I have read texts by thelemites who have discussed Liber AL, but prior to this and with great piety they have also referred to the comment that was later attached to the book. One, I remember, took on himself all the perils and the risk of being “shunned by all, as centres of pestilence.” All very la-di-da. How come then that Crowley himself urge his pupils to study Liber AL? Who should we trust? The pious or the teacher himself? Enough with the ridicule and the rhetoric questions.
The comment is there for anyone to read, but why put in a comment which forbids the study of a book Crowley prompts his students to read? Because Crowley was a great humorist would probably be the easiest answer.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
The study of this Book is forbidden. It is wise to destroy this copy after the first reading.
Whosoever disregards this does so at his own risk and peril. These are most dire.
Those who discuss the contents of this Book are to be shunned by all, as centres of pestilence.
All questions of the Law are to be decided only by appeal to my writings, each for himself.
There are no law beyond Do what thou wilt.
Love is the Law, love under will.
The priest of the princes,
ANKH-F-N-KHONSU
First of all: to study Liber AL is forbidden and furthermore it is “wise to destroy” one’s copy “after the first reading”. On the other hand people are urged to study the book in Magick Without Tears because of its qabalistic contents. The comedy of it all of course is that people are told not to study the book if they know what is good for them, and three lines below they are told, when studying the book, to “appeal to” Crowley’s writings alone and by himself.
Please do study the book. But why the drama then? Because of Because. To discuss is to put forth an argumentation which by rhetorical means primarily serve to convince someone about something, to communicate an insight. This cannot be done without applying the curse of Because to one’s means. Put differently: one cannot discuss anything without catching the dis-ease of Because. And Because is the great ruinor, it is what Nietzsche described as άνθρωποζ θεωρητικόζ, the theoretical man, and one cannot do what one will if one does not act according to that True Will. The Law does not say think what thou wilt or theorize upon what thou wilt – it says do what thou wilt. Become an agent (cf. the Latin agens) in your own life.
The moment one says because, one is either explaining or convincing. Habermas might very well think of communication as an open and free endeavour between equals, but Crowley does not seem to think so and he has the history of religion to back him up. All three religions of the book has succumbed to the will of a few great rhetoricians, all three religions has become watered out because of Because. The thought is, I think, that if one studies the book and does not discuss it, one will gradually own that book, make it one’s own.
The άνθρωποζ θεωρητικόζ is the centre of pestilence. The pious slaves of Because are the centres of pestilence. Not the sincere student who is trying to become a magician, i.e. one who by meditative and ritualistic means try to become him- or herself, i.e. act according to his or her True Will.
On the Centres of Pestilence
I have read texts by thelemites who have discussed Liber AL, but prior to this and with great piety they have also referred to the comment that was later attached to the book. One, I remember, took on himself all the perils and the risk of being “shunned by all, as centres of pestilence.” All very la-di-da. How come then that Crowley himself urge his pupils to study Liber AL? Who should we trust? The pious or the teacher himself? Enough with the ridicule and the rhetoric questions.
The comment is there for anyone to read, but why put in a comment which forbids the study of a book Crowley prompts his students to read? Because Crowley was a great humorist would probably be the easiest answer.
First of all: to study Liber AL is forbidden and furthermore it is “wise to destroy” one’s copy “after the first reading”. On the other hand people are urged to study the book in Magick Without Tears because of its qabalistic contents. The comedy of it all of course is that people are told not to study the book if they know what is good for them, and three lines below they are told, when studying the book, to “appeal to” Crowley’s writings alone and by himself.
Please do study the book. But why the drama then? Because of Because. To discuss is to put forth an argumentation which by rhetorical means primarily serve to convince someone about something, to communicate an insight. This cannot be done without applying the curse of Because to one’s means. Put differently: one cannot discuss anything without catching the dis-ease of Because. And Because is the great ruinor, it is what Nietzsche described as άνθρωποζ θεωρητικόζ, the theoretical man, and one cannot do what one will if one does not act according to that True Will. The Law does not say think what thou wilt or theorize upon what thou wilt – it says do what thou wilt. Become an agent (cf. the Latin agens) in your own life.
The moment one says because, one is either explaining or convincing. Habermas might very well think of communication as an open and free endeavour between equals, but Crowley does not seem to think so and he has the history of religion to back him up. All three religions of the book has succumbed to the will of a few great rhetoricians, all three religions has become watered out because of Because. The thought is, I think, that if one studies the book and does not discuss it, one will gradually own that book, make it one’s own.
The άνθρωποζ θεωρητικόζ is the centre of pestilence. The pious slaves of Because are the centres of pestilence. Not the sincere student who is trying to become a magician, i.e. one who by meditative and ritualistic means try to become him- or herself, i.e. act according to his or her True Will.