d00dette, I read between the lines WAY better than your caustic accusations and/or presumptions. You just miss the mark. My post stands, unchallenged, w/o being impinged upon by your responses in any way.
...oooookay.
Let me show you how this has kinda played out from what I can tell.
Me: *explanation of the Thelemic view of sin*
You: *standard "Crowley said you can do whatever you want!" kneejerk reaction*
Me, J_t_B, and Eudaimonist: *brief discussion of how you're wrong, based on previous discussions of Thelema*
You: *continued insistence that Thelema says you can do whatever you want*
Me: *more detailed explanation of what is meant by "restriction," demonstrating that you cannot actually do whatever you want, with (for me) mild snark*
You: *minor temper tantrum*
So, here we go, one more time.
When someone who talks about Crowley (and not in terms of "d00d he wuz cool!," but "He had a philosophical point") says "do what thou will," the implication is that "will" means "one's true will." The "true will" is the ultimate and highest purpose of the individual. So, that's P1. Yes, I'll set this up as a series of premises.
P1: "Do what thou wilt be the whole of the law" is a statement that the governing code of each individual is to achieve their highest potential.
Now, if that's the governing code of each individual, that means that every person has that same right (cf.
Liber OZ). Therefore, to behave in a way which impedes an individual from achieving their highest potential is a violation of their basic right as a reflection of divinity. For some, honestly, their highest potential might be to be a thief or a murderer. And, well, that's okay. They provide resistance which makes others stronger. Also, the highest potential of some people is going to involve being police officers, district attorneys, or righteous vigilantes, so the system is self-balancing. That's perfectly fine, because everyone involved is moving according to their highest purpose.
P2: It is the fundamental right of every individual to do their own true will.
So, if the "word of sin is restriction," what does that mean? Preventing someone from following any flight of fancy that they want is bad? Clearly, no - "restriction" would involve straying from your highest purpose in any way. If you've ever read Ayn Rand's
The Fountainhead, Ellsworth Toohey would be a great example of a Thelemic sinner. His life revolves around controlling others and elevating mediocrity as a virtue, rather than using his own gifts to pursue a heroic end. He acts from jealousy, not from love. And as the second law of Thelema is that "love is the law, love under will," love must be the influence upon our highest goals, while simultaneously being disciplined and not dependent on romanticized ideas.
P3: An action motivated by real love is one which is in accordance with true will.
P4: Not every action is motivated primarily by real love.
And what would real love be? Similar to the concept of
agape, or as I prefer the Hebrew term
chesed - love that is without illusions or unnecessary passion. So, therefore, given P1, P2, P3, and P4...
.'. "The word of sin is restriction" does not mean "no one can say 'no' to you."
From what I can tell, you come into every discussion with your own conceptions of what is going to be said, and read those preconceptions into every statement. Having read your threads, they read like one-sided discussions. You don't engage in dialogue, you talk
at other people, don't respond to questions, and have tantrums if someone is not convinced by your arguments or points out inconsistencies in your statement. Honestly, in this talk we've had, I've provided an explanation for my side. Your responses have boiled down to "No, I'm right! You're not!"
You're up for the PlonkFile, currently. I haven't put the Soliloquy of Plonking in a thread in a while, so by all means continue your fingers-in-the ears LALALA technique of monologue.
