OK I know theres mason peoples but what else?

Originally posted by The Axeman



Perhaps it is worded this way so that the man who would judge words at face value will automatically condemn them, while the seeker will search for a deeper meaning than what is on the surface.

Just my opinion, and as I said I could be wrong.

Yeah I've heard that before, some of Crowleys writings have a deeper meaning than meets the eye and sort of have to be deciphered. Why does life have to be so difficult? Nice new avatar man I bet there are 56 degree masons who don't have one that nice.

Crowley's message isn't all that hard to decipher.

Once you get down to it, he basically encourages ALL experience, saying nothing is good or evil, then he tries to sell you on gay Sex Magick, but only because it makes you uncomfortable.

Imagine yourself as the receptive Goddess Alys... Oh God, he's in my head!

Just like Satanism is only called that to get a rise out of people, huh.

Originally posted by akilles
Crowley's message isn't all that hard to decipher.

Once you get down to it, he basically encourages ALL experience, saying nothing is good or evil, then he tries to sell you on gay Sex Magick, but only because it makes you uncomfortable.

Imagine yourself as the receptive Goddess Alys... Oh God, he's in my head!

Just like Satanism is only called that to get a rise out of people, huh.

Originally posted by TgSoe
Nice new avatar man I bet there are 56 degree masons who don't have one that nice.

Hey thanks man...

[edit on 2/28/05 by The Axeman]

Originally posted by TgSoe

Originally posted by Cug

Now it's my turn... What privileges do you think they offer? And why are they hard to believe?

This is a quote from Liber OZ

< < Snip Liber Oz > >




It all sounds good man but I have difficulty believing one can live like that and get away with it. If I tried to live by those rules I would be in jail before sundown, respectfully.

The "privileges" in Liber Oz are not just for members of the O.T.O. they are for ALL.

Notice that Liber Oz does not say you may break the law as you will.

It also does not state that you have the right not to expect repercussions for your actions. For example you may speak as you will but you might be treated as a crack pot, you may eat what you will but your gona get fat if you only eat Ho-ho's, you can has sex as you will but if your not careful your going to get AIDs.

Originally posted by MysticOfRadiance
satanism i see

Nope not even close. Modern satanism Used some ideas from Thelema but they used far more from people like Ragnar Redbeard and Ayn Rand.

Originally posted by The Axeman
Perhaps it is worded this way so that the man who would judge words at face value will automatically condemn them, while the seeker will search for a deeper meaning than what is on the surface.

If you compare Liber Oz with some of Crowley's work you will notice something diffrent about it. Crowley understood while he thought his writings were accessable to the common man, this was far from reality. So in writing Liber Oz he purposely wrote it using words of one syllable to insure that it could be understood by everyone. As it turns out he was disappointed how even Liber Oz was missunderstood.

Originally posted by TgSoe
Yeah I've heard that before, some of Crowleys writings have a deeper meaning than meets the eye and sort of have to be deciphered. Why does life have to be so difficult?

Several reasons for this. One of the more common examples have to do with references to sex. At that time writing about sex was a huge taboo, you had problems getting you writing published or even face obscenity charges. As a side... at that time the most popular porn were "medical/scientific" (to get around obscenity laws) books describing every known sexual perversions in lurid detail.



[edit on 28-2-2005 by Cug]

I think when he said Satanism he meant 'The Ancient Religion', or 'The Old Ways' if you will.

So because Crowley wasn't well-liked by the masses, he thought his work was mis-interpreted? Or is that what his intention was, to claim to be mis-interpreted NO MATTER WHAT?

Please, any one interested in Crowley, PLEASE tell me what you think of his 11 th degree OTO sex magick practice?

Originally posted by MysticOfRadiance
satanism i see.

Interesting that you would call a universal manifesto on absolute freedom "satanism". That is, after all, what Liber Oz is all about: the complete autonomy and freedom of the individual. It is certainly not surprising that those with what Nietzsche called the "herd mentality" would be extremely offended at such a battle cry for individuality, but I didn't expect it to be criticized on a website whose motto is "Deny Ignorance."

Originally posted by Cug

Originally posted by TgSoe
Yeah I've heard that before, some of Crowleys writings have a deeper meaning than meets the eye and sort of have to be deciphered. Why does life have to be so difficult?

Several reasons for this. One of the more common examples have to do with references to sex. At that time writing about sex was a huge taboo, you had problems getting you writing published or even face obscenity charges. As a side... at that time the most popular porn were "medical/scientific" (to get around obscenity laws) books describing every known sexual perversions in lurid detail.

Looks like I forgot to finish my thought.

Crowley was a poet, a second tier poet maybe, but a poet none the less. He used magical correspondences like other poets might use a Thesaurus to find a more colorful word that might represent a larger concept. He just assumed that others could follow him.

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Interesting that you would call a universal manifesto on absolute freedom "satanism". That is, after all, what Liber Oz is all about: the complete autonomy and freedom of the individual.

Well Oz is not quite absolute freedom.

Liber Oz

5. Man has the right to kill those who would thwart these rights

Or in other (less violent) words, You have NO right to infringe on the rights of others. Unfortunately in the present time that is one right many seem to think they have.

The thinking goes: "Give orders. Those who do not listen will continue to do what they are meant to do."
"Those who do not know what they are meant to do will listen to your orders."

Slaves shall serve. The mentality derived that to 'serve the Right Master' gives you the right to give out orders has long been at the root of the 'divine Right of Kings'.

So those on the level will still do what they wilt.

Originally posted by akilles
So because Crowley wasn't well-liked by the masses, he thought his work was mis-interpreted? Or is that what his intention was, to claim to be mis-interpreted NO MATTER WHAT?

Crowley really didn't care what the masses thought of him.

Please, any one interested in Crowley, PLEASE tell me what you think of his 11 th degree OTO sex magick practice?

err.. it's sex, but I guess anal sex scares you and gives you icky feelings. But in the present day the point is moot as there is no 11° so feel free to join the O.T.O. akilles you butt is safe.

The thinking goes: "Give orders. Those who do not listen will continue to do what they are meant to do."
"Those who do not know what they are meant to do will listen to your orders."

That sure seems to be your thinking

Slaves shall serve. The mentality derived that to 'serve the Right Master' gives you the right to give out orders has long been at the root of the 'divine Right of Kings'.

The only master is yourself

akilles,

Do not send me u2u's, if you wish to make a comment on something I said in a public forum say it in public.

Originally posted by akilles
I think when he said Satanism he meant 'The Ancient Religion', or 'The Old Ways' if you will.

What "ancient religion"? Hinduism? Judaism? Zoroastrianism? Totemism? What the hell are you talking about?

What "old ways"? Building huts? Painiting hieroglyphs in caves? What the hell are you talking about? Do you even know?

So because Crowley wasn't well-liked by the masses, he thought his work was mis-interpreted?

Crowley didn't care whether his work was misinterpreted by the masses. He did not write for the masses: writing for the masses is for the vulgar who wish to pander to them in order to make a profit.

Or is that what his intention was, to claim to be mis-interpreted NO MATTER WHAT?

Crowley is not misinterpreted by the audience that he wrote for.

Please, any one interested in Crowley, PLEASE tell me what you think of his 11 th degree OTO sex magick practice?

From your multiple posts on Crowley, you appear obsessed with his sexuality. Crowley's bisexuality was certainly scandalous to the puritan hypocrites of a century ago, but it's hardly anything for us to get upset about today. Personally, I couldn't care less about Crowley's bisexuality, or his homosexual tantric techniques. The only thing I care about concerning Crowley are his writings on the Qabalah and Rosicrucianism, which are both scholarly and entertaining. It is not expected, or even desirable, that you would agree with me on this, so your point is rather moot.

Originally posted by Cug

Well Oz is not quite absolute freedom.

I would disagree; in Oz, Crowley is able to somewhat reconcile Nietzsche with Kant. In Nietzsche, we find the complete freedom of the individual, while in Kant we find the absolute autonomy of the will.

In the Rabelaisian "Do what thou wilt", the Kantian autonomy is exemplified. We become free by legislating moral imperatives for all rational beings, by virtue of performing such action. In Nietzsche, we are free by divesting the will of heteronomy through a "new morality" of individualism.

If "Do what thou wilt" is indeed the "whole of the Law", the will is only free when it is conforming to its duty; in Thelema, such duty is metaphysical because it recognizes an a priori imperative to action through connection with a primordial or divine Will. Therefore, only while we are acting in accordance with the Divine Will, is the individual will truly free, and therefore autonomous.

"Love is the law, love under Will" illustrates this from the Kantian perfection by pointing out the sympathetic link that exists between individual wills. "I am divided for love's sake, for the chance of union", i.e., the will can only be free when it recognizes its metaphysical union with other (seemingly) individual wills.

This reconciliation in Kantian and Nietzschean ethics is rather very enlightening, and it is a shame that, until recently, Crowley wasn't taken seriously by most philosophers except for the most hardcore Nietzscheans. But nevertheless, it seems to me that Crowley has done a remarkable job of showing that the will is both autonomous and interdependent upon the whole, and that such a thing is not a paradox, but a necessity.

ML,

I agree with that 100%

My talking about how Liber Oz is not about absolute freedom is perhaps dumbed down a bit for the folks who think absolute freedom means a combination of total anarchy and the mad max world.

Originally posted by Cug
ML,

I agree with that 100%

My talking about how Liber Oz is not about absolute freedom is perhaps dumbed down a bit for the folks who think absolute freedom means a combination of total anarchy and the mad max world.

I understand what you mean. Many misinterpret "Do what thou wilt", either intentionally or unintentionally, as "do whatever you want to." Such people have of course never read crowley themselves, and thus have absolutely no idea of what he was talking about.

Just to clarify, to those who have never read Crowley, his maxim "Do what thou wilt" applies only to the "Higher Will". Crowley believed that souls are incarnated in order to accomplish some duties which they acquire through Karma: this concept is very similar to Buddhist and Hindu notions.

Since, according to Crowley, the only reason we're even here is to perform the duty that our souls (or "wills") incarnated for in the first place, the purpose in life is to discover that primeval will, and act in accordance with it. Indeed, this "Do what thou wilt" will often be the exact oppositie of "do what you want" because our lower will will often oppose the Higher because it is exists in the sensual world, and therefore must be at least to some extent corrupted. The Higher Will, however, existing immortally in the noumenal world, is beyond corruption, and therefore pure. When we "do what we wilt" by subjecting the lower to the Higher, then "Love Under Will" becomes our magical formula, and we are transformed.

Again, this doctrine did not originate with Crowley, and is the doctrine of practically all mystics. The importance of Crowley in this regard is simply that he wrote so many books about it, and lent it a new symbolism.

ML have you come across any human sacrafice rituals?.

[edit on 1-3-2005 by MysticOfRadiance]

So it wasn't written for people who 'think its bad' huh?

It was written for those 'enlightened' enough to receive its truth?

I mean, why swallow Crowley hook, line and sinker because as ML said, he passed on 95% information of mystics before him (and the 5% he added was twisted and designed to pervert, but hey, thats my opinion).

I criticize Crowley not for the ideas he helped revive, but for living a life that reflects his true philosophy all too clearly.

You are right, ML, he did not write for the sake of making money. He wrote because he wanted to be THE AUTHORITY on the subject, and THAT was power to him, to have his deception live on.

But I am not here to say what is partly false, and mostly true, that is a nature's course, isn't it?

Originally posted by MysticOfRadiance
ML have you come across any human sacrafice rituals?.

Yeah, there's a really good one in the Book of Judges, where Jepthah sacrifices his daughter as a burnt offering in order to keep his promise to God. There's a lot of good stuff in there, just have a look....

Originally posted by akilles
He wrote because he wanted to be THE AUTHORITY on the subject, and THAT was power to him, to have his deception live on.

Wow, sounds just like someone else I know...

So it struck a little too close to home, for a fellow student of Crowley, hm?