Page 1 of 1 1
Topic Options
#4542 - 02/25/08 10:32 PM Love under will (for Crowley students only)
Chandler Offline
stranger


Registered: 08/30/07
Posts: 36
Where Satanists, Christians, Cannibals, and Dogs seem to agree is on one point at least: LOVE, in some form or another, is intrinsically good, if only by definition. Where virtually everyone seems to disagree (even within married couples) is on the question: what IS love?

The Book of the Law explains: "there are love and love"

We know that not all "loves", or CLAIMS of love, are in fact love. Everyone knows that, even the greatest fool you can procure.

To be able to love AT WILL would be a handy thing. If I were being eaten alive by a pride of lions, I would rather love it than hate it, seeing as I no longer have the means of resistance. But this is a rather difficult temperance to cultivate in one's heart.

Shy of that, we may say that "love under will" is at least better than slavery. I should like to know that my love is not involuntary. If I am loving to obey a commandment, that would not be love in the first place. Love MUST be "under will". Otherwise it is not love.

"Love under will shall be the whole of the law" effectively means there are no laws as we ordinarily understand them. "Love under will" means "Love, SO LONG as it is your will to do so". Humorously perhaps, it is inherent in the nature of will itself to love. It is our will to will what we love, and do that which we wilt, by definition.

Nature is a lawless state of affairs (unless you believe in gravity and such. Einstein didn't). Humanity, on the other hand, is full of false expectations which may be disappointed by the freely willed.

Top
#4543 - 02/25/08 11:03 PM Re: Love under will (for Crowley students only) [Re: Chandler]
Sven Offline
stranger


Registered: 01/19/08
Posts: 46
Could you explain how Einstein didnt believe in gravitation when his unified feild theory was particularly focused on gravitation. Gravity is a basic measurable force in physics, how is gravity something phyisicist can choose or not choose to believe in?(Sorry this doesn't pretain to you or main point.)
_________________________
A poor fool indeed is he who adopts a manner of thinking for others!
Marquis de Sade

Top
#4544 - 02/25/08 11:44 PM Re: Love under will (for Crowley students only) [Re: Sven]
LUCIFERIFIC Offline
active member


Registered: 02/01/08
Posts: 629
Loc: CA
 Originally Posted By: Sven
Could you explain how Einstein didnt believe in gravitation when his unified feild theory was particularly focused on gravitation. Gravity is a basic measurable force in physics, how is gravity something phyisicist can choose or not choose to believe in?(Sorry this doesn't pretain to you or main point.)

Hey Sven. There's this quite or small revolution going on in Mainstream science and cosmology right now, where a bunch of scientist are begining to question Newton and Einstein; and the cosmology they indirectly gave birth to.

This new theory has a few names: Plasma Cosmology, or Electric Cosmology.

The basic is that the universe is 99.99% plasma (which is the fourth state of matter); that electricity has an huge factor to play in the creation of the cosmos; that the big bang never happened; that space is infinite and not finite, expanding, or curved; there are no black holes, neutron stars, pulsars; time travel is imposible, and so is warp speed; and those things we thought were nebulas are actually plasma filaments.

Plasma cosmology states that gravity plays no part in the creation of the universe, and is nothing more than a byproduct of electromagnetism (and not mass) and mass does not always have gravity.

I'm paraphrasing this. I was always uncomfortable with the big bang theory and its "In the beginning" shit; i've read that somewhere before?

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/
http://www.holoscience.com/


Edited by LUCIFERIFIC (02/25/08 11:49 PM)
_________________________
Lux Ex Tenebris
Lux Lucet Ex Orientis


~~352~~


Top
#4567 - 02/26/08 07:33 PM Re: Love under will (for Crowley students only) [Re: Chandler]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
"Love is the law, love under will. Nor let the fools mistake love; for there are love and love."

I always looked at love as a variable. How we may love ourselves is very different to how we love a beautiful sunset. Even in regards to friends and lovers, there is always a degree of how much you love someone. It may seem kinda analytical but when you choose to love yourself first evenything else falls into a line of either less than or equal to how much you love yourself.


"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law," and "Love is the law, love under will."

When you willfully make a decision of how much and who to love, it becomes intwined in with what will you do for that love. When you choose to love fully with your whole self, it just becomes part of you. You choose to make that love happy because doing that makes you happy.

"Nature is a lawless state of affairs. Humanity, on the other hand, is full of false expectations which may be disappointed by the freely willed"

Its not so much that there are problems with loving someone else. Its just kinda simple, you can't tell someone elses heart who to love. How you feel is one part of the equation, but when you add in a different variable(someone else) all bets are off, and expect the unexpected.

"what IS love?"

No one can tell you what love is, you have to feel it inside for yourself. One thing I can say about love is that when you want to share experiences,and do things that you don't really care to do for another person, somehow love is wrapping its dirty little head in it.

Morg
_________________________
Courage Conquering Fear
Fuck em if they can't take a joke
Don't Like What I Say, Kiss My Ass



Top
#4570 - 02/27/08 04:57 AM Re: Love under will (for Crowley students only) [Re: Morgan]
daevid777 Offline
active member


Registered: 08/30/07
Posts: 951
Loc: Hell's Pisshole, Texas
 Quote:
"what IS love?"


Baby don't hurt me, baby don't hurt me, no more........

What IS "love" might be a more appropriate discussion, one that could last a thousand years.

More to the point, what is Crowley's definition of love? Is this the commonplace argument of man and woman, or dare I say man and man, woman and woman, man and beast, woman and beast, woman or man and an ideal? Crowley understood, I believe, the limitations of language, this I get from his writings alone. "Love" and "Will" are things meant to be defined first when we talk about the good Mr. Crowley. These are adjectives that may or may not fit our general perspective of things, when viewed in a different angle. "His" adjectives and "ours" may be, and most likely are quite different in flavor, color, and content.

Perhaps we should ask a Thelemite - I'll do my best.

What is Will?

And, what is "Love", indeed?

When you talked about "classics", Chandler, you know you just opened a can of whoop-ass here. And I will remain smiling. Thank you for this gift.



Edited by daevid777 (02/27/08 05:00 AM)
_________________________
Where we're going, we don't need roads.

Top
#4590 - 02/27/08 05:56 PM Re: Love under will (for Crowley students only) [Re: Chandler]
Mercury_Templar Offline
93 93/93
member


Registered: 09/16/07
Posts: 262
Loc: Cabarita, Vic, Australia
Having conversed with many Thelemites over time, and perhaps resembling one myself; I would like to add my little snipped of supposed wisdom to this thread. First, Thelemites view the term 'Will' as representing Divine Purpose, and 'Love' as something beyond the two or three main psychological views of the emotion; a state referred to as Caritas, Agape or Divine Love.

With this in mind, in lay terms, the phrase would read something like: you must strive to fulfill your divine purpose, abiding by divine love, for without knowledge of divine love your divine purpose will never be attained.

The term divine retains two connotations here; the divine within yourself, or your true self, and the deeper levels of global understanding.

I have tried my best to put into words what the phrase actually means, but this is an explanation that counts for nothing without actually experiencing the effects of the practice.

M.'.T.'.
_________________________
ATEH
MALKUTH
VE-GEBURAH
VE-GEDULAH
LE-OLAM
AMEN

Top
#5861 - 03/18/08 01:15 AM Re: Love under will (for Crowley students only) [Re: Mercury_Templar]
Xutech Offline
stranger


Registered: 03/18/08
Posts: 34
Loc: Australia
Love is the Law
Love under Will.

Thelema and Agape are two entwined concepts, that of law – thelema, and agape – or all encompassing love. What is love really? Separated from lust, or the sex drive, what is there left? Often we laugh at the person who cannot tell the difference between loving someone and being attracted to them.

But there seems to be a need amongst living things to have this abstract ideal. I would imagine that in many ways, love is a function of biological survival. The more that organisms cooperate, the more likely it is that they survive, gather food successfully and nurture young. Humans often describe animals in relation to this understanding – we might call a lawyer a “shark” because they seem to be cold and distant, unworthy of membership in the social herd.

And yet “Love”, as defined by the word “Agape” means a non-critical feeling, that of universal, and therefore open love. To love freely without care can result in many troubles. Therefore this idea of love for everything and everyone is tempered by a need for “Thelema”, or law.

Thelema is a word that refers to the concept of universal law, in other words, all of existence is part of some kind of gigantic machine, purpose, order. To have a part fail or not perform its allotted task would mean that the entire machine, or at least that particular section would fall apart. Many religions follow this concept, often developing it further into a monotheistic religion based around a single law giving father figure.

I prefer to think of it in terms of biological survival. The more we provide for the people around us, the more they are free to provide for us. Food is secured, rent is paid, babies are fed, predators fought. Care for the community becomes an increased chance of survival. Even those who have no chance in the wild become an asset. The old, sick or lame person becomes a crafter, teacher, or priest, rather than wolf food.

In other words, Love is not just love, for love is a general and indistinct thing. Love is in many ways a future tense. It plans that in the future the same regard that you hold for someone or something will be reciprocated, even if, at present, we know it will never pass. Love lives in the realm of dreams, it exists without proof, and waits for Christmas.

But community and Law cannot exist without Love. We cannot abide by instinctual laws and rules of partnership and fellowship without the hope of dreams and future happiness, no matter how insubstantial. Many human cultures talk about a future of plenty, of paradise, even exoneration or freedom. It is by this illusory chalice that we continue, we cooperate, we exist.

Top
#25225 - 06/01/09 08:32 PM Re: Love under will (for Crowley students only) [Re: Chandler]
Scarlett156 Offline
pledge


Registered: 05/20/09
Posts: 59
Loc: rural Eastern Colorado (USA)
This is an old topic that hasn't been replied to in awhile, so if bumping old topics isn't ok, I apologize for that. I would rather reply to an old topic than start a new one on a similar subject.

Is this an essay? or is the OP asking a question? I have read it three times now and can't really tell if the OP wants to get feedback, is just leaving his/her mark, or if there is some kinda question buried in here--maybe "what is love?"....?

Whatever the OP's intent may have been, there is little understanding evident of Crowley's pronouncements in Liber AL, and therefore an interpretation that lands very far from the mark.

"Love" is an inexact and maybe even somewhat extortionary term--other examples of the type I can think of off the top of my head are "truth" and "beauty". I mean, use it with your friends and family members, who know you well enough to know what you mean when you say it, but don't use it in your everyday speech and writing, if you value conciseness and comprehension.

But AC is a magician, poet, and writer, and if we are to believe the story he was taking dictation from an angel when the phrase "love under will" came to be. Therefore we have to deal with the inexact, somewhat extortionary single word--love--without any helpful explanation.

When the kabalist says "love" he or she means the cosmic force that "tries" to hold everything together--it's the creative expression of this continuum that is wild and unpredictable, and yet gives rise to form and function. He's not talking about the "love" you feel for your favorite blankie, or the "love" you feel for your mate, offspring, friends, and family members, or even your love of mankind and the world--although those are considered baser, more user-friendly aspects of the ultimate "love", which gives rise to all form and perception.

"Love", the urge toward cohesion and form, must be controlled under "will", or the wild creative impulse becomes destructive.

"Love is the law" is a very simple statement, but hard to absorb in its entirety--we create, as the creator have, form and function--we ARE form and function. To honor our creation with similar creative acts is the "law" of our being.


 Quote:
Love under will shall be the whole of the law


You misquoted: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."

Anyway: First he says that "love is the law" and then he says that doing what you will is the law. Is that contradictory, vague, or confusing?

Not for one of Crowley's adepts, anyway--his will and his love are equal to each other. They are in fact almost the same thing. His urge to create is tempered by his will, and indeed (according to the system) there can be no creation without love (cohesion) and will (dominance), fused together as law.

Anyway, I don't know if this individual is still around or cares what is getting said in this topic, but since the subject is of some interest to me, I thought I would reply.

~~~ yours in Chaos, Scarlett
_________________________
"I can fling poo gooder than u"

Top
#25408 - 06/05/09 08:30 PM Re: Love under will (for Crowley students only) [Re: Scarlett156]
Castello Offline
Moron - Banned
stranger


Registered: 06/02/09
Posts: 7
Crowley wrote books detailing that kind of thing as a common theme, when in actuality it's just none sense, there's some profound stuff that freak did but that isn't it.
Top
#25464 - 06/06/09 05:52 PM Re: Love under will (for Crowley students only) [Re: Castello]
Mercury_Templar Offline
93 93/93
member


Registered: 09/16/07
Posts: 262
Loc: Cabarita, Vic, Australia
Write something tangible or fuck off cock-head. I am so over this sort of shit. Any more of this type of posting and you will be gone for good.

M.'.T.'.
_________________________
ATEH
MALKUTH
VE-GEBURAH
VE-GEDULAH
LE-OLAM
AMEN

Top
#25472 - 06/07/09 12:03 PM Re: Love under will (for Crowley students only) [Re: Mercury_Templar]
Castello Offline
Moron - Banned
stranger


Registered: 06/02/09
Posts: 7
 Originally Posted By: Mercury_Templar
Write something tangible or fuck off cock-head. I am so over this sort of shit. Any more of this type of posting and you will be gone for good.

M.'.T.'.


What ever you probably arnt aware of crowley's connection to John Symonds.

Top
#25483 - 06/07/09 10:33 PM Re: Love under will (for Crowley students only) [Re: Castello]
Mercury_Templar Offline
93 93/93
member


Registered: 09/16/07
Posts: 262
Loc: Cabarita, Vic, Australia
I warned you - write something tangible or fuck off! Stop making a mess of this thread with your one-liner posts that add nothing to the discussion. Last warning.

M.'.T.'.
_________________________
ATEH
MALKUTH
VE-GEBURAH
VE-GEDULAH
LE-OLAM
AMEN

Top
#25494 - 06/08/09 09:11 AM Re: Love under will (for Crowley students only) [Re: Mercury_Templar]
Meq Offline
Banned
active member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 861
Never mind Merc_Temp - I took care of this little muppet for you.
Top
#25602 - 06/13/09 04:39 AM Re: Love under will (for Crowley students only) [Re: Meq]
Atralux Lucis Offline
pledge


Registered: 05/22/09
Posts: 79
Loc: Australia
For my philosophy class we spent a long time on love which is a fairly mild subject (compared to art next) but I wrote an essay on love based on the 3 I agree with: Nietzsche, Crowley and LaVey.

Basically in 3 pages I expressed that Nietzsche tells us the motives behind most relationships and love, Crowley gives a very vague idea of what love is an implies the union of two people though impossible due to subjectivity, and LaVey tells us how love is and contrasts it with Hate and lust.

Basically I think Crowley's implication that love is union is right. The perfect union of people where they see and understand what the other person does. But due to subjectivity it is impossible but we can attain it on some level. I keep it to a certain extent of compatibility between people.

Keeping to your discussion about Crowley, Love is the second highest principle of Thelema second to Will, and trivia: The numerical value (in the greek gematria) of thelema and agape is the same so that gives them both a link. Spiritual love (Liber AL) is 'uniting of one or another part of Nuit'.
Basically any action or motion is an act of love for Nuit is the total of possibilities. But love under will means do everything under your own will. So basically love is a massive generalised idea in thelema which is interpreted many ways to reach actual relationships and love between people.
I think union like I mentioned before fits in with what crowley says.

Top
#26104 - 06/24/09 03:23 AM Re: Love under will (for Crowley students only) [Re: LUCIFERIFIC]
god.over.djinn Offline
pledge


Registered: 06/23/09
Posts: 75
Loc: Melbourne
 Originally Posted By: LUCIFERIFIC

There's this quite or small revolution going on in Mainstream science and cosmology right now, where a bunch of scientist are begining to question Newton and Einstein; and the cosmology they indirectly gave birth to. This new theory has a few names: Plasma Cosmology, or Electric Cosmology.


Your use of the word "mainstream" here is inconsistent with what passes for actual mainstream science, which regards plasma/electric cosmology as bunk.


 Quote:
I was always uncomfortable with the big bang theory and its "In the beginning" shit; i've read that somewhere before?


Yes, to discard a model when we are uncomfortable with it despite its usefulness. That shows you are really in touch with mainstream science.




Do you expect a site with the subtitle "A Challenge to the Myths of Modern Astronomy" to actually convince any Satanist of worth that you know anything at all about anything at all?

And "holoscience"? Yep. URLs like that are always associated with legit scientific websites.


G.O.D.
_________________________
SATAN, a recursive acronym invented by GOD: "SATAN: Advocating The Adversarial Nihilist"

Top
Page 1 of 1 1


Moderator:  Woland, TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.053 seconds of which 0.027 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.