Path: typhoon.sonic.net!not-for-mail Newsgroups: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.magick,alt.pagan.magick,talk.religion.newage Subject: Will Dynamics and Crowleyan Thelematude References: <20030716003901.07325.00000385@mb-m11.aol.com> From: nagasiva Reply-To: spam@luckymojo.com User-Agent: nn/6.6.0 Lines: 119 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 04:47:22 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.201.242.18 X-Complaints-To: abuse@sonic.net X-Trace: typhoon.sonic.net 1058417242 208.201.242.18 (Wed, 16 Jul 2003 21:47:22 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 21:47:22 PDT Xref: typhoon.sonic.net alt.magick.tyagi:40399 alt.magick:351882 alt.pagan.magick:37869 talk.religion.newage:162639 50030716 viii 333: #># one's will is not demonstrated by adherence and conformity, bloodofenoch@goddamnfruit.com ({ Secret Chief }): # Why not? it has the support of the Herd to prop it up, ostensibly. #># demonstration of free will comes through originality and uniqueness. # # Things which seem to adhere and conform seldom do. # Things that seem unique and original seldom are. thus the value in establishing the actuality. kteis7: #> Yet that may not be obvious. # It's not. It reflects a typically modern prejudice: # COLUMN 1---------COLUMN 2 # Good---------------Bad # Original-------Traditional # Inner-directed--Outer-directed ascertainment of strength of will is neither good nor bad. adherence to tradition demonstrates no capacity to resist. adherence to tradition may actually be inner-directed. # I have yet to be convinced that these oppositions # hold up in practice. me either. my comment wasn't made from that false dichotomy, but from a notion regarding the ascertainment of the strength of will, which is invisible during adherence and obvious when witnessing resistance to that which requires conformity. #># the typical Crowleyan believes his writing quite literally. #> #> The typical Crowleyan, now as then, is not a thelemite. #> Perhaps Theletubbies is a better description. # # Ah yes, here it is! The great mortification of the flesh # of Crowley enthusiasts! "Crowley != Thelema", they protest, # entirely too much. # # If you can show me a person in the world who self-describes # as a Thelemite entirely uninfluenced by Crowley, I'll # believe it. countless Thelemites exist who never heard of the Beast. look to any with evidence strength of will outside the Herd that calls itself Thelemites. the term, ostensibly, is even referred to as a bequeathal of honour within the text considered by a great many Crowleyans as scripture. # As it is, I see the cry of protest as the working-out of # some kind of bizarre Oedipal anxiety-of-influence struggle # -- doing one's best to downplay and put-down an author # who is obviously a huge influence (on the people we are # talking about, that is). that wasn't my objective. I didn't say Crowley himself was not a Thelemite (since I never spent a period of time with him I can't tell). my point was about those who adhere to Crowleyan religion (which they prefer to call 'Thelema'). # Which is why I'm happy to self-describe as a Crowleyan. # It gets things out in the open and doesn't involve nearly # so much monkish self-flagellation.... well done. # once an honest laying-out of influences and inspirations # has taken place, it is possible to evaluate them more # efficiently and dispassionately. quite. :> #># the best view of Crowley is that he made this possible by #># putting on the masquerade of religion and leaving clear #># indicators that it was sham and charlatanry, effectively #># making a side-show out of religion itself through #># the enshrinement of hoaxes and absurdities. # # "The best view." Hmm... That depends on whether one is most # concerned about whether people are hoodwinked by his quasi- # religion or not. it pertains to whether you want to begin accusing him of some category of hypocrisy or of rank deception. # ...I can't stand most Thelemites. you don't know most Thelemites. most don't self-identify as such. those who do probably aren't qualified. # I won't call them pseudo-Thelemites, because that would # imply that being a Thelemite is by definition a good thing, # which remains to be demonstrated, to say the least. definition-dependent, of course. as a cult-following, I'm not sure that it is by def a good thing, agreed. # This is also another reason by I call myself a # Crowleyan. Thelemites hate it. I doubt most Thelemites even know what you mean, having never heard of Crowley or his religion. # Denial, ignorance, or willfull ignorance of history # lead occultists into all sorts of stupid traps. or categories of language restrictive to membership clubs. 333