In another thread Fixed Cross is trying to explain Crowlian philosophy in terms of subjective/objective morality and it’s kind of weird to watch so I thought I would make this thread.
The Book of Law, the book that is the basis for the Golden Dawn and then later the A:.A:., opens with the following. Is this maxim objective, subjective, or does it synthesize the two together?:
That is, if the universal maxim is to do what you want—not in some Kantian way where you expect everyone else to act the same, but rather literally to do what you want—then you have a universal outlook that advocates a completely subjective existence. That is the short and sweet version but if you think I’ve mad a mistake let’s hear it, as that is the essence of why the Book of Law opens with that line. It is the new law for the Age of Aquarius (according to Crowley). And it is so because it overcomes the moral challenges of the last age.
That’s why its such a powerful statement: it transcends the needlessness of arguing for 3 pages with Mo_ about objective and subjective morality.
You are saying that all the mad men should go do their heinous buisness, raping, killing, pillaging etc? That is illogical. You focus is only on the beutiful rethorics, not on broad term and long term consequenses.
I’ve never agreed with anything this fixed crossed said, nor in this matter.
I’m saying the law of the new age is to do what thou will. That is different than saying men -should- rape.
Later on in the Book of Law Crowley also re-phrases it as,
“Love is the law. Love under will.”
It’s not a proclamation to act evil. It is a proclamation that allows one to act with the (full) passion that FC would have everyone espouse. After all, a passionate man might kill a man who he finds raping another. There is, to my reading of this, a self-regulatory aspect. Just like now, after all, raping, killing, and pillaging are complete entrenched in our modern view of morality. Ask any American if they think it’s OK to rape, kill, and pillage if it will lower oil prices back home, and will likely say yes.
I don’t see morality as ever extending beyond rhetoric. There is never much logic to it.
The following principles are identical, in that they are all subjective and universal…
Do as thou will.
Do as God wills.
Do as Ronald McDonald wills.
They’re all universal (they apply to everyone), and they’re all subjective (justified by some subject).
Two of these are easily recognizable as things that a quack would say----because they command independently of any sort of reason behind why they would command what they do. The third one is the same, you may just have to look at the list for longer to recognize it.
“do what you want” would work nicely for someone who wants good things----though how he would want good things without bothering to spend any time thinking about what things are good is beyond me…
If this were true, you would seriously want to think harder about your supposed principle. Don’t worry, though. I have met many Americans… and not a single one would say this.
Only ‘do as thou wills’ refers to the subject reading the universal maxim, not a specific someone else like the other two. That’s how they’re different. That is, you’re right: they are all justfiied by different subjects when put into action, but that isn’t a criticism to what I said in the OP.
There is reasoning. As I said, ‘Do as Thou Will’ is the first line of a rather lengthy philosophical book.
It’s not beyond you. You just refuse to take this seriously because you feel it is the realm of quackery. That kind of predetermined value judgement will limit your knowledge so long as you hold onto your pride.
The statement itself is meant to eradicate those questions. This is not philosophy proper - which is to say, it is philosophy proper - but someone who is truly using their will will aspire for great things. When that is the case, the contemplation of good and bad is just a limitation.
This is how I can tell you’re not even reading half of what gets written.
My point is that not eating a cake because it will make me feel sick is very similar at base to doing something good rather than bad. If you take away that distinction you are taking away my ability to be great. Why would you want to do that?
Either you share the reasoning, or else you just claim it’s subjective—which is of course no argument for why you think what you do.
Oh for godssakes man. This isn’t divination. It’s not finding a scroll in a cave. It’s not rubbing a fucking lamp. It’s not about reading a horoscope. This is about giving reasons why you think what you do… and then changing your view if there are better reasons against it. It’s not hard. You can, and have done it before…
It’s similar, but an inclination to be healthy is different than seeing physical health as some static concept. In Practical Magic, Israel Regardie advocates self-mutilation in the pursuit of honing one’s intention.
Because the ‘how’ of action is presupposed by the process of intention.
By process I mean to say that deciding what to do, and one’s ability to do it, are intrinsically connected.
That is why figures throughout history that are seen as ‘Spiritual’ are seen that way because their actions were in the manner I’m describing: pure will/pure love.
Then you can look at the other way… one might argue the figures that history doesn’t recognize as enlightened. Crowley, etc.
When Crowley says “Love Under Will”, there is the perspective that the love literally comes under the power of the will. It is subservient. So when you say ‘Love is the Law. Love Under Will.’ there is the public reading - Oh, the law is love or something’ and that of the initiated - where one realizes that the first part of the maxim is a decoy, but one that constitutes the truth of what it’s saying. Love is the law, but love is also under will, as laws are man-made constructs.
I said like an inferior, not as one. Honestly though, you fuck up Crowley so bad within even those few sentences, it is hysterical.
Love under will means simply that we necessarily value if we are to exist (the law), but we need to have a continuous standard to measure our value to, our self. The law is only possible under “will”, which is being consistently clear about ones own perspective, “honoring it”.
Be careful. You’ve fallen off a bike before, I’m sure. You’ve had bad habits. You’ve done things you regret. You’ve made choices you recognize were bad ones. And you’ll want to make similar choices again. “Do as you will” is not even a principle you’d endorse, all of the time, and nevermind the fact that you haven’t a single reason for it.
You can do better Gobbo. This is incoherent. I remember once you said that I was philosophically smart and you respected that. Don’t forget why you respected that. Until then, I don’t think we’ll have anything more to talk about.
Another way of phrasing it is that love is necessary, but not possible without will.
I find it more convenient to speak of valuing (loving, choosing) and self-valuing (willing, growing, ‘existing’.).
This Age of Aquarius is the dawning realization that the loving is the ‘reward’, the result of the willing, and not some sort of duty or requirement for which one is rewarded with a happy childhood where one is loved by a superior.
So the law is to reward oneself with the world, constantly.
Crowley makes sense only if you already know what he’s trying to say. I suppose that with me this is not completely different, but I think I am doing a slightly better job.
" Beware of abstinence from action!" is it not written in Our lection? For the nature of the Universe being Creative Energy, aught else blasphemes the Goddess, and seeks to introduce the elements of a real death within the pulses of Life. " [AC, little essays, Chastity]
What he is saying is that when you don’t impose the law of your love on your world, you will be valued in ways you don’t value yourself, and this is bad for you, “blasphemy” int he face of the stated goal (the Goddess, the ideal love).