| up a level
from the astonied-view dept.
In the recent discussion of the application of the principle of the law of love under will in the daily lives of Thelemites, there was a remarkable paucity of ideas as to what that statement of law does actually mean.
Yet, since then, there have been reports of attendees at a conference of a well-known neo-Thelemic body running about chanting the statement at each other as if they were all in clear agreement of the meaning. In more recent threads, we have had allusions to love under will implying, once more, that the writers assumed the statement meant more or less the same as "Love is good, hate is bad, thou shalt all be nice to everyone." Again, these dodges ignore the present tense of the statement (in contrast to the ambiguous present or future tense of "shall") and the implication that it is therefore not an aspirational statement. Despite what many people like to think, it must be a statement of how things already stand. It is something to accept as a reality, not something yet to be attained or imposed.
The temptation is, of course, that of greedily wanting to be loved; leading even to, like the Black Brothers, begging at the knees of love. This vice leads to misinterpretation and to the use of it in condemning those whom one is not loved by. But wouldn't the law of love command the support of those one does love, and to not support those one doesn't (disregarding hollow charity and its legion of fellow leeches) -- and to fight those misguided souls who interfere? One might think someone following their love mad, bad or deluded, or suffering from the vice of limited love, but who amongst us can claim to be perfectly free of such impurities? Who was it cast the first stone? The mere fact of hating and fighting does not in itself contradict the law of love under will. That law must apply itself to the impure or it could not be a present-tense description of the law as it stands in the world today.
< | >
|"As St. Paul says, 'Without shedding of blood there is no remission,' and who are we to argue with St. Paul?" -- Aleister Crowley|
|All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster.|
This is an official and authorized archive of The Beast Bay
Hosted by Hermetic.com