The Book of the Law Study Group 2.21

ravenest

One person can overpopulate the world if they pump enough shit in the water and poison in the air.

Its hard to get a grip on ethics at the best of times, let alone Thelemic ethecis!

I'd go from here first and keep reading AC.

POSTCARDS TO PROBATIONERS
by Aleister Crowley
from EQUINOX Vol. I No. 2



THEOREMS

I. The world progresses by virtue of the appearance of
Christs (geniuses).

II. Christs (geniuses) are men with super-consciousness
of the highest order.

III. Super-consciousness of the highest order is obtainable
by known methods.
Therefore, by employing the quintessance of known
methods we cause the world to progress.


ESSENTIALS OF METHOD
I. Theology is immaterial; for both Buddha and St. Ignatius
were Christs.

II. Morality is immaterial; for both Socrates and
Mohammed were Christs.

III. Super-consciousness is a natural phenomenon; its conditions
are therefore to be sought rather in the acts than in the words
of those who attained it.
The essential acts are retirement and concentration -- as
taught by Yoga and Ceremonial Magic.

MISTAKES OF MYSTICS

I. Since truth is supra-rational, it is incommunicable in
the language of reason.
II. Hence all mystics have written nonsense, and what sense
they have written is so far untrue.
III. Yet as a still lake yields a truer reflection of the sun
than a torrent, he whose mind is best balanced will,
if he become a mystic, become the best mystic.

THE METHOD OF EQUILIBRIUM

I. THE PASSIONS, Etc.

I. Since the ultimate truth of teleology is unknown, all
codes of morality are arbitrary.
II. Therefore the student has no concern with ethics
as such.
III. He is consequently free 'to do his duty in that state
of life to which it has pleased God to call him.'

.... and so on

Remember magick is about adopting a method that works, not belonging to a religion or cult and adopting what and how you are told to be and think according to anothers conclusions.

Also someone may have a True Will to be theif, a murderer or whatever. But the rest of us have a True Will to retain property and live. Thelema eventually becomes a social experiment and one can theorise till the cows come home and go back out and come back home again about how it works, but you wont really come to any real helpful conclusions until you put it into practice.
 

Grigori

ravenest said:
Also someone may have a True Will to be theif, a murderer or whatever. But the rest of us have a True Will to retain property and live. Thelema eventually becomes a social experiment and one can theorise till the cows come home and go back out and come back home again about how it works, but you wont really come to any real helpful conclusions until you put it into practice.

I think the rebutal to that is "Do that and no other shall say nay". That sounds like a big old "nay" to me. I know I'm just shoving the cow into another paddock here, but its an interesting grey area I s'pose.
 

Grigori

This article is doing the social media rounds at the moment, and reminded me of this line and our conversation about it, and the definition of 'charity'.

An experiment was conducted with homeless people, instead of a structured welfare system intended to support them, they were given a cash gift of $3000 to do with what they want. Each was able to choose their own way of spending it, and the outcome 12 months later is most have improved their circumstances beyond what the 7 times more expensive social welfare system was able to provide.

https://decorrespondent.nl/541/why-we-should-give-free-money-to-everyone/31639050894-e44e2c00
 

yogiman

This is a dutch article, and I am dutch, so listen. My ruthless honesty and criticism is pretty unbiased, and the behaviour I expose here on this forum is not very different from my behaviour in this country. This country is governed by an elite, and if there would not be the social safety net, my place would now be on a pile of dung. Basically I agree with the article, but in the present political system it would be the underclass which would struggle for its "self-sufficiency", and many would sacrifice their own true will to please an upperclass that is relying on oldboy networks. (sheep with flag, card V).
 

Aeon418

Also someone may have a True Will to be theif, a murderer or whatever.

I think I must have missed this the first time around. Do you still subscribe to this view? How do you reconcile it with Crowley's views put forward in essays like, Duty?

Aleister Crowley said:
The essence of crime is that it restricts the freedom of the individual outraged. (Thus, murder restricts his right to live; robbery, his right to enjoy the fruits of his labour; coining, his right to the guarantee of the state that he shall barter in security; etc.) It is then the common duty to prevent crime by segregating the criminal, and by the threat of reprisals; also, to teach the criminal that his acts, being analyzed, are contrary to his own True Will. (This may often be accomplished by taking from him the right which he has denied to others; as by outlawing the thief, so that he feels constant anxiety for the safety of his own possessions, removed from the ward of the State.) The rule is quite simple. He who violated any right declares magically that it does not exist; therefore it no longer does so, for him.
Crime being a direct spiritual violation of the Law of Thelema, it should not be tolerated in the community. Those who possess the instinct should be segregated in a settlement to build up a state of their own, so to learn the necessity of themselves imposing and maintaining rules of justice. All artificial crimes should be abolished. When fantastic restrictions disappear, the greater freedom of the individual will itself teach him to avoid acts which really restrict natural rights. Thus real crime will diminish automatically.
 

Zephyros

One of the more problematic passages. As much as I respect Crowley's work, when it comes to translating that into social practice, I disagree with him on most points. I simply cannot resolve what seems to imply exile to another Australia and perhaps even instituting the death penalty.

While I agree with the first part, that crime causes clashes between orbits of Will, I think he sums up all too neatly, and perhaps even dangerously so, a formula to deal with crime that does not take into account the numerous reasons people are defined as criminals in the first place. Still, it's a thorny subject that I'm not on sure footing about.
 

Aeon418

While I agree with the first part, that crime causes clashes between orbits of Will, I think he sums up all too neatly, and perhaps even dangerously so, a formula to deal with crime that does not take into account the numerous reasons people are defined as criminals in the first place.
I won't argue with you there. The practical implementation of ideas is not always Crowley's strong suit. Although he does seem to be taking the definiton of criminality into account. 'Artificial crimes' based on 'fantastic retrictions' appears to be going in the right direction. An obvious case in Crowley's day and age would be the criminalisation of homosexuality.

But that's a side issue to the main point which is that crime is un-Thelemic. A view that seems to be supported by Crowley. I only posted the above quotation because I was a bit surprised by Ravenest's comment. But maybe he's changed his mind since then or he just has different ideas on the subject.

Going off on a little bit of a tangent here, but there's a lovely quote I want share from an essay by Jim Eshelman called, Magick Power and Karma Yoga.
Jim Eshelman said:
A final point: The foundation of the philosophy of Karma Yoga, as perhaps of all yoga, is ahimsa, "harmlessness." This is neither obsessiveness over the inadvertent stepping on ants, nor a denial that in real life all people, at times wound each other. Nor is it even a condemnation of battle that is one's duty, or to restore freedom or justice, or to test and hone the strength of equals through competition. No, ahimsa is simply a recognition of the inseparability of our actions from their consequences. The Major Adept lives in intimate awareness of these consequences and their impact on self and other: They compose the fabric of her life, the substance of the First Matter of her magick.

Despite the The Book of the Law's identification of the Lord of the present Aeon as a warrior god, ahimsa is the essence of Thelemic philosophy. It expresses the fulfillment by each being of his or her True Will in a harmonious universe where each of us is recognized as a star in the body of infinite space - and where each of us extends to all others the same freedom that we claim for oursleves.

Criminal behaviour seems to be completely at odds with the above quote. In fact it seems to be very one sided with no sense or awareness of the "consequences and their impact on self and other". In fact it seems like an imbalanced Hadit (Self) perspective without the complemantary Nuit perspective (collective - All).
"Every man and every woman is a star" does not mean rampant individualism where you can screw everyone over who gets in your way. That misses a subtlty in the verse. We've already attained individualism. That was the end product of the Aeon of Osiris stage. The next step in the Aeon of Horus is getting one foot planted in Briah while keeping the other in Yetzirah. It's the Unique Individual and his/her relationship in a Wider Context that unites them with all other perspectives. This is the perspective of the Adept who's concept of Self and Other is very different to little ego-self.
 

Zephyros

To his and the BoL's credit, though, I doubt either meant to dictate daily affairs. It would certainly be difficult to extract dogma from the Book of Law, however cruel and bloodthirsty the third section is. I have noticed that people (present company excluded, of course) tend to read the Book of Law, yet simultaneously ignore what it says. Every sentence, every word, must be read in light of "Every Man and every Woman is a Star." Once one accepts that "decoder" that is omnipresent in the entire book, the whole thing is by necessity not to be taken at face value, since there are lines that would seem to contradict that idea (but they can't, and don't). Contrary to the Abrahamic religions, for example, where every action is dictated, transferring Thelema to a practical, social philosophy practically hinges on the idea that it can be used to justify all forms of government (and none). Society is perhaps an amalgam of compromises, aeon notwithstanding, and the way society metes out justice deals with these compromises. Crowley no doubt understood this, and while it seems like he espouses the death penalty, he would probably have known "better."

I seem to remember posting this essay, The Politics of Thelema although I can't remember where. IAO131 writes a lot there, but the ultimate conclusion is that all questions are to be answered in light of Will. What I have yet to read, though, is a Ayn Rand-esque Libertarian using Thelema as justification. It seems so easy to go there.
 

ravenest

I think I must have missed this the first time around. Do you still subscribe to this view? How do you reconcile it with Crowley's views put forward in essays like, Duty?

yes ... I think it may possible that ... in the greater scheme of things that someone may have a True Will or purpose ... or even 'evolutionary function' that seems averse to what we think is desirable or 'normal' ; like stealing or murder.

How do I reconcile it with 'Duty' ? I am not sure what you mean ... does it need reconciling with that?

I am not justifying crime by my statement at all, my next sentence after that; 'but the rest of us .... should indicate that. My point was about how to deal with seemingly conflictual wills. In this case Crowley offers a great solution, I agree with it .

It has been a big part of my life, living in a group, shared or communal situation, on the one hand many people want to be released from 'laws' and 'restrictions' (while eventually having to making up their own ones ... ;) ) . A few times strong individuals have insisted it is their right to live according to principles and actions that adversely impact on others and have put forward their argument .... it is my contention, in these cases, socially and culturally, "What about the group, social, cultural or communal will? Why is the enactment of 1 will more important than the collective will?

Perhaps Crowley was talking about a similar thing?

(Remember my view comes from a living dynamic situation ... or thelemic cultural experiment ... not from just reading and imagining how it would work. It was about daily living with others and families (with children in extended home environments) .... and some 'trouble makers' .... they are always things needing to be done that one doesn't particularly like doing ; all the way through to like policing and evictions What IS one to do with a persist troublemaker that disrupts things for everyone and endangers children?

Ship em out I say ... and if it can be arranged , apply Crowley's solution .... that is ideal , I realise that. There is also the whole concept of levels of crime and 'justified crime'. Its not something that is easy to work out.

In the social / cultural experimentation Crowley devised to implement such concept ( the OTO ) it is interesting that one would be required to go through the first 3 degrees (know thyself - and life) eventually up to 5th degree (the 'normal' stopping place) then the 'Knight of the East and West degree, where lies the Senate (he has written about the complexities and philosophy required to implement legislative and executive decisions) and AFTER that comes degrees equivalent to 'policing' - implementing judicial decisions.

I often wonder about a society that has politicians running it that were required to have that level of training and a police force ABOVE that level :bugeyed:

regardless .... there are going to be 'troublemakers and disrupters' .... they have to be dealt with somehow ... and I certainly do not approve with current methods ( a smack on the wrist and a stern look).
 

yogiman

Society is perhaps an amalgam of compromises, aeon notwithstanding, and the way society metes out justice deals with these compromises.

Crowley as a buddhist himself had difficulty with accepting certain lines in the BoL. No wonder, because what I am missing is balance, apart from the Nuit (circle) - Hadit (point) theme. Why is this balance missing, when Rahoorkuit is the son of the divine parents? Again, it must be related to the spirit of that time. At present we are living in a very competitive world and one that is in constant flux, and it seems to me that we should weigh Crowley's words against the background of our own environment and personality.