THE ARCANE ARCHIVE
	a cache of usenet and other text files pertaining to occult, mystical, and spiritual subjects.

To: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.thelema,alt.magick.order,alt.magick,alt.pagan.magick,talk.religion.misc
From: 333 
Subject: True Will Ideologies (was Armchair Magicians)
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 21:09:19 GMT

50020312 VI

"Richard Ballard" : 
>>>> I am sorry to disagree.  A Magickian who has realized his
>>>> true will requires no further introspection or change.

fascinating.

"Tom" :
>>> This is a prescription for delusion.

precisely.

"Richard Ballard" :
>> I believe that you have not yet realized your true will.

no surprise there.

"Tom" :
> Of course you do.
> The key is whether you can trust your "realization" to be completely
> accurate in all respects.  You might do so on faith, but we know the
> problem there.

agreed. here's something related that I recently sent through T93-L:

Orig-To: thelema93-l@yahoogroups.com

50020311 VI

> Thelema has been referred to by various sources as the Law of 
> the New Aeon, a liberating philosophy....

mostly by Crowleyites.

> has been cited as a way to justify being a bully.  

a commonplace facet of liberation-based cosmologies. compassionless,
they wallow in their own putrid egotism.

> If one looks closely at both the Law of Thelema 

let's hope you do that below.

> and what a bully is, it becomes obvious that the two are only 
> temporarily compatable and in the long run must go their 
> separate ways.

good to hear. I'd hate to think that the Thelemic community might
be made up of irrascible bull-headed ego-boys, itching to test
their new horns out on other testosterone-driven poseurs.

> A bully, according to the Oxford dictionary is "A person (or 
> animal) who makes himself or herself a terror to the weak or 
> defenceless."....

very nice.

> ...according to Thelema, one's Will will 
> never be in conflict with another.  

here's murky territory. "according to Thelema" is vague, though
I suppose you mean "according to my favourite (or some presumed)
authorities on Thelema" and must mean by this people like Crowley 
and his followers. if true, then I'm not sure there is consistency 
on this point about no conflict amongst True Wills (i.e. some of
those who favour 'True Will is what wins out' will like it -- but
the 'winner-is-the-True-Willer' theories don't always get support;
have a gander at Crowley's support of Napoleon as a candidate for
someone 'exercising his True Will' in a bullying take-over, then
try to find support for the virtue of 'agape' in this cosmology).
 
> Quite the opposite, it is stated in several writings by the OTO...

which one? which member? vague authorities. why should any OTO be
considered an authority on Thelema? because they claim it so? bah.

> that to interfere with another's True Will is black magick.  

what? this is ridiculous. please indeed do provide the links you
mentioned of places at OTO websites that make this claim. I'd be
quite amused to see them. usually the OTO member will parrot the
Beast in linking black magic (there being no such animal as black
magicK) with that magical act not geared toward effecting the
Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel or its
subsequent projects.

> ...what if someone's Will involves stealing/maiming/hurting or, 
> for this essay bullying?

that is always the problem when someone brings up Napoleon from
Crowley's "Book Four" where he is discussing wills and truism.

> ...an integral idea of Thelema is that True Wills 
> do not conflict....

this is probably popular amongst the religiopoligical mages who
have an interest in manipulating the activities of those who come
to them for instruction and power. after all, as long as one can
mouth the dogma that 'True Wills don't conflict', then any time
you do something I don't like and oppose either you are doing
your True Will and we are conflicting or you are out of line and
my True Will (for some reason, perhaps because I have a greater
connection with religious authorities) trumps yours and you should
really know better and desist.

> This is emphasised by the idea mentioned above that any 
> attempt to block another's True Will is "black magick".  If these 
> things are true, then it would follow that bullying, by it's nature, 
> would in many cases be black magick because it is blocking the True 
> Will of another being.  

oh the matter is even more confused than this! there is little or
no expression by these same sources which indicate the be(a!)st
method to determine with any certainty when one's interest is in
fact one's "will" or one's "whim" (which are often discerned by
the interested 'Thelemite' into 'better' and 'worse' categories,
quite often without anything more than their say-so to go on!).

> ...A bully can be defined as one who imposes his Will over the Will 
> of another.  

correct, but then the issue is when the imposition takes place or
whether the displacement of one's desires are, in fact, some kind
of contravening "will of the cosmos" that disconnects the bully's
acts from hir responsibility. that is, one might easily justify
all manner of violation just by saying 'it is my true will to do
this' (and many of those who call themselves 'Thelemites' do exactly
this, not surprisingly).

> According to Thelema as a concept, Wills do not block or interfere 
> with one another.  

that's one idea. another is that wills do, but TRUE wills don't. 
the wills at conflict cannot both be true, the idea goes. therefore 
struggle, especially that pre-ordained as 'honourable' or 'Brotherly',
may be contained within the cosmology of true wills. in fact, according
to this more rational notion, the only way to tell if a will is true
is to TEST IT OUT AND SEE IF IT PERSERVERES. just having someone tell
you that their will is true isn't enough. it ought to be tested on the
field of battle, to use a chivalrous metaphor.

> QED A bully can profess to be a Thelemite, but cannot truly follow 
> the Law of Thelema.

if such a Law may even be veered from! 
 
> So, I know that I'm kinda setting myself up for a fall here, 

no, you've done very well in pointing out the silliness within the
'Thelemic' community surrounding 'true wills' and conflict. you might
also go on to analyze Crowley's ideas surrounding utopian community
and how you suppose he would like to solve conflicts of interest
*other* than by domination by a religious oligarchy (cf. Plato, etc.).

> but as a solitary who is still questioning membership in the OTO, 

there's a statement that explains much.

> I have to have discussions among my peers somehow.   

this be the place. your criticisms are well-placed and, I suggest,
could be broadened into an entire thesis on how specialized
authority can be abused by those who manipulate the cosmological
presuppositions and misrepresent those whose ideas on the matter
are ambiguous, half-formed, and ultimately self-contradictory.
 
> Comments, anyone?
 
True Will cosmology is more often used for the purpose of persuasion
and dismissal of one's competitors than it ever is for edification
of those who witness its promulgation. that is, the ideology itself
is used to confuse and stifle opposition. the blustery and loud-mouth
'Thelemite' equipped to put forward this nonsense about some kind of
cohesive and plain cosmic Volition will no doubt make of their religion
just one more futile and flimsy Herd-prod with which they can steer
the truly inept. do the inept deserve this? perhaps. 

the Law of Thelema is a principle of cosmic flux, and, as such, bears
little relation to predestination ideas like 'true will', though these
kinds of fantasies can afford the delusional and especially chosen the
wherewithall to consider their projects to be somehow Super Special,
and argue their detractors into silence with such exhortations as
'Ok, if it isn't my True Will, then ...how come you can't stop me?!'

333

EOF