I just read a post in which a Thelemite made the statement of "We are not equal." It was used in the context that some people are better than others
( Read more... )
But why only challenge the folks with that who are disputing "equality"? This seems like it makes an acceptance of "equality" the "default" position when in shouldn't be. In fact, we judge people all the time and going around saying, or insisting, that everyone is "equal" buys us nothing and, I think, costs us a great deal
( ... )
I'm saying that it's basically impossible to make a meaningful statement about "better" and "worse," except in well-defined situations. You can, for instance, say that "Henry is a better soccer player than George" (he scores more goals) or even "Jane is a better parent than Oscar" (she doesn't neglect her children, he does), but you can't reduce assign context-free "better" or "worse" values to people, and then use to justify a "hierarchy of Nature." It's not a question of not wanting to know )(for fear it will undermine some dearly-held ideological position) it's a question of not really being able to know.
Turn the question around: what is the value of "better" and "worse?"
Equality is a joke because no one will, or can, pin down what is "equal." Let's say you need major surgery. Are you going to let your surgeon be me (never been to med school) or Larry, a surgeon who gradiated, first in his class, from Stanford Medical School? Obviously we aren't both equal. But the underlying moral deamdn in the West insists on human equality. "We are equal before God" etc. Equal in what way? No one tells us.
I think we need to look at why Nietzsche, and others, are critical of the moral need to assert "equality" and how it has become a "lie" buried deep inside us. But there isn't enough room here to go over his entire position on it. Suffice to say, AC endorses Nietzsche in many, many places.
Impossible To Judge?keith418August 14 2004, 12:42:35 UTC
We judge all the time. I hate Ayn Rand, ususally, but I cheer her rejection of Christ's "Judge not, lest be judged." She wroye, in response, "Judge and prepare to be judged."
We make judgments all the time. Why feel bad about judging? I don't get it.
Impossible to Judge.marginaleyeAugust 14 2004, 14:01:32 UTC
What I don't understand is why you feel to need to make general judgements about people, rather than situation-specific judgements about their particular traits or abilities
( ... )
If a chemist couldn't recognize a the difference between oganic and inorganic materials, he'd have trouble - and wouldn't be much of a chemist. "Sweeping judgements" of equality do not get the same flack that "sweeping judgments" of inequality do. I do not think this is accidental. I think it is part of a larger moral agenda in the West - and part of the inherent logical nihilism that Nietzsche, for one, points to.
Have you read Nietzche's critique of "equality" and "egalitarianism"? Or Crowley's? I judge and I expect to be judged. I don't withhold judgment because it's "morally wrong" to judge others. It's a necessity. The criteria and the judgments can be good or be bad - but the act of judging isn't inherently a mistake.
...and again, and again.marginaleyeAugust 14 2004, 18:27:24 UTC
Quite frankly, I don't think this is going anywhere, and I'd rather not clutter up redbadger's journal with a repetitious and, in all likelihood, increasingly acrimonious, series of back-and-forth restatements of the same basic points. If you wish to judge me an illiterate and/or a philistine for not having read Nietzche (and having no desire to do so) and for feeling free to pick and choose from Crowley as I see fit (as if there's anybody who doesn't!), please feel free to do so, since it really makes no difference to me, one way or another.
I think, however, you are deliberately overlooking, or glossing over, the fact that I am only saying certain specific kinds of judgement are impossible, and I resent insinuations that my adherence to this position is based on ideological, rather than basically practical, considerations.
Picking and Choosingkeith418August 14 2004, 19:44:33 UTC
I don't think I'm "picking and choosing" - actually I'm trying to see what the root of is of the choices we make when we read AC and what we think is important and what we feel isn't. Why are his statements, for example, regarding Nietzsche "blipped over"? Isn't there, perhaps, a "sweeping judgment" going on there? I think many people in the community believe that they can dismiss a lot of what AC wrote regarding equality and Nietzsche and I think that kind of "picking and choosing" may be an error.
"No sweeping judgments" seems like a, well, "sweeping judgment." "No judgments" is, in fact, a judgment. There is, I believe, an inescapable logic to these kinds of problems that Crowley saw. If we miss it, we miss an important part of his message, if not a critical one.
Read Chapter 48 of Magick Without Tears - if you haven't already. Is he right there or wrong? If he is right - then what is he right about, exactly,and how is he right? If he's wrong, why and how is he, exactly, wrong? I think this is an bigger, and more far reaching
( ... )
Have you ever read the book reviews in The Equinox? I see AC doing this all the time.
Crowley also insisted that he was a better poet than William Butler Yeats. I think that pretty much puts AC's opinions in perspective. He was vain, egotistical, and petty. Believing in equality does not mean failing to acknowledge qualities we find distasteful in others. Once again, equality is not homogeny.
If we are all equal, and none of us is superior to anyone else, why aspire to anything at all?I thought the point was to aspire to do our True Will. A Will which is unaffected by the alleged inferiority/superiority of others. Thelema is based on the proposition that we each have a True Will. In the unlikely event that we do, indeed, possess this Will, then we must accept that each other person's Will is equally valid, and that each individual has an equal right to pursue that Will. Thus we are all equal from a Thelemic perspective. If we, at any time, view another's Will as less valid (i.e. unequal) to our own then we reject the most
( ... )
Equality and Homogenitykeith418August 13 2004, 22:18:16 UTC
The Maoists decided they wanted an equal society. In order to rig that, they tried to make everyone the same. They had to dress the same, think the same, act the same, etc. How well did that work?
How can we have an "equal" society and have hierarchy and tiers of ability and power? Please read Nietzsche and more Crowley - especially why he says the morals" of Thelema are difficult - there is a whole Chapter on this in Magick Without Tears and get back to me.
If AC believed in 'equality' and "not judging people" kindly show me where he says it. His personal faults, according to you, don't negate his arguments. This is called an "ad hominem" argument and it's fallacious.
Reply
Reply
I'm saying that it's basically impossible to make a meaningful statement about "better" and "worse," except in well-defined situations. You can, for instance, say that "Henry is a better soccer player than George" (he scores more goals) or even "Jane is a better parent than Oscar" (she doesn't neglect her children, he does), but you can't reduce assign context-free "better" or "worse" values to people, and then use to justify a "hierarchy of Nature." It's not a question of not wanting to know )(for fear it will undermine some dearly-held ideological position) it's a question of not really being able to know.
Turn the question around: what is the value of "better" and "worse?"
Reply
I think we need to look at why Nietzsche, and others, are critical of the moral need to assert "equality" and how it has become a "lie" buried deep inside us. But there isn't enough room here to go over his entire position on it. Suffice to say, AC endorses Nietzsche in many, many places.
Reply
I think "skill as a surgeon" can be quantified, and it's fairly easy to say that one surgeon is better than another as a surgeon.
On the other hand, it's impossible to say which surgeon is better as as a total human being.
I'm not saying you shouldn't judge, because judging is morally or ideologically wrong.
I'm saying it's impossible to judge. That it's a pointless waste of time.
Reply
We make judgments all the time. Why feel bad about judging? I don't get it.
Reply
Reply
Have you read Nietzche's critique of "equality" and "egalitarianism"? Or Crowley's? I judge and I expect to be judged. I don't withhold judgment because it's "morally wrong" to judge others. It's a necessity. The criteria and the judgments can be good or be bad - but the act of judging isn't inherently a mistake.
Reply
I think, however, you are deliberately overlooking, or glossing over, the fact that I am only saying certain specific kinds of judgement are impossible, and I resent insinuations that my adherence to this position is based on ideological, rather than basically practical, considerations.
Reply
"No sweeping judgments" seems like a, well, "sweeping judgment." "No judgments" is, in fact, a judgment. There is, I believe, an inescapable logic to these kinds of problems that Crowley saw. If we miss it, we miss an important part of his message, if not a critical one.
Read Chapter 48 of Magick Without Tears - if you haven't already. Is he right there or wrong? If he is right - then what is he right about, exactly,and how is he right? If he's wrong, why and how is he, exactly, wrong? I think this is an bigger, and more far reaching ( ... )
Reply
Have you ever read the book reviews in The Equinox? I see AC doing this all the time.
Crowley also insisted that he was a better poet than William Butler Yeats. I think that pretty much puts AC's opinions in perspective. He was vain, egotistical, and petty. Believing in equality does not mean failing to acknowledge qualities we find distasteful in others. Once again, equality is not homogeny.
If we are all equal, and none of us is superior to anyone else, why aspire to anything at all?I thought the point was to aspire to do our True Will. A Will which is unaffected by the alleged inferiority/superiority of others. Thelema is based on the proposition that we each have a True Will. In the unlikely event that we do, indeed, possess this Will, then we must accept that each other person's Will is equally valid, and that each individual has an equal right to pursue that Will. Thus we are all equal from a Thelemic perspective. If we, at any time, view another's Will as less valid (i.e. unequal) to our own then we reject the most ( ... )
Reply
And on this point, might I suggest reading a poem by Crowley entitled "The Bean Pedlar"
Reply
How can we have an "equal" society and have hierarchy and tiers of ability and power? Please read Nietzsche and more Crowley - especially why he says the morals" of Thelema are difficult - there is a whole Chapter on this in Magick Without Tears and get back to me.
If AC believed in 'equality' and "not judging people" kindly show me where he says it. His personal faults, according to you, don't negate his arguments. This is called an "ad hominem" argument and it's fallacious.
Reply
Leave a comment