From: Thyagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Crowley and the Morality of Magick
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 22:45:25 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: world
  <72855@cup.portal.com> <C0pIEn.5yp@acsu.buffalo.edu>

93!01.11 e.v.


Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
The word of Sin is Restriction.


OisPeggy (Brown) writes:

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.


Response:

Yes, too complicated.  It would probably fly if we had a number
of OTO people around who thought they knew something (foolishly?). :>

As it is, 4 is enough for me.  I know Josh and a few others can
understand it also, though the length of posts may get the better
of them.

Here, as Peggy quotes it, is the text in question:

>    "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

Peggy's original question and her quotes of my text:

>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?

[Lots of stuff deleted by me. - Thyagi]

>Tagi:

>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.


Response:

I'll post it here and people can begin to bail as the volume increases. :D

888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888

PAUL LORD


There are similar sounding quotes in _Magick Without Tears_ as well; I'll
see if I can hunt them down.


Response:

I'd like to hear these so we can debate them.  A thread a while back
came out of MWT in which there was simple misunderstanding regarding
Crowley's absoluteness in his comments.  We were both arguing the same
thing in different ways.  Crowley is DAMN hard to pin down on anything,
largely because he is ambiguous (as most good mystical writers are)
and expresses himself in contradictory ways through the entirety
of his works.  

The reason for this is that lingual expression is limited and the
Masters usually use it to POINT TOWARD concepts without intending that
their words be taken as absolute truth outside the context of the 
rest of their works.  Crowley was one of the most frequent employers
of this technique.  Along with Sufis and Buddhists, Crowley darts
from place to place pointing toward that metaphysical truth which can't
be found within gutteral, dualistic expression.


Paul quotes Peggy and responds:

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

I don't think so.


Response:

Preposterous!  :>   I think that there is ALWAYS an alternative
interpretation of mystical texts and Crowley is often both literal
and metaphorically coherent due to his ambiguity.


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

(disclaimer: I speak as a fan, but no expert, and I'm most probably wrong)
[disclaimer noted]

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".  


Response:

Mark makes my point very well regarding how Crowley presents himself.
I think that your point about paradox is perceptive but not complete.


Paul:

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."

[I note that Crowley claims not to have originated Liber Al. - Thyagi]


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.


Response:

As I tried to make very clear in my initial post, I think that Crowley is
untouchable, morally, because he takes the stance of many Buddhist
philosophers and attempts to simply DESCRIBE what he sees, rather than
evaluate it.  Sometimes his bias comes in, but largely he can be
interpreted as amoral, as I argue with Mark below.


Paul:

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.


Response:

I think that this is overly moralistic and doesn't reflect Crowley's
amorality.  It isn't so much that the Law of Liberty 'applies' as much
as it 'functions'.  Crowley is describing a phenomenon of nature, not
prescribing correct behaviors.  This is why he sometimes expresses
skepticism regarding certain forms of conduct.  His experience of human
nature is that the general human would not find such forms to be actions
taken in accordance with their 'true will' (however you'd like to
define this phrase).


Paul:

:>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.


Response:

It sounds as if there is general agreement here.  I may have to switch
sides and argue in favor of Peggy's assertion. ;>  I agree that the Law
of Thelema includes ethics (relative ones) and that it is absolutely
without morality (in the senses I've defined previously).  This may be
stronger than Mark's assertions, but I'll let him rake me over the coals
if he sees fit. ;>

*************************************************************************

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.


Response:

I really liked this.  That you clarify what you mean here by 'wrong'
makes it completely palatable to my sensitive tastes.


Mark:

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.   


Response:

Agreed.  'Ethics' constitute one's personal reaction to the contemplation
of an action (by oneself or others).


Mark:

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.


Response:

Here is where we disagree, if at all.  Since when do ethical judgements
NECESSARILY depend upon reason for justification??  I think that this
is fallacious.  Theologians for centuries have foregone reason in
favor of conformism and morality.  They are no more required by reason
to abandon their reliance upon their 'God' (in many cases the authorities
of the Church) than the modern Thelemite's, Ethical Relativist's, or
perhaps Taoist's reliance upon their inner authority ('true will',
subjective reaction, or intuition).


We agree that reason is ultimately an inferior tool to assess these
things, but who says that this is all we have to work with?  I see
many possibilities (spanning from absolute doctrinalism to radical
ethical relativism).


Mark:

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


Response:

No, reason doesn't hate.  It is a tool which fails.  It is quite
simply the ego of the failed 'scientist' or 'rationalist' that hates
being daunted by reason's own limitations.  She therefore reaches
to the extent of the limited reality-set she calls 'sensible'
(i.e. relatable to hir limited experiences) and calls it 'nonsense',
literally not comparable with former sensations which are considered
acceptable in creating knowledge.


Mark:

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.


Response:

I think that this is convoluted.  You've not shown how DWTW is moral
(or 'not amoral' if you prefer).  If I've missed it I'd like it pointed
out so I can consider it carefully.

I agree that this becomes paradoxical, but I think it has to do with
the comparision between subjective and objective views (both incomplete
and ultimately false) rather than because of any substantial paradox
inherent to DWTW itself.  

To put it another way (and I'm typing all this very quickly) it is
not that the value judgements can be exported but the assertion is
made that somehow an evaluation can be put forward regarding whether or not
someone IS performing their 'true will'.  A fundamental dualism is
posited by those who wish to impose morality as a consequence of
their a priori superiority.

DWTW is just what it is.  When seen for oneself people often take it
differently than when applied to others.  We can be sure of our own
harmless nature (so we perhaps naively presume) but how can we
trust our neighbor in such a world of sick-os?

DWTW is amoral.  It doesn't proscribe or presecribe, it describes.
Quite simply, we are the ultimate source of our action.  To the extent
that free will is real (about as real as the self, cf. Buddhism), then
there is NO absolute with which we must compare our actions.  This is
difficult for some to accept and leads to the screams regarding 'anarchy'
and 'chaotic social destruction'.  

To the extent that the world is deterministic there is no 'true will'
to find, since we are always in synch, we just THINK we're off-kilter
(hmmmmmmm, the point can be made that thinking is the problem, but then
who is doing the thinking?  Rene!!!!!!!!).



Mark:

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.


Response:

Here you go too far.  You posit that 'child abuse is wrong and violates
liberty, obviously (!)'.  This is a REASONABLE assertion, else it is
unfounded, unjustified, even by your standards.  I hope I simply misunder-
stand you here.

On the other hand, it does seem that AC has preconceptions or biases
regarding what he concludes is possible regarding human nature with
respect to this (fictional?) 'true will'.  I think he consistently
maintains an ambiguity which allows him an out, however, and I've
seen few cases where he is not so careful.

 

Mark:

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.  ;-)


Response:

This is possible, but I hope it isn't true.  I don't think he would
have entertained such motivations for the sake of preserving social
harmony.  Else why make such comments in _Book Four_ about 'child
sacrifice'?  No, he was just careful and crafty.  And I would REALLY
love to debate his assertions regarding differentiating 'do what thou
wilt' from 'do what you please'.  I have a few things about this I'm
prepared to quote (not always supporting the position I'm taking here.
I'll do that later this week.


Mark:

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.  


Response:

I agree with you.  That is why I think Crowley and many other mystics
are unapproachable and therefore 'correct' about their expressions.
They posit X and then go on to counter it with -X.  They lead us on
a rollercoaster of reasonable assertions that contradict one another
overtly, but, when taken as a whole, point toward a greater truth
than can be expressed except through direct experience.


Mark:

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.



Response:

Here is the REAL danger of 'Thelema'  -  that it will become a MEANS
to determine what ANOTHER's 'true will' is.  Imagine a group which
uses these (socially defined) means to judge one another.  Within a society,
protecting societal interests, this is rational, but give this kind
of power to anybody and it will blossom into the Inquisition, the
Nazi Holocaust all over again.  Yah yah, I'm exaggerating, but I'm
doing so to make a point...

Who will say what another's 'true will' is and when they are acting
according to it?  


Doesn't this question warrant that ALL people ought be presumed to
be acting in accordance with their true will IF THEY THINK THEY ARE?

I do.  That is how I can use the phrase in my letters. ;>


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


I am I!


Frater (I) Nigris (666)