From: Tagi@cup.portal.com (Tagi Mordred Nagashiva)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: 'Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.'
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 12:31:29 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1992Aug11.175208@tiger1.prime.com>

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.

----------------


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?

----------------


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.

------------------


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.  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'.

---------------


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.


----------------


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.


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.



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?
 

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.]
 

 
Frater I Nigris (666)

[Jason: 

The Beast Incarnate!


Response:

Aren't we all??]
Newsgroups: alt.magick