Path: shell.portal.com!shell.portal.com!not-for-mail From: nagasiva@yronwode.com (nagasiva) Newsgroups: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.magick.order,alt.magick,alt.magick.moderated,talk.religion.misc,talk.religion.newage Subject: Thelema and Organizations/Politics (was Thelemic Orgs, Individual Perspective) Followup-To: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.magick.order,talk.religion.misc Date: 20 Aug 1996 10:26:35 -0700 Organization: Portal Communications (shell) Lines: 66 Sender: tyagi@shell.portal.com Approved: nagasiva@yronwode.com Message-ID: <4vcsgb$d4a@jobe.shell.portal.com> Reply-To: Bill Heidrick NNTP-Posting-Host: jobe.shell.portal.com Xref: shell.portal.com alt.magick.tyagi:10079 alt.magick.order:1675 alt.magick:81589 alt.magick.moderated:498 talk.religion.misc:236026 talk.religion.newage:56277 [from Thelema93-L: Bill Heidrick ] 93, mu wrote: >do you think that it [Thelema interpreted as each being respected for their >own point of view] necessitates an abandonment, therefore, of tradition as >authoritative by virtue of it being traditional? No, a deification of Tradition as particular god-form -- to be raised, invoked, created, scryed, banished, &c. >with everyone having their >own point of view, how can we say that a doctrine or instruction might be >'Official' or 'traditional' except that it is 'spoken by Officers' and >'has had a long period of favor'? "Official" signifies formal utterance or rule by someone or some ones in office. Nothing odd in that word. It's part of the basics of golem and homunculus workings, be they critters in jars, clay men, societies, corporations or stains on cakes. "Traditional" means it's somewhat coherent and has been around for a while. >then again, hasn't it always been the >case that people have their own points of view, they just weren't >acknowledged or valued, often subsumed to the mass-mind? Yes, but now having an independent opinion is not automatically considered evil or a flaw in thinking. >is there no connection to structure (hierarchy vs. anarchy) of orgs, then? Can't follow that -- or even imagine it. What's Yang without Yin? The sound of one hand clapping is simple, but I can't see this one. >I suppose from what you say here we might presume that the structure is >not the point so much as the way in which the structure is *utilized*. Not exactly. There are many modes and utility of structure is a particularly obscure one -- aka a good tool is hard to find. Structure is a way of perceiving, either in design or in discovery, which leads to a particular shape of consciousness. If you see a chair, you think it is for sitting. If you see a step with a rail, it is for climbing upon. Same object, different structure. >is this why there might be a 'Thelemic Kingship' [as in OTO] and have it >actually fulfilling New Aeon purposes? "King" as in "office" and "King" as used in Liber AL need not have any relation. An individual may be paramount in a particular setting, a King in Office, if you will. There's nothing wrong with that structure intrinsically. There is something wrong with "King" as in "Superior Being Anointed by God to Rule Everybody". There is nothing wrong with "King" as in "focal point of authority within a homogeneous tradition". >is there some >way to easily determine, if the above is your perspective, what the exact >utilization of a social structure leads to? Yes. Inquire of yourself whether you are moved to sit on it or step on it. 93 93/93 Bill