From: jasonp@cunix4.Prime.COM (Jason R. Pascucci)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: 'Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.'
Date: 15 Aug 92 05:58:20 GMT
Organization: Prime Computer, Inc.

In article <63978@cup.portal.com>, Tagi@cup.portal.com (Tagi Mordred Nagashiva) writes:
> 9208.13 e.v.
> 
> 
> Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
> The word of Sin is Restriction.
> 
> 
> Jason originally writes:
>  
> In fact, the quote has significant capitalization:
>  
> Do what Thou Wilt shall be the Whole of the Law. 
>  
> (the important capital letter for this purpose being the 'W' on Wilt)
>  
>  
> original Tagi response:
> 
> I'd like to know where you got this capitalization scheme.  Thanks.
> 
>  
> 
> Jason:
> 
> I've seen it many times, but in this instance, I was using it to expound
> on a point. (The point being Will is a keyword)
> 
> 
> Response:
> 
> That's very nice.  Now, can you tell me where you got this capitalization
> scheme?  Where HAVE you seen it?  Not in _The Book of the Law_ as far as
> I know.  Please address the question.  If you made it up, that's fine.
> If not, where can I find it?   C'mon, you called it a QUOTE.
> 
> ----------------
> 
> 

For the sake of this conversation, I will say I made it up,
since I have absolutely zero motivation to trudge through
a (potential) miriad of works to support my comment. I will
grant it's not used commonly, but it was used in at least
one fairly important document, such that it was imprinted
in my memory in that manner. However, since you seem to 
have the time to go looking up appropriate quotes,
feel free to peruse all of the works where this could 
possibly have ever been mentioned line by line and 
disprove me. 

Actually, I could say (equally true to anything else I might
have attributed it to) that the quote is from my beloved HGA, that 
she came down to me one night, in a flash of forces beyond 
meager mortal mental comprehension, and permenantly impressioned my 
brain with it as expressed. Now, go away. 

> original Jason:
>  
> While at first glance, this is a very, erm, utopian ideal,
> in fact there is a greater significance. The 'Will', in this case
> the 'True Will', is something to be discovered (through various
> means, from mystical to 'simply' psychological) and then
> complied with. The (simplified) theory is that bad things happen
> to people who go against their 'chosen path'.
>  
> [Black Pullet Society stuff omitted]
>  
>  
> original Tagi response:
>  
> Interesting theory.  Where do you come by it?  My understanding is
> that 'Do what thou wilt...' means PRECISELY what each individual
> thinks it does, especially if that individual has taken some time
> to contemplate it deeply.  I quote:
>  
> "All the meanings are true, if only the interpreter be illuminated;
> but if not, they are all false, even as he is false."
>  
> _The Law if For All_, pg. 98; Ed. Regardie
> _Magical and Phil. Commentaries on [Liber Al]_, pg. 129;
> Eds. Symonds and Grant.
> 
>  
> 
> Jason:
> 
> Which theory? About True Will? It's a fairly standard Crowleyian
> interpretation.... 
> 
> 
> 
> Response:
> 
> A 'Crowleyan' interpretation, hmmmmm?  'Fairly standard'?  Well,
> I asked where you found it printed.  I offered you a direct quote
> which seems to rebuke it rather soundly.  I hope that you can
> present a counter-argument.  Otherwise, why bother posting here?
> 
> ----------------
> 
> 

Try Book 4, section 3,(Magick in Theory and Practice). I
believe it's referenced in the intro. Look, I don't take
this as a philosophy, I took it as it was meant: to
give people who are totally, or fairly ignorant on the subject
a path to fuller enlightenment. If I had said 'All meanings
are true...' your average joe computer geek who doesn't
have a basis for his presumptions might not think about it
enough, and will go with his 'first instinct', and,
most likely, simply ignore it's value. However, to get them thinking
a little more on it, I took the approach of giving them a little
more reasonable, and less philosophic, point of view. 

Regarding the quote itself, I am adequately amused to note that,
from the standpoint I view it from, it is perfectly true,
and perfectly false at the same time. There is no explanation
of this...the understanding is left up to the student. If one
is capable of seeing it, one will. 

I refrain from commenting (Other than to say I refrain from
commening on) on the 'Otherwise, why bother posting here'
remark. 

> Jason:
> 
> Look, you are obviously missing an important fact: The post
> was to alt.sex, as an attempt at clarification, it's a different audience 
> than this group, and I treated it as such. Just as you wouldn't
> take everything that Crowley says in Book 4, or in Magick
> without Tears at face value, because you (may) know better, doesn't
> invalidate it's relative truth. In fact, in one of them,
> he goes off and explains (fairly well) relative truth. I explained 
> a (in my judgement) least false position. The general reader on alt.sex will 
> not spend time contemplating it deeply. I even went to lengths to say 
> that this was VERY simplified.
> 
> 
> Response:
> 
> No, I did not miss that.  What I DID notice was that you felt compelled
> to post that 'simplification' to alt.magick.  You can tell those who
> frequent alt.sex anything you want.  That's great.  Nobody there will
> call you on it.  However, when you post something like that here, you
> can expect to be challenged on it.  If that doesn't sit well with you,
> perhaps you ought ignore this entire thread.  I'm going to challenge
> any blanket statements you make, especially if I think I can offer a
> more clearly reasoned interpretation.  I hope to learn something and
> provide us all some entertainment in the mean time.
> 
> ------------------
> 

I posted it here for what seems to be a pretty obvious reason:
if it did get responses, people would wonder what the hell they
were talking about. It got none, probably because people saw
this nit-picking useless thread, and got discouraged. 

You are right, I didn't expect to be challenged, as I assumed
people would realize that 1) It was posted for
a different audience, 2) that 'challenging' me isn't
going to do a damn bit of good, and if you feel you have
to, and want to 'fix' the situation, go post something
to alt.sex about *YOUR* opinions. 3) I don't expect
to be challenged on something which is so open to 
interpretation that (as you say) all interpretations
are true, because I see the intrinsic futility (I'll
refrain from saying idiocy, oops, damn I said it....) in 
challenging something of that nature. 

> 
> old Tagi, interpreting the quote I gave:
> 
> I'd ask, who shall be the judge regarding illumination?  I say,
> REFRAIN FROM JUDGEMENT and let each decide for themselves what
> the text means.  It is the best interpretation of the sentiment
> that I can muster.  Elsewise, do I not sin?
>  
> 
> Jason:
> 
> Excuse me, but telling me (or anyone) to Refrain from Judgement
> is a 'violation' as it were, of the philosophy you espouse. 
> (I.E. Who are you to tell anyone to refrain from judgement...
> Or even, who are you to judge that I am judging someone? Living
> by the binding concepts of Thelema perhaps isn't as easy as 
> a first hand approximation might lead one to believe.) If nothing
> else, it's hypocritical. Let each decide for themselves to judge
> or not to judge. 
> 
> 
> Response:
> 
> You misunderstand me here.  I did not say that 'Do what thou wilt...'
> is a MORAL IMPERATIVE.  What I want to make clear is that I think
> it is a DESCRIPTION of a natural law: the Law of Thelema, which has
> to do with free will and inalienable rights of every individual to
> live their life as they so choose.  

You are right, I took the capitalization, and the imperative of the
sentense I say, 'You should/shall' REFRAIN FROM JUDGEMENT. 
In light of your statements: Good for you, I'm glad you have come
to such a firm and resolute conclusion. I have no confidence in 
any such concepts, but it's refreshing to see someone
who believes they are as right as you seem to. 

> Too many have taken it upon
> themselves to dilute 'Do what thou wilt...' into some sort of moral
> equation of 'finding the True Will' and then acting on it.  
> 
> While there is some truth to this, anything approximating an 
> evaluation regarding someone ELSE's True will seems repugnant to me
> and flies in the face of an overall evaluation of Crowley.  That is
> why I put 'The word of Sin is Restriction.' after it in my letters
> and documents.  It reminds me that to restrict others is sinful and
> no matter what interpretation for 'Do what thou wilt...' one may
> come up with, to act on it in a way which restricts the rights of another
> is simply ignorant.   Make sure you don't mistake 'ignorant' for 'wrong'.
> 
> ---------------
> 
> 

Too many have taken it upon themselves to aggrandize the simple
moral equasion of 'finding the True Will and acting on it' to 
some sort of universal law. 

I always interpreted 'Word of Sin is Restriction' as very
personal, only relating to restricting yourself. I have no such 
inhibitions against restricting others. Am I ignorant? Quite so. 
However, one might also take into account that one can't 
really restrict another. The 'reasoning', if you can call it that,
is left as an excersize for the student. 

> Jason, regarding his simplistic posting to alt.sex:
> 
> ...I don't want to have to read and respond
> to the stupid flames I would otherwise recieve regarding it. I don't
> really feel as strongly as I came across on the issue, I was doing
> it for the humor value. 
> 
> 
> Response:
> 
> Sounds like you're just playing around generally.  Well, if you're
> gonna get involved with Thelema and Crowley you may wish to anticipate
> flames from all sides.  There is a reason that Ra-Hoor-Khuit is the
> the spokesperson for the New Aeon.  Get ready for battle.
> 
> 
> ----------------
> 

*chuckle*

First, I am playing around in everything I do and say. Even this. Cope. 

Second, I don't battle. The battles of this aeon were and are the battles
of children. One battle others, only to find oneself defeated. 
This too leads to enlighenment. 

> 
> original Tagi, regarding stealing of redes between witches and masons:
> 
> Personally I don't care 'who stole it from whom'.  Such speculation is
> both divisive and immature.
> 
> 
> Jason:
> 
> Three things:
> 1) Go read your own advice about judging. Consider taking it generally
> 
> 
> Response:
> 
> I have just reread my words for the 4th time.  It was not ADVICE, it was
> the best interpretation (for myself) that I could muster, for the
> text which I quoted. ("Any meaning....").  It was not directing toward you,
> though you seem to have interpreted that I was doing this and are now
> redirecting it back to me.  That's very nice.  All I suggest is that
> characterizations about 'who stole what from whom', especially when
> those things which you are describing are valued by the groups in question,
> will only result in idiotic in-fighting.
> 
> 

As I said above, I took the phrase as an imperative. Though, the
comment still stands. Again, to paraphrase you (from
a previous post), what's wrong with idiotic in-fighting?

> Jason:
> 
> 2) Weren't you the one who claimed that the (in my opinion) immature
>    and stupid in-fighting of the GD (or the OTO's scandel with Mota)
>    were people sticking up for their rights/Tradition? Is this 
>   significantly different?
> 
> 
> Response:
> 
> There is a difference between a group fighting to maintain its identity
> and an accusation that one group 'stole' something from another.  If you
> feel that strongly about it (and apparently you don't), then you can
> take steps to make sure that the 'Wiccans' don't 'steal' anything else
> from you.  Else your words are merely rumors and name-calling.  In my
> mind it is significantly different, yes.
> 
> 

The accusation is that one group's tradition's claims is 'old',
verses another group's tradition's claims is 'old', and they
claim different sources. And, yes, they were merely rumors and
name-calling. But, like everything, at the time, it served my purpose. 
Cope. 

> 
> Jason:
> 
> 3) I have, in fact, had a few pieces of mail regarding this issue,
>    at which I have been laughing up my sleeve, since they all
>    propound the different viewpoints. 
> 
> 
> Response:
> 
> Interesting you should take this attitude, though I can't say I'm
> surprised.  Have you considered that most people don't understand
> that there is more than one way to view the world and that many of
> them are accurate, even though they differ from one another?
>  
> 

Don't be insolent*, I know it all too well. You know what
seems to be a problem in our communication? It seems you
take an perfectly acceptable attitude from perspective of the 
three crowing sephera, and attempt to bring it down
into, and below daath. (Paraphrased, KOP) All things being equal, 
why not part your hair with a pitchfork? 

*I use this particular word, gentle readers, to address some
issues Tagi called me on at one point, i.e. a percieved lack
of respect. I (well, part of me) ground my teeth throughout
this whole letter because of the perceived (and perhaps
intentional) lack of respect for my position. Perhaps I 
give Tagi too much credit to be able to work through my thought
process, and overlook uninteresting points of contention. 

> Invoke me under my stars.   Love is the law, love under will.
>  
>  
> I am I!
> 
> [Jason: Well, that's good to know. Couldn't have you going around being me,
> my mother might get confused.
> 
> 
> Response:
> 
> Our Mother is ALWAYS con fused.  Tens of taosands of things 
> confuse Her.]
>  
> 

Yes. Like that blemish on her cheek....right....there......

>  
> Frater I Nigris (666)
> 
> [Jason: 
> 
> The Beast Incarnate!
> 
> 
> Response:
> 
> Aren't we all??]

I would hope not. I had a friend, a very sweet young woman,
who was of the belief, and I cannot disprove her, that
the (interesting) incarnation of 666 (EA Crowley, just
to clarify) was going to spend a significant portion of
the rest of eternity as some large number of insects,
in order to pay off all the bad karma he generated.
(Yes, I know I'm playing monkeys-on-sticks here. For amusement
value. Cope. )

-- 
Jason R. Pascucci
jasonp@primerd.prime.com


I hope this thread doesn't go on much longer....XRN is
taking up all the paging space on my computer from keeping
this post in memory. :)