From: Josh Norton Area: Thelema To: Michael Lee 31 Aug 92 00:56:00 Subject: Right & Wrong UpdReq Hi, Michael! Those bold in daring, will die: Those bold in not daring will survive. Of those two, either may benefit or harm. Nature decides which is evil, But who can know why? Even the enlightened find this difficult. I think that many of those here who espouse a relativistic or situational ethic do so because, on one level or another, they have recognized that an effective absolute morality is not only impossible, but that the attempt to formulate and act on an unbending moral code is a recipe for disaster. IMO, every moral code is a creation of a human mind; even those that claim a divine imprimatur have been filtered and interpreted by human minds. As such, the codes are abstractions, and the situations for which they prescribe responses are also abstractions. Both are fictions created on the assumption that one situation is always like another, when in fact no two events are ever alike. One who adheres to a strict moral code is actually living in a fantasy of his own creation and does not see the world around him. Because of this, he is like a blind man driving a Mack truck; almost every action he takes is going to injure either himself or someone else, and nearly all of his actions will have consequences to which he can not properly respond, because they are outside the limits of his rules. We can not know the consequences of our actions before we take them. And even afterwards, because Nature's net is so vast, we can probably never know whether their total effect on the world will be beneficial, injurious, or just lost in the "noise" with no significant effects. A relativist ethic at least makes the attempt to ensure there is some relationship between the events we are involved in, and the actions we take. Recognizing that no set of rules is ever going to be good enough, we still try to bring out of ourselves our own sense of what is likely to be a suitable response and to tailor our actions according to what we can see of the situation. Our actions will sometimes be wrong, either pleasantly or unpleasantly, but on the whole they are less likely to be drastically injurious than those of the absolutist. Your idea of there being a "general, collective good" does not really follow from the fact that everything in the universe is interconnected, because while everything IS interconnected, everything simultaneously retains its individual nature, and it is with that individual nature that we must deal, not the abstract, collective "universal" oneness. This is what Aleister Crowley called "mixing up the planes", and it is simply a variation of the moral absolutism discussed above. Any rule we can codify for what is the "collective" good is going to be so abstract that it is going to be partially or wholly inappropriate to most of the real-world situations to which is it supposed to be applied. It is easy to think up examples to refute the idea of collective good. For example, my father's garden plants just love to be fed dried cow dung, but such a diet would kill you or me, even though both we and the plants are part of your "collective" whole. My cat is also a part of that whole, but that doesn't mean it is possible to teach him to speak, or expect him to use a knife and fork to eat his dinner, even though from a human standpoint these are "good." We have to treat things according to their natures, and this is as true for other humans as it is for the rest of the world. And, having spent ten years working in government agencies that administer rules of supposed "collective" good, I can testify from personal experience that they nearly always end up causing more troubles than they solve. Now as far as "karma" goes, I find the common concepts of it pretty silly, and, like the Christian ideas of "heaven" and "hell", mostly useful as a device for ruling classes to keep those they oppress from revolting. The common understanding of this term -- even among sophisticated Hindus and Buddhists I have met -- is that there is some sort of Cosmic Santa Claus watching us and totaling up a score of "good" and "bad" actions. But instead of Christmas presents, the Karmic Claus hands out "status" in the next incarnation. E.g., enduring misery in this life "earns" one a better position in the next life. This isn't much different from the Christian view of "earning" a place in heaven or hell through one's actions here in life. It sounds like you are subscribing to this exceedingly dualistic view. A slightly more sophisticated view is that Karma is a form of "what goes around, comes around," in that what happens to us in any particular life has its true antecedents in our actions in prior lives. I don't buy either of these; the first is too simplistic to be true, the second incomplete. And -- as they are usually expressed -- both views include the innate assumption that there is some sort of judgmental agency in the cosmos which forces people into certain life-situations as a result of their past actions. This assuption, IMO, is wholly unjustifiable, and suitable only for scaring children and fools. A better view of karma -- and one that fits better with the individualism of Thelemic philosophy -- is that it is simply an extension of "learning from experience". Every action we take has consequences, and these consequences always leave their impact on our memories. Similarly for everything that happens to us as a result of other people's actions. And our memories of past consequences help to determine, in part, our response to new situations that arise. "Karma" is the accumulated impacts from our experiences over many lives. In between lives, we look at what we have learned and experienced so far, and _decide_ what general sorts of things we would like to learn and experience in the next incarnation. Similarly, we decide what sorts of situations we want to avoid. On the basis of our _own_ evaluations of the past, and our _individual_ visions of what we would like to do next, we pick a place and "personality" in which to incarnate. Our reasons for chosing can be complex, and may or may not reflect or compensate for specific incidents in previous lives. We are NOT forced into particular life-situations by any outside agency. In this view of karma, absolute conceptions of "right" and "wrong" become much less important, and considerations of individual development become more important. It is only after one has reached a level of development where one begins to voluntarily co-operate with the "divine plan" -- or at least with whatever portion of it that one can sense -- that any standard of evaluation other than the personal becomes important. And even there, there is no conflict between the personal and the "divine", because what is requested of the person is suited to his nature and abilities. The best one can say is that as a general rule -- really a matter of simple courtesy -- it is wrong to interfere with another person's "true will", to prevent him or her from achieving their self-determined goals. And similarly it is wrong to encourage a world-situation where people's opportunities for self-exploration are artificially restricted -- especially by someone else's notion of "what's good for them." * SLMR 2.1a * Sic Biscuitum Disintegrandum 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Josh Norton Area: Thelema To: Liliani 30 Aug 92 21:17:04 Subject: Love under Will UpdReq LI>JN>VI>What DOES "Love under will" mean? LI>JN> All you lurkers out there-- lets hear your $.23 worth. LI>Okay, one perenial lurker here. >(All of the following being purely my not so humble opinions.) LI>Love is, to me, the caring for someone, or something, that puts that >person's or thing's highest good as your necessary goal. In a romantic >relationship, the true lover places the beloved's happiness above the >. . . LI>Will is, to me, what one's true self desires. Which doesn't say a hell >of a lot. The true self is the spiritual being that is at the core of a >person. To get to know your true self, all the veneers of Thanks for your input Liliani. You've given a very clear definition of the two terms in the phrase. Now, how do they go together? How do your definitions of "Love" and "Will" fit together in "Love under will", and what is the meaning of the whole phrase? You're not - I hope - implying the New Age chestnut that we should all love one another? * SLMR 2.1a * Facts? Don't bother me with facts! 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Josh Norton Area: Thelema To: L'Amour Dujour 31 Aug 92 00:33:06 Subject: Re: Love under will UpdReq LD>..Gods spoke from Josh Norton to Vitriol saying "Love under will" .. LD> VI>What DOES "Love under will" mean? LD> "and just who is this Will person, anyway?" "Is he cute?" Arrrrgh. I can tell already that this is going to be a bad one. I'd better take a toke or two to make it easier. (Practices herb-assisted pranayama for a few moments....) LD> JN> I'll take an esoteric view of it, with the understanding that there > JN> are probably also many considerations of practical magick, ethics and > JN> morality, social behavior, etc., etc. hidden in it, which I'll leave LD> I can't agree with that. I think the Esoteric and the Exoteric all wave > into one on this one. Even your post below shows this idea in all it's > forms. Hell, they all wave into one on everything. But what I meant was that people with various individual viewpoints will see other aspects of the whole than I would with my peculiar interests and viewpoints. I want to hear what they think about it, too. LD> I would define Love as the bringing together into one essence two > separate and distinct concepts, in both a magickal and mundane sense. LD> "Bind nothing! Let there be no difference made among you between any > one thing and any other thing; for thereby there cometh hurt." LD> "The Perfect and the Perfect are one Perfect and not two; > nay, are none!" I'm not sure how relevant these two quotes are in this connection. The first always sounded to me more like a paraphrase of the Buddha's Noble Eightfold path. I.e. "desire is the cause of sorrow", etc. LD> I would define Will as the guy down the street who's dating... > okay okay. Will would be the driving force behind any action, the > destiny of an action, it's place on the Karmic Web of existance. This > is why your Will can be at odds your intent. Your Will is what 'NEEDS' > to be done, while your intent is what 'WANTS' to be done. Hmm. When someone says "karma" it sets alarm flags in my head. But that word deserves it's own discussion. The rest is a good distinction, but who / what determines what "needs" to be done? Your "higher self?" Some cosmic Santa Claus who totes up your "good" and "bad" actions and determines your fate accordingly? God? Some unpersonalized Forces of Existence? Something else? LD> This would make "Love is the Law, Love under Will" to be the Great > Work, the premise of the entire thing. To bring each person one step > farther in the comprehension of the entirety of existance. To bring > each person farther to "Unite by thine Art so that all disappear." LD> That is, to make themselves one with all of eternity, with all of > existance. The process by which the self is glorified, and the self > is destroyed. You make it sound like the purpose of existence is to wipe itself out in a massive horde of particle-antiparticle interactions. I can just see Devo making a song out of it. Just kidding. OK. From your viewpoint, if I am reading you correctly, "Love under will" relates more to the process of "initiation", of moving back "up the Tree of Life", of "withdrawal from manifestation" than it does with any sort of ongoing creative process. Please correct me if I'm wrong. But if not, what about your relations with the parts of existence that are further down the planes than yourself? Obviously you've already united with the lower parts of your own being, but what about the rest of the world? What acts would you be prompted to perform in relation to things/entities/beings on lower levels, under the rule of "Love under will"? * SLMR 2.1a * Laws create criminals 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Liliani Area: Thelema To: Josh Norton 31 Aug 92 12:13:54 Subject: Love under Will UpdReq JN> together? How do your JN> definitions of "Love" and "Will" fit together in JN> "Love under will", and JN> what is the meaning of the whole phrase? You're JN> not - I hope - implying JN> the New Age chestnut that we should all love one another? Well, while maintaining that I do love humanity in general, I would also apply my definitions. What would be best for the human race, as a race, and the Earth, as a whole, would be the destruction of about 2/3 of us plus strong inhibitions against overpopulation. Hardly in conformity with the New Age seamless garment take no life, eh? I will think on this and write more from the off line. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Josh Norton Area: Thelema To: Vitriol 31 Aug 92 11:09:02 Subject: Love under will UpdReq VI>JN> CHANGE MY NAME!!!!???! NEVER! Oh well, so much for that idea. VI>I think you missed my meaning. I'd explain it, but a certain brother >of mine might raise the forces of Mars against my VDT. I guess I did miss it. (Sounds of humorous comments whizzing rapidly over person's head.) * SLMR 2.1a * Facts? Don't bother me with facts! 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Josh Norton Area: Thelema To: Vitriol 31 Aug 92 20:56:04 Subject: Traffic UpdReq VI> -=> Josh Norton sent a message to Vitriol on 08-27-92 17:00 <=- > -=> Re: Traffic <=- VI>JN> That's what everybody seems to say it is, but I wonder. Doesn't that > JN> view seem just a little narrow-minded, a little bit parochial? What > JN> about the rest of the universe? Is it just a convenient backdrop or > JN> movie set on which we play out our dramas of personal initiation? Or > JN> might not the Great Work also include processes that relate to > JN> everything else as well? VI>It is clear that there is no need to bring into our equation, >variables that cannot have a bearing on the equation. While we are >certainly much more than our highschool science classes would have us >believe, the Universe is a `vasty' place. Our spheres of influence >are great, greater than we ourselves may know, yet still only reach a >portion of the Universe, even in multi-dimensional space/time/ >aethyr/etc. I don't agree that it isn't part of the equation. Just the opposite. If the Great Work is an ongoing divine creative act, as I have contended before, then attempting to comprehend that act, to "tune in" to the divine will to whatever extent we are capable, would be the most direct pipeline possible for attaining initiation. It would be the genuine "line of least resistance", whereas invoking various lesser powers adds intermediate steps to the process. I can imagine a system in which seeking to get in tune with the divine creative process was the core of the system, and much of what we consider "necessities" of magickal work would be relegated to a secondary role. Why mess around with all those lesser "Gods" and "powers" when you can go straight to the source? Some of Alice Bailey's more esoteric works seem to emphasize such an approach, though her system does not exactly fit either "magick" or "mysticism". In looking at the larger aspects of the Great Work, we needn't try to figure out the Great Cosmic Purpose in its broadest sense. We could reasonably limit ourselves to asking the purpose of the Great Work with regards to this particular planet, Earth. That might be more manageable and would certainly be close enough to "home" to be personally relevant. (I admit to an ulterior motive in suggesting this topic. While I feel I have a very good grasp on "how" the larger aspect of the Great Work operates, and can occasionally grasp some of the pattern of its immediate manifestation, I'm pretty much in the dark as to the "why" and "where's it going?" of the matter, aside from a few relatively immediate and general goals. I'm certain that the Great Work is a creative act, but I'd like to get a wider vision of just what's being created. Guess I'm looking for some inspiration.) VI>And anyway, why do you feel the two views are mutually exclusive? May >not my Enlightenment, and assuming the Throne, affect "everything >else as well"? Hmph. The heat from a lightbulb increases the rate of vibration of the atoms in the lampshade, but it doesn't do the lampshade any good because the radiated force is effectively random; there's no coordinating factor involved. If the force ceases, the lampshade falls back into it's base state. Similarly for Enlightenment. Just look at all those mystical "masters" who attain samadhi, and may make a few disciples high on their radiated force, but can't accomplish anything significant because they can't _connect_ their enlightenment with anything else. At some point, if your attainment is going to be really useful to the world, you're going to have to hook into the divine will and start cooperating with it. Why not earlier instead of later? * SLMR 2.1a * Scratch a liberal and you will find a fascist. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Josh Norton Area: Thelema To: Vitriol 31 Aug 92 16:03:08 Subject: Traffic UpdReq VI>"The Great Work is the uniting of opposites. It may mean the uniting >of the soul with God, of the microcosm with the macrocosm, of the >female with the male, of the ego with the non-ego -- or what not." VI>Crowley, Magick Without Tears. VI>Now, he rather neatly sidesteps the issue in Chapter 2 ("The >Necessity of Magick for All"), by ending up saying that you're >already doing it, so you might as well do it right. (You Beast, you.) Oh, well, if Crowley says it, then it MUST be true. (NOT!) I've sometimes wondered if Crowley's obsession with dualities (he's a typical Libra in this respect) hasn't dragged more people into a trap than it has liberated. Why not "0 = 3", or "0 = N, where N is greater than one"? Things don't always appear in pairs, and they certainly don't interact with each other in exclusive pairings. (Putting on his Official Troublemaker's hat {pat. pend.}) As long as we're using Uncle Al as an authority, let me quote from the same chapter you cite above: "....Taoist sectaries appear to assume that Perfection consists in the absence of any disturbance of the Stream of Nescience; and this is very much like the Buddhist idea of Nibbana. "We who accept the Law of Thelema, even should we concur in this doctrine theoretically, cannot admit that in practice the plan would work out; our aim is that our Nothing, ideally perfect as it is in itself, should enjoy itself through realizing itself in the fulfillment of all possibilities." So magickal initiatory practice isn't just a matter of moving up the planes until we're re-united with the Crown. It also includes an aspect of _manifestation_. And, since "As above, so below", one can extend this to say that the Great Work also includes an aspect of continued manifestation. And take a look at Letter 75 in the same book, "The A.A. and The Planet", wherein Our Hero explicitly says that part of the Inner Order's work is a _creative_ act -- the work of completely manifesting the Word of the Aeon. And he makes a distinction between this work and the order's work of initiating people, which says to me that initiation alone is insufficient to accomplish the Great Work. * SLMR 2.1a * Scratch a conservative and you will find a feudalist. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Vitriol Area: Thelema To: L'Amour Dujour 31 Aug 92 08:31:04 Subject: Re: a question to ponder UpdReq -=> L'amour Dujour sent a message to Michael Lee on 08-30-92 11:49 <=- -=> Re: Re: a question to ponder <=- LD> Well, to take straight from Crowley's mouth, no it isn't possible. If LD> there is a conflict of Will, then both people need to take a good LD> look at their desires. I have a qualified dissent on this: I can see a situation where two Stars are each doing their Will, yet appear to be in conflict from a mundane p.o.v. After all, balance is one of the laws of the universe; Adjustment means that each motion must be balanced by counter-motion. And apparent conflict is a necessary result of this balancing. We need both Pangenitor AND Pamphage. Both Solve AND Coagula. In the greater scheme of things, of course, this is not a real conflict. It's all a question of p.o.v. -- `subabysmal' or `suprabysmal', if you will. ... Excess of sorrow laughs: excess of joy weeps. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.10 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Vitriol Area: Thelema To: L'Amour Dujour 31 Aug 92 08:31:06 Subject: Re: work, will...wha? UpdReq -=> L'amour Dujour sent a message to Vitriol on 08-30-92 12:43 <=- -=> Re: Re: work, will...wha? <=- LD> Sheesh. Yeah, but it would be nice to have a clue once in a while. I LD> thought it was us who were supposed to 'work unassuaged of purpose', LD> not that our work should make us feel purposeless "It must be love, if it's a bitch!" I know what you mean. There's still a part that says "what if everything that you think you are, is wrong?" And yet, when we shut off that internal yattering voice, we find that we do what we do because that's what we do... And the only thing to do is to keep on going. Two things help show the Way: 1. Magickal work, including ritual, `invoking often', `enflaming thyself with prayer', and definately meditation -shutting off that voice. 2. What AC calls developing the Magickal Memory. What works for me when I feel as confoozed as you referred to yourself getting sometimes, is reminding myself of the truths that I've found in the Tao, Vedanta, and Zen/Ch'an. Have you read Watt's "The Book"? ... For everything that lives is holy. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.10 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Karl Lembke Area: Thelema To: Josh Norton 1 Sep 92 09:01:22 Subject: Traffic UpdReq JN>VI>JN> subject of "Just what the hell IS the "Great Work"? Is it ONLY a JN> > JN> matter of individuals getting initiated, or is JN>VI>??? I thought it was pretty clear that the GW is the work of JN> >self-attainment, of enlightenment, of `uniting by thy all' to become JN> >one of the Gods. JN>That's what everybody seems to say it is, but I wonder. Doesn't that JN>view seem just a little narrow-minded, a little bit parochial? What JN>about the rest of the universe? Is it just a convenient backdrop or Here's my 2c worth. The Great Work is the perfecting of the universe, both locally and globally. Each mystical tradition has its own approach to the Great Work. Most of the Christian and Western Esoteric Magickal traditions consider the best way to carry out the GW to be to bring Man up to the state of perfection and re-join with the Divine. ("Get Man together and the rest of the world falls into place.") The Judaic mystical tradition practices what is known as "Tikkun Olam" or "repairing the world". When the universe was created, it fragmented, and it is up to Man to restore it to the originally planned perfect state. Of course, it is impossible to work to bring about perfection in the world without that same work reflecting in one's own character, so Tikkun Olam brings about Tikkun Adam, the repair of humankind. Sometimes, I wonder if the universe might not be the equivalent of a computer simulation, set up by the Gods and allowed to run, to see what the optimal solution for some problem is. Computer simulations are often used to explore possible solutions to real-world problems which are too complex to solve analytically. Repeated trials usually generate a solution which, while not provably the best available, are quite good enough, thank you. ___ X SLMR 1.0 X D is for Desmond who was thrown from a sleigh 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Karl Lembke Area: Thelema To: Tony Iannotti 1 Sep 92 09:01:34 Subject: Re: Liber 777 Rec'd UpdReq TI> How are you doing Arabic on the computer? Do you have a word processor i TI>that script? I've seen Greek and Hebrew (and Japanese) but not yet Arabic. TI>Sounds neat, if that's what it is. I may not be doing Arabic, since I don't read it (yet). If I do do it, it will be the same way I've been representing Hebrew and Greek, which is by assigning unique English letters (or letter combinations) to the Arabic symbols. For example, in Hebrew, "Adonai ha-eretz" is transcribed as "ADNY HARATz" TI> KL> Maybe what I should do is just feed in the English and the Hebrew TI> KL> that I can read through on my own and upload an update later. TI> I, for one, would love to see any work in progress. TI> # Origin: BaphoNet-by-the-Sea: 718/499-9277 (666:666/1.0) Well, since I'm still hacking away at a $700 phone bill, it will be sent by Snail-Mail, unless others are willing to relay it. (I haven't had the time to familiarize myself with the ins and outs of Netmail, Echos and FReq-ing.) ___ X SLMR 1.0 X I am only an egg, trying to get laid. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Jonathon Blake Area: Thelema To: Michael Lee 29 Aug 92 08:29:22 Subject: Right & Wrong Rec'd UpdReq quoting MICHAEL LEE To: ALL ___------------------------------------------------------------------------ ML}>The relative nature of right and wrong assigned to them ML}>also is a problem for me. If one assumes that Right and ML}>Wrong have a direct corrrelation with Kharmic pluses and ML}>minuses, respectively, I would submit that right and wrong ML}>are absolute. The _problem_ however, is in our _ability_ ML}>to discern Kharmic pluses and minuses. Both in ourselves ML}>and in others. what you're saying might be valid if Kharma had any relevance. IMHO its justs another thing bunny-pagans brought over to continue the guile trip started off by xtians. 93 jonathon * SLMR 2.1a * Born to be Wiiiillllllddddddddddd 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Tony Iannotti Area: Thelema To: Karl Lembke 2 Sep 92 11:07:42 Subject: Re: Liber 777 Sent UpdReq Thanks! The address is: PO Box 614, Van Brunt, NY 11215. Any files you would like on the disks in return? 93! 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Michael Lee Area: Thelema To: o formulate and act on an unbending 2 Sep 92 16:46:02 Subject: osh Norton continues: UpdReq Josh, _know_ right from wrong. What we do with this knowledge is another matter. Which leads me to the next point... 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Michael Lee Area: Thelema To: Josh Norton 2 Sep 92 16:50:34 Subject: Right & Wrong UpdReq Sorry about the last post. My upload went haywire. Anyway, here's what should have been there. Josh, Although we're in disagreement on a few areas (see below), I have to say that your last post was great! To many times all I here is "Do what thou wilt..." without any thought behind it. Anyway, on to the heart of the matter... Josh Norton writes: I think that many of those here who espouse a relativistic or situational ethic do so because, on one level or another, they have recognized that an effective absolute morality is not only impossible... Response: Hardly. I think the relativism comes when there;s a conflict between True Will and our human frailities. Situation ethics is the rationaization of this conflict. I believe that we are all eendowed with the capability to _know_ right from wrong. What we do with this knowledge is another matter. Which leads me to my next point... Josh Norton contines: ... but that the attempt to formulate and act on an unbending moral code is a recipe for disaster. Response: There seems to be a common misunderstanding that moral absolutism necessarily results in "disaster." This misunderstanding derives from the idea that morality, and our understanding of right and wrong, cannot be separated from the inherent power associated with defining, and then enforcing, morality. The disaster is not absolutism, but the enforcement of absolutism. Josh Norton writes: IMO, every moral code is a creation of a human mind; even those that claim a divine imprimatur have been filitered and interpreted by human mind. (Stuff deleted) Response: I believe moral codes are not the "creation" of the mind, but a bastardization, by the lower self, of unversal truth. This bastardization, in turn, is simply a function of the rationalization I spoke of earlier. We're all culpable. Thelemeite and Christian. Jew and Muslim. Bhuddist and Hindu. Josh Norton continues: Both are fictions created on the assumption that one situation is always like another, when in fact no twoevents are ever alike. One who adheres to a strict moral code is actually living in a fantasy of his own creation and does not see the world around him. Because of this, he is like a blind mandriving a Mack truck; almost every action he takes is going to injure either himself or someone else, and nearly all of his action will have consequences to which he can not properly respond, because they are outside the limits of his rules. Response: Now, when you say "no two events are ever alike" I must respond: what do you mean by "alike"? I take the position that _every_ thing is "alike; but only in classification. A is like B, except... or C is like D, plus. Even things that are completely opposiste can be described in relation to each other. This effectively eliminates _anything_ from being "outside" the system. The man driving the Mack truck is not blind, he simply has his eyes closed. I'm beginning to see a consistent thread here. You are associating morality as something _imposed_. I am associating morality as something _reasoned_ (or some would say _inuited_). Josh Norton writes: We can not know the consequences of our action before we take them. (Stuff deleted) Response: W're going to get bogged down on the word "consequences", but I guess it can't be helped. Let me define "knowing the consequences." The term has two parts: The first deals with knowing the _result_ of an action. Most of the time this is fairly straight-forward. Experience and well-defined natural law usually paint a fairly clear picture. (magick is left out of the discussion for now). The second aspect deals with assigning a moral "value" to the result. I am going to assume when you said "We can not know the consequences" you were refering to this aspect. For now, I'm just going to say I disagree. (I'll expand on this later). See next post 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Michael Lee Area: Thelema To: Josh Norton 2 Sep 92 17:15:58 Subject: Right & Wrong (cont) UpdReq Continuation of previous post... Josh Norton continues: A relativist ethic at least makes the attempt to ensure there is some relationship between the events we are involved in, and the actions we take. Recognizing that no set of rules is ever going to be good enoguh, we still try and bring out of ourselves our own sense of whatis likely to be a suitable response and to tailor our action according to what we can see of the situation. Our action will sometimes be wrong... but on the whole they are less likely to be dratically injurious than those of the absolutist. Response: Again, the notion of imposed morality. If we can reconcile this I am not sure we;re that far apart. Josh Norton writes: Your idea of there being a "genral, collective good" does not really follow from the fact that everything inthe universe is interconnected, because while verything IS interconnected, everything simultaneously retains its individual nature, and it is with that individual nature that we must deal, not the abstract, collective "universal" oneness. (stuff deleted) Reponse: I disagree. Let's take the analogy of a sports team. While everyone on the team "retains its individual nature," optimal team performance i snot the same thing as optimal individual performance. The nature of each individual on the team changes to fit the dynamics of the team. "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts." Josh Norton writes: ...having spent ten years working in government... I can testify... that they nearly always end up causing more troubles than they solve. Response: Not "nearly always". ALWAYS! (but that's a different topic) Josh Norton writes: Now as far as karma goes, I find the common concepts of it pretty silly... (stuf deleted) Response: I don't want to spend to much time on karma, only to say that it was simply a term I used to describe consequences of action and, in turm, relate these consequences to the concept of universal right and wrong. I don't see the necessity of divine intervention or judgment (in fact this notion is a personal anathema). Let me put it this way. Just as we have True Will, I believe the universe has an implied "True Will." For lack of a better way to describe it, I think it's analogous to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Josh Norton writes: It is only after one has reached a level of development where one begins to voluntarily co-operate with the "divine plan" -- or at least with whatever portion of it that one can sense -- that any standard of evaluation other than the personal becomes important. Response: I think your "divine plan"" is about the same thing as my universal moraility" applied to the "collective whole". I also think your analogy of "voluntary [cooperation] with the divine plan" is pretty much the same as my talking about knowing right from wrong. There is one exception, however... Josh Norton continues: And even there, there is no conflict between personal and the "divine", because what is requested of the person is suited to his nature and abilites. Response: I think it's just the opposite. I think an "enlightened" individual chooses an action, not because it suits their nature or abilites, but because enlightenment has given that person the knowledge of right and wrong, and an enlightened person would naturally (?) do what's right. Or to put it another way, doing one's True Will is simply acting inaccordance with the divine. "every man and every woman is a star." It's this latst principle that seems t indicate to me that Thelema is an emanation of ahigher "law", in much the same way as Kether is an emanation from the Ain Soph. The Truth is not Fragile Michael 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718