From: Ian Kesser Area: Thelema To: Michael Lee 31 Aug 92 03:45:00 Subject: A Question To Ponder UpdReq Quoth Michael Lee: ML> Here's the question: Is it possible to have two _mutually ML> exclusive_ True Wills? That is, can one person's True Will ML> conflict with another's? Not likely. Not at *all* likely. The only case my *rational* mind can think of is if one being had, time after time after time, refused the bidding of its Will, another being would manifest with a Will that would accomplish that which the first being had rejected.. this may include the dissipation of the first being as well. But that's just rationalism. I kinda think things are more finely tuned than that. With Love, Ian MMST 2.09 UnRegistered - Celibacy is not an inherited characteristic. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Ian Kesser Area: Thelema To: Josh Norton 31 Aug 92 06:06:00 Subject: Great Work UpdReq Quoth Josh Norton: JN> The subject is usually spoken of as "_participation_ in the Great JN> Work". If we are participating in something, that implies that JN> there are aspects of it that go beyond our personal concerns, that JN> it has some goal or purpose beyond simply becoming initiated. This JN> raises a lot of questions, a few of which are: JN> JN> Can we, as individuals, come to attain some understanding of the JN> larger purpose of the Great Work? Welpers, there's *one's* Great Work and *The* Great Work. *The* Great Work quite obviously goes beyond personal concerns... but as to whether or not we, as individuals, can understand even a portion of it... I say yes (fooled ya! :) ). I don't see it as necessary, though, but I do think it is possible. JN> If so, what are these larger goals? Are there interim goals for the JN> immediate future (say, the next century or so), and other long-term JN> goals? Don't ask me, I said it was possible, not that I did! As to "interim" goals, I would say no. There is one goal, and everything until that goal is a flow.. there is no one point where you can stop and say "Welpers, we've got it half done, let's do lunch"... hmmm... maybe that's wrong after all, or why bother to change Aeons? Interesting. This needs more thought. JN> Who or what defines these goals? Honestly? No idea. Best guess'd be We-Who-Are-God (CoaW)/The Is(Bach)/The Tao/Etc. Many names, one being... If. JN> How does our work as individuals fit into these larger aspects of JN> the Great Work? They do. If we knew a portion of The Great Work, Our Great Work would seem more comprehensible (I find it likely, at any rate), and perhaps we could answer this question. I cannot say how, and will not even play with because. That's the line you're treading here. Damned Because is intruding... With Love, Ian MMST 2.09 UnRegistered - I've plummeted to my death and I can't get up! 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Josh Norton Area: Thelema To: Michael Lee 4 Sep 92 12:11:00 Subject: Right & Wrong 1/ UpdReq Michael; One of those amusing "coincidences" that magicians run into occasionally: After I read your comments, I went out to dinner without starting an answer. When I eat alone I usually take along a book to read, in this case "Masks of the Illuminati" by R.A. Wilson. Just as I finished eating and lit a cigarette, I came to a passage that fits this discussion perfectly. ___----------- "I am already familiar with your libertine opinions," Sir John said stiffly, "and I am sure they would be received with approbation by Crowley. But I know the difference between right and wrong, thank God." [James] Joyce stared at the younger man in silence for a moment. "You know the difference between right and wrong," he repeated finally. "Man, why did you need Initiation -- by the Golden Dawn, or by anybody else? You are a genius, a sage, a giant among men. You have solved the problem which philosophers have been debating since antiquity -- the mystery about which no two nations or tribes have ever agreed, and no two men or women have ever agreed, and no intelligent person has ever agreed totally with himself from one day to the next. _You_know_the_ _difference_between_right_and_wrong_. I am overawed. I swoon. I figuratively kiss your feet." "Jim," [Albert] Einstein said softly, "there is no need to be so sarcastic. Most young men are just as naive as Sir John." ___----------------- I think that sums things up nicely. But let me add a few more comments. First, I don't know where the hell you got the idea that I was talking about "imposed" moralities. My exact words as you quoted them were "formulate and act on", which -- unless I have just suffered a massive aphasia -- says that the morality of which I was speaking is created and/or adopted by the individual himself, NOT imposed on him from the outside. So throw out all your arguments based on that premise. You're arguing against a creation of your own mind. In much of the rest you've deleted the text where I gave my core reasons for disagreement, and chose instead to argue with the metaphors I used for elaboration, as if the metaphor itself was the core argument. Shame on you! ML>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. Nope, sorry. Our mundane personalities -- what you call our "human frailties" -- are an accurate reflection of our individual True Wills. They are never truly in conflict, just not applied in the most effective manner possible. (There ARE conflicts between our personalities and the childhood training we receive from parents, educators, etc., but that is another matter entirely.) ML>I >believe that we are all endowed with the capability to >_know_ right from wrong. What we do with this knowledge is >another matter. Again, sorry, but you're wrong. As Wilson implies, the counter-examples to this statement are literally endless. Almost any parent would be willing to admit that children have no real sense of right and wrong. They have to be TRAINED into "proper" behavior by one means or another. There's five billion counter-examples for you right there. A more extreme case: All through grade school, I had the misfortune to sit in front of a person who was totally incapable of recognizing ANY idea of right and wrong. His entire means of evaluation was whether the action was to his immediate personal advantage. He was a genius in other ways, and perfectly capable of recognizing that certain actions, if he was caught, would result in punishment. But no form of punishment, not even the most severe forms of operant conditioning, ever succeeded in getting him to even simulate what the local social norms defined as "right" and "wrong". ML>There seems to be a common misunderstanding that moral absolutism necessaril >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. Again, forget all that stuff about "imposed" morality. That's not what I'm talking about. Let me try to explain it one more time. Whenever any idea -- not just "moral" ideas, but ANY idea whatsoever -- is assumed to contain ALL the truth about the thing it refers to, there is a disaster in the making. This is because every idea, thought, and sense-impression is an abstraction, and the process of abstraction, by definition, results in a _loss_of_information_. The idea ALWAYS contains less information than the reality it refers to. And if we assume that the universe is in some way obliged to conform to our idea of it, as would be the case if we are holding to some idea of an absolute morality, then we are opening ourselves up to trouble. That is because the universe is going to go its own way regardless of what we expect it to be. And when the disparity between our idea and the actuality is too great, then somebody gets hurt. Murphy's Law and similar truisms wouldn't exist if this were not the case. You really ought to check out General Semantics before you talk any more about absolute ideas. Try "Language in Action" by S.I. Hayakawa for starters, then Alfred Korzybski's landmark "Science and Sanity". ML>I believe moral codes are not the "creation" of the mind, but a >bastardization, by the lower self,.... See above, concerning the "lower" self. ML>of universal 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. Ah, Universal Truth! Sounds like you've been reading A.E. Waite, or some of the less savory Theosophists. May this humble seeker after truth beg your Illustrious and Holy Person to reveal to us this profound Universal Truth, which you say all of us -- excepting yourself, since you claim it exists -- have been "bastardizing" for the last ten millenia? Sorry to be sarcastic. On second thought, no I'm not. You are making claims here of an absolute morality, but so far you haven't given us anything but hot air, without substance. If this truth is really universal, then you should be able to provide any number of examples of its application to the everyday world -- which is just as much a integral part of the universe as any mystic and ethereal realm of absolutes. If you actually think you have such a morality, and aren't talking about some pie-in-the-sky vision that you can't define in practical terms, then let's hear some examples. >>> Continued to next message * SLMR 2.1a * I think we're all bozos on this bus. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Josh Norton Area: Thelema To: Michael Lee 4 Sep 92 12:11:02 Subject: Right & Wrong 2/ UpdReq >>> Continued from previous message ML>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). Again, you ought to check out some commonly-available sources. In this case, try "In Search of Schroedinger's Cat" by John Gribben, which covers (among other things) the fact that quantum mechanics demonstrates that exact prediction is not possible beyond certain well-defined limits, and that many events taking place beyond those limits can have significant effects here in the mundane world. And you also should check out some of the recent popular books on "Chaos Theory" -- the physics and mathematics, not the magick called "chaos magick". These will demonstrate that exact prediction is also frequently impossible here on the mundane level. Natural law is not so straightforward as you think. ML>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). No, I was talking about results AND the values we put on them, which can change over time. And also about the fact that our actions can have consequences of both types that we never become aware of. * SLMR 2.1a * I think we're all bozos on this bus. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Josh Norton Area: Thelema To: Michael Lee 3 Sep 92 23:15:04 Subject: Right & Wrong (cont) UpdReq ML>Continuation of previous post... ML>Josh Norton continues: JN>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. ML>Response: ML>Again, the notion of imposed morality. If we can reconcile >this I am not sure we;re that far apart. And again, just where am I saying that this ethic is IMPOSED? Point out the words to me, please, as I don't see anything above that says this. If anything, I am saying exactly the opposite of that. Besides, you can't impose a situational ethic. By definition, we make it up as we go along. Unless you think it is somehow possible to say "Think for yourself, or else I'll punish you."? ML>Josh Norton writes: JN>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 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. ML>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." Bad example. The trick in putting together a good sports team is to find people who are individually suited to do the various tasks needed. A good pitcher isn't necessarily a good batter, or a good outfielder. A good quarterback would be lousy in most other positions, and vice versa. So you're really dealing with individual natures, selecting out those who suit the needs of the team you're building. Since most humans seem to possess a capacity for cooperation, making use of their individual skills within a group is well within their individual natures. But each individual also has innate limits on his capacity for cooperation, which vary widely between individuals. And when these limits are exceeded, the group falls apart, or at least loses effectiveness. As for the rest of your comments in this part of your reply, see my recent message to Karl Lembke concerning the Great Work. * SLMR 2.1a * Five tons of wax! 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Vitriol Area: Thelema To: Josh Norton 2 Sep 92 09:02:00 Subject: Re: karma UpdReq -=> Josh Norton sent a message to L'amour Dujour on 08-31-92 00:33 <=- -=> Re: Re: love under will <=- Your comments on my rant in re Karma, in the Sex Magick echo would be gratefully received. ... The lust of the goat is the bounty of God. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.10 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Vitriol Area: Thelema To: Josh Norton 3 Sep 92 09:03:02 Subject: Traffic UpdReq -=> Josh Norton sent a message to Vitriol on 08-31-92 16:03 <=- -=> Re: Traffic <=- JN> Oh, well, if Crowley says it, then it MUST be true. (NOT!) Oh, I warn't proseltysing (sp?), only adding commentary. JN> than it has liberated. Why not "0 = 3", or "0 = N, where N is greater JN> than one"? Things don't always appear in pairs, and they certainly JN> don't interact with each other in exclusive pairings. ??? Yin/Yang, +/-, Male/Female, anti/koino, black/white, etc... it's all an ancient reference system familiar to human thinking. This is not to say that duality exists on it's own in Nature, any more than monality (?), or trinity. But if we are to grasp things, we must use the handles that work for us. As I'm fond of pointing out, Heisenberg Lives! JN> work out; our aim is that our Nothing, ideally perfect as it is in JN> itself, should enjoy itself through realizing itself in the JN> fulfillment of all possibilities." Oh, here's another duality: Nothing/Possibilities Or is that Nothingness/Twinkles? ;-) JN> So magickal initiatory practice isn't just a matter of moving up the JN> planes until we're re-united with the Crown. It also includes an JN> aspect of _manifestation_. And, since "As above, so below", one can JN> extend this to say that the Great Work also includes an aspect of JN> continued manifestation. I think I said that, more or less, in my reply to L'amour. (Dorothy, is that you?) JN> which says to me that initiation JN> alone is insufficient to accomplish the Great Work. Hehe... The kingdom of heaven is not to bought with works. No argument from this direction. ... Now the sneaking serpent walks in mild humility ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.10 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Crat Area: Thelema To: Josh Norton 3 Sep 92 09:03:00 Subject: Right & Wrong UpdReq JN>I think that many of those here who espouse a relativistic or JN>situational ethic do so because, on one level or another, they have JN>recognized that an effective absolute morality is not only impossible, JN>but that the attempt to formulate and act on an unbending moral code is JN>a recipe for disaster. First, I realize, and apologize, that I have truncated your piece unforgivably, but I expect that, if interested, the original message can be retrieved. Secondly, I must disagree with you on the impropriety of having a non-relativistic moral system. If I understand you correctly, you are arguing that because one cannot ever know all the consequences of one's actions, one must evaluate each situatioon and determine what action appears to provide the greatest good for that particular situation. If this is true, then the only moral rule, which becomes absolutist, is "do what appears to be good". A major problem soon develops from this and the hypothosis that one can never know the consequences of one's actions. No matter how hard one tries, one can never be sure that one will actually "do good". In all probability (using the term in a statistical sense) it would make as much sense, in this system, to not care what one did as you have no control over the outcome. This leads to one of three possiblities very quickly: 1) a sense of having to struggle against the universe to do good, 2) an inflated ego assuming that one is doing good or 3) nihilism because you cannot control the effects. The latter is actually the only logical conclusion based on the above. As you appear intelligent and do not appear to be a martyr or a nihilist, we will assume that you have developed a moral system which you can live with and therefore has some rules. (The mere fact that we appear to share libertarianism as a political philosophy shows your exceptional intelligence and perception .) The rules may be more complex than ten basic commandments, but still there. An example might be: a simple rule is "thou shalt not kill" while a complex rule might be "thou shalt not kill except in self defense", and an even more complex rule might be "thou shalt not kill except those that threaten you physically or your way of life, including intruders and unwanted pregnancies" . Note that each of these "rules" offends at least some people either because they are too strict or too lenient, but that each becomes "absolutist" if one adheres to a specific one. This echo has been busy discussing what "love under will" means and how it applies to one's moral life. This phrase, along with "Do what thou wilt" form a rather absolutist moral system in that one _must_ do one's will, with even love subsumed. One might argue that relative positions regarding specific situations might be taken, but this cannot be true, for the will must take precedence over the intellectual thought needed for relativism. The relativist is doing no more than deciding between positions on the fly, and usually based on his/her own convience at the time. Is this any better than the individual who decides that there are things that are "right" and things that are "wrong" and tries to live by them? Your argument also implies that one cannot learn from the past, for if you could, an absolutist moral system could _eventually_ exist. By denying the ability to learn, you doom moral behavior to a stochiastic level below weather reporting with its once too-complex variables or physics with its general and specific rules. The thinking absolutist (as opposed to the common every-day unthinking person) attempts to learn from history and apply those lessons, frequently depending on lessons from history and past moralists. Moses may no longer be in vogue, but his teaching form the basis of much of western moral thought and even the relativist must start somewhere. The absolutist is then a relativist who has thought about and codified, or allowed to be codified, his/her rules and believes that this can lead to "good". We will leave to another day the discussion on whether a moral system that evolves with a personal gain in knowledge and wisdom is relativistic or absolutist :) ___ X OLX 2.1 TD X Unable to locate Coffee -- Operator Halted! 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: L'Amour Dujour Area: Thelema To: Vitriol 4 Sep 92 21:04:00 Subject: Love under/above will UpdReq ..Gods assumed the form of Vitriol ..To L'amour Dujour they scribed "Love under/above will" LD> Come now! I am a sadist, Vitriol. Vi> You??? HAHAHAHAHA... Vi> I know, something about judging a book by the cover...? Wha-huh? Oh, sure. Then again, Vitriol, you're not exactly my type. Find me someone worth playing with, and I'll promise you a report. LD> If you don't do it "to excess", you don't do it at all! Vi> Very Blakean. ;-) Very Crowleyan, as I read last night. Didn't realize Crowley was into quoting Billy Idol so much... ... Heaven has been outgrown, we need more showers, a few more bedrooms.. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.10 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: L'Amour Dujour Area: Thelema To: Vitriol 4 Sep 92 20:57:02 Subject: Love under/above will UpdReq ..Gods assumed the form of Vitriol ..To L'amour Dujour they scribed "Love under/above will" LD> I tend to see the Magickal Link as the physical sign of that Vi> `Physical'? I determine energy links/connections as being physical, as opposed to the spiritual nature which creates them. I "see" energy links, I can qualify them by my senses, quite often. This is physical. Vi> Thus, "As above, so Below" means not that rising on one is rising on Vi> the other, or I should say, means MORE than that: it also means that Vi> rising on one is descending from the other (relativity again), and, Vi> in fact, the so-called Abyss may be seen as Alice's mirror! Yes. I've been thinking a lot about the idea that Josh threw out - that we may work UP the tree, but workings (magickal or otherwise) tend to flow down a reverse Tree. Or, if we stick to our current model, flow down the tree. Meaning as you work up, your work flows down. It's a case of raising your consciousness to the level that it is part of ALL of the tree... Vi> That's not what I meant, exactly. More that it might be your function Vi> to do one thing, and another's to do something in apparent opposition Vi> to that. But that in the greater scheme, -with the proviso that you I cannot image how two people could be doing their own True Will and yet be in opposition to each other. Or, at least, not in a way that couldn't be remedied quite easily. In the global sense, maybe, but I just don't see it in a smaller sense. ... Heaven is out of space... we need to move out. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.10 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718