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

To: Thelema93-L and Usenet
From: tyagi@HOUSEOFKAOS.ABYSS.COM (Xiwang mu)
Subject: Re: Magick (Love and Will, etc.)(LONG)
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 1996 05:10:28 -0800 (PST)

kaliyuga
49960207 eliminating attributions; fend for yourselves; I protest compilation

E6!
Do as you *please*.

[bulk omitted - tn]


|one can cause change in things due to their connectedness of the changer 
|to that which is being changed.  Techniques for inducing local change 
|are called "magick".

Why 'local'?  Aren't you attempting to isolate a cause which can transit
physical distance without decrease in potency?  Psychics usually follow
this line of approach.


|In Magick Withou Tears (MWT) Crowley notes that "magick investigates the
|laws of Nature with the idea of making use of them...Magick is science in
|the tentative stage; but it may be, and often is, more than this" (p.64). 

|In other words, Magick seems to be an artistic and a scientific endavour.

I don't get that Crowley says anything about art here, though his 'making
use' is reflective of engineering, which is a facet of art.


|Artistic in the sense, I think of perfection.  And when you perfect
|something, it becomes a part of you.  Much like the Tao, the Way.  

When you mention 'perfection' (by whose standards?) in relationship to 
art, I don't see how you are connecting them, nor do I understand how 
or why you bring 'Tao' into it.  Perhaps you are referring in some
way to 'Being' and 'Becoming', with 'Becoming' a sort of artistic
realization of the perfection of existence (and the mage's participa-
tion in this)?


|Now, for Change.  Change can occur in two ways.
|1.  Direct: Via Will power and awareness.  Via observing and acting out in
|an unattached or indifferent manner.

I can understand this.  This is what Crowley sometimes illustrates within
his mundane examples (in _Moonchild_ he uses the example of wanting a
particular book and doing what he can to effect a direct change).


|2.  Indirect: By Affirmation, self-hypnosis, and magick and meditation.
|With Magick, we cause change in both ways, I think.  We go from indirect, to
|direct.  From ritual to thinking, etc.

Playing fast and loose with your capitalization? :>  I don't completely
understand how you are integrating 'magick/Magick' into the definition
of Magick itself.  It sounds confusing and convoluted to me.  

My feeling is that you are talking about the Magical Link here without
mentioning it but would appreciate elaboration.  How does 'Affirmation'
or 'self-hypnosis' or 'meditation' constitute 'indirect change'?  I can
see how it would influence the resolution of the *direct* change (since
we will be convinced of our success and apply ourselves without reserve),
but I don't see how any of these things could influence remote (as
compared to local) change.


|>...one will not ever 'control' it. 

|You don't control it.  You merely cause it to change.  Kinda like nudging it
|in one direction or the other.

Control versus influence.


|>That one will never operate outside of this Infinitude
|>is a critical stance to adopt, I believe. 
|
|Agreed.

I don't see where any 'stance' is necessary at all.  It is possible that
there is more within the cosmos than is dreamt about within the cosmology
of the Evul Book (closed, multiple, weird universes, for example).


|>The majician therefore best spends hir time discovering more precisely what
|>hir Will is and how it relates to Reality. 
|
|Exactly!  But that's a process, not an end. 

Only if one posits a 'Reality' to which one might relate one's true will
(I presume here that 'Will' equates to 'true will' and that this, by
definition, is contained within any so-called 'Reality' ::giggle::).


|>This is no less a powerful definition of majick, in fact I believe it 
|>to contain far more power than the previous stance of 'causing change', 
|>forever limited. 

Power is relative.  Egotistically (and this is unpopular amongst those 
who fathom universal concepts and gods) 'causing Change to occur' is
much more powerful.  It all depends on in what context one wishes to
apply it.  All definitions are limited and limiting.  It is their
nature to describe in language (a limited tool) that which is beyond
their grasp.
 

|>Becoming the Change in synch with All is the ultimate it seems. 
|>Hence the word Study.

Only for the more mystically inclined.  You leave no room for the sharp
egotism of ancient magicks. :>   'The ultimate' is only a fanciful
phrase for 'I like it'.  I don't see how it is superior in any objective
sense.


|Maybe you are thinking more of the unity of the one/One than the definition
|of magick?  

I got the impression that he was merely attempting to integrate his
understanding of Magick with his desire to center around LOVE instead
of WILL.  In this way it reminds me more and more of mysticism and
theurgy (conformism to a cosmic dynamic) than it is does thaumaturgy
(directing the cosmic flow oneself).

I think that both perspectives are beneficial and limited.


|Magick is a process that helps us on the Great Work.  It's a
|tool, not an end.

You are here equating Magick with a mechanism, a technology.  While
I understand the desire to do so I think it may be without basis,
at least in reflection of Crowley's comments about it being Science
and Art.  These things are not tools, yet through them we may come
to fashion tools (through application of principles learned in 
Science and the techniques of the Art).  

I think your assertion about Tao (Way) was more reflective of my
understanding of Magick here, especially in that there is less of
a focus on 'thingness' and more on processes (as you point out wrt
the Great Work above), though you may be contradicting yourself
(in that you say Magick is a tool and Tao, which is not a tool).


|>Magic is the Process of Knowingly conforming one's Self with the Cosmos.
|
|Oi vey.  I think magick helps us in stripping away the layers that allow us
|the luxury of the illusion that we are already seperated from the Cosmos.

In either case this is mysticism, not Magick; theurgy at best.
Not sure what 'one's Self' might be aside from 'oneself'.  Am I beset by
a horde of dualists? :>


|>...the individual majician would CHOOSE to conform hirself to
|>the Cosmos, despite the wondrous benefits. Would this refusal necessarily
|>negate the majick? Is the concept of CHOICE actually illusory?

It all depends on perspective.  From the perspective of the mage, the choice
is surely not illusory, no.


|Isn't this what the Great Work is all about though?  The Union of all
|dualities?  The Union of the microcosm and the macrocosm?  (Letter A in MWT).

I don't think so, but I think it is a very important step along the way
*to* the Great Work.  I doubt such dualities in fact exist in essence,
or unities for that matter.  

I tend to think of the Great Work as a much more massive Adventure which
is described by alchemists and Rosicrucians in very grandiose terms
referring to all manner of stages and phases.  Let's see, there are the
Angelic and Abysmal Adventures, there is the multifarious and many-headed
Cosmic Curriculum Adventure (from 1=10 to 10=1 if memory serves), and
there is the Architectural Designer Guild (Secret Chiefs) Adventure too,
often combined or hierarchied in a glorified mapping.


|> In some presentations of the Tradition, Free 
|>Will--the ability to knowingly choose between moral alternatives--is seen 
|>as the fundamental point of identity with God--the "image of God" which 
|>makes man unique among the creatures.  

Interesting.  Usually I've heard this described as 'the Fall' after eating
of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.  Usually I have not heard
this associated with God at all, but with the Devil, and with the process
of separation from Parental Authority (the desecration of Innocence --
Mary torn upon the Wheel!).


|Is our choice of "morality" the only way?  Reality and morality seem to me
|>Perhaps the fundamental choice is to choose or not to choose:
|>perhaps the highest use of the will is not to will.  

|I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here.

He's talking about mysticism.  Without choice, Magick cannot exist.
Choosing not to choose is just a clever play on words.  If one
chooses not to ACT, that is one thing.  Choosing not to decide
between two alternatives is another.  We are in this last selecting
the third option (none of the above).  In effect, we always choose
unless we enter into unconsciousness.


|>the viewpoint of orthodox Jewish and Christian thought ("not my will, but 
|>Yours"),  and it certainly is compatible with a lot of expositions of 
|>Thelema ("not my will, but my Will").   On the otherhand, you may choose 
|>to disagree, and if you do, please speak up.

Ok.  I do not agree that there is necessarily a division between 'will'
and 'Will'.  It occurs to me that that very dualism may be illusory, and
at all times we are the God of the Hebrews whether we like it or not.


|Hmm..  Also my understanding, as limited as it is with regards to this, is
|that your Will is the Will of the Universe. 

There's only one?  Why can't there be lots of competing 'wills'?  Don't
you think that this might just be a clever inference on the part of
theists to convince the dubious?  I see no reason to presume some sort
of design to the cosmos, externally imposed (the Grand Machine hypothesis).
Nor do I understand the necessity of the Cosmic Will (universal).  There's
your ghost for you! ;>

I'll state it in the form of an assertion for clarity: there is no 'Will'.
We imagine it into being and pretend it exists.  Actually, however, it is
much like what most people imagine as 'centripetal force' or 'the self'.
These are merely misunderstandings of nature and only indicate our desire
for an overarching God to keep everything in harmony.  

Using Occam's Razor, there is no need to posit this Monstrosity, especially
when It is almost always accompanied by moralism and the presumption of flaw.

Our 'true will' is only a figment, but one which may be very useful to us
in the long-term.  What it amounts to is our basic drives, our tendencies
within the context of our lives, the typical result in the face of the
resolution of all our competing whims and lusts.  Our benefit in coming
to understand this is that we may not waste our energy binding ourselves
against ourselves.

Going a step further, to posit some mystical 'orbit' (which Thelemites
are wont to do apparently) is nothing more than the supposition that either
God has our paths predetermined (again an inelegant solution) or that the
principles of natural systems tend toward a lack of conflict (which, if
one bones up on one's biology and environmental studies one finds to be 
quite accurate).

Nothing about capital Ts and Ws in the true will need apply, nor need we
begin to suppose the Great Judeo-Christian fallacy of That Great Architect.
This is born out nicely within many an alternative metaphysic and can be
explained using rational paradigms known quite well to modern materialistic
Science.

There now, convinced?  :>


|I'm really not seeing what Choice has to do with all of this.  I mean, it's
|not like we are forced to practice/do magick.  

Actually, within the culture of my birth, quite the opposite.


|It is our choice whether we do it or not.  And if we are aiming for the 
|completion of the Great Work, then it is our aim to unite our will with Will.

I say to you that the supposition that the will and Will are in some sense
'separate' may be a falsity.  How do you know that they are separate?
What convinces you that that the Great Work is yet to be done?  Is it
somehow evincing uncompleteness?  Where do you look for it?


|In the achievement of Love are two principles,
|that of mastering and that of yielding.  To impose a judgment on Love and
|Will as which is better is to further separate the duality between Love and
|Will (if there is such a duality).  That also implies that you can have one
|without the other, and I don't think that'd be conducive to magick.  

I think this is an understatement.  The two are not separate.  They are
what 'compassion' and 'wisdom' are to the East: only apparently different.
This is illustrated (Crowley and some others might say 'demonstrated') by
the fact that in Greek they may be gematricized to the same value (93!).


[much of the rest of the text deleted -- I think you are conflating your
 notions of 'love' here]

|>Can a definition be written to properly emphasize
|>the two, or is it necessarily biased toward Will?

THIS is the question I'd rather focus upon.  I argue here that will
pertains to Magick while love pertains to mysticism and that the two
form a polar dynamic (repulsion/attraction respectively).


|...As one misunderstands "do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the 
|law" to mean "do what you want," I think one also misunderstands what 
|"magick is the art and science of causing change in accordance with 
|one's will."

From where are you quoting these things?  Your misquote of Crowley
(I presume) ruins your assertion, and I don't understand why equating
DWTW with DAYP (Do As You Please - the Revolutionary's alternative)
is so problematic to Thelemites.  Even *Crowley* said that *ALL*
interpretations of the former are true if the interpreter be 
illuminated (if you need a quote from the Master -- Comments on AL). 

Please explain yourself.  I've heard that assertion so many times I begin
to wonder if everyone is just parrotting for the result of closing 
minds and of the destruction of the Law of Thelema for the benefit
of ORTHODOXY.  This is why I launch such firm opposition.


|>On the relationship of Love and Will: you can say that Will is an aspect 
|>of Love;  you can say that Love is an aspect of Will;  which leads me to 
|>say that both are versions of the other, or as Fr. Also says, one can 
|>have only both or nothing.   Cf. my sig.

|They work together, not seperately.

There is no 'working together' for that which is in essence one.


|Love is the law, Love under Will.

Where is this from?  What does it mean?  The Evul Book has nothing alike it.


|I have a map of the United States...  Actual size.  It says, "Scale:  1 mile =
|1 mile."  I spent last summer folding it.  I also have a full-size map of the
|world.  I hardly ever unroll it. People ask me where I live, and I say, "E6".
|						~ Steven Wright

Hey!  E6!!!!!  Way to go, Steven!

E6/E6/E6

Free love, right now!

mu!