Moderator: Moderators - Public
oldfriend56 wrote:Hi Takamba,
What exactly is this thread about? It started off with Trump and Facebook, i.e. for some utterly bizarre reason, I cannot fathom some prominent Thelemites are Trump supporters.
Yet you seem to be talking about a broader social/political issue which seems to resolve in some form of libertarian philosophy (which I could see how it could blend with Thelema, philosophically yet superficially).
Do I understand that correctly? If so, what exactly is the quarrel here?
I've brought up the idea of a "historical Thelema" a few times before, I don't think many here found it very interesting. If Thelema is making an imprint on history (or IS the imprint of history) we are clearly at an epic stage, and much of the current chaos could be accounted for, in principle, with the Thelemic prediction of the collapse of the old order and the emergence of a new one. Trump probably does play some role in that, the US and the World may never be the same after this.
All ideologies may play a role in the creation of the new order (all shall cluster about me...to paraphrase)
That's my position.
Takamba wrote:My question is: Why is it impossible for some Thelemites to see that coddling adults is detrimental to the fraternity of adults?
There is a good deal of the Nietzschean standpoint in this verse. It is the evolutionary and natural view. Of what use is it to perpetuate the misery of Tuberculosis, and such diseases, as we now do? Nature's way is to weed out the weak. This is the most merciful way, too. At present all the strong are being damaged, and their progress hindered by the dead weight of the weak limbs and the missing limbs, the diseased limbs and the atrophied limbs. The Christians to the Lions!
Our humanitarianism, which is the syphilis of the mind, acts on the basis of the lie that the King must die. The King is beyond death; it is merely a pool where he dips for refreshment. We must therefore go back to Spartan ideas of education; and the worst enemies of humanity are those who wish, under the pretext of compassion, to continue its ills through the generations. The Christians to the Lions!
Let weak and wry productions go back into the melting-pot, as is done with flawed steel castings. Death will purge, reincarnation make whole, these errors and abortions. Nature herself may be trusted to do this, if only we will leave her alone. But what of those who, physically fitted to live, are tainted with rottenness of soul, cancerous with the sin-complex? For the third time I answer: The Christians to the Lions!
Hermitas wrote:Takamba wrote:My question is: Why is it impossible for some Thelemites to see that coddling adults is detrimental to the fraternity of adults?
Well, it's not impossible. I just think the logic is murky, and "coddling" is your word.
For example, in the New Comment on Liber Legis II:21, where Crowley expresses similar thinking:There is a good deal of the Nietzschean standpoint in this verse. It is the evolutionary and natural view. Of what use is it to perpetuate the misery of Tuberculosis, and such diseases, as we now do? Nature's way is to weed out the weak. This is the most merciful way, too. At present all the strong are being damaged, and their progress hindered by the dead weight of the weak limbs and the missing limbs, the diseased limbs and the atrophied limbs. The Christians to the Lions!
Our humanitarianism, which is the syphilis of the mind, acts on the basis of the lie that the King must die. The King is beyond death; it is merely a pool where he dips for refreshment. We must therefore go back to Spartan ideas of education; and the worst enemies of humanity are those who wish, under the pretext of compassion, to continue its ills through the generations. The Christians to the Lions!
Let weak and wry productions go back into the melting-pot, as is done with flawed steel castings. Death will purge, reincarnation make whole, these errors and abortions. Nature herself may be trusted to do this, if only we will leave her alone. But what of those who, physically fitted to live, are tainted with rottenness of soul, cancerous with the sin-complex? For the third time I answer: The Christians to the Lions!
This thinking contradicts itself. If the strong are truly strong, they will not be damaged nor will their progress be hindered as described above. Here, logically, he asks that the truly strong, the collective, be weakened so that those who are in actuality weaker (the supposed "strong" who are yet damaged and hindered by the "weak") may flourish. It's contradictory. If the strong are strong, they won't be hindered. And if they are hindered, then this is the Law of the Strong and Nature to make them stronger. The supposed strong in the above words are actually weak, and by the same logic, who cares if they are hindered? Nature will sort it out.
Not only this, but our complex society is the crown jewel of humanity. It is completely literally what separates us from the animals. In contradiction, making an ethical philosophy of Hadit, who is pure Id unrestrained by Ego, is sociopathic. Read the words above again. It actually suggests letting those with diseases go ahead and die and that this is the most merciful prescription. It's absurd. It's all supernal thinking without connection to Malkuth and therefore without Tipharethic balance.
The above is just Crowley's Nietzschean wet dream. He hated it at first, but taught himself to love it. He went to far in the New Comment in my opinion. Descriptive not prescriptive!
---
How it applies: To me, this is Trump and all the Ayn Rand lovers.
Takamba wrote:But I forget (I guess) that Crowley was merely "a product of his time." His prejudices are to be eradicated. His points of view are wrong (except those that favor our opinion of right).
Yeah. I forgot that part.
Hermitas wrote:Takamba wrote:But I forget (I guess) that Crowley was merely "a product of his time." His prejudices are to be eradicated. His points of view are wrong (except those that favor our opinion of right).
Yeah. I forgot that part.
It's cool, dude.
It's this thing I do where I oppose each thought with its opposite - think for myself and stuff rather than merely follow a religious figure through blind faith and the appeals of the faithful to his authority.
At some point this discussion disintegrated into a debate about Liber OZ and most specifically "the right to kill."
Man has the right to hire who he wants
Man has the right to make cakes for who he wants
Man has the right refuse those who would refuse him
Can you counter my rational arguments without appeals to emotion and instead provide solid rationale? Specifically to the ends of "what is best for the entire collective."
If Trump is a homophobic racists mass murderer in the waiting, he's got six or so years left to do his stuff and that's it. No need for me to get up in arms.
His prejudices are to be eradicated.
Meanwhile a new age disease (in my opinion) has long infiltrated the core of Thelema. Every man and every woman gets a trophy!
Anger motivated
You? Name calling.
I'm not talking about the politics of Trump, I'm talking about the mindset of those who want to politicize (you included).
James Wasserman is big on Trump, not sure if he is behind the group though, but appears likely.
I don't get it.
What am I missing?
Takamba wrote:Can you counter my rational arguments without appeals to emotion and instead provide solid rationale?
Specifically to the ends of "what is best for the entire collective."
oldfriend56 wrote:Takamba wrote:Specifically to the ends of "what is best for the entire collective."
Collaboration is what is best for the collective, obviously. Non zero sum, mutual resolution is ALWAYS, without fail, great for the collective. With collaboration, society has the technical ability to give each and every single individual billionaire access to wealth.
Human politics stands in the way of collaboration.
Crowley had little insight into the coming technological breakthroughs of the 20th and 21st century.
Unfortunately, as I said, I believe collaboration (as defined by most) has become confused with other things that although they look nice, and kind, and caring, create more drag than relief.
Avshalom Binyamin wrote:Unfortunately, as I said, I believe collaboration (as defined by most) has become confused with other things that although they look nice, and kind, and caring, create more drag than relief.
What specific "things" do you believe create more drag than relief?
Avshalom Binyamin wrote:The psychological affect of food stamps you allege?: zero evidence. Psychological effects of going hungry: much evidence.
(And yes, I personally experienced food neglect as a small child. My parents didn't want to accept charity, however, so we went hungry. It was not enobling)
Takamba wrote:Avshalom Binyamin wrote:The psychological affect of food stamps you allege?: zero evidence. Psychological effects of going hungry: much evidence.(And yes, I personally experienced food neglect as a small child. My parents didn't want to accept charity, however, so we went hungry. It was not enobling)
Practicing that each thought with its opposite excercise, I see.
Avshalom Binyamin wrote:My anecdote is not societal evidence of the psychological effects of food stamps.
It's purpose is to forestall your Republican talking memo penchant for talking about liberals as mommy loving softies (who are also spoiled rich kids, I'm guessing).
Takamba wrote:
Mutual resolution?
As in "we both agree?"
I'm not sure that isn't the end goal and not a means.
How to achieve the goal of mutual resolution?
As brothers blah blah blah.
Want an orange? I need to lighten this pack.
Without fail? Only a true orbit is without fail.
I like that ambition but I see that this world is confusing collaboration with pity.
I despise pity.
It puts one above the other.
I'm not saying to a man don't be in the spirit of kindness for life. I'm not saying to a man don't share your joy and leaping laughter. I'm not saying to a man, even such as this dreadful thing: don't sell out and paint what they tell you to paint. I'm saying to the collective that it has all the right to that but no right to thwart those rights. And I will defend these ideals to my death.
Crowley, in his fiction, wrote of a semi-theocratic society of initiates who selected through their means the Leader. He was simply put, a select adept. Locally the people controlled their own forms of self-governing operations. The answers to concepts we now call "lawsuits" seemed to be the main function of this "select adept."
Anyway. The entire thing needs to change, not the candidate selected, not the programs we adopt to feed the needy, not even the more desirable programs of teaching and empowering the needy will do the trick (well, actually, it will do the trick of tumbling the current model toward a higher more resolute model in line with Thelemic thought). Democracy didn't come out of the aeon of Osiris overnight. I'm in no hurry. Surely it will not hurt me, the authentic being, but it will inflict something on oldfriend56 and also on Takamba because we're in the midst of it. The entire thing is going to change.
Otherwise I agree that the genius of collaboration is what it becomes. Unfortunately, as I said, I believe collaboration (as defined by most) has become confused with other things that although they look nice, and kind, and caring, create more drag than relief. Here, have an EBT card and you better smile when you hand it to the clerk.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest