| The void demands honesty. |
[29 May 2009|05:08pm] |
Honesty—granted that this is our virtue, from which we cannot get free, we free spirits—well, let us labor at it with all love and malice and not weary of “perfecting” ourselves in our virtue, the only one we have: may its brightness one day overspread this ageing culture and its dull, gloomy seriousness like a gilded azure mocking evening glow! And if our honesty should one day none the less grow weary, and sigh, and stretch its limbs, and find us too hard, and like to have things better, easier, gentler, like an agreeable vice: let us remain hard, we last of the Stoics! And let us send to the aid of our honesty whatever we have of devilry in us—our disgust at the clumsy and casual, our “nitimur in vetitum,” [“we strive for the forbidden” (Ovid: Amores, III, 4, 17)] our adventurer’s courage, our sharp and fastidious curiosity, our subtlest, most disguised, most spiritual will to power and world-overcoming which wanders avidly through all the realms of the future let us go to the aid of our “god” with all our “devils”! It is probable that we shall be misunderstood and taken for what we are not: but what of that! People will say: “Their ‘honesty’—is their devilry and nothing more!” But what of that! And even if they were right! Have all gods hitherto not been such devils grown holy and been rebaptized? And what do we know of ourselves, when all’s said and done? And what the spirit which leads us on would like to be called (it is a question of names)? And how many spirits we harbor? Our honesty, we free spirits—let us see to it that our honesty does not become our vanity, our pomp and finery, our limitation, our stupidity! Every virtue tends towards stupidity, every stupidity towards virtue; “stupid to the point of saintliness” they say in Russia—let us see to it that through honesty we do not finally become saints and bores! Is life not a hundred times too short to be—bored in it? One would have to believe in eternal life to ....
- Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil
Aphorism 227
|
|
|
[21 Apr 2009|08:47pm] |
|
Happiness is a pig's philosophy.
|
|
| Nietzsche Vs. Thelema - Aphorism 109 of the Gay Science |
[03 Aug 2008|05:49pm] |
Let us beware. – Let us beware of thinking that the world is a living being. Where should it expand? On what should it feed? How could it grow and multiply? We have some notion of the nature of the organic; and we should not reinterpret the exceedingly derivative, late, rare, accidental, that we perceive only on the crust of the earth and make of it something essential, universal, and eternal, which is what those people do who call the universe an organism. This nauseates me. Let us even beware of believing that the universe is a machine: it is certainly not constructed for one purpose, and calling it a “machine” does it far too much honor. Let us beware of positing generally and everywhere anything as elegant as the cyclical movements of our neighboring stars; even a glance into the Milky Way raises doubts whether there are not far coarser and more contradictory movements there, as well as stars with eternally linear paths, etc. The astral order in which we live is an exception; this order and the relative duration that depends on it have again made possible an exception of exceptions: the formation of the organic. The total character of the world, however, is in all eternity chaos – in the sense not of a lack of necessity but of a lack of order, arrangement, form, beauty, wisdom, and whatever other names there are for our aesthetic anthropomorphisms. Judged from the point of view of our reason, unsuccessful attempts are by all odds the rule, the exceptions are not the secret aim, and the whole musical box repeats eternally its tune which may never be called a melody – and ultimately even the phrase “unsuccessful attempt” is too anthropomorphic and reproachful. But how could we reproach or praise the universe? Let us beware of attributing to it heartlessness and unreason or their opposites: it is neither perfect nor beautiful, nor noble, nor does it wish to become any of these things; it does not by any means strive to imitate man. None of our aesthetic and moral judgments apply to it. Nor does it have any instinct for self-preservation or any other instinct; and it does not observe any laws either. Let us beware of saying that there are laws in nature. There are only necessities: there is nobody who commands, nobody who obeys, nobody who trespasses. Once you know that there are no purposes, you also know that there is no accident; for it is only beside a world of purposes that the word “accident” has meaning. Let us beware of saying that death is opposed to life. The living is merely a type of what is dead, and a very rare type. Let us beware of thinking that the world eternally creates new things. There are no eternally enduring substances; matter is as much of an error as the God of the Eleatics. But when shall we ever be done with our caution and care? When will all these shadows of God cease to darken our minds? When will we complete our de-deification of nature? When may we begin to “naturalize” humanity in terms of a pure, newly discovered, newly redeemed nature?
- Aphorism 109 of the Gay Science
Nietzsche can be appropriated for anything. Selectively read, he can say whatever you want him to say (Beyond Good and Evil Part 1:14 has a bit to say about this). Crowley and Thelemites have done this. It is true that Crowley and Nietzsche have many a similarity, but there are a number of points on which they disagree strikingly - they are irreconcilable. It is a question of where one's loyalties lie; the interpretation they have chosen to apply to their world. Absolute and unconditioned truth is present nowhere - the shadow of a dead god on a cave wall.
|
|
| Where I am |
[24 Jun 2008|07:00pm] |
For Nietzsche, the Will to Power supersedes previous theories about the underlying directional motivation of life, most notably the theories of self-preservation and the pleasure principle. In the Will to Power, preservation and pleasure are only accidental byproducts of the accumulation and expression of power. Nietzsche is adamant that all things, from the movement of the smallest cellular organisms to the conscious activity of human beings, are Will to Power. However, he does not mean to say that since all life is simply a movement towards the extension of its own force, then all things can be reduced to mere quantitative difference. Still, the recognition of Will to Power does have an immediately deconstructive effect on all human ideas and history; all acts previously thought to be selfless and noble are immediately shown to be the exact opposite. The idea of the selfless Christ who dies out of love is thrown out and replaced with the Christ who knows, at least on some level, that his death will cause a greater impact in human history than his continued life.
War is the father and king of all: some he has made gods, and some men; some slaves and some free.
|
|
| 1874.. |
[15 Feb 2008|04:37pm] |
Has anyone ever read this within the context of Thelema? It made me do a double take..
I suppose this is where the accusations of Crowley as plagiarist arise from..
|
|
| Tarot |
[08 Jan 2008|09:31pm] |
|
Has anyone ever successfully used the method of Tarot divination that Crowley gives in Equinox Vol. 1?
|
|
| Acceptance and weasels. |
[26 Aug 2007|12:04am] |
"I admire the prose style of The Book of the Law, that's about all I admire about it. I'm sure that there probably is great wisdom there and I'm pretty certain he did channel it from somewhere but I don't think it was from the genuine Angel of the Aeon! It was probably something pretty fucking big and scary but no, no, I could never accept [it], it's too mad and cruel, it's too heartless, it's too inhuman, I'm not interested in that. If that's what godhood's all about then I'll settle with what I've got."
~ Alan Moore Accepting The Book of the Law is not exactly an easy task for anyone - each of us knows this intimately. It is, in fact, so difficult to accept that we have an entire mess of people in the Thelemic community who do their best to weasel out of it in various ways. For instance, if certain people are asked whether or not they accept the Book of the Law, they will answer in the affirmative, telling themselves silently that they "accept that it exists", and that somehow this pathetic wordplay fulfills the requirement. This is certainly the most shameless dodge to the acceptance of Liber AL. It is easily identified, too - loud groans and forehead slaps follow in it's wake. An entirely different class of weasel dodges Liber AL by abusing the Tunis Comment in the worst way possible. Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
The study of this Book is forbidden. It is wise to destroy this copy after the first reading.
Whosoever disregards this does so at his own risk and peril. These are most dire.
Those who discuss the contents of this Book are to be shunned by all, as centres of pestilence.
All questions of the Law are to be decided only by appeal to my writings, each for himself.
There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt.
Love is the law, love under will. The priest of the princes,
Ankh-f-n-khonsu ~The Tunis Comment (Strikeout is mine this time, but usually belongs to the weasels)
Read in this manner, it becomes clear that I can interpret whatever I want in whatever way I want, without Restriction. Chapter I is about a Thelemic Wiccan Goddess worship, Chapter II is about "I'm never going to die but I still get to feast myself into obesity", and Chapter III is about Nietzsche playing dungeons and dragons. This subject has been beaten to death and will most likely continue to be so, especially recently, ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) ashkosis and his supporters leading the pack. Although never specific about what exactly they are so afraid of in Crowley's commentary, we can probably safely assume it is the morality of Chapter 3. 18. Mercy let be off: damn them who pity! Kill and torture; spare not; be upon them!
It is the harshness of the third chapter that presents the biggest problem for all of us.. or is it? Personally, I came to Thelema from years of studying Nietzsche. I have no objections to Chapter 3's elitist overtones, it's militarism, or it's merciless nature. That is not to say that I have no issues with it. The harsh morality of Chapter 3 does present it's difficulties to me, but it is not the portion of the Book that I have the most trouble with.
9. Remember all ye that existence is pure joy; that all the sorrows are but as shadows; they pass & are done; but there is that which remains. Crowley describes this school of thought as one point that really sets Thelemites apart from Buddhists. As Buddha's "First Noble Truth" was "All is Sorrow", it represents the black school of magic (which must by no means be confused with the School of Black Magick or Sorcery - AC). Thelema, being an admixture of the yellow and white schools, holds the opposite to be true. It is this kind of idea that I find myself really struggling to - not so much accept, - but apply. It's one thing to intellectually understand that "existence is pure joy;", but it is another to remember and apply that in times of personal tragedy. Not slights, not inconveniences, not petty disputes - actual tragedy, of which I have experienced a fair amount lately. I have been withdrawn, depressed, and brought quite low by recent events which included, but are not limited to, a move from New York to Texas, the nasty breakup of a year and a half relationship (hell hath no fury), and my finances coming to near complete ruin. And yet, I am consistently reminded of this particular passage from Liber AL. It was easy to blow it off before - "Oh, existence is pure joy? Okay. Sweet.", but now it has become a very real uphill battle.
It is my humblest of opinions that experiences like this that actually "make a Thelemite". Crowley had his sort of "road to Damascus" with accepting the Book of the Law - why shouldn't we? A half-assed "Oh, yeah, I accept it." simply will not forge the same caliber of wisdom as a hard-won battle against ego and ease. These conflicts need to happen, and in all honesty, I hold them among the most valuable of my initiations. It is my humblest of opinions that it is this self-overcoming that actually "makes a Thelemite". Crowley had his sort of "road to Damascus" with accepting the Book of the Law - why shouldn't we? A half-assed "Oh, yeah, I accept it." simply will not forge the same caliber of wisdom as a hard-won battle against ego and ease. These conflicts need to happen, and in all honesty, I hold them among the most valuable of my initiations. To weasel out of it is to cheat yourself out of any real opportunity for self-development.
|
|
| Just another minerval.. |
[11 Jul 2007|01:31pm] |
A few weeks ago I was discussing some of the funnier types of people that walk through the lodge doors and demand to be initiated. There's the guy who chose "Perdurabo2" as his magical motto, since he was, of course, Aleister Crowley incarnate. There's the guy who showed up wearing his robe that had basically every symbol imaginable drawn on it - including his own natal chart on the chest (there is a rumor it was done in construction paper). I'm sure someone can make the argument that the OTO is attracting nutballs because it is in decline, but I don't actually buy that for a second. This is NYC. There are going to be nutballs. Regardless, the conversation went on for a while until the following was mentioned:
"Hahaha, yeah. You know what I love? Those people that come in and they're just like - 'Man. I love Aleister Crowley!'"
Now, at this everyone kind of laughed - I did not. Is it a contemptible thing to actually like Aleister Crowley? Am I not supposed to do that? Why?
I'm the first to admit - I am very close to Crowley. If the far left sees Crowley as no more than prophet and the far right sees Crowley as mega-eternal ipsissimus (and I've never actually encountered anyone who said Crowley was infallible), I'm definitely closer to the right than the left or even center. Don't get me wrong - he's not infallible. Often enough you encounter things in his works that are just bunk. "Oh, yeah.. she...uh.. left... to go .. uh.. learn mohammedan magick." Little white lies, most often about his former consorts, are not uncommon - but they are relatively harmless. What actually drives people away are not his lies, but his truths.
Why? Because their values (equality, compassion, charity, mercy, pity, democracy) are attacked throughout Crowley's writing, not to even speak of the Class A works.. They do not understand that to recognize their essential godhood (or even starhood) they might have to change a little bit and evolve their own philosophies. "No way," they say. "I'm God now." Then, as Keith418 asks, what's the point of initiation? To verify your own godhood? To put a stamp on it? Indeed, what's the point of magick at all if you are already awesome? These are the sort of people that don't read chapter 3 and love to talk about how AC was wrong in everything he ever said, and that they only accept the holy books. They desperately want to turn wine back into water..
Instead of trying to evolve Liber AL to your standards, why don't you evolve to it's?
|
|
|
[21 Dec 2005|12:58am] |
I have decided that my journal is/was for the most part worthless. The great majority of it was inspired by an illusion of mine - long ago, out of desperation, I raised a halfwit to the level of goddess.
This will most likely be my last update.
|
|
| navigation |
| [ |
viewing |
| |
most recent entries |
] |
|
|
|
|
