Philosophically speaking, do you agree with Liber OZ?

[ZombieHorde]

1. Man has the right to live by her own law--
to live in the way that he wills to do:
to work as she will:
to play as he will:
to rest as she will:
to die when and how he will.

2. Man has the right to eat what she will:
to drink what he will:
to dwell where she will:
to move as he will on the face of the earth.

3. Man has the right to think what she will:
to speak what he will:
to write what she will:
to draw, paint, carve, etch, mould, build as he will:
to dress as she will.

4. Man has the right to love as he will:--
"take your fill and will of love as ye will,
when, where, and with whom ye will." --AL. I. 51

5. Man has the right to kill those who would thwart these rights.

-Crowly

[knitter4democracy]

1. I'm uncomfortable with the last one.

You could argue that the woman who refuses to be your love slave violates #4 and therefore must be killed, and hell if we don't have too much of that going on already.

[ZombieHorde]

3. Actually, that would not work because it would be restricting her right to love who she wants.

It works both ways.

[Meshuga]

16. Then she could kill him first

Since he would thwart her rights (she would not be able to love whom she wants). Problem solved!

Boy, what a great system! :sarcasm:

[ZombieHorde]

19. I do believe that women have a right to kill any man that tries to rape her. Don't you?

[knitter4democracy]

22. Who says it has to get to rape?

If a woman turns a man down, according to that rule, he has the right to kill her (she's keeping him from loving her). He doesn't have to rape her, just be kept from loving her in the manner he desires. If he tries to keep her from loving in the way she desires, then she gets to kill him, but that doesn't necessarily mean rape.

[ZombieHorde]

23. If a woman turns a man down, according to that rule, he has the right to kill her

That is an interesting interpretation, but love and sex are two different things.

[knitter4democracy]

27. I re-read the love law from your post.

I didn't interpret it to mean sex, though I can see how someone would. I interpreted it to mean love as the person sees fit--and that can mean many different things.

[ZombieHorde]

29. and that (love) can mean many different things.

I agree, the word love really is open to any number of interpretations.

[Meshuga]

31. In self defense to save herself? Sure.

But that has nothing to do with what we are talking about. And you don't need the principles from the OP to choose self defense.

If a man threatens a woman with rape she can call the police to get him arrested which would rightly hurt another principle that was presented in the OP of "man having the ability to speak what he will." He can't and he shouldn't be able to use his words (in my opinion) to threaten another person's wellbeing or another person's life. Do you agree with that?

So I think I fully disagree with the OP since even if one accepts the parts of the list that sound "reasonable," that would require some fine print that would make the "as he/she will" meaningless.

[ZombieHorde]

32. you don't need the principles from the OP to choose self defense

I agree with that.

He can't and he shouldn't be able to use his words (in my opinion) to threaten another person's wellbeing or another person's life. Do you agree with that?

I agree that he shouldn't, but not that he can't, unless he has some disability that prevents him.

require some fine print

I agree with this for all religions.

[Meshuga]

33. "I agree with this for all religions."

No need for religion for the fineprint. One can be non-religious and see that we need a system in order to protect individuals in our society from people who choose to exercise their freedom by hurting others.

[ZombieHorde]

34. I meant that all religions could use some fine print (the devil is in the details)

One can be non-religious and see that we need a system in order to protect individuals in our society from people who choose to exercise their freedom by hurting others.

There is a difference between need and want.

[Meshuga]

37. "I meant that all religions could use some fine print"

Ok, what does that have to do with anything?

"There is a difference between need and want."

I know, but in context to what we are talking about, if a person sees this need and he/she doesn't want it then, IMO, this person is either stupid or crazy. It is easy to understand those who don't see a need, not wanting it. But there is also the group of people who are not stupid or crazy but who sit in a comfortable position since they are not affected and don't seem to care if a victimized party carries the burden.

[ZombieHorde]

38. Ok, what does that have to do with anything?

You said that Liber OZ (a religious document) needed some fine print. I agreed, and then expanded on it by claiming that all religions need fine print.

I know, but in context to what we are talking about, if a person sees this need and he/she doesn't want it then

I was actually trying to say that we don't need government, we want it. The old want versus need argument. I know it's dumb. My comment was a bit off topic, so I should have either explained it better, or better yet, omitted it altogether.

But there is also the group of people who are not stupid or crazy but who sit in a comfortable position since they are not affected and don't seem to care if a victimized party carries the burden.

I agree with that 100%. But I don't think that Liber OZ is about victimizing others. Of course I could be wrong, it even could have been written with the sole intent to sell more books.

[knitter4democracy]

17. An eye for an eye, then?

That would make the whole world blind.

[ZombieHorde]

20. There is a difference between self defense and violent punishment.

Eye for an eye is about punishment. It takes place after the fact. If a woman is being raped, and she manages to stick a pen in her rapists neck, this is not eye for an eye.

[knitter4democracy]

21. No, but if you can kill because they're keeping you from love . . .

They can do the same to you by refusing to be their love. That means you end up with two dead people, which is stupid.

[ZombieHorde]

24. Though really, you can not stop love except though nefarious means, such as lobotomies.

I don't think that the intent was that a person gets to have sex with anyone they desire no matter what.

[knitter4democracy]

28. An abused would try.

Look at the rule through an abusive husband's eyes--it says he can kill her if she denies him loving her in the way he wants to.

[ZombieHorde]

30. That may be true, but it is not like the husband would be cool if he never read it.

For some people, philosophy and theology is a way to challenge oneself to become a better person, and for some it is an excuse to do what they would anyway.

[cosmik debris]

2. That sounds like anarchy with capital punishment n/t

[ZombieHorde]

4. Which specific part sounds like it rejects government?

[cosmik debris]

5. 1 through 5 n/t

[ZombieHorde]

6. So the following statements are disagreeable and anarchistic?

3. Man has the right to think what she will:
to speak what he will:
to write what she will:
to draw, paint, carve, etch, mould, build as he will:
to dress as she will.

[cosmik debris]

7. Sorry, I'm not in the mood for a semantic argument.

I offered an opinion. You are welcome to disagree.

[ZombieHorde]

8. I was not looking for a semantical argument...

I offered an opinion.

I appreciated it. Though I am confused by it. You voted that the whole thing was disagreeable, I expected people to mostly vote for the partial agreement statements since it covers so many things that liberals hold dear. I personally believe that Liber OZ is a mostly liberal document.

[cosmik debris]

9. You didn't even read your own poll?

I voted "No, I disagree with Liber OZ."

You didn't specify which part and neither did I.

:eyes:

If you can't see elements of anarchy in the quote you offered, you are blind. If you are confused about my opinion, it is because you are trying to be confused.

[ZombieHorde]

10. There were two partial agreement options, you did not choose either.

I then asked which specific part you found disagreeable and anarchistic and you stated one through five (1 through 5 n/t).

You didn't specify which part and neither did I.

Do you agree that I asked you about which specific part was disagreeable and anarchistic, and that you then answered "1 through 5 n/t"?

[cosmik debris]

11. Goodnight.

[ZombieHorde]

12. I wonder why you are so upset and feel the need to type untrue things about our posts?

I know I get grumpy sometimes.

[cosmik debris]

13. From my perspective, you are being an ass.

You seem to want to corner me into a position with which you can argue rather than accepting my stated position at face value.

I disagree with the quote you offered. I believe it sounds like anarchy with capital punishment. If that concept is beyond you, perhaps you should take a little time off and think about it.

If you don't like the poll option I selected, you shouldn't have offered overlapping options.

And your implication that I am a liar only goes to support my suspicion that you want to pick a fight.

So bite me.

[ZombieHorde]

14. corner me into a position

I was asking you to expand on your position.

If you don't like the poll option I selected, you shouldn't have offered overlapping options.

I have no quarrels with your selection, I am just curious about it.

And your implication that I am a liar only goes to support my suspicion that you want to pick a fight.

Well, you did make an untrue statement about our posts (You didn't specify which part and neither did I.), perhaps I should just consider it an honest mistake.

You were also being insulting when I was nothing but polite (you are blind -- you are trying to be confused).

So bite me.

I do like to bite. Maybe we can come to an agreement after all.

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. I don't agree you asked "which specific part was disagreeable and anarchistic"

You asked:

"Which specific part sounds like it rejects government?"

There was nothing in that about 'disagreeable'.

I, too, think this does sound anarchistic (though whether that's disagreeable is a matter of opinion, of course). Perhaps Crowley goes on to specify what happens (apart from killing each other) when one person's will clashes with another. In the absence of anything like that, and with the 'right to kill' quote included, you have indeed made this philosophy sound like 'anarchy with capital punishment'.

On edit: A typical page with these lines also adds: "the slaves shall serve." The references like "AL. II. 58" seems to show these may have been collected from more than one place, but that still seems to be part of item 5. So 'anarchy' may be over-generous to Crowley - "rule of the ruthless" may be closer.

[ZombieHorde]

18. Let's see...

There was nothing in that about 'disagreeable'.

Do you mean, except for the poll and following posts...

If you mean that I did not ask for both those qualities in the same sentence, then OK, though that claim was not made.

"the slaves shall serve."

Nice find. That is a good warning.

"rule of the ruthless"

I think that this is the opposite of the spirit of Liber OZ, especially with "the slaves shall serve." warning that you provided.

I think that your interpretation is that these rights are for the strong to conquer the weak, which is the capitalist system. My interpretation is that understanding your rights makes a weak person strong. They help to instill a sense of self confidence and self worth. I realize that I could be completely wrong about the author's intent, I have not read any explanation from him. Generally, the rule with interpreting western mysticism and occultism is in the context of self improvement.

Thanks for the link, it provided minutes of entertainment.

[muriel_volestrangler]

25. Well, you can see the libertarian sense in which it's meant

In 1941, Aleister Crowley wrote to Karl Germer: "There is a vile threat to the ‘rugged American individualism’ that actually created the U.S.A by the bureaucratic crowd who want society to be a convict prison. . . .The danger is very real, very imminent, very difficult to bring home to the average citizen, who sees o­nly the immediate gain, and is hoodwinked as to the price that must be paid for it." This book is a valiant attempt to “bring home” the nature of that threat to those who identify with the uniquely Thelemic nature of that “rugged American individualism

The introduction is a detailed and sympathetic account of the author’s personal spiritual journey that led him to the writing of the book itself. The rest of the book is an in depth discussion of the common themes behind many of the political, moral and ethical dilemmas facing our community today. It pokes holes in the simplistic standard ideologies of both the left and the right. Nonetheless, it shines forth as a virtual confession of the author’s conversion from o­ne of those apathetic types to a virulent defender of freedom. It is a no-holds-barred indictment of the bury-your-head-in-the-sand, run-around-in-circles-in-dark-rooms, political apathy of many occult circles, as well as of the common political bias which claims that America and the “right-wing conspiracy” are the source of all evil and hardship in the world today. It instead points the finger at more insidious culprits, such as the United Nations, judicial activism, and the erosion of individual responsibility inherent in the creeping socialism and totalitarianism disguised as “democracy” coming soon to yet another nation or state near you. It draws essential parallels between the founding documents of the United States of America, such as the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and the rights they were drafted to enshrine, and the spirit of Liber Oz, a more concise but no less thorough recitation of those same rights, inherent in each and every man and woman. Juxtaposition of these “Charters of Liberty” with the analogous yet antithetical U.N. “Declaration of Human Rights,” reveals the undeniable antipathy between the God-given, inalienable nature of the rights recognized (though not created) by both our nation’s Founding Fathers and Aleister Crowley, and the transitory, revocable-at-will, “rights” (actually privileges) of food, education, and medicine (as well as freedom from nasty things like hate and war) fabricated by the latter documents.

The author, James Wasserman, a lifetime NRA member, (and a 25 year veteran of O.T.O.) reminds us that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms it protects, are co-equal with and complimentary to the First Amendment freedoms of the press, religion and speech it preserves the right to defend, if necessary, by force. The Slaves Shall Serve is a wake-up call to all those “slaves” who would glibly don the chains of security rather than take up the sword of liberty in their own defense. It is reminiscent of O.M.’s warning in the Introduction to the 1938 edition of Liber AL that, “Every new measure of the most democratic and autocratic governments is Communistic in essence,” and the complimentary observation that “Evolution makes its changes by anti-Socialistic ways.” It is a book that helps prove the O.T.O. worthy of the announcement, included for the first time in over 50 years in the Centennial edition of Liber AL: “If you want FREEDOM, you must FIGHT. If you want to FIGHT, you must ORGANIZE. If you want to ORGANIZE, contact Ordo Templi Orientis.” If Mr. Wasserman can help but a few aspirants unto the Law of Thelema awaken to the nature of truth and justice, and take up the sword of liberty in its defense, this book will not have been written in vain. I recommend it to all true soldiers of liberty, all enemies of tyranny and superstition

http://www.lashtal.com/nuke/Reviews-req-showcontent-id-27.phtml

So you can see the "rejects government" criticism is spot on. It is right wing libertarian stuff.

[ZombieHorde]

26. I agree that James Wasserman, the author of that piece, is Libertarian.

I have read a handful of books by Crowley, and none of them ever discussed economics. I believe that James Wasserman is using Crowley to justify his own political agenda.

A very good friend of mine moved to away and became an O.T.O priest (if that is the right term). When I went to visit him, I met a few dozen members of his group. Most of them were liberals and full supporters of public education, the WIC program, taxing corporations, and so on. Some of the people I met were very much Libertarians with typical Libertarian views. Though I have to say that some of those Libertarians had some really good wine, and were quite generous with it.

edit to add: the authors economic desires are irreverent to the paper or document or whatever you wish to call it anyway, which deals strictly with social rights. Socially, Liberals and Libertarians agree on the vast majority of issues.

[muriel_volestrangler]

35. Crowley seems to despise democracy

I find things like this:

This is the central doctrine of Thelema in this matter. What are we to understand by it? That this imbecile and nauseating cult of weakness— democracy some call it—is utterly false and vile.

Let us look into the matter. (First consult AL II, 24, 25, 48, 49, 58, 59. and III, 18, 58, 59. It might be confusing to quote these texts in full; but they throw much further light on the subject.) The word "compassion" is its accepted sense—which is bad etymology—implies that you are a fine fellow, and the other so much dirt; that is, you insult him by pity for his misfortunes. But "Every man and every woman is a star."; so don't you do it! You should treat everybody as a King of the same order as yourself. Of course, nine people out of ten won't stand for it, not for a minute; the mere fact of your treating them decently frightens them; their sense of inferiority is exacerbated and intensified; they insist on grovelling. That places them. They force you to treat them as the mongrel curs they are; and so everybody is happy!

The Book of the Law is at pains to indicate the proper attitude of one "King" to another. When you fight him, "As brothers fight ye!" Here we have the old chivalrous type of warfare, which the introduction of reason into the business has made at the moment impossible. Reason and Emotion; these are the two great enemies of the Ethic of Thelema. They are the traditional obstacles to success in Yoga as well as in Magick.

Now in practice, in everyday life, this unselfishness is always cropping up. Not only do you insult your brother King by your "noble self-sacrifice," but you are almost bound to interfere with his True Will. "Charity" always means that the lofty soul who bestows it is really, deep down, trying to enslave the recipient of his beastly bounty!

http://www.hermetic.com/crowley/mwt/mwt_46.html

Very libertarian - that 'doing good' is interfering with someone else's free will. Crowley would rather have 'brothers fighting' - chivalrous, don't you know.

[ZombieHorde]

36. Context is very important here.

And context is provided; "First consult AL II, 24, 25, 48, 49, 58, 59. and III, 18, 58, 59." This is a book about spiritual progression.

He was playing with words, as usual. Crowley was a huge smart-ass.

Look at his most famous poem:


THE WAY TO SUCCEED-AND THE WAY TO
SUCK EGGS!

This is the Holy Hexagram.
Plunge from the height, O God, and interlock with
Man!
Plunge from the height, O Man, and interlock with
Beast!
The Red Triangle is the descending tongue of grace;
the Blue Triangle is the ascending tongue of
prayer
This Interchange, the Double Gift of Tongues, the
Word of Double Power-ABRAHADABRA!-is
the sign of the GREAT WORK, for the GREAT
WORK is accomplished in Silence. And behold is
not that Word equal to Cheth, that is Cancer.
whose Sigil is {Cancer}?
This Work also eats up itself, accomplishes its own
end, nourishes the worker, leaves no seed, is per-
fect in itself.
Little children, love one another!

It does not get much more smart-ass than that.

'doing good' is interfering with someone else's free will.

This must be looked at in the context spirituality. Saving other peoples souls is not your job.

Crowley seems to despise democracy

His little organization has democratic principals. So if he truly hated it outside of a spiritual context, he would have excluded it.

Crowley was a spiritual fanatic, and I think that his writings should always be taken in that way.

[muriel_volestrangler]

39. OK, we'll take the 'context'

the pseudo-religious mumbo-jumbo he wrote several years earlier, the 'Liber AL':

24. Behold! these be grave mysteries; for there are also of my friends who be hermits. Now think not to find them in the forest or on the mountain; but in beds of purple, caressed by magnificent beasts of women with large limbs, and fire and light in their eyes, and masses of flaming hair about them; there shall ye find them. Ye shall see them at rule, at victorious armies, at all the joy; and there shall be in them a joy a million times greater than this. Beware lest any force another, King against King! Love one another with burning hearts; on the low men trample in the fierce lust of your pride, in the day of your wrath.

25. Ye are against the people, O my chosen!
...
48. Pity not the fallen! I never knew them. I am not for them. I console not: I hate the consoled & the consoler.

49. I am unique & conqueror. I am not of the slaves that perish. Be they damned & dead! Amen. (This is of the 4: there is a fifth who is invisible, & therein am I as a babe in an egg. )
...
58. Yea! deem not of change: ye shall be as ye are, & not other. Therefore the kings of the earth shall be Kings for ever: the slaves shall serve. There is none that shall be cast down or lifted up: all is ever as it was. Yet there are masked ones my servants: it may be that yonder beggar is a King. A King may choose his garment as he will: there is no certain test: but a beggar cannot hide his poverty.

59. Beware therefore! Love all, lest perchance is a King concealed! Say you so? Fool! If he be a King, thou canst not hurt him.
...
18. Mercy let be off; damn them who pity! Kill and torture; spare not; be upon them!
...
58. But the keen and the proud, the royal and the lofty; ye are brothers!

59. As brothers fight ye!

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Liber_AL_vel_Legis

:shrug: Looks like the ravings of a selfish asshole, to me. There's a certain amount of 'chosen race' and 'superman' crap in there.
.
If your opinion of him is that he was playing with words, then disagreeing with him seems the only sensible thing to do. If the context is 'Crowley was a huge smart-ass', or a 'spiritual fanatic', then considering what he said is a waste of everyone's time.

"His little organization has democratic principals."

What, he got himself elected? This is not immediately apparent in anything you've written so far, or what I've come across finding his turds on the internet. He seemed to revel in paying attention to no-one but himself.

[ZombieHorde]

40. pseudo-religious mumbo-jumbo - Is that not all religion, virgin births and reincarnation...

There's a certain amount of 'chosen race' and 'superman' crap in there.

You are taking it out of context. The sole context is spirituality. Liber al (liberal) is about spiritual progression. It has nothing to do with gods or outer space.

If your opinion of him is that he was playing with words, then disagreeing with him seems the only sensible thing to do. If the context is 'Crowley was a huge smart-ass', or a 'spiritual fanatic', then considering what he said is a waste of everyone's time.

I did not claim that he was only playing with words, but he does like to play. Was not Jesus and Buddha spiritual fanatics?

What, he got himself elected?

This I don't know, but I bet he would have won an election if he held one among British occultists in his day.

He seemed to revel in paying attention to no-one but himself.

The books that I have read by him rarely mention him, but I admit, I have not read half of them, and I probably won't. Most of his writings, that I have read, are about comparative mythology and yoga. Though these issues are discussed in a spiritual sense, rather than a tradition based sense.

I do notice that Jesus talks allot about himself in the Bible though.

Besides, whether Crowley was a cool guy or a total schmuck (I lean towards guessing schmuck), does not add or subtract from his writings. If I enjoy a painting, and then find out that the artist is a Republican, I can still enjoy the painting.

[muriel_volestrangler]

41. Replies:

"The sole context is spirituality"

It looks to me that it's about morality. If you say it's only about 'spirituality', then fine, I'm not the least interested - I don't believe in spirits or souls. For something that "has nothing to do with gods or outer space", it mentions them both a remarkable amount - which adds to the air of pseudo-religious mumbo-jumbo. I can't really accept they're there as 'metaphor' - since humans don't have experience of either gods or outer space (well, no-one did when it was written, and the vast majority of us still don't), then it's not a useful form of metaphor. I think Crowley was truly trying to bring gods and space into it when he wrote that (he may have changed his mind later, but in that case it's a bad move to start quoting form your own earlier ramblings as if they hold 'Truth').

"I did not claim that he was only playing with words, but he does like to play. Was not Jesus and Buddha spiritual fanatics?"

Well, just about all of it looks like playing with words, to me. Perhaps those 2 were fanatics; it's not a recommendation, as far as I'm concerned.

"This I don't know, but I bet he would have won an election if he held one among British occultists in his day"

You claimed his organisation had democratic principals (sic). Now you seem to be saying you haven't the faintest idea if it did or not. It's not a question of whether he would have; it's a question of whether he felt that was the way to choose leaders. Evidence, please - I've given plenty of quotes from him saying democracy was for the weak etc.

"If I enjoy a painting, and then find out that the artist is a Republican, I can still enjoy the painting."

But this isn't a painting - it's a statement of libertarian principles. It's Ayn Rand with silly words about gods and kings, but still with the idea that some people are 'superior', and should do what they want, while others serve them.

[ZombieHorde]

42. More replies

If you say it's only about 'spirituality', then fine, I'm not the least interested - I don't believe in spirits or souls.

Nor do I believe in such things.

For something that "has nothing to do with gods or outer space", it mentions them both a remarkable amount - which adds to the air of pseudo-religious mumbo-jumbo.

The mumbo-jumbo is no just for fun, it has its roots in Old Hebrew and Greek gematria.

I can't really accept they're there as 'metaphor' - since humans don't have experience of either gods or outer space (well, no-one did when it was written, and the vast majority of us still don't), then it's not a useful form of metaphor.

God = you, space = mind. (at least I think)

Perhaps those 2 were fanatics; it's not a recommendation, as far as I'm concerned.

Bwhahahaha! I couldn't agree more.

Evidence, please - I've given plenty of quotes from him saying democracy was for the weak etc.

I found this document, by Crowley, on the O.T.O. hierarchy which critiques democracy and discusses its roll in the O.T.O.

http://www.rahoorkhuit.net/library/libers/lib_0194.html

It's Ayn Rand

Not even in the same neighborhood.

but still with the idea that some people are 'superior', and should do what they want, while others serve them.

You are taking this out of the spiritual context. You are the "superior" and you are the "servant". Crowley was obsessed with Taoism and used many Western symbols to demonstrate his own views on that religion.

-----------
This is fun, I am used to being on your side of Crowley debates. Though you are being nicer to me than I was to them.