From: oispeggy@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Peggy Brown)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Crowley and the Morality of Magick
Date: 11 Jan 93 20:34:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <72855@cup.portal.com>, Tagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva) writes...
>93!01.04 e.v.
> 

As Tagi mentions, this discussion is complicated.  I 
received some very interesting email on this topic from 
Paul Lord and Mark Peterson.  They said it better than I 
could, so with their permission this email is included
in my post (is my post).

I noticed this discussion died on the net.  Probably too 
complicated.

>    "As ye will." It should be abundantly clear from the
>     foregoing remarks that each individual has an absolute
>     and indefeasible right to use his sexual vehicle in
>     accordance with its own proper character, and that he
>     is responsible only to himself. But he should not
>     injure himself and his right aforesaid; acts invasive
>     of another individual's equal rights are implicitly
>     self-aggressions. A thief can hardly complain on theor-
>     etical grounds if he is himself robbed. Such acts as
>     rape, and the assault or seduction of infants, may
>     therefore be justly regarded as offenses against the
>     law of liberty, and repressed in the interests of that
>     law.
>          Aleister Crowley The Law Is For All pg 110

>Old Peggy:

>The Crowley quote I referred to gives me the impression he 
>thought it was (simply) WRONG to commit rape, molestation, and 
>other acts of aggression.  

>2.) Is there another way to interpret this, aside from the way I 
>    interpreted it?

>Tagi Response:

>Indeed there is.  I would suggest that the question about whether
>Crowley thought such actions are 'simply wrong' is a very complex one 
>and would take many quotes to establish.  My own opinion on this is
>that Crowley does not condemn anything as 'wrong' in so many
>words.  In the quote above (taken out of context from the rest
>of his writings, by the way), he simply states that such actions
>are 'offences against the Law of Liberty' and may be 'justly
>repressed in the interests of that Law'.  I suggest that this is
>much different than categorical pronouncement of such actions 
>as 'wrong'.
[stuff deleted...] 
>I've written a small piece entitled 'The Sin of Practice' which
>ventures into this area.  If there is sufficient interest I'll post
>it in alt.magick, as it has already appeared in an OTO periodical.

I'm interested.

>Invoke me under my stars.  Love is the law, love under will.

>I am I!
>Frater (I) Nigris (666)
************************************************************************
EMAIL FROM PAUL LORD

In article <C0ByrA.EGC@acsu.buffalo.edu> you write:
[_The Law is for All_ quote and comment deleted]

:>Questions:
:>1.) Is this quote accurate (did Crowley really say it)?

Yes, it is in _The Law is For All_ right where the poster said it was. 
There are similar sounding quotes in _Magick Without Tears_ as well; I'll
see if I can hunt them down.

:>2.) Is there another way to interpret this, aside from the way I 
:>    interpreted it?

I don't think so.

:>3.) What is the "law of liberty"?

(disclaimer: I speak as a fan, but no expert, and I'm most probably wrong)
In the Crowley I have read, the "total relativism" of thelema has to
co-exist with the freedom of each individual to pursue hir own will
unimpeded.  This frequently puts AC in a paradoxical bind, one which he
never really resolves.  You can't be both *completely* free to do your will
no matter what it is, and still be bound to respect the rights of others to
do their will without interference.  In more than one instance (for example
the quote you listed above and the several from MWT that I'll find and send
to you), I see Crowley admitting that certain actions "ought not be".  This
isn't too far off from the comment at the front of Liber Al where Crowley
says

"...each of us stars is to move on our true orbit, as marked out by the
nature of our position, the law of our growth, the impulse of our past
experiences. All events are equally lawful - and every one necessary, in the
long run - for all of us, in theory; but in practise, only one act is lawful
for each one of us at any given moment. Therefore Duty consists in
determining to experience the right event from one moment of consciousness
to another."

Crowley *seems* to posit the relativism and immediately temper it with the
assertion that it is illusory; there is only one right action at every given
moment.  This "right action" rarely involves the oppression of another. 
Ummm, ok, I can't prove that Crowley actually meant what the last sentence
says, I don't think, so call it my opinion based on my impressions after
reading six or seven books by AC.  I'm still probably wrong.

Anyway, the "Law of Liberty" is the idea that the freedom to pursue your
will is equally as valid and important as the machinations of the will
itself, and this Law applies to everyone.  In each persons case, the actions
of the will are different, but the ability to investigate these actions
*should* be equally available to all.

:>4.) How does this relate to Crowley's concept of Thelema (which
:>    now seems to me less amoral than before)?

I guess I've been reading thelema in the manner outlined above the whole
time, because I never thought it particularly amoral.  Well...I take that
back.  I'll draw an arbitrary distinction here, and say that thelema is
amoral, yes, but it is NOT "unethical".  Make any sense?  Also, I think the
correspondence between thelema and the law of liberty is stated pretty well
in the paragraph I quoted above from the introductory comments to Liber Al.

I'd be curious as to your response.
Paul
--
Paul Lord / Pope Festering Meme 	
In girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
*************************************************************************

EMAIL #1 FROM MARK PETERSON

The short answer is: the quote from AC does suggest that *in practice*
those things would be wrong... but wrong here means he can't imagine
that they'd ever be commensurate with anyone's True Will.  And he's
probably right.  On the other hand the test is whether an action is in
accord with that Will.  This is what makes it both absolute and
relative.

hiho

-- 
mark ce peterson   | uw-washington county  | hiho@csd4.csd.uwm.edu 
dept of philosophy | west bend, wi.  53095 | (414) 335-5200        

     The shorter the tether, the sooner the goat starves.
*********************************************************************

EMAIL #2 FROM MARK PETERSON

Okay, the original question was something like this: If the ethical
dimension of magick is both relative and absolute isn't this the same
as saying that magick is amoral?

Well, you've actually put your finger on it.  It's a paradox.  That's
exactly right.  Exactly the point.  We cannot forego ethical questions
so long as we're talking about the practice of life/magick/whateever.
Any time we act in the world, deal with other people, deliberate over
our actions, those actions are, by definition, ethical.  That's all
'ethical' means.   Right... however....

Ethical judgments depend on reason for their justification.  And
here's the rub.  Reason is limited in its ability to understand its
own processes.  This is a bit complex unless you've read Kant or
Goedel or those boys, but the gist of it is this.  Reason works by
assuming all sorts of things as absolute truths: among them things
like the laws of identity and excluded middle.  What happens as a
result is that when reason starts to reason about itself, it generates
all sorts of contradictions and paradoxes.

Which it hates....  and calls nonsense.  ;-)

Well, fine.  So here's how thelema fits in.  Do what thou wilt is not
amoral, but both absolute and relative at the same time.  Since it is
your true will to do something, there is no arguing about whether or
not it is right.  It is... so long as it is, in fact, commensurate
with your true will.  No matter how awful your everyday/waking
consciousness finds it to be.  You can complain, or attempt to violate
it, but this -- once you've made the connection -- has the same effect
as fighting gravity.  So in this sense, dwtw is absolute.  On the
other hand, everybody's orbit is diffferent from everyone else's and
so you can't export the value judgments you've made that are
appropriate to your true will to others.  And in this sense, dwtw is
completely relative.

But it is not one or the other, but both -- and at the same time.
This is a paradox simply because reason is incapable of grasping it.
(this is, incidentally, exactly the reason why all magickal exercises
tend to produce the condition of meditating on various paradoxes.  It
loosens the hold Reason has on our consciousness.)

So, when AC says, on the one hand that you must always execute your
will no matter what, and on the other that child abuse is wrong and
violates liberty (which it does, obviously) what he's really saying is
simply that he can't imagine anyone's True Will subjecting other Stars
to these kinds of degradations... or that these kinds of actions could
be commensurate with anybody's True Will.  It obviously might be the
case that, for some few, such actions are in accord with their true
will -- and if so, such actions are acceptable -- but in practice this
is pretty unlikely.  I personally can't imagine it.

The best explanation is probably that he was trying to cut off any of
those loonies -- and you know how many get attracted to this stuff --
who interpret do what thou wilt as 'do what I feel like.'  Very easy
to make that slip for people not in touch with their true wills, and
at the risk of saying too much, it can happen even when you have a toe
hold on it.  ;-)

hiho
-- 
mark ce peterson   | uw-washington county  | hiho@csd4.csd.uwm.edu 
dept of philosophy | west bend, wi.  53095 | (414) 335-5200        

     The shorter the tether, the sooner the goat starves.
*******************************************************************

EMAIL #3 FROM MARK PETERSON

> Thoroughly liked your explanation of dwtw.  The interpretation I 
> thought you (and Tagi) originally were using did not acknowledge 
> the paradox.  I thought this was a bit simplistic and and overly 
> protective of AC.  A few loose ends never hurt.  I'm more 
> suspicious of neat little theories.  (Of course, I'm still not 
> 100% sure where Tagi is coming from.)

> I see no problem with having a paradox involved.  In fact, with 
> something this complicated, paradox seems most likely.  Though 
> the human tendency is to wrap up an loose ends into a nice neat 
> little package.  People are uncomfortable with contradictions.

Yup.  I have a lecture on this somewhere.  Paradox paradox.  I think
paradox is actually one of the symptoms that you're on the right
track... this is something reason feels really uncomfortable about and
tries to turn them into contradictions.  

> I think most discussions of dwtw do not adequately address
> the "law of liberty" part, which could give unstable persons 
> justification for doing whatever they damn well please.

I think you're right... and the problem with unstable persons is that
they don't know what their true will is. ... are...  There are a lot
of loonies out there.

hiho

-- 
mark ce peterson   | uw-washington county  | hiho@csd4.csd.uwm.edu 
dept of philosophy | west bend, wi.  53095 | (414) 335-5200        

     The shorter the tether, the sooner the goat starves.