Threading the Needle

[tannhaus]

Yeah...in your opinion it would be better for the individual and society at large. That's what I mean. It seems to me that you automatically think your way is the way or the better way. I think most people do that, it's normal. I mean people obviously think what they think becuase they believe it to be right...but that doesn't mean that it is. That's all I'm saying.

No...not in my opinion. You're the one who brought up forcing ideas down anyone's throat. I was saying live MY life according to MY beliefs and portraying them to others. You brougt up the coercion.

The difference being, the individual and society as a group of individuals decide what is best....but they can't do that without being exposed to options. No coercion enters into the matter....you brought up that.

I said society is screwed up with their sex taboos. I said I've hopefully broken that down in my own life and live my life differently. I was obviously speaking out against those taboos and saying they're harmful. No one forcing anyone...

Then you come in and start talking about forcing people....

I was living my example...

[wintermute]

I don't think spacie's talking coercion at all. I think everyone agrees that every individual should live their life the way (s)he believes is right. Where the confusion lies is who, exactly, gets to decide what is right? Society? If so, then how can society's taboos be incorrect? (and I'm with you 100% on the messed-up views of sexuality of society as a whole) The individual? Then we have individuals who believe it's their right to tell others what to believe. That's where those beautiful greys come in, and there is no real "right" answer.

'mute

[tannhaus]

I guess I have to paraphrase that by saying it's your right to beleive what you beleive but it's not my obligation to agree.

That's what keeps the good ol' USA workin' and frankly it is the failure to allow for the above that is at the root of a some pretty big poblems we face today outside the Breeniverse.

Well, I particularly like the phrase "My morals stop at my skin". I don't think the problem is that people are trying to change things. That is evolution. That's a good thing. I think the problem is their focus. First, from a thelemic perspective....Liber Oz:

"the law of
the strong:
this is our law
and the joy
of the world." AL. II. 2

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." --AL. I. 40

"thou hast no right but to do thy will. Do that, and no other shall say nay." --AL. I. 42-3

"Every man and every woman is a star." --AL. I. 3

There is no god but man.

1. Man has the right to live by his own law--
to live in the way that he wills to do:
to work as he will:
to play as he will:
to rest as he will:
to die when and how he will.
2. Man has the right to eat what he will:
to drink what he will:
to dwell where he will:
to move as he will on the face of the earth.
3. Man has the right to think what he will:
to speak what he will:
to write what he will:
to draw, paint, carve, etch, mould, build as he will:
to dress as he will.
4. Man has the right to love as he will:--
"take your fill and will of love as ye will,
when, where, and with whom ye will." --AL. I. 51
5. Man has the right to kill those who would thwart these rights.
"the slaves shall serve." --AL. II. 58
"Love is the law, love under will." --AL. I. 57

That's the major reason I was having a problem with Spaciegirl's remarks. She was saying things I agree with and have said before...but acting as if she was somehow in opposition to me. So I guess she brought up forcing people to have something to oppose....but my views can be reconciled with the above...and here's how:

There is, to me, such a thing as a right action. Or, in thelemic terms:

AL I,44: "For pure will, unassuaged of purpose, delivered from the lust of result, is every way perfect."

The Old Comment

44. Recommends "non-attachment." Students will understand how in meditation the mind which attaches itself to hope of success is just as bound as if it were to attach itself to some base material idea. It is a bond and the aim is freedom.
I recommend serious study of the word unassuaged which appears not very intelligible.

The New Comment

This verse is best interpreted by defining 'pure will' as the true expression of the Nature, the proper or inherent motion of the matter, concerned. It is unnatural to aim at any goal. The student is referred to "Liber LXV", Cap. II, v. 24, and to the "Tao Teh King". This becomes particularly important in high grades. One is not to do Yoga, etc., in order to get Samadhi, like a schoolboy or a shopkeeper; but for its own sake, like an artist.
"Unassuaged" means "its edge taken off by" or "dulled by". The pure student does not think of the result of the examination.

Of course, taking the fact that it IS Thelema into account, you are concerned with right action as an individual...specifically the individual that is you. So, you see something in society that you think is causing harm...whether it be racism, sexism, harmful taboos, etc. The right action would to be to live your life devoid of those things and to speak out against them...so that others are now given the option to agree or disagree.

I think where people get screwed up is when they focus on a goal and not the right action as an individual. So, their goal becomes concerned with what other individuals do instead of what they themselves do. The only way you can fulfill a goal like that is by attempting to control others. You're no longer trying to better yourself and advance personally, but you're trying to control others...which is the antithesis of Thelema: "Interference with the will of another is the great sin".

As a Thelemite, I am concerned with myself. I am only concerned with your actions when they overlap mine or those of one who is not in a position to defend themselves. I do not care what you do otherwise.

So, if I see a bad situation...one in which people are being harmed...I speak out. Why? Because it is the appropriate action for me. Do I really care if people listen and heed? Not really. My goal is the action itself. I feel that it is proper for me to do. So I do it. If it seems proper to put my all into it....I do so. But, there is no result which I must have. If I live my life fighting against injustice and die....then I have done right...regardless of the outcome of my fighting.

[tannhaus]

What I was trying to say, albeit very crappily, is that some parents are not as involved and therefore do not know what their children are doing. And since their parents are not monitoring what their children are involved in, it is up to the moderators and the Creators to keep this a marginally safe place for them to be.

While it isn't our job to keep an eye on others children, neither is it our job to open their eyes to what might be considered adult topics.

I disagree. It's like "I don't want to watch my kids when they cross the street, so it's your job to". It is the responsibility of the parents to raise their children how they see fit. It's not my responsibility to adhere to their morals so their children will be raised how they want them to be..even though they're not taking the active role of actually raising them..

It's like some muslim countries and the burkha. If we find out a group of muslim children from one of these countries are coming to our town, do all the women in the town wear burkhas so as to not offend the childrens' morals? No. That's no different. Other adults shouldn't have to censor themselves and paint an unreal picture of life because the parents are not willing to monitor the children. The effect of not monitoring your children SHOULD BE that they're exposed to everything. It shouldn't be that people censor and do the job for you. That takes the consequences away from your actions...or lack of action.

While I don't think we should actively try to "open their eyes" neither should we censor for them because their parents aren't. Conversation should just naturally flow. As long as its not attacking each other...what is the point? I could be a Gaudiya Vaisnava (Hare Krishna) and think caffeine is a drug....so should caffeine use be censored as well? We shouldn't be expected to uphold someone else's morals for their children.

I used to have a pagan friend. Ocassionally he'd throw parties at his house. His daughter would be present. I don't quite remember her age...but she was around 7-8 or so. She would mingle with the guests. She enjoyed herself. Everyone enjoyed having her around.

Did they try to keep liquor away from her? No. Her dad sat her down once....said "taste this" and handed her a beer. She tasted it and hated it. That blew the curiosity factor. It also blew the taboo. She wouldn't feel she was "getting away with something" if she snuck a glass of liquor away.

Did they try to keep her away from discussions of sex and such? No. I remember one time I asked her "Where did so and so go?" and she replied "I think they snuck off to have sex". She knew about these things. She was a perfectly well adjusted little girl. She was open and well-mannered. No one scarred her by exposing her to reality and life.

[tannhaus]

I think everyone agrees that every individual should live their life the way (s)he believes is right. Where the confusion lies is who, exactly, gets to decide what is right?

The individual? Then we have individuals who believe it's their right to tell others what to believe.

I don't think the two fit. If an individual has the freedom of their beliefs, then it stands that other individuals have the freedom of THEIR beliefs too. We'll have people who think they have the right to control others no matter what...but it's our right to shun those individuals and prove to them that they don't.

[wintermute]

I don't think the two fit. If an individual has the freedom of their beliefs, then it stands that other individuals have the freedom of THEIR beliefs too. We'll have people who think they have the right to control others no matter what...but it's our right to shun those individuals and prove to them that they don't.

I'm in total agreement. I was just pointing out how easy it is to get into circular logic in this discussion.

'mute

[spaciegirlreturn]

I see no point in even arguing with you on the matter since it's clear to me that you can't even recognize when I'm still, pretty much, in agreement with you and I think you're becoming inflamatory for no reason. I didn't say that you were forcing anyone to do anything all I said is that I think you believe your way to be the way. I believe that there is no one way. You can disagree with me if I've gotten the wrong impression, but it still stands that that is my impression. Perhaps that is our inherant difference.

[tannhaus]

I see no point in even arguing with you on the matter since it's clear to me that you can't even recognize when I'm still, pretty much, in agreement with you

And that's what I've been saying....that you're agreeing with me.

and I think you're becoming inflamatory for no reason.

It's not my intention to be inflammatory. I'm saying that if you drop the coercion part...which I never brought up...then we're in agreement.

I didn't say that you were forcing anyone to do anything all I said is that I think you believe your way to be the way. I believe that there is no one way. You can disagree with me if I've gotten the wrong impression, but it still stands that that is my impression. Perhaps that is our inherant difference.

No...and I've stated as much. I believe a way to be the wrong way...the way that causes harm....the imposition of a societal view on individuals that causes harm to individuals. There are quite a few philosophers and psychologists that will point towards western society's taboos on sex as to be harmful to the individual.

Now, MY way (of course my morals stop at my skin) is to call attention to the problems as I see them. If others do not agree with me, that is fine. If others do agree with me, that is fine too. But, my way is to speak out on what I consider to be injustices....end of story.

It is up to the individual to decide for themselves. The ones that agree will agree and speak out. The ones that disagree will disregard them or speak out against them. That is the way of change...individuals causing change.

At no point have I said that the rights of the individual should be overridden. As a matter of fact, I support the rights of the individual. By speaking out, I give the individual something to make a decision on. I present another view and more information so they may decide. No one can make an adequate decision without gaining information on the various options. I'm just including information on the options as I see them.

Does that make my way the right way? Only the individual can decide that. I include my perceptions in the amount of material that the individual is confronted with. Then, they make their own choices.

Do I believe in an absolute right? No. But I don't believe in an absolute wrong either. What I believe in is better and worse solutions. The way that causes harm is the "wrong way" but many ways cause harm on many different levels. Some more than others.

I certainly stand by my beliefs as being right for me. I don't try to force anyone to believe like me. But, I do let others know what I believe and why I do so....so they may agree or disagree as they wish. Just because I stand for something doesn't mean I think everyone should be forced to believe like me.

[Taig]

ok ok..tannhaus and Spacigirl....it is starting to become very clear to me that you two are actually married

[tannhaus]

ok ok..tannhaus and Spacigirl....it is starting to become very clear to me that you two are actually married

There's still room for you baby

[spaciegirlreturn]

[betz28]

spacie you are too funny!