/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13159555]

Does he have any other literally merit than
>lmao bro just do whatever

[Anonymous No.13159631]

why dont you read one of his goddam books and find out

[Anonymous No.13159636]

>>13159555
imagine subscribing the bourgeois notion of merit

jajajajajajajajjaja

[Anonymous No.13159638]

>>13159555
>lmao bro just do whatever
Literally the brainlet interpretation of every Eastern doctrine.

[Anonymous No.13159690]

He’s not wrong though.
Do whatever you want.
Don’t be surprised when you have to live up to all you actions in the afterlife though

[Anonymous No.13159703]

>>13159690
What makes you believe that you're not in the after-life right now? The entire universe suscribes to the Mandelbrot Theorem. This is fact. So my question to you is: what makes you think our generalized but somewhat unanimous opinion of what constitutes the finite which need I remind you hasn't changed much since Crowley was alive, is right? What makes you think you're not living up to your actions right now?

[Anonymous No.13159721]

>>13159703
Well first off, the idea of “life” is simply what we defined to this 3-dimensional plane.
So anything beyond this, no matter what it is would be the “afterlife”

Second I am performing actions not living up to them.
If I was to murder an entire classroom of school children today I would simply be performing an action. No matter what society would judge me they couldn’t not make me live up to that action in my current life. A lifetime of imprisonment would never be equal to the pain I caused up to those children and there family and therefore I couldn’t be fully living up to my actions in this life.
In less you believe there is no accountability for you actions in this life but that’s another argument entirely

[Anonymous No.13159734]

>>13159703
>What makes you believe that you're not in the after-life right noe

[Anonymous No.13160994]

>>13159555
>>13159721
>lmao bro just do whatever

What a simplistic way to reduce Crowley's religious philosophy of Thelema to some sort of hedonistic proclamation of doing "whatever you want"

Evola wrote a great article on Crowley where he sums up pretty well the doctrine of Crowley's "Do What Thou Wilt"
http://www.gornahoor.net/library/EvolaOnCrowley.pdf

>“Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law”
>But it is not necessary to get locked into the letter of this precept almost as if it prescribes doing everything that you like (as in Rabelais’ “Fay ce que vouldras”), because Crowley refers to the true will to be discovered in oneself and then to be realized. This discovery and this realization would be the essence of the Work as the sign that – Crowley asserted – only those who reached to such a level are truly men and masters, the others are “slaves” (seemingly from the interior point of view). For the rest, Crowley spoke also of a self‐discipline at least in its own regard, of a “rigorous morality of more than any other in spite of the absolute freedom in respect to every conventional code of conduct.” In the same perspective, there follows the corollary “The only sin is restriction”, evidently in regards to the true will.

>The second principle is the “every man and every woman is a star”, in the sense that in them a transcendent principle would be manifested or incarnated in a certain way, that leads, in general, beyond a mere “pagan” naturalism. One could think back to the theory of the “Self” distinct from the simple “I”. Consequently, the connection with the special concept of the will which we just indicated, also appears evident. Among other things, Crowley brings back the ancient theory of the “two demons”, he speaks of a way of life meant to evoke the “good demon”, not yielding to the temptations that instead would subject one the mercies of the other demon, leading to ruin and damnation, while from the first, one would be inspired around the right use of magical techniques. In dramatized form, it would seem here to be about, once again, the deep principal postulated by the conceptions of the human being as a “star” (or as a “god”), whose presence constitutes the basis to face the perilous experiences of this life.

>Finally, the third principle is “Love is the Law, Love under will”, where “love” means essentially sexual love. This leads from the domain of doctrine to that of the techniques where the aspects of
Crowleyanism are presented that can alarm more the profane granting to it a problematic orgiastic coloration (even so far as one can still speak of “satanic” in the proper sense).