Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!floyd!vax135!ariel!hou5f!hou5e!hou5d!hogpc!houxm!hocda!spanky!burl!duke!unc!tim
From: tim@unc.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: An Introduction to Thelema
Message-ID: <5683@unc.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 9-Aug-83 18:30:58 EDT
Article-I.D.: unc.5683
Posted: Tue Aug  9 18:30:58 1983
Date-Received: Wed, 10-Aug-83 17:35:48 EDT
References: trwspp.81
Lines: 109


    Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

    This is a reply to an objection that Mike Urban (I think that's
his name, anyway -- his login is "urban", and he signed his article
"Mike") had to my article "An Introduction to Thelema".  Here's the
passage to which he objected, followed by his objection:

                    As the Book of the Law puts it,
                "For I am divided for love's sake, for
                the chance of union." Love consists of
                the ecstatic union of opposites.  That
                is as close to a literal definition as
                I can muster.  Basically, Love is a
                phenomenon observable in a variety of
                situations, the most obvious being the
                ecstatic union of male and female (a
                Thelemic sacrament, I might add).
                Another obvious example is when a
                particle meets its anti-particle and
                they combine to become a photon.  The
                biggest consideration is that all
                philosophy aside, this formula works
                in the production of ecstasy.

            I hope the electron and positron are happy
        together.  But seriously, there's an underlying model
        there that's pretty troublesome.  In what sense do you
        consider that male and female are "opposite"? This
        sort of assumption is the basis of a mythical view of
        the sexes (the positive, bright, strong, active male
        principle [god of the sun] versus the negative, dark,
        weak, passive, female principle [goddess of the moon])
        that has been with us too long already.  If male and
        female are opposite, then man and beast are even more
        opposite, and bestiality should be an even more holy
        union, right?  Seems to me that defining love and
        ecstasy in terms of `joining of opposites' is pretty
        flimsy, although in your model it's necessary since
        you have to make sense of the "joining of Will with
        Restriction" (i.e. incomplete control of the universe;
        or did I fail to follow the metaphysics completely).

            Oh well, at least it's a different USE of this idea.

    Thelemism is completely egalitarian as far as the genders are
concerned.  The oppositeness to which I am referring is the shape of
the genitalia, a point which I trust my readers are sufficiently
worldly to understand without further explanation.  In the symbolism
of the Book of the Law, we have a female goddess uniting with a male
god to produce the universe, similar to Buddhist yab-yum images,
although somewhat more transcendent and certainly less male-oriented.

    One of the enduring themes of western occultism, particularly the
Rosicrucian and alchemical traditions, is that the perfect adept is
both male and female in equal measure.  That is what all those
hermaphrodite images in alchemical texts are about.  This is also one
of the beliefs of Thelemism.  To be more male than female, or more
female than male, is a Restriction -- it implies that one is limited
to behavior usually attributed to one's dominant sex.  The Thelemite
should have the capability to free herself or himself from all such
Restrictions, although they may be voluntarily entered into as an act
of Love.  In practice, Thelemism often leads to bisexuality, an
obvious offshoot of mental hermaphrodism.

    Your statement about the dangers of such a sexual dualism is well
taken.  For instance, James Legge makes this error in his introduction
to the I Ching, stating that Yang, the male principle, is superior to
Yin, the female principle.  This is not a belief held by Thelemites,
as should be clear by now.  The fact of the dualism does not imply
any preferentialism.  The Moon is no less beautiful than the Sun.

    About bestiality:  You may be correct.  I have never tried it, so
I don't know whether the formula you propose would work well or not.
I do not find any record of such an operation in any Thelemic text,
but then if there was such it would probably have been kept secret for
obvious societal reasons.  Being thrown in prison is a rather extreme
and tenacious Restriction.

    I do not find the definition at all flimsy.  The only reason to
have a definition in a religion is to allow the production of some
effect, and the definition as given is effective in producing ecstasy.
(You don't have to believe me, of course, but why would I lie about
this?  I would just be wasting my own time.  Remember that Thelemism
exists as an abstraction only for purely pragmatic reasons -- we are
not as interested in words as in effective actions.  Unfortunately,
words are all I have to communicate with.) The formula is applicable
to more than sex, of course, although that is a particularly strong
manifestation for such as you and I.  A more advanced formula is that
of Samadhi, in which the Adept allows thoughts to spring to mind, but
immediately unites each thought with its opposite.  I lack sufficient
powers of concentration to bring this off at present, but I have had
glimpses of it.  The formula is best studied in Crowley's "The Book of
Lies" (a title that will be readily understood by anyone who has had
ecstatic mystical experience or studied Korzybski).

    Finally, thank you for asking the question.  I did not make myself
sufficiently clear in my original article, and I am glad to have the
chance to rectify this.  All such inquiries, whether on the net or in
the mail, will be responded to in similar fashion with my sincere
appreciation.

    Love is the law, love under will.

___________
Tim Maroney
duke!unc!tim (USENET)
tim.unc@udel-relay (ARPA)
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill