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

Re: [t93] Example of an Inflamed Ego

Expand Messages
  • tenera sollecitudine
    Without going into overkill, I hope. This didn t make my second post. ... A moral statement ... a expression of your personal morals and/or judgement in that
    Message 1 of 21 , Sep 1, 2000
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Without going into overkill, I hope. This didn't make
      my second post.

      > --- Sans Peur <simonmagus@...> wrote:
      >Restriction is the definition of evil

      A moral statement

      >in my opinion

      a expression of your personal morals and/or judgement
      in that regard

      Love,
      ~*~

      __________________________________________________
      Do You Yahoo!?
      Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
      http://mail.yahoo.com/
    • Frater M.A.Ch.H. 999
      KD11: 93 And might not that be what the 5=6 and 8=3 (there are others, but those are the two heaviest punctuations that occur to me in the A. .A. . system) are
      Message 2 of 21 , Sep 1, 2000
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        KD11:

        93

        And might not that be what the 5=6 and 8=3 (there are others, but those are the two heaviest punctuations that occur to me in the A.'.A.'. system) are essentially doing? The 5=6 (without and within) driving the destruction home, the 7=4/8=3 transition annihilating the remains? I'm merely musing, but that's definitely an impression that I get.

        93 93/93

        999
        > Maybe the purest Thelemic act that a person can perform is to destroy the
        > thing that restricts them the most without incurring more restriction.

        Themselves....





        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Sans Peur
        on 9/1/00 12:00 AM, tenera sollecitudine at volonta9@yahoo.com wrote: 93 and greetings Ternera, On Morality: # Recall Crowley ... is killing a child that you
        Message 3 of 21 , Sep 1, 2000
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          on 9/1/00 12:00 AM, tenera sollecitudine at volonta9@... wrote:

          93 and greetings Ternera,

          On Morality:


          # Recall Crowley ... is killing a child that you know full well will grow up
          # to become Adolf Hitler a good act, or a bad act?

          > Asking such a question denotes deliberation of moral
          > matters.


          Yes, that's the point.

          > Answering such a question denotes personal
          > judgment thereof.

          Yes, but not a moral judgement; more of a logical judgment.

          The intent of asking this question is to show that the moral judgment
          against murder can sometimes be the more destructive act in the long run.
          Hence, decisions based on morality may be nothing more than illusion. In
          this case the future is unknown and so the moral decision is only based on
          present conditions; a limitation of morality is that it reflects personal
          and relative opinion. It seems that there is no objective reality on which
          to base moral decisions, only subjective reality seems to exist.


          # Is morality anything more than a superego gone amuck.

          > I think so. The "superego" is a part of self.
          > Therefore, it is natural in the human species. I
          > would say a person who either does not recognize their
          > conscience or denies it and who fail to have some
          > personal ethics or idea of what is personally
          > acceptable and applicable to their life is example of
          > something "gone amuck."
          >

          I have no interest in conscience since it is a self imposed prison. I commit
          the most offensive violent and immoral crimes all of the time in my mind. No
          power on Earth is going to restrict what I think, and I am not going hire a
          prison warden to live and work in my head to control my thoughts. I think
          as I will. I shall not do as I will because of laws that will restrict my
          freedom. Hence I give up freedom to live in this society and enjoy the
          fruits and wealth provided by such. My behavior has nothing whatever to do
          with morality, other than the fact that most laws are based on it and I
          don't want to live in a physical prison.

          I once wrote a Thelemic paper entitled: "All of the Ten Commandments Should
          be Broken." Moral biases are instilled into most of us as children, and
          it's my opinion that we should overcome these and set ourselves free. It may
          be a necessary step in order to discover true will.


          #Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail, smile full of ale, do
          #you think you can tell?

          (thank you Pink Floyd)

          > Love that lots but to answer, I think I can <g>


          Right. You certainly can tell a green field from a cold steel rain (unless
          you are in strong meditation or under the wonderful LSD). That's a logical
          judgment based on perception of reality. Still at another level, this too
          is maya, but that's another topic called magick. But you cannot tell the
          highness of another person without being that person ... hence I'm eluding
          to the relative aspects of perception. Just how much ale is in that smile?


          #Judgements tend to limit one's freedom, and therefore limit one's
          #willfullness, by imprisoning the psyche with walls of illusion and
          #restriction.

          > I completely disagree. Judgment is natural and
          > necessary for proper functioning. Think of it as
          > preservation if you must. Good judgement is ideal. A
          > person with bad judgment is seldom the epitome of
          > "freedom," and more often a victim of illusion and
          > restriction.

          Yes, logical judgments are important. Moral judgments of good and evil,
          right and wrong, are temporal illusions. I don't believe in good or evil
          other than what's good or bad for me; again it's subjective reality.

          #Restriction is the definition of evil, in my opinion. Maybe we can't escape
          #our judgments. But, by example, the smoker is a little self destructive,
          #a trade off for the pleasure and joy of addiction.

          > I'm not sure how this applies. Could you explain it
          > to me?

          Yes. I'm saying that adopting morality is like being addicted to smoking.
          Smoking is absurd since it is self destructive, yet it is pleasure. Morality
          is also absurd since there is no objective reality, yet it also is a
          pleasure (for the superego).

          #Maybe the purest Thelemic act that a person can perform is to destroy the
          #thing that restricts them the most without incurring more restriction.

          > Perhaps, but in order to do so or to even entertain
          > the thought of doing so, one must have a sense of
          > judgment and of what is right or wrong.

          Only a relative sense of what's right or wrong. From a Thelemic point of
          view of 'right or wrong' things take on a different role than the standard
          right wing moralists in America, for example. It was Gaugin's will to depart
          his home in France and 'walk out' on his family. His trip to Tahiti was
          fulfillment of his true will. Yet, if right wing morality was imposed on
          him, he'd be stuck feeding all of those kids. He was willful enough to say
          screw responsibility, screw personal ethics, and screw opinions about right
          and wrong. Hence he is our beloved Gnostic saint.

          #Morality you say?

          > Good judgement, freedom of conscience, personal ethics
          > and responsibility? Hell yes.

          I don't see where life is fair or plays by any of the above values, although
          they may work at an individual level. In fact most power and wealth is
          obtained by just the opposite set of values. Lying, cheating, stealing,
          murder, war, domination, hate, et cetera. These are the things that we
          humans are made of. It's in our genes, it's how we evolved and why we have
          overcome the weaker of our kind, it's the history of the human race.

          Consider this:

          If God chooses to do nothing about human suffering, then God is not good. If
          God has no power to end human suffering, then God is not God.

          (from Buddha)

          Either there is no god, or this god is not a very moral entity. In either
          case, there is no reason to assume that an objective reality such as
          morality is anything but an illusion.

          > Mindless conformity? Hell no.

          I'm glad that you said that.

          93 93/93
          Sans Peur
        • Hookah Smokin' Keterpillar
          ... Do you have a problem against cock suckers? Should you have, better kill file me because you ll be hearing plenty about it from me on this list. Btw, to
          Message 4 of 21 , Sep 1, 2000
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            Sans Peur wrote:

            > Colin Wilson wrote that Crowley would get down on his knees and
            > give head when ordered to (if you believe that - I wasn't there).
            > Still I
            > have to love the guy. Maybe one day I'll see value in Crowley's
            > writing on
            > duty. To hell with duty does not mean to hell with Crowley.
            >

            Do you have a problem against cock suckers? Should you have, better
            kill file me because you'll be hearing plenty about it from me on this
            list. Btw, to hell with duty and Crowley.

            Love,

            Panoptes


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Krishadawn11@aol.com
            In a message dated 9/1/00 8:49:13 PM Pacific Daylight Time, ... I disagree with the above statement. This example continues to be used without contributing
            Message 5 of 21 , Sep 1, 2000
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              In a message dated 9/1/00 8:49:13 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
              simonmagus@... writes:

              > # Recall Crowley ... is killing a child that you know full well will grow up
              > # to become Adolf Hitler a good act, or a bad act?
              >
              > > Asking such a question denotes deliberation of moral
              > > matters.

              > Yes, that's the point.

              > > Answering such a question denotes personal
              > > judgment thereof.
              >
              > Yes, but not a moral judgement; more of a logical judgment.

              >The intent of asking this question is to show that the moral judgment
              >against murder can sometimes be the more destructive act in the long run.

              I disagree with the above statement. This example continues to be used
              without contributing the entirety of Crowleys idea.

              Crowley goes on to make it very clear that a judgement "For" the 'murder'
              would be just as limited, in another manner. ie.. in the understanding that
              everyone has their role to play and it may after all be of the greatest
              consequence that events proceed naturally; concerning any demon child that
              may be in question or used for the example.

              >Hence, decisions based on morality may be nothing more than illusion. In
              >this case the future is unknown and so the moral decision is only based on
              >present conditions; a limitation of morality is that it reflects personal
              >and relative opinion.

              Based on present conditions and relative. Correct. That was the final gist I
              believe- that only someone with perspective not limited to present time and
              conditions would be able to see the full picture and make a qualified
              judgement.

              > I have no interest in conscience since it is a self imposed prison. I
              commit
              > the most offensive violent and immoral crimes all of the time in my mind.

              As is anyones right. On the other hand, in a more subtle sense, if thoughts
              play a hand in creating reality, then the quality of thought has a ripple
              effect on all. In a more personal way, it certainly has a direct effet on
              the individual.

              >No
              > power on Earth is going to restrict what I think, and I am not going hire a
              > prison warden to live and work in my head to control my thoughts. I think
              > as I will.

              It all depends on who the person is, who makes this type of statement. ie..
              whether "to think as one wills" means the will of aware thought, or the
              mindlessness of accumulated patterns, reactions and habitual drives.

              > My behavior has nothing whatever to do
              > with morality, other than the fact that most laws are based on it and I
              > don't want to live in a physical prison.

              To my regret, I feel I already do. This, however, is not right thought.

              > Yes, logical judgments are important. Moral judgments of good and evil,
              > right and wrong, are temporal illusions. I don't believe in good or evil
              > other than what's good or bad for me; again it's subjective reality.

              While I agree with this, I am also aware of the connections inherent in all
              actions.

              > Consider this:
              >
              > If God chooses to do nothing about human suffering, then God is not good.
              If
              > God has no power to end human suffering, then God is not God.
              >
              > (from Buddha)
              >
              > Either there is no god, or this god is not a very moral entity. In either
              > case, there is no reason to assume that an objective reality such as
              > morality is anything but an illusion.

              The first sentence only offers two choices, both confirming the second point,
              ( which I agree with), however, there are other choices. Buddhas statement
              once again is faulty perception. ( Perhaps Crowley was right in intimating
              that Buddhist doctrine stops at Binah and seems to stay stuck there..)

              "Either there is no God or this God is not a very moral entity" supposes that
              there is no morality besides the human conception of it. Thus giving a
              judgement of "God" based on limited human understanding. ( I hate btw using
              this term but am following the language in the post) This in effect
              restricts the "Divine", bringing it down to the base level of primate
              conditioning..

              Buddhas quote
              >If God chooses to do nothing about human suffering, then God is not good. If
              > God has no power to end human suffering, then God is not God.

              .....makes the same mistake.
            • tenera sollecitudine
              Hi again Sans Peur, ... Those two sentences are contradictory, are they not? It is very much a moral question and a moral judgment upon delivery of an answer.
              Message 6 of 21 , Sep 1, 2000
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi again Sans Peur,

                --- Sans Peur <simonmagus@...> wrote:

                > Yes, but not a moral judgement; more of a logical
                > judgment.
                >
                > The intent of asking this question is to show that
                > the moral judgment
                > against murder can sometimes be the more destructive
                > act in the long run.

                Those two sentences are contradictory, are they not?
                It is very much a moral question and a moral judgment
                upon delivery of an answer. The answer would of
                course vary from person to person.


                > Hence, decisions based on morality may be nothing
                > more than illusion. In
                > this case the future is unknown and so the moral
                > decision is only based on
                > present conditions;

                I have to disagree once again <G>. The man with
                morals" is concerned with more than the present. He
                is able to judge a situation for himself, by himelf
                and then respond accordingly to his own benefit if
                that of no other.

                > I have no interest in conscience since it is a self
                > imposed prison.

                Then you don't know what conscience is. Conscience is
                precisely what tells one when going along with the
                masses is wrong for that individual. It is not peer
                pressure nor is it strictly any set of morals passed
                down or imposed thru current society. It is an
                internal guide that responds contrary to all you have
                learned or seen, to all that you think you desire. I
                have read that to the ancient Egyptians the heart was
                considered the conscience and that is the organ that
                was weighed at death. Anyway.....


                >I commit the most offensive violent and immoral
                crimes all of
                > the time in my mind.


                And you would try to convince me you are not concerned
                with morality? <g>

                > No
                > power on Earth is going to restrict what I think,
                > and I am not going hire a
                > prison warden to live and work in my head to control
                > my thoughts.

                You don't have the option of hiring or firing a
                conscience. You can only disregard, usually to your
                own disadvantage. What do you make of intuition
                and/or instinct?


                I think
                > as I will. I shall not do as I will because of laws
                > that will restrict my
                > freedom. Hence I give up freedom to live in this
                > society and enjoy the
                > fruits and wealth provided by such. My behavior has
                > nothing whatever to do
                > with morality, other than the fact that most laws
                > are based on it and I
                > don't want to live in a physical prison.

                Then you live according to someone else's morals. I do
                as I will, and if I operate with all my faculties and
                exercise good judgement then I don't need to worry
                about prisons, physical or otherwise. That is magick.


                > I once wrote a Thelemic paper entitled: "All of the
                > Ten Commandments Should
                > be Broken." Moral biases are instilled into most of
                > us as children, and
                > it's my opinion that we should overcome these and
                > set ourselves free. It may
                > be a necessary step in order to discover true will.

                I never suggested mindlessly following the morals of
                others. I am suggesting the proper way to live is to
                deem what is relevant and proper to one's life. Allow
                me to stray from words like 'good' and 'evil' and
                'right' and 'wrong' to words like 'beneficial' or
                'detrimental.' The strong have always created or
                chosen their own morals. Occasionally these become
                the morals of the masses. I am not speaking of the
                morals of masses. I am speaking of the individual.



                > Right. You certainly can tell a green field from a
                > cold steel rain (unless
                > you are in strong meditation or under the wonderful
                > LSD). That's a logical
                > judgment based on perception of reality. Still at
                > another level, this too
                > is maya, but that's another topic called magick. But
                > you cannot tell the
                > highness of another person without being that person

                Hmmmm. To me, judgement is power, control and good
                judgement is magick. To be able to deal with more
                than what is right in front of your face, to see in
                all directions and choose the course/action that
                serves you best and set it to motion is a kind of
                magick in my book.

                The power of judgement and consideration of past and
                future events is also part of human
                development/evolution, a very important part, IMO.



                > Yes, logical judgments are important. Moral
                > judgments of good and evil,
                > right and wrong, are temporal illusions. I don't
                > believe in good or evil
                > other than what's good or bad for me; again it's
                > subjective reality.

                But just yesterday you said Restriction is the
                definition of evil. You appear to very much believe
                in good and evil, right and wrong. Again, I am not
                speaking of masses but of individuals. When you say,
                'other than what's good or bad for me' you are much
                closer to what I am trying to explain here.


                > Yes. I'm saying that adopting morality is like being
                > addicted to smoking.
                > Smoking is absurd since it is self destructive, yet
                > it is pleasure. Morality
                > is also absurd since there is no objective reality,
                > yet it also is a
                > pleasure (for the superego).

                Are you suggesting that pleasure is immoral? Because
                that is not at all what I am talking about. I am not
                stuck with the morality of any other person or group.
                Further, I do not resent their right to create and
                maintain morals for themselves, so long as they are
                not imposed upon me.



                > Only a relative sense of what's right or wrong. From
                > a Thelemic point of
                > view of 'right or wrong' things take on a different
                > role than the standard
                > right wing moralists in America,


                But I am not at all limiting morals or even "morality"
                to right wing moralists. They are irrelevant to me.

                > for example. It was
                > Gaugin's will to depart
                > his home in France and 'walk out' on his family. His
                > trip to Tahiti was
                > fulfillment of his true will. Yet, if right wing
                > morality was imposed on
                > him, he'd be stuck feeding all of those kids. He was
                > willful enough to say
                > screw responsibility, screw personal ethics, and
                > screw opinions about right
                > and wrong. Hence he is our beloved Gnostic saint.

                That is not to say responsiblity was not important to
                him. His first responsibility was to himself.


                > > Good judgement, freedom of conscience, personal
                > ethics
                > > and responsibility? Hell yes.
                >
                > I don't see where life is fair or plays by any of
                > the above values, although
                > they may work at an individual level.

                That's what I'm talking about here, the individual
                level.

                In fact most
                > power and wealth is
                > obtained by just the opposite set of values. Lying,
                > cheating, stealing,
                > murder, war, domination, hate, et cetera. These are
                > the things that we
                > humans are made of. It's in our genes, it's how we
                > evolved and why we have
                > overcome the weaker of our kind, it's the history

                "The active, aggressive, arrogant man is still a
                hundred steps closer to justice than the reactive man;
                for he has absolutely no need to take a false and
                prejudiced view of the object before him in the way
                the reactive man does and is bound to do. For that
                reason the aggressive man, as the stronger, nobler,
                more courageous, has in fact also had at all times a
                freer eye, a better conscience on his side;
                conversely, one who can see who has the invention of
                the "bad conscience" on his conscience--the man of
                ressentiment!" Nietzsche


                Well now this is just redundant but again I am not
                talking about any other but personal/internal
                authority.

                Love,
                ~*~




                __________________________________________________
                Do You Yahoo!?
                Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
                http://mail.yahoo.com/
              • tenera sollecitudine
                Here s a thought: The obligation one feels to take and honor an oath or vow, even to oneself, is a moral one. Duty is a moral concept, right? Love, ~*~
                Message 7 of 21 , Sep 1, 2000
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  Here's a thought:

                  The obligation one feels to take and honor an oath or
                  vow, even to oneself, is a moral one.

                  Duty is a moral concept, right?

                  Love,
                  ~*~

                  __________________________________________________
                  Do You Yahoo!?
                  Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
                  http://mail.yahoo.com/
                • Daniel J. Waller
                  ... According to the Random House College Dictionary: duty, n. 1. something that one is expected to do by moral or legal obligation. 2. the binding or
                  Message 8 of 21 , Sep 2, 2000
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    tenera sollecitudine wrote:
                    >
                    > -------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
                    > Find out the TRUTH about Anyone!
                    > Criminal records, unlisted phone numbers, FBI files and more!
                    > Grab your Instant Download Now:
                    > http://click.egroups.com/1/9017/2/_/_/_/967876925/
                    >
                    > The obligation one feels to take and honor an oath or
                    > vow, even to oneself, is a moral one.
                    >
                    > Duty is a moral concept, right?
                    >

                    According to the Random House College Dictionary:

                    duty, n. 1. something that one is expected to do by moral or legal
                    obligation. 2. the binding or obligatory force of something that is
                    morally or legally right; moral or legal obligation.

                    Yes, it would appear so.


                    -- Daniel J. Waller

                    Civilization is fun! Anyway, it keeps me busy.
                  • Sans Peur
                    on 9/1/00 10:58 PM, tenera sollecitudine at volonta9@yahoo.com wrote: 93 and greetings Tenera, ... A logical discussion involving the consequences of actions
                    Message 9 of 21 , Sep 2, 2000
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      on 9/1/00 10:58 PM, tenera sollecitudine at volonta9@... wrote:

                      93 and greetings Tenera,

                      >
                      >> Yes, but not a moral judgement; more of a logical
                      >> judgment.
                      >>
                      >> The intent of asking this question is to show that
                      >> the moral judgment
                      >> against murder can sometimes be the more destructive
                      >> act in the long run.
                      >
                      > Those two sentences are contradictory, are they not?
                      > It is very much a moral question and a moral judgment
                      > upon delivery of an answer. The answer would of
                      > course vary from person to person.

                      A logical discussion involving the consequences of actions being
                      destructive, has nothing whatever to do with judging the 'right or wrong' or
                      the destruction. Destruction is simple fact.


                      >> Hence, decisions based on morality may be nothing
                      >> more than illusion. In
                      >> this case the future is unknown and so the moral
                      >> decision is only based on
                      >> present conditions;
                      >
                      > I have to disagree once again <G>. The man with
                      > morals" is concerned with more than the present. He
                      > is able to judge a situation for himself, by himelf
                      > and then respond accordingly to his own benefit if
                      > that of no other.

                      Right. What's subjectively good for the individual is exactly my point.

                      >> I have no interest in conscience since it is a self
                      >> imposed prison.
                      >
                      > Then you don't know what conscience is. Conscience is
                      > precisely what tells one when going along with the
                      > masses is wrong for that individual. It is not peer
                      > pressure nor is it strictly any set of morals passed
                      > down or imposed thru current society. It is an
                      > internal guide that responds contrary to all you have
                      > learned or seen, to all that you think you desire. I
                      > have read that to the ancient Egyptians the heart was
                      > considered the conscience and that is the organ that
                      > was weighed at death. Anyway.....
                      >

                      Conscience is conforming to your own sense of right and wrong. I'm saying
                      destroy it if it's based on morality.

                      >> I commit the most offensive violent and immoral
                      > crimes all of
                      >> the time in my mind.
                      >
                      >
                      > And you would try to convince me you are not concerned
                      > with morality? <g>

                      I am not putting guilt on my sentences, why do you imply it? I'm am saying
                      that morality has no place in my mind, it's too restricting. I am not
                      concerned with morality (as feeling guilty) at all. My judgment that it is
                      restricting is based on logic and not any sense of morality, blah.

                      >> No
                      >> power on Earth is going to restrict what I think,
                      >> and I am not going hire a
                      >> prison warden to live and work in my head to control
                      >> my thoughts.
                      >
                      > You don't have the option of hiring or firing a
                      > conscience.


                      Sure we do. We have free will (or the illusion of such which works for me).
                      I fired my conscience a long time ago, hehehehehe.... I gave myself the
                      power to control my own thoughts .... "little white voice inside my head,
                      you're fired."


                      > What do you make of intuition
                      > and/or instinct?

                      Intuition is interesting and I've seen it work sometimes but fail most of
                      the time. It's tightly connected to coincidence. Instinct is simple: there
                      is no such thing for humans. There are clues of humans once having
                      instincts as evolution progressed, but in our current form we do not have
                      any. I might say that a baby, for example, sucks milk as an instinct but
                      then I'd have to look at all of the brain damaged ones that do not suck and
                      have to be force fed in hospitals. Which leads to a definition of instinct:
                      any inborn action that is compelled rather than chosen as a response to
                      stimuli. Humans have brains. We are not programmed lifeforms as birds are,
                      for example, to build nests, we have to learn how to build nests, it's not
                      programmed into our DNA. When no further data would fit on our DNA we
                      evolved larger brains.


                      >
                      > I think
                      >> as I will. I shall not do as I will because of laws
                      >> that will restrict my
                      >> freedom. Hence I give up freedom to live in this
                      >> society and enjoy the
                      >> fruits and wealth provided by such. My behavior has
                      >> nothing whatever to do
                      >> with morality, other than the fact that most laws
                      >> are based on it and I
                      >> don't want to live in a physical prison.
                      >
                      > Then you live according to someone else's morals. I do
                      > as I will, and if I operate with all my faculties and
                      > exercise good judgement then I don't need to worry
                      > about prisons, physical or otherwise. That is magick.

                      Actually, I live outside of anyone else's morals since my only concern is my
                      universe. And I do have to worry about prisons since I live in America with
                      more laws, more prisons, and more moral restrictions than anywhere but
                      Indo-China.


                      > I never suggested mindlessly following the morals of
                      > others.

                      Then you DO have to worry about prisons, eh? Gee, I sure do.

                      > I am suggesting the proper way to live is to
                      > deem what is relevant and proper to one's life. Allow
                      > me to stray from words like 'good' and 'evil' and
                      > 'right' and 'wrong' to words like 'beneficial' or
                      > 'detrimental.' The strong have always created or
                      > chosen their own morals. Occasionally these become
                      > the morals of the masses. I am not speaking of the
                      > morals of masses. I am speaking of the individual.
                      >

                      This sounds like you are siding with me. But the definition of morals is
                      this:

                      Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action
                      and character. (from American Heritage dictionary)

                      I guess that morality is a personal thing for you. I find the word dangerous
                      and suggestive of witch hunting.

                      > Hmmmm. To me, judgement is power, control and good
                      > judgement is magick.

                      In matters of science and logic I agree. But I disagree about moral matters.
                      We are all entitled to our own oats in that arena. Morality depend on who
                      has the power. In groups, moral values destroy freedom and civil liberties.
                      And years later, for some reason the old morals don't work any more.
                      Morality is fleeting and changing shape all of the time, temporal illusion.

                      > But just yesterday you said Restriction is the
                      > definition of evil.


                      Yes ! Evil being the destructive forces that attack the individual.

                      > You appear to very much believe
                      > in good and evil, right and wrong.

                      No. I don't believe in good or evil as objective truth. As subjective
                      reality, restriction hurts my true will. Sorry, my definitions of good and
                      evil are Thelemic and quite personal. These are not beliefs, they are ideas
                      founded in factual personal experience. I don't belief in them as I do not
                      have faith or a groundless emotional basis for them.


                      > Are you suggesting that pleasure is immoral? Because
                      > that is not at all what I am talking about.

                      No. I'm saying that those who claim morality as their station are taking
                      pleasure in having their "moral" views. The superego presents then with neat
                      little rules for right and wrong.... how secure they must feel... yuk.

                      >>It was
                      >> Gaugin's will to depart
                      >> his home in France and 'walk out' on his family. His
                      >> trip to Tahiti was
                      >> fulfillment of his true will. Yet, if right wing
                      >> morality was imposed on
                      >> him, he'd be stuck feeding all of those kids. He was
                      >> willful enough to say
                      >> screw responsibility, screw personal ethics, and
                      >> screw opinions about right
                      >> and wrong. Hence he is our beloved Gnostic saint.
                      >
                      > That is not to say responsiblity was not important to
                      > him. His first responsibility was to himself.

                      Yes, but I specifically said screw right wing morality - meaning screw self
                      sacrifice. He put himself above his family. An irresponsible act by any
                      measure of being a "good" moral father.

                      > That's what I'm talking about here, the individual
                      > level.

                      Good then you agree that morality is not objective truth. Placing it at the
                      individual level does not improve it's illusionary nature however.

                      > Well now this is just redundant but again I am not
                      > talking about any other but personal/internal
                      > authority.


                      Glad to hear it. I can accept the notion of a persona set of morals, but I
                      really have to question myself if I begin to proceed in ways that restrict
                      my freedom all the while claiming morality (i.e. "it's the moral thing to
                      do) for the basis of my actions.

                      Nietzsche wrote that objective morality conflicts with personal freedom, in
                      "Beyond Good and Evil." I see no need to state my point regarding morality
                      since you seem to have read him and he's a whole lot smarter than me,
                      heheheh.

                      Nice to sign your letters with love. Crowley and I agree that love should
                      be under will.

                      93 93/93
                      Sans Peur
                    • Sans Peur
                      on 9/1/00 11:42 PM, tenera sollecitudine at volonta9@yahoo.com wrote: 93 and greetings Tenera (beautiful name), ... This stuff really scares me. It scares me
                      Message 10 of 21 , Sep 2, 2000
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        on 9/1/00 11:42 PM, tenera sollecitudine at volonta9@... wrote:

                        93 and greetings Tenera (beautiful name),


                        > Here's a thought:
                        >
                        > The obligation one feels to take and honor an oath or
                        > vow, even to oneself, is a moral one.
                        >
                        > Duty is a moral concept, right?

                        This stuff really scares me. It scares me even more to hear things like duty
                        coming from Crowley sources since he is Thelemic. Why? Because words like
                        duty, honor, pride, obligation (to society or country et cetera) ring out of
                        death. These are the same things I heard from my friends who died in Viet
                        Nam 35 years ago.

                        As we now see the war looking back, it strikes most Americans as a huge
                        mistake represented by the black wall of death in DC. Gee, but at the time
                        we had a moral obligation to save the world from Communism, right?

                        I didn't see the wall as a tribute to an honorable war, but rather as homage
                        to 59,000 stars who because of duty died very young. The wall honors the
                        individuals and not their patriotic duty. To hell with duty.

                        Yes, I'd agree that duty, and all of it's ugliness, is definitely a moral
                        concept. Blah. Crowley was a genius, but he acted like an altruistic sheep
                        at times. Colin Wilson wrote that Crowley would get down on his knees and
                        give head when ordered to (if you believe that - I wasn't there). Still I
                        have to love the guy. Maybe one day I'll see value in Crowley's writing on
                        duty. To hell with duty does not mean to hell with Crowley.

                        93 93/93
                        Sans Peur
                      • Paul R. Hume
                        Does tjhis include the essay by Crowley called Duty. ... duty ... of ... Any symbol can have disparate meanings, and any symbol can be twisted to a corrupt
                        Message 11 of 21 , Sep 2, 2000
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Does tjhis include the essay by Crowley called "Duty."

                          >This stuff really scares me. It scares me even more to hear things like
                          duty
                          >coming from Crowley sources since he is Thelemic. Why? Because words like
                          >duty, honor, pride, obligation (to society or country et cetera) ring out
                          of
                          >death. These are the same things I heard from my friends who died in Viet
                          >Nam 35 years ago.

                          Any symbol can have disparate meanings, and any symbol can be twisted to a
                          corrupt end, whether it is a word like "duty" or "honor" or a symbol like
                          the fylfot.

                          >As we now see the war looking back, it strikes most Americans as a huge
                          >mistake represented by the black wall of death in DC. Gee, but at the time
                          >we had a moral obligation to save the world from Communism, right?


                          If one proclaimed "moral obligation" was manipulated for nationalistic ends,
                          then all moral principles are obviously invalid? Isn't this the omitted
                          middle or some other logical error?

                          >To hell with duty does not mean to hell with Crowley.
                          >


                          By the way, have you read "Duty"?

                          Paul
                        • tenera sollecitudine
                          Hello Sans Puer, I am quoting brief passages of Liber ABA which have to do with the subject of our recent conversations and would like to read any comments as
                          Message 12 of 21 , Sep 2, 2000
                          View Source
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Hello Sans Puer,

                            I am quoting brief passages of Liber ABA which have to
                            do with the subject of our recent conversations and
                            would like to read any comments as to what you or
                            anyone else think these quotes are saying.

                            Love,
                            ~*~



                            "let the student decide for himself what form of life,
                            what moral code, will least tend to excite his mind"

                            "Anyone who accepts a moral or religious truth without
                            understanding it is only kept out of the asylum
                            because he does not follow it out logically."


                            "Philosphus Grade "is expected to complete his moral
                            training and in particular to study the Qabalah"

                            "The Magician, however well he succeed in making
                            contact with the secret sources of energy in nature,
                            can only use them to the extent permitted by his
                            intellectual and moral qualities."


                            "1. Force and Fire I asked her to describe his
                            moral qualities"


                            "As he becomes adjusted to intercourse with his Angel,
                            he will find his passionate ecstacy develop a quality
                            of peace and intelligibility which adds power, while
                            it informs and fortifies his mental and moral
                            qualities instead of obscuring and upsetting them."

                            "Below this abyss we find the moral qualities of Man,
                            of which there are six."

                            "We propose to discuss this phenomenon, analyze its
                            nature, determine accurately the physical, mental and
                            moral conditions which are favourable to it, to
                            ascertain its cause, and thus to produce it in
                            ourselves, so that we may adequately study its
                            effects."




                            __________________________________________________
                            Do You Yahoo!?
                            Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
                            http://mail.yahoo.com/
                          • Sans Peur
                            on 9/2/00 12:36 PM, Paul R. Hume at paulhume@lan2wan.com wrote: 93 and greetings Paul, ... Yes. As far as promulgation of Thelema is concerned, I don t see it
                            Message 13 of 21 , Sep 2, 2000
                            View Source
                            • 0 Attachment
                              on 9/2/00 12:36 PM, Paul R. Hume at paulhume@... wrote:


                              93 and greetings Paul,

                              >
                              > Does tjhis include the essay by Crowley called "Duty."

                              Yes. As far as promulgation of Thelema is concerned, I don't see it as my
                              duty to influence society in any way toward that or govern myself by it's
                              doctrine. Although Crowley may see a Thelemic duty, I don't. I don't see
                              the Book of the Law as the new age Bible either. I have no duty to Thelema.
                              To me Thelema is just a point of view and not a campaign or religion.


                              > Any symbol can have disparate meanings, and any symbol can be twisted to a
                              > corrupt end, whether it is a word like "duty" or "honor" or a symbol like
                              > the fylfot.


                              True enough. Duty, to me, implies control over me. This term "duty" is used
                              all the time to march people into war. I once heard the local lodge master
                              call us "Thelemic soldiers."

                              >
                              > If one proclaimed "moral obligation" was manipulated for nationalistic ends,
                              > then all moral principles are obviously invalid? Isn't this the omitted
                              > middle or some other logical error?

                              Yes, I see your point. I question all issues of morality since they are
                              often used towards nationalist ends. What's good for goose may not be good
                              for the gander at all.

                              I'm pretty fed up with all the laws in this country that restrict my freedom
                              because of some moral issue. Who decided that drugs are "bad" anyway? I have
                              to pay thousands of tax dollars to support a policy that I disagree with !
                              Personal morals may have their place, I prefer to call them views or values
                              since what's good for me is not necessarily good for everyone else. Issues
                              of morality tend not to be personal, but rather effect groups, in my opinion
                              anyway.

                              >
                              > By the way, have you read "Duty"?

                              Yes, but I will not accept Thelemic duty. It scares me just as much as any
                              other kind of religious duty. I like to enjoy Thelemic ideas, I don't want
                              to have a "moral obligation" to enforce Thelemic ideas in every action.

                              As far as I can tell, Crowley proclaiming a Thelemic duty is no different
                              than any other religion having an obligation to spread the word. Of course I
                              agree with individual rights and Crowley's concern et cetera. I'm just not
                              going a Thelemic campaign any time soon.

                              This explains my low standing in O.T.O., I simply cannot accept oaths of
                              duty, the financial obligation is fine with me however.

                              93 93/93
                              Sans Peur
                            • Sans Peur
                              on 9/2/00 1:45 PM, tenera sollecitudine at volonta9@yahoo.com wrote: 93 and greetings Tenera, ... Sorry but I do not have the time to give my impressions of
                              Message 14 of 21 , Sep 2, 2000
                              View Source
                              • 0 Attachment
                                on 9/2/00 1:45 PM, tenera sollecitudine at volonta9@... wrote:

                                93 and greetings Tenera,

                                >
                                > Hello Sans Puer,
                                >
                                > I am quoting brief passages of Liber ABA which have to
                                > do with the subject of our recent conversations and
                                > would like to read any comments as to what you or
                                > anyone else think these quotes are saying.

                                Sorry but I do not have the time to give my impressions of every instance of
                                Crowley's use of the word moral in Liber ABA. I will say this: it is my
                                impression of Crowley that he refers to "morals" in the context of magick as
                                any teacher would give a lesson. There is a sense of experience or
                                conviction in magick tending toward results that are either positive or
                                negative, good or bad if you will. He is not referring to objective morality
                                but to subjective experimental morality, as in the outcome of an experiment
                                where there is no purely scientific result to go by but rather only a moral
                                certainty. The states of human consciousness can be either good or bad
                                places to visit but merely on a subjective basis....


                                93 93/93
                                Sans Peur
                              • tenera sollecitudine
                                ... Dear Sans Peur (I think I botched your name last time), Uhm, I did not include every reference to word moral or morality, thank you. I will have you
                                Message 15 of 21 , Sep 2, 2000
                                View Source
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- Sans Peur <simonmagus@...> wrote:
                                  > Sorry but I do not have the time to give my
                                  > impressions of every instance of
                                  > Crowley's use of the word moral in Liber ABA.

                                  Dear Sans Peur (I think I botched your name last
                                  time),

                                  Uhm, I did not include every reference to word "moral"
                                  or "morality," thank you.

                                  I will have you know that I looked those up
                                  specifically for you since you mentioned Crowley a
                                  time or two earlier. I am a little disappointed you
                                  won't play, but as you will <g>.

                                  I think it is clear man has a moral aspect. You can
                                  pout and scream and jump up and down over the morals
                                  others have established all the while failing to
                                  realize they simply may (or may not) be in conflict
                                  with your own code of morals but to what end?


                                  I will
                                  > say this: it is my
                                  > impression of Crowley that he refers to "morals" in
                                  > the context of magick as
                                  > any teacher would give a lesson. There is a sense of
                                  > experience or
                                  > conviction in magick tending toward results that are
                                  > either positive or
                                  > negative, good or bad if you will. He is not
                                  > referring to objective morality
                                  > but to subjective experimental morality, as in the
                                  > outcome of an experiment
                                  > where there is no purely scientific result to go by
                                  > but rather only a moral
                                  > certainty. The states of human consciousness can be
                                  > either good or bad
                                  > places to visit but merely on a subjective basis....

                                  Well and I contend that even though you appear to have
                                  moments of sense here and there you are so wrapped up
                                  in your resentment of others and focus on what you
                                  erroneously deem "morality" or "moral" that until you
                                  free your mind and mature a little any hope of you
                                  catching my drift is a complete waste of time.

                                  Thelema doesn't want the irresponsible flakes of the
                                  world either! Get over it. I'm a little shocked to
                                  see a Thelemite not only refer to pleasure as immoral
                                  but to suggest that responsibility and personal ethics
                                  are somehow wrong.

                                  In reading up on Crowley's statements on these
                                  subjects, I was a surprised to find how much I can
                                  agree with what the man wrote in that regard. So I
                                  thank you for mentioning Crowley and disagreeing with
                                  me to the point I felt compelled to quote the man for
                                  you because I do like what I found.

                                  Love,
                                  ~*~


                                  "After all," you tell me: "there is for every one of
                                  us an instinct, at least, of what is 'right' and what
                                  is wrong." And is plain enough that you understand
                                  the validity of this sense in itself, in its own
                                  right, wholly independent of any Codes or systems
                                  whatsoever." MWT, p. 308

                                  "The basis of our criminal law is simple, by virtue of
                                  Thelema: to violate the right of another is to forfeit
                                  one's own claim to protection in the matter involved."
                                  MWT, p. 312

                                  "I have known strange, striking cases of similar "vows
                                  to end vows." I need hardly say that these cases may
                                  be multiplied indefinitely: nothing is easier, and few
                                  games more amusing, than to devise dilemnas calculated
                                  to stump the Master, or to catch him bending." MWT, p.
                                  312

                                  "But as to your own wit of judgment as to the general
                                  rules of your own private Code of Morals, what is
                                  "right" and what is "wrong" for you, that will emerge
                                  only from long self-analysis such as is the chief work
                                  on the Sword in the process of your Initiation." MWT,
                                  p. 424

                                  "As matriarchy reflected the Formula of the Aeon of
                                  Isis, and patriarchy that of Osiris, so does the rule
                                  of the "Crowned and Conquering Child" express that of
                                  Horus. The family, the clan, the state count for
                                  nothing; the Individual is the Autarch."
                                  Aleister Crowley



                                  __________________________________________________
                                  Do You Yahoo!?
                                  Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
                                  http://mail.yahoo.com/
                                • Sans Peur
                                  on 9/2/00 3:52 PM, tenera sollecitudine at volonta9@yahoo.com wrote: 93 Ternera and greetings again, ... Yes, I took a Crowley quote completely out of context
                                  Message 16 of 21 , Sep 2, 2000
                                  View Source
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    on 9/2/00 3:52 PM, tenera sollecitudine at volonta9@... wrote:

                                    93 Ternera and greetings again,


                                    > I will have you know that I looked those up
                                    > specifically for you since you mentioned Crowley a
                                    > time or two earlier.

                                    Yes, I took a Crowley quote completely out of context in order to illustrate
                                    my point, not Crowley's point. Also, I might add that I do not agree with
                                    Crowley on all issues. I am a free thinker. Thelema is not my religion it's
                                    just a point of view to me. So using Crowley to somehow defend your view of
                                    morality is a cop out. Just say what you want to say.

                                    >I am a little disappointed you
                                    > won't play.

                                    I'm not here to play games or to inform the world of my interpretation of
                                    Liber ABA. Of course if you want to pay me by the hour I'll consider
                                    responding, hehehehehe.


                                    > I think it is clear man has a moral aspect.

                                    Sure they do, and they constantly change, they are temporal illusions. In
                                    magick they must change in order to survive. For example, if murder is
                                    called for and I hesitate, then I may be overcome by an entity in the
                                    astral. So, I change and become a murderer. Objective reality of right and
                                    wrong such as the Ten Commandments are absurd and simply do not exist as
                                    pointed out in philosophy.

                                    > You can
                                    > pout and scream and jump up and down over the morals
                                    > others have established all the while failing to
                                    > realize they simply may (or may not) be in conflict
                                    > with your own code of morals but to what end?

                                    I think you are pouting right now because I won't play your childish game.
                                    Sorry, but I've got a life to attend to. You can call it a moral decision if
                                    you like, but I just call it freedom to choose what to do. I don't know if
                                    it's right or wrong or good or evil, it just is what I choose to do.

                                    > Well and I contend that even though you appear to have
                                    > moments of sense here and there you are so wrapped up
                                    > in your resentment of others and focus on what you
                                    > erroneously deem "morality" or "moral" that until you
                                    > free your mind and mature a little any hope of you
                                    > catching my drift is a complete waste of time.

                                    Let's see, you've insulted me twice, passed judgment on me, say that I
                                    resent others, don't understand my view of morality, and you think that you
                                    are making some point (what is your point anyway?). I think this
                                    conversation is over. What are you going to do when Sunday school gets out
                                    and you find out that Crowley was a heroin addict who abused women (said
                                    they have no soul in fact) and was a flaming homosexual. Gee, I still love
                                    the guy... hehehehhehe....

                                    93 93/93
                                    Sans Peur
                                  • tenera sollecitudine
                                    ... Nor do I, thank you. ... Not from where I m sitting. You are a slave to your frustration, perceptions and fears. Aren t you the one who worries about
                                    Message 17 of 21 , Sep 2, 2000
                                    View Source
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      --- Sans Peur <simonmagus@...> wrote:
                                      > Yes, I took a Crowley quote completely out of
                                      > context in order to illustrate
                                      > my point, not Crowley's point. Also, I might add
                                      > that I do not agree with
                                      > Crowley on all issues.

                                      Nor do I, thank you.

                                      >I am a free thinker.

                                      Not from where I'm sitting. You are a slave to your
                                      frustration, perceptions and fears. Aren't you the
                                      one who worries about "prisons" among other things?

                                      Thelema
                                      > is not my religion it's
                                      > just a point of view to me. So using Crowley to
                                      > somehow defend your view of
                                      > morality is a cop out. Just say what you want to
                                      > say.

                                      A cop out? I have been writing back and forth with
                                      you for days. A point of view, huh? Okay, what is
                                      Thelema?


                                      > I'm not here to play games or to inform the world of
                                      > my interpretation of
                                      > Liber ABA. Of course if you want to pay me by the
                                      > hour I'll consider
                                      > responding, hehehehehe.

                                      What are you here for? Perhaps "play" was a poor
                                      choice of words on my part. You may bring up Crowley
                                      at your conveience and then complain when somone else
                                      does the same. Very telling.

                                      Pay you by the hour? LOL!

                                      AHA I think this is the big difference--small
                                      mindedness and the alternative. You hold those lower
                                      to middle-class values and morals and I do not <g>


                                      > > I think it is clear man has a moral aspect.
                                      >
                                      > Sure they do, and they constantly change, they are
                                      > temporal illusions.

                                      I disagree. That you think the moral aspect of man
                                      constantly changes is possibly an illusion.


                                      In
                                      > magick they must change in order to survive. For
                                      > example, if murder is
                                      > called for and I hesitate, then I may be overcome by
                                      > an entity in the
                                      > astral. So, I change and become a murderer.
                                      > Objective reality of right and
                                      > wrong such as the Ten Commandments are absurd and
                                      > simply do not exist as
                                      > pointed out in philosophy.

                                      You keep talking about the Ten Commandments and common
                                      "crimes." I am talking about the moral instinct or
                                      aspect in man. If the Ten Commandments are not mine,
                                      then I could care less.


                                      > I think you are pouting right now because I won't
                                      > play your childish game.

                                      Carrying on a conversation in a place designated for
                                      conversation is a childish game? Or crossing your
                                      arms and stomping your foot is childish?

                                      > Sorry, but I've got a life to attend to. You can
                                      > call it a moral decision if
                                      > you like, but I just call it freedom to choose what
                                      > to do. I don't know if
                                      > it's right or wrong or good or evil, it just is what
                                      > I choose to do.

                                      Very well and yet you keep writing back <g> Go back
                                      to worrying about "prisons" if that's what floats your
                                      boat. Who am I to try to understand you anyway.

                                      > Let's see, you've insulted me twice, passed judgment
                                      > on me, say that I
                                      > resent others, don't understand my view of morality,
                                      > and you think that you
                                      > are making some point (what is your point anyway?).

                                      As I recall, you responded to a post of mine. What is
                                      the point of being on an elist if you are not equipped
                                      to carry on a coversation? What was your point in
                                      responding to my post in the first place? I don't
                                      suppose our motivation is terribly different in that
                                      regard, I could be wrong.

                                      Beyond that I have explained my point to an excess.
                                      If you didn't get by now, another run through won't
                                      help you.

                                      > I think this
                                      > conversation is over. What are you going to do when
                                      > Sunday school gets out
                                      > and you find out that Crowley was a heroin addict
                                      > who abused women (said
                                      > they have no soul in fact) and was a flaming
                                      > homosexual. Gee, I still love
                                      > the guy... hehehehhehe....

                                      LOL! Thank you Geraldo, although your breaking story
                                      is old news.

                                      (There you go moralizing again and over dead people no
                                      less. If you want to get my attention, tell me
                                      something new.)

                                      Love,
                                      ~*~

                                      __________________________________________________
                                      Do You Yahoo!?
                                      Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
                                      http://mail.yahoo.com/
                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.