>> I disagree that anarchism comes closest to the Law of Thelema. Towards the
>> end of his life, Aleister Crowley repudiated the reaction of a well-known
>> British anarchist to the Law of Thelema, which was, "to hell with all laws!"
anarchists repudiate one another's reactions all the time.
> Anarchism is not chaos or lawlessness, necessarily. Political
> Anarchism certainly isn't. Like you have stated below, the ideal
> existence of the state should be to maintain individual liberty.
and to make it sustainable. this will inevitably mean restriction on
rapacious and imperialist domination and exploitation, and may
therefore require some good size government to heel the corporations
which are now destroying the biosphere at the behest of the
ignorantly multiplying hordes of humans and their waste products.
> That IS Anarchism. Ultimately the ideal state ocurs when it is no
> longer necessary to exist,
I don't know why this need be the case. maximization of liberty does
not mean any particular individual would have the power to destroy
what we all create. there is a logical limit to human freedom which
is provided to all citizens.
> but until then Anarchism as a political
> movement is concerned with the removal of oppresive governments and
> the establishment of true (dynamic) equality.
with Bakunin, Kropotkin, Warren, and many others, the Thelemic Law
extends to political fields. one may find the Law in many seemingly
unrelated societal venues. studying subjects like Dada in art,
some forms of Anabaptism and Quakerism in religious practice,
Zen Buddhism in mystical philosophy, and Chaos Magick can yield
valuable insight into the nature and nurture of the Law in one's life.
the natural flourishing of the Law of Thelema in life is an
increasingly compassionate and inclusive liberative impulse. first
one may focus most intensely upon personal liberation. having achieved
some degree of success in this, one may then feel moved to extend a
compassionate arm of support to one's fellow humans. this is the role
of the political and economic anarchist, the human rights worker,
the liberator of the oppressed. such nurturing activities may bring
a further expansion of a conception of the Law's application: to all
species of living beings. this may lead to what is today known as
ecological anarchism, exemplified by authors such as Bookchin. this
encompasses all manner of volition, extending the presumption of
who deserves such rights guaranteed by documents like "Liber Oz" to
a myriad life forms. resolving obvious carnivorous comestible disputes
is the least of the problems facing a human species without the
wisdom or intelligence to engage or encourage restraint in consumption
>> Thelema is closest to Tibetan lamaism, which entrusts the administration
>> of the state to those who have extinguished themselves, in the service
>> of a traditional spirituality which emphasizes individual seeking and
>> emancipation. Which is not to say that Thelema is doctrinally Buddhist!
without intellectual agreement as to what constitutes "extinguishment",
this system is unworkable and subject to too many abuses. while the
Platonic Republic may have appealed to writers like Crowley, his British
upbringing and preferences for Blavatskyian elitism run contrary to any
truly egalitarian social schemes such as anarchosyndicalism.
the question then becomes whether Crowley's vision and values are what
drive and constitute "Thelema". I think we are best to give up any
fixation on figureheads or heralds and focus most strongly on the liberty
and compassion which Thelema and Agape represent to us, even if this means
tossing Crowley out whole-cloth. time for Thelema to outgrow the Beast.
> I disgree, Thelema is not a religion of reincarnation... yet.
it always has had an internal struggle between Indian Theosophical,
quasi-Buddhist, and European Christian cosmological notions. post-
mortem fantasies do seem to predominate, though whether some return
to fleshform is favoured appears to vary with the Thelemic votary.
I prefer to use the method of science, and accept as axiomatic only
that of which I can be relatively sure -- this one life is important
to me, and I would make of it the most I am able. having repeatedly
examined the fancy of 'the soul' in myself and others I have come
to the tentative conclusion that the soul is an intellectual phantasm,
a misunderstanding of subjective experience and its transitory nature.
wishing for immortality, immutability, permanence, we are wont to
believe in our special participation in it, woefully ignorant of the
pure perfection of fluctuating and fleeting phenomena and their
dynamic principle of FUCK.
((333) nigris) nagasiva@...
NOTICE: I filter out a good bit of what is posted here, possibly
returning to it on the web if I'm interested. cc me if
you want a response.