he gave due credit to its source, calling Rabelais' an antecedent.) Even in Rabelais' delineation of 'thelema' this one rule was modified, not with unlimited license, but rather with a litany that begins with a list of prohibitions. It's first aim was to remove the tyranny that suppresses joyful human expression. It's other aim was to cultivate the highest aspirations through access to information, which in the 1500s was guarded and censored ...nearly as much as it is today.... At the heart of the suggestion was the concept that male and female should commingle, cohabitate, learn and have experience together, that they should be admitted to the fine things in life ...aesthetics...., that they should be schooled in the fine arts and so on. It was suggested that this would lead to a better way of life than the resignation, prohibition and worldly denials of the monastery. ...Fairly simple, really, and this is what thelema is and has been for nearly five hundred years. ...The notion of an environment where one COULD exercise discretion and have their autonomy directed by a course of experience rather than unquestioned social and religious custom and dogma. This is the dream that the Abbey of Theleme set loose in the minds of every generation since the G&P was written. It finds fertile earth in the imaginations of everyone from Bacon to Shakespeare to some of the more modern ideas on education such as "unschooling".
                                      This same "Do what thou wilt" application of the formula become the watchword for the Hellfire Club, and though it may be sufficient for some to see it merely as an exercise in debauchery, as its detractors have suggested, it would do well to remember that those who participated generally were the best educated and most affluent members in their social circle. They were networking and letting their hair down ...and caused the world to change as a result.
                                      Though it is certainly antinomian "Thelema" is not anarchistic.
                                      Then comes Crowley and Liber Al and 1904 etc... and, according to some, a discarnate intelligence of an ancient Egyptian priest dictated that 'do what thou wilt' was the 'whole of the law.' ...Well at the root of the concept of "law" itself this is certainly true enough as the establishment of law came by an arbitrary process. Hammurabi did what he wilt and expected people to obey his will accordingly as did Moses, I suppose. Now, it should fall to the person with a bit of sense that there is something apparently ridiculous in the notion that a conceptual marriage that had been instigated through Rabelais, and further consummated by Dashwood, and then by the Bohemians of Montmartre etc... could have originated through a discarnate intelligence in Egypt in 1904. I don't think that Crowley was oblivious to this, but rather had enough humor and ability to 'work it.' It would seem incredible to me that Crowley, having spent time amongst the artists and other bohemians in Paris would never have attended or even heard of the Abbey de Theleme that was a very popular club in Montmartre throughout the very time he was there.
                                      However I'm getting away from my point which is this... If a person or a group of people founds a 'religion' or a 'philosophy' on some fantasia that isn't supported by the larger narrative, then all they have accomplished is founding another false religion or another false philosophy, and this is for the most part, all many of those who uphold the modern thelemic paradigm have accomplished. It is plainly demonstrable that 'Thelema' doesn't come out of 'The Book of the Law', but rather, Crowley's unique and, IMO, artistic rendering depicts as well as alludes to the larger paradigm of Thelema that had already been established and operated by thousands of others before or concurrent with himself.
                                      Crowley's general scheme is not out of accord with this broader outline of historical thelema as it had unfolded... He refers to a feast everyday, wines that foam, spices ...the good things of worldly life. Many of the admonitions in the third chapter are not even out of accord with Rabelais' own prohibitions. Crowley's methodology of 'scientific illuminism' given under the heading of the A.'.A.'. is very much in accord with Rabelais' liberal educational model.
                                      Liber Al is a parcel of "Thelema" and perhaps even a microcosmic rendering, but when one steps back and observes what the larger picture looks like, it makes some of the resultant behaviors of Crowley's teaching and those who insist on fables as realities look every bit as comical as a characterization in Gargantua and Pantagruel... This is not intended as an insult either... We all do it. We're all in 'The Book of Folly' which is a subtitle of "The Book of Life" and I'm certainly no exception, nor have I ever met one. The whole philosophic system as depicted by the upper arcana is FOUNDED on the Fool. I think that the important lesson is that its 'nothing to get hung about' one way or the other. Its through this being able 'to let go' that real progress is made on the level of self-awareness. At least that's how it is for me. We're always learning and always growing ...or at least that's how it can be.

                                      Oh, let us consult the wizards and oracles to find out if we shall have a 'good wife' or if we shall be forced to wear the horns of a cuckold.

                                      Bliss:
                                      Alamantra
                                      www.myspace.com/alamantra



                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    • HornedGod93@aol.com
                                      93 Alamantra, In a message dated 6/7/2007 1:45:43 PM Pacific Daylight Time, ... I ve always considered it not only ironic but inevitable. This is the way such
                                      Message 18 of 25 , Jun 7, 2007
                                      View Source
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        93 Alamantra,

                                        In a message dated 6/7/2007 1:45:43 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
                                        alamantra@... writes:

                                        > It is marvelously ironic and even a bit mischievous that "Thelema" has,
                                        > over time, gone from being something that was 'contrary' to established
                                        > religious custom and practice, to being called a 'religion' and/or a 'philosophy'.
                                        > [SNIP]
                                        >

                                        I've always considered it not only ironic but inevitable. This is the way
                                        such things happen.

                                        93 93/93
                                        HG


                                        **************************************
                                        See what's free at
                                        http://www.aol.com


                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      • nopeth777
                                        ... to find ... perform. ... 93 Nopeth777 I was born in 1978 my father lost me to the state due to his violent nature towards my mother.I was adopted and
                                        Message 19 of 25 , Jun 7, 2007
                                        View Source
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          --- In thelema93-l@yahoogroups.com, camlion@... wrote:
                                          > Thank you for your candor. Yes, each of us, to some extent, seems
                                          to find
                                          > ourselves in such a similar position. Each has a Great Work to
                                          perform.
                                          >
                                          > 93 93/93
                                          > Camlion

                                          93 Nopeth777
                                          I was born in 1978 my father lost me to the state due to his violent
                                          nature towards my mother.I was adopted and raised up southern
                                          baptist.
                                          I was told my whole life I was a crippled, due to a car accident I
                                          can't walk right, But my mind developed an antinomian outlook on
                                          life, god, and Love.
                                          I believe that no matter how we are raised or raise our children
                                          that they will develop on their own.You cannot stop evolution.
                                          I have practiced high magic for 7 and a half years, I discovered
                                          that I was already on that path whether by conscious choice or not.

                                          93 93/93
                                          Nopeth777


                                          [MODERATOR removed unnecessary quoted material. Please see the 'MMM'.]
                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.