From: Josh Norton Area: Thelema To: Vitriol 6 Sep 92 13:15:00 Subject: Re: karma UpdReq VI> -=> 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. I don't have access to that echo on this board -- it seemed dull when I saw it elsewhere, so I never asked for access. But I'll prowl around some of the other local boards and see what I can find. * SLMR 2.1a * I left my heart in Chichen Itza. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Josh Norton Area: Thelema To: Vitriol 6 Sep 92 15:40:02 Subject: Traffic UpdReq VI> -=> Josh Norton sent a message to Vitriol on 08-31-92 16:03 <=- > -=> Re: Traffic <=- VI>JN> Oh, well, if Crowley says it, then it MUST be true. (NOT!) VI>Oh, I warn't proseltysing (sp?), only adding commentary. Hee hee. I didn't really think you were. Just being whimsically erratic, as usual. VI>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. VI>??? 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! But using them simultaneously perpetuates the very conditions of thought we're supposedly trying to transcend. {grumbles sullenly} I think I'm going to make my next Magickal Motto "Stamp Out Duality!", however you say that in Latin -- "Duali delenda est"? The damned things are a bloody trap, even when they're valid. BTW, I'll be sending a disk your way in a week or two, with the text of Achad's books, and maybe a couple of other things, including "The Book of the Seniors" that you asked for. Would appreciate if you would upload it to your local board. Break the Wheel! * SLMR 2.1a * Follow a Paranoid 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Josh Norton Area: Thelema To: Crat 7 Sep 92 11:51:04 Subject: Right & Wrong UpdReq Whew! Looks like I stirred something up this time! Just a few general comments at this point, which I'll add to if time permits before I upload my replies to the net. Whether I'll actually make sense is something else -- I'm rather tired at the moment. 1) Ability to learn from mistakes IS a consideration in a relativist morality. It simply didn't enter into the specific line of argument I was developing at that point in the message. You will note that later on in the message (in the section about karma) I emphasized the influence of past experience on present actions. In practical terms, the moral "codes" we actually act on -- as distinct from the codes we consciously adopt -- are always in some way a reflection of our individual natures, including all the experiences we have absorbed. This is true even of those who purport to live by an absolute code of conduct. Problems only arise when we fail to consciously recognize what our true nature is; the unconscious elements of that nature are then free to manifest themselves without the direction of the conscious self, often in ways that are at odds with our conscious intentions. "Do what thou wilt", as I interpret it, is simply an acknowledgement of this nearly unavoidable state of affairs. Other verses of Liber AL give it a context in which the individual is encouraged to understand the nature on which he acts, and to clear out extraneous factors (such as childhood training, social pressures, etc.) that tend to distort his conscious understanding of his true nature. 2) We may have a problem of definitions here. When I speak of an "absolute" code of conduct, I am speaking of a person who attempts to hold to a specific code of action REGARDLESS of his experience, and regardless of the endless variations that take place in the actual events we are confronted with in life. To the extent that he attempts this -- and nobody does it consistently in all areas of his life -- the person is un-sane. IMO, such absolutist thinking is a symptom of a deeper, suppressed problem in the person's psyche. In my book, a person who is capable of changing his moral code on the basis of experience is a relativist, even if he formulates his code-of-the-moment in absolutist terms. CR>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. This is not quite what I intended to say, though it may very well have been what I said. Writing is such a chore for me that I sometimes unconsciously exclude significant threads in the effort to make my immediate point clear. And a subject as complex and subjective as this one has a LOT more threads than we could cover here in a year; it's almost inevitable that we miss something in the course of discussion. To elaborate: There is nothing wrong with deciding upon general courses of action you would take if certain situations arise. It is part of our natures as humans to do so, and most of the time -- certainly with respect to conditions of purely physical cause-and-effect -- it works just fine. And saves a hell of a lot of effort. However, the further we get from the purely physical world, the less reliable our expectations and pre-set actions become. When we get to the level of human social interaction -- which is where 99.9 percent of our "moral" choices arise -- the reliability of such pre-set determinations becomes very low. In such instances, it becomes necessary for us to ADAPT our generalized rules to the specific situation in which we find ourself. And we must be willing, if the situation calls for it, to throw out our preconceptions entirely, and invent new and appropriate tactics. A "universal" morality of the kind Michael claims exists is impossible. It would have to either be of so abstract a nature that it must be adapted to every situation to which it might be applied, in which case it becomes a "relativist" morality, or it must have a rule for every possible situation that could arise, which is mathematically impossible. CR>If this is true, then the only moral rule, which becomes >absolutist, is "do what appears to be good". A major problem soon I disagree. The only rule -- which is inherently relativist in practice -- is "discover and follow the dictates of your own nature, with respect to the circumstances in which you find yourself." In other words, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." (What else did you expect, in the "Thelema" echo? ) Your "logical" consequence of living in an inherently mysterious universe -- i.e., nihilism -- really only shows the limits of logic, particularly Aristotelian "either/or" logic. It implicitly assumes that existence must follow the limited valuations of the logical process, when in fact each element of existence has indenumerable possible valuations -- even more when elements interact. * SLMR 2.1a * We're all bozos on this bus. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Josh Norton Area: Thelema To: Vitriol 7 Sep 92 12:08:08 Subject: The great work UpdReq VI>I am, as I said above, in basic agreement with your final assesment >here -- but I see that we've been talking about two approaches to the >same thing: you're talking about the divine moving from Kether `down' >to Malkuth, I of the human `ascending' from Malkuth to Kether. They >are both the same, relativity works on all planes. Actually, I'm talking about both happening at the same time. Being the "mesocosm", we should be allowing a flow-through in both directions, and learning and growing thereby. VI>Nevertheless, not everyone is, or feels they are (which can amount to >the same thing), capable of connecting with the ALL, and find it more >effective or even necessary at their particular stage of development >to use those intermediaries. Y'know, like Jehovah, Horus, Nobodaddy, >Allah, Krishna, or Set? This is perhaps why they arise: most of >us need a handle with which to grasp the Ineffable. Just as we do >with all the rest of the Chaos around us, we `graph the squiggles', >as Alan Watts would say, and put labels on the subdivisions of shapes >we see. Those labels include Mother, Father, tree, water, war, love, >Nuit, etc... VI>I'm not familiar with Bailey's work. It's pretty weird stuff. Supposed to be quasi-Theosophical, but some of it is very relevant to magick. It's long-winded and deliberately obscure, so it's better left for when you have LOTS of free time. VI>QUOTE >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 >[...] >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? >UNQUOTE VI>I don't know from lampshades, except that some of my paternal >ancestors recently narrowly escaped become some. Heh. I just happened to be looking at a lamp when I was searching for a metaphor that included "light". Substitute "wall" for lampshade, if you like. What I was getting at was that you can't expect "automatic" benefits to the rest of the world from your enlightenment because without direction, the effects are going to be more or less random. * SLMR 2.1a * Does Atlantis have the Buddha-nature? Mu! 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Vitriol Area: Thelema To: All 7 Sep 92 09:07:06 Subject: Tempus fugit UpdReq Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. An exceptionally vivid dream: Sol 18 Leo; Luna in Capricorn; AH 88. 8/11/92 (my birthday) "THERE ARE 101 CLOCKS IN THE FATHER'S HALL, AND EACH ONE IS A MAN'S LIFE, AND THE HOURS THEREOF ARE THE LIFETIMES OF THAT LIFE." I was in a twelve-sided hallway running the perimeter of a twelve-sided mansion. The outer walls were all window, the inner walls each held a clock. The windows all were looking out on neat lawns, like a manor or estate. Each clock was different in form, and represented a life, made up of many `lifetimes' or incarnations. Each hour was summed up by a form that symbolized one's experiences in that lifetime or incarnation, whether for `good' (meaning spiritual progress) or `bad' (meaning the opposite). Given: The divisions of 12, 101, etc., were merely for convention, and not literal. There are a vast number of lifetimes, lives, clocks, sides, etc. Not all lives are Homo Sapiens, either, some are Elementals, Angels, Aliens, etc. Love is the law, love under will. _O_ VITRIOL _O_ | 335 | ... And the just man rages in the wilds where lions roam. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.10 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Ian Kesser Area: Thelema To: All 7 Sep 92 02:02:00 Subject: Right & Wrong UpdReq I've been reading the posts on this thread with some interest, and I thought I'd throw in my $.05 (inflation). On one level, There is no Right and Wrong, there is *no* Good and Evil, there is only "Do what thou Wilt". Once one has achieved K&CoHGA and knows fully ones Will, no moral code applies. Until that point, however, the only Moral code I see is pretty simple. Prime: Do whatever you like, as long as you don't hurt anyone else. Sub1: If someone interferes with your actions that followed the Prime, then they are overstepping the bounds, and deserve what happens to them (feel free to slam that mormon off your doorstep, he made the choice to put himself at risk by coming there. Sub2: If someone tries to harm you, you have the right to prevent it, "by any means necessary". Sub3: If someone tries to harm someone incapable of preventing that harm (child, etc.), you have the right/duty to prevent it. Again, I don't know if the second portion of this answer is Thelema, but it is my own code. With Love, Ian MMST 2.09 UnRegistered - Your Will? Just do it! 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Michael Lee Area: Thelema To: Ian Kesser 8 Sep 92 18:43:20 Subject: Right & Wrong UpdReq IK> On one level, There is no Right and Wrong, there is *no* Good and IK> Evil, there is only "Do what thou Wilt". Once one has achieved IK> K&CoHGA and knows fully ones Will, no moral code applies. As Josh pointed out in a few posts earlier, this _IS_ getting intellectually tiring. Keeping up with these posts takes a lot of thought (some of you folks, after seeing my posts, might disagree however). There's a whole slew of ideas swirling around in my noggin regarding previous posts, but most haven't yet coalesced into anything worthwhile. The only notable exception is in respose to the quoted message. IMO, K&CoHGA does not _release_ one from a moral code, but allows one to commune with the divine, to eat at the Tree of Knowledge. In this enlightened or exalted state, all action is in accordance with ones True Will. The moral code is there, except for the first time the individual can truely knwo what the code is. Up unto that time, all action was in ignorance, with right and wrong being filtered by specific personality and experiece. One last comment before I move on. I really don't think Josh and I are that far off in where we stand. The problem appears to be in semantics. Idon't advocate (and never have) an absolutist viewpoint in the way Josh has defined absolutist. My "absolutism" does not deal with rule-based approach (i.e. always follow the rules regardless of the circumstances). My "absolutism" only deals with the _existence_ of right and wrong for _any given_ circumstance. I suppose the absolute approaches the situational when we deal with specifics, but I was _always_ dealing in the abstract. I had been arguing against the notion that "since right and wrong is all relative, there must be no right and wrong." There's a _BIG_ difference between _no right and wrong" and "there is right and wrong, but our limitations prevent us from knowing what exactly it is." Finally, in a pure philosophical sense, I make no claim to having a unique insight into what's right and wrong. (The treatment of this subject on the mundane level, however, maybe worth pursuing. That is laws and human interaction. Is it "might makes right", or is there some efficacy in democracy? But that's a different subject) 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718