From: Frater Almost Area: Thelema To: Ian Kesser 10 Sep 92 02:14:28 Subject: Right & Wrong Sent UpdReq You're main corollary was slightly off: Do what thou Wilt is not "Do what you will as long as it doesn't hurt anybody." If your Will is to hurt somebody (physically, spiritually, mentally, emotionally, ) then you Will hurt them..... You're conditionals have already been met by doing True Will.... It isn't doing what you want.... It is doing what you Will....... Your Will being that alien side of you recieved by trans-warp boradcast from Sirius. Jackal Laughs. 93 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Josh Norton Area: Thelema To: L'Amour Dujour 8 Sep 92 11:18:02 Subject: Right & wrong 1/ UpdReq LD> Well, Josh, you get what you ask, no? I do believe you had been > posting messages begging for someone to argue with. Yes, but there's people who argue, and people who make bald statements without anything to back it up. Michael is alleging the existence of an absolute, "universal" morality, but you will note that he didn't say what it was or even whether he knew what it was. All his "arguments" so far really amount to nothing more than "It is so because I say it is so." LD> JN> A more extreme case: All through grade school, I had the misfortune to > JN> sit in front of a person who was totally incapable of recognizing ANY > JN> idea of right and wrong. His entire means of evaluation was whether > JN> the action was to his immediate personal advantage. He was a genius in LD>Misfortune? He may not ever do anything of real use in his life, but it >sounds like it may have been interesting, at the least. Spending six years with a goddamn psychopath constantly trying to rope me into his lunatic schemes was NO fun at all. As I said, he had no appreciation of consequences as something that would actually affect him (though he did understand cause and effect) so his ideas could be bloody dangerous. Looking back, I'm amazed that I did manage to resist him. To show how persuasive he could be: In later years he once managed to talk his way out of prison, convincing each of the guards at six different lockpoints to unlock their gates and let him through, without ever making anything like a threat. He waltzed out the front gate, stole a car from the parking lot, and was a hundred miles away before anyone woke up to the fact that he shouldn't have been allowed to leave. But in a long-term view I guess it was actually a beneficial experience. Made me completely immune to advertising spiels, for one thing, and instantly suspicious of anyone who talks a good line of chatter -- like priests and politicians. LD>... Josh Norton: Heaven is out of space, please take a number. No thanks, I'll just hop over to the Muslim Paradise instead. Love those houris! * SLMR 2.1a * "Legitimate government" is an oxymoron. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Josh Norton Area: Thelema To: L'Amour Dujour 8 Sep 92 11:21:04 Subject: Right & wrong 2/ UpdReq LD>Ah, yes, a great book. Wow, Josh, you're losing credibility. You're >beginning to name books that I've read! And this makes me LESS credible??? (Faints strains of "The World Turned Upside Down" come over the Muzak.) Heh. I'm a compulsive reader -- about 150 books per year. Beats sitcoms and game shows. And since I haven't been finding anything new in books on magick the last few years, I've sort of drifted into other areas. I'm reading an interesting one right now -- "Consciousness Explained" by Daniel Dennett -- one of Doug Hofstader's cronies. Like Hofstader, he's a Scientific Materialist. But an intelligent one, and -- even more rare -- an HONEST one. He seems to treat materialism more as a Game Rule than an article of faith. So far, the book hasn't lived up to its gradiose title, but it's fascinating just the same. * SLMR 2.1a * Cogito ergo dubito 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Sean Mccullough Area: Thelema To: Vitriol 8 Sep 92 02:12:00 Subject: Re: Crowley'S Age Sent UpdReq Hi Vitriol!! Some more thinking about the P_News situation.....P_News is a FIDOnet Backbone Echo Conference, formed so as to be an "affinity group" for Leftist individuals and ideas. Once the Holy Law of Thelema is applied to anything remotely resembling Leftist thought; once one attempts any Alchymical Marryage between Revolution and Thelema, one inevitably ends up with ANARCHISM. Only Anarchism -- and by this I don't mean either the right-wing "Libertarianism" of modern-day Amerikkka, but ABSOLUTE ANARCHISM under which "there is no Law save 'Do What Thou Wilt'". Needless to say, this doesn't go over very well with the Communists and the Socialists on that Echo (P_News) either; they keep quoting obsolete European "anarchistic" sophists to "prove" that some form of authority is a necessity. But I myself, and a few friends of absolute Freedom, have been expounding the theory and virtues of Absolute Anarchistic FREEDOM in that Conference. As far as I know, I'm the only one who has yet attempted to relate Anarchism to Thelema there. Even Crowley himself had troubles with the total radicalism presented by the irremovable fact that "the Law is for All"; to which AIWASS was heard to answer: "I see thee hate the hand & the pen, but I am stronger". The ending of so many worthless authorities here on Earth is the inevitable result of the Law of Thelema, and the irrepressible forward motion of the Aeon of Horus, the Age of Thelema. The idea that we need some sort of overlord is, IMHO, obsolete Osirian bovine scatological excreta. It's time to disemburden our Wills from that garbage. If you find a BBS carrying P_News, it would be good to have you join me there. Same goes for almost any other *regular* message writer from the Thelema Echo. Peace, FREEDOM, Prosperity, Respect, Sean ... OFFLINE 1.40 * Drop ACID, not bombs! 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Josh Norton Area: Thelema To: Karl Lembke 9 Sep 92 15:35:06 Subject: The Great Work Sent UpdReq KL>So those problems don't need to be repaired? The difficulty I have with that word "repair" is that it implies that the world is in some way "broken". There is also an assumption in the doctrine that the world is in some way "separated" from the divine. (Get ready, here comes yet another of my rants about dualism.) This particular dualism is a hangover from our three-thousand-year binge of monotheism; and like the hangover from a napoleon brandy, just when you thought it went away, it comes back and hits you behind the eyeballs. No one seems able to get rid of it entirely. If you look at the messages here and in the Nightside section, you'll see that even the "avant garde" magicians still unconsciously cling to the attitude that "God", "the divine", or what ever it is they think they are invoking, is somewhere "out there" and their task is to hook up with it and bring it _into_ the world from _outside_. Thelema contains this assumption in an explicit form: "I am divided for Love's sake", etc. (But also contradicts it implicitly, through the "continuous" nature of Nuit.) I am just as guilty of this as the rest, and with less justification. The core technique of my own initiatory magick could not possibly work if the macrocosm and microcosm were not _already_ united, since the technique is based purely on observation, not invocation. But I used that technique for almost eighteen years before I began to appreciate the scope of the contradiction between the practice and my conscious view of the magickal universe. Even now I've barely begun to work out the implications of these things. (Which no doubt accounts for the occasional lack of consistency.) So the Transcendant God is alive and well in the minds of magicians; the Immanent God is almost nowhere to be found. To get back to the core point..... IM(current)O, the entire universe, including everything from the "material" world on out into that infinity in front of which we hang the labels "God" and "the divine", is part of a single _continuous_ and _integrated_ process of creative activity. There is nothing to be "repaired" because the material is still in the process of being shaped. It was not, as the Judeo-Christian-Islamic view holds, created in a perfect form, and then somehow "fallen" into its present state, from which it has to be "raised" again. KL>But the difference between a "simulation" and a "field test" can >often lie in the perspective of the tester. Hmm. I can't come up with an example of this offhand. Did you have some specific instance in mind? KL>JN>Another point on which I seem to disagree with both the Jewish tradition >JN>you describe and the Western magickal traditions: I don't see the goal >JN>of the Great Work as being the "perfection" of anything, except perhaps, >JN>again, in a purely local and temporary sense. Instead, I see the divine >JN>creative process -- what I think of as the Great Work -- as being >JN>basically endless. KL>That might be a good analogy. Maybe the universe is like an individual >performance of a play? Sure, if you allow us to change the plot and dialog ad libitum, and run thousands of performances at the same time. But in that analogy, we would again run up against a possibly-false duality, this time between the "masks" and the "players". KL>Your very interesting message ends abruptly here. I think one of the >nodes on the echo is owned by Procrustes. :-) Well, better it chops off my messages than my legs! Probably it's a sysop with his own idea of what is the "proper" message length. * SLMR 2.1a * Follow a Paranoid 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Liliani Area: Thelema To: L'Amour Dujour 9 Sep 92 20:30:00 Subject: Right & wrong 1/ Sent UpdReq LD>Then again, I've had that particular idea thrown at me before. I tend to LD>evaluate the reasons behind rules/restrictions.. and if I can't find a good LD>reason to obey them, I completely ignore their existance. Ah, but sometimes it is easier to follow the silly rules than to deal with the hassles when you don't. Do you see that as a valid reason to not ignore them? LD>--Which works fine as a teenager. Now-a-days I'm busy trying to get these LD>silly laws off the books. Not that's the idea! ___ * SLMR 2.0 * Reptiles for global warming. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Crat Area: Thelema To: Josh Norton 8 Sep 92 09:08:02 Subject: Right & Wrong 1/ Sent UpdReq JN>"You know the difference between right and wrong," he repeated finally. JN>"Man, why did you need Initiation -- by the Golden Dawn, or by anybody JN>else? You are a genius, a sage, a giant among men. You have solved the JN>problem which philosophers have been debating since antiquity -- the JN>mystery about which no two nations or tribes have ever agreed, and no JN>two men or women have ever agreed, and no intelligent person has ever JN>agreed totally with himself from one day to the next. _You_know_the_ JN>_difference_between_right_and_wrong_. I am overawed. I swoon. I JN>figuratively kiss your feet." It is nice to know that even R.A. Wilson has read G.B. Shaw's "Major Barbara" ___ X OLX 2.1 TD X Sex is a matter of lighting - Noel Coward 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Vitriol Area: Thelema To: Josh Norton 8 Sep 92 09:08:02 Subject: Re: karma Sent UpdReq -=> Josh Norton sent a message to Vitriol on 09-06-92 13:15 <=- -=> Re: Re: karma <=- JN> I don't have access to that echo on this board -- OK. I'll see if the message is still lying around here somewhere under a virtual pile of imaginary stuff. ... Enough! or Too much! ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.10 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Vitriol Area: Thelema To: Josh Norton 8 Sep 92 09:08:04 Subject: Traffic Sent UpdReq -=> Josh Norton sent a message to Vitriol on 09-06-92 15:40 <=- -=> Re: Traffic <=- JN> But using them simultaneously perpetuates the very conditions of JN> thought we're supposedly trying to transcend. And so we do, above the abyss. But `down' here, duality Is. JN> {grumbles sullenly} I think I'm going to make my next Magickal Motto JN> "Stamp Out Duality!", however you say that in Latin -- "Duali delenda JN> est"? The damned things are a bloody trap, even when they're JN> valid. ??? Sounds personal. We think in dualities in the everyday mode, because the everyday world abounds in duality, indeed, is only possible because of it. As for traps, _all_ limitation is a trap. But in order to manipulate the manifested, we must use the limitations that are our `handles' or `hooks'. What's the big deal? Sure, it's a trap to use words, but until our minds can communicate directly, words are a useful, and necessary, tool. So, too, are such limited, and dualistic, sub-abysmal concepts as "duality." JN> BTW, I'll be sending a disk your way in a week or two, with the text JN> of Achad's books, and maybe a couple of other things, including "The JN> Book of the Seniors" that you asked for. Would appreciate if you would JN> upload it to your local board. Sounds good to me! Are you sending one directly to either Tony I. or Fr. Nachash -- no need for me to spend LD money in duplication. ... Truly, My Satan, thou art but a Dunce ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.10 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Vitriol Area: Thelema To: Josh Norton 8 Sep 92 09:08:06 Subject: Right & wrong Sent UpdReq -=> Josh Norton sent a message to Crat on 09-07-92 11:51 <=- -=> Re: Right & wrong <=- JN> the person is un-sane. IMO, such absolutist thinking is a symptom of a JN> deeper, suppressed problem in the person's psyche. JN> In my book, a person who is capable of changing his moral code on the JN> basis of experience is a relativist, even if he formulates his JN> code-of-the-moment in absolutist terms. ;-) What a choice -- anal-retentive or opportunist! JN> Writing is such a chore for me that I sometimes Beg pardon? I'd hate to see you set your mind to something _easy_ in that case! Or perhaps it's the friction that causes the energy your posts generate. In either case, "then play on..." JN> I disagree. The only rule -- which is inherently relativist in JN> practice -- is "discover and follow the dictates of your own nature, JN> with respect to the circumstances in which you find yourself." In other JN> words, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." (What else JN> did you expect, in the "Thelema" echo? ) I agree. ("So who asked you?" "Oh, shut up.") JN> Your "logical" consequence of living in an inherently mysterious JN> universe -- i.e., nihilism -- really only shows the limits of logic, JN> particularly Aristotelian "either/or" logic. Hehehe... damned dualities everywhere! ... Mock on, Mock on: 'tis all in vain! ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.10 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Vitriol Area: Thelema To: Josh Norton 8 Sep 92 09:08:08 Subject: The great work Sent UpdReq -=> Josh Norton sent a message to Vitriol on 09-07-92 12:08 <=- -=> Re: The great work <=- JN> Actually, I'm talking about both happening at the same time. Being the JN> "mesocosm", we should be allowing a flow-through in both directions, JN> and learning and growing thereby. OK, you could look at it that way, though what I'm saying is that there is only one flow, from separateness towards (I didn't say "to") Unity. The `up' and `down' flows are actually one and the same, from two different points of view. "Is the flag moving, or the wind?" JN> What I was getting at was that you can't expect "automatic" benefits JN> to the rest of the world from your enlightenment because without JN> direction, the effects are going to be more or less random. Thus, "Love _under will_." ... Enough! or Too much! ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.10 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Michael Lee Area: Thelema To: Josh Norton 10 Sep 92 17:44:22 Subject: Right & wrong 1/ UpdReq LD> Well, Josh, you get what you ask, no? LD> I do believe you had been > posting messages begging for someone to argue with. JN> Yes, but there's people who argue, and people who JN> make bald statements JN> without anything to back it up. Michael is JN> alleging the existence of an JN> absolute, "universal" morality, but you will note that he didn't say JN> what it was or even whether he knew what it was. JN> All his "arguments" so JN> far really amount to nothing more than "It is so because I say it is JN> so." A couple of things... First, when anyone is "arguing" philospohy, all conclusions boil down to "It is because I say it is so." That's the _nature_ of the problem. We're (at least I am) trying to "know the unkowable." Sure, I have viewpoints on the matter, but they're not written in stone. If folks recall, I started this thread with a question about the transcendental nature of Right and Wrong. I then followed up with a _hypothesis_ on this transcendentalism. Now, maybe I'm not as articulate as I'd like to be, nor as rhetorically skillful, but I don't believe (IMHO), that my arguments have been totally without merit. It's true I've given no insight into the nature of my universal morality. It is also true that I've made no claim as to the my insight into this issue. Who really can? What we can do is tap dance around the periphery hoping to get glimpses. On to the "bald statments" thing. There are two things I want to clear up. The first thing refers back to the nature of the problem. Most any statement dealing with these types of issues will apear "bald" on all levels. We're dealing with beliefs, faiths, etc. The issue is whether all statements made are logically consistent with each other. For the most part, I think I was logically consistent. The second things is a little more complex, and perhaps a tad self-serving. I started this thread, not so much to persuade, but to _learn_. I knew that I didn't have all the answers. I wasn't even sure if there were answers to be had. Yet I have found the quickest way to learn something is to argue it. I didn't have to be right. Other folks could add insight which I didn't have. One of the "tricks" in this sort of situation is to make "bald" statements. Not so much because I believe them, but to have others show the holes in them. The problem with this technique (as I've come to learn) is that entirely to many people take it the wrong way. Like I'm prostylitizing (sp?). Another area that has caused problems is in semantics. It is abvious that Josh, and a few others, have internalized a concept of universal right and wrong _entirely_ different from where I was coming from. In a sense, we were arguing apples and oranges. It took me awhile before I realized this. Finally, for me this thread has been (for the most part) an enlightening experience. My views have evloved over the course of the past few weeks. But the best part is that I've learned some things. Michael (P.S. The only thing I regret about this is the way the thread has deteriorated over the past 5-8 posts. Although not blatant flames, there has been an increase in "power" games. A subtle attempt to belittle over obscure issues. It's the "expert" syndrome. "Obviously you aren't quite as smart/ggod/knowledgable as I am. Therfore your arguments on all issues are inferior." I know this is an extreme, and it's not as bad as that, but things were approaching this level. A case in point: Several posts back, I had said (and I'm paraphrasing) that most actions can be predicted in advance. I also said that I'd leave magic out of it for the moment. Josh replied to this by bringing up Quantum Mechanics and the book _In Search of Schroedinger's Cat_. Seeming to refute my statement. Well, in writing that section, I was careful to word the statements in the way I did. Because I knew _someone_ would try to use QM as refutation. Nevertheless, there Josh was. Flame On - To paraphrase a wonderful quote, In issues of causality, QM is the last efuge of a scoundrel. When we're dealing with dimensions outside the range of h-bar, causality is well defined. 99.99999% of all human experience is outside the domain of h-bar. I knew this. What bothers me is the psuedo-scientists who pick up their QM from the fast-food equivalent of books like _In Search of Schroedinger's Cat_. Don't get me wrong, it was an excellent book. But why is it that people who read these books are all of a sudden experts in QM? I believe, and maybe I'm wrong, but the _only_ thing Josh was trying to do was out expert me. To show me how smart and knowledgable he was, and how ignorant and ill-prepared I was. Josh, after you've solved, for the umpteenth time, Spin Glass problems, Quantum Matrices, Hamiltonian equations, or even a classical Wave function for the Bohr model, maybe I'll give some credence to your QM philosophies. Flame off. In all likely hood, I've just succeeded in trashing any hope of continuing on, but if there is interest, let me know. But somehow I feel we're going to get bogged down on irrelevencies (i.e. flames). 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718