Aleister Crowley recognized the importance of tolerance within O.T.O. In "Concerning the Law of Thelema", he mentions this virtue several times:
It is to be noted that wherever teamwork is necessary social tolerance is an essential...
Tolerance also is taught in the higher grades; so that no man can be even an Inspector of the Order unless he be equally well disposed to all classes of opinion. [...] With this provision, it is easy to see that intolerance and snobbery are impossible; for the example set by members of the universally respected higher grades is against this. I may add that members are bound together by participation in certain mysteries, which lead to a synthetic climax in which a single secret is communicated whose nature is such as to set at rest for ever all division on those fertile causes of quarrel, sex and religion...
A fortiori, then, it must be possible to train men to independence, to tolerance, to nobility of character, and to good manners, and this is done in the O.T.O. by certain very efficacious methods...
Tolerance is not only a fundamental principle of O.T.O., it is of Thelema as well. Crowley himself summed it up perfectly:
Every Star has its own Nature, which is "Right" for it. We are not to be missionaries, with ideal standards of dress and morals, and such hard ideas. We are to do what we Will, and leave others to do what they Will. We are infinitely tolerant, save of intolerance. —New Commentary, II:57, and...
Tolerance itself produces suavity, and suavity soon relieves the strain on tolerance. —New Commentary, II:52
And of course we have this from Liber Aleph:
Have respect also to the Will of thy Fellow, not hindering him in his way save as he may overly jostle thee in thine. For by the Practice of this Tolerance thou shalt come sooner to the Understanding of this Equality of all Things in Our Lady Nuit, and so the high Attainment of universal Love. —Eo, De Virtute Tolerantiæ
Tolerance is an absolute requirement within a Thelemic society, because we recognize that every person has their own unique Will. By joining the Order, certain Oaths are taken under Will, and all members should rightfully expect their fellows to maintain fidelity and good faith. At the same time, within the boundaries of our fraternal oaths and principles, the Order provides a sanctuary wherein initiates may explore, experiment, and celebrate in their own Great Work. For some, this Work will look like traditional A∴A∴ teachings. However, for others, the methodology of their Great Work might look quite different. Our duty is not to judge the Way a sibling travels to her own Will—it is to help her along the Way, providing support, feedback, and inspiration. Do you doubt this? Crowley didn't—"We insist from the beginning on the individual character of the work," and "I certainly have no intention of holding you down to a narrow path of work or any path."
Tolerance isn't about accepting bad behavior, it is about celebrating our individuality. Tolerance doesn't mean we avoid conflict at all costs, it means we fight with respect and good faith. Tolerance has gotten a bad rap by some people who either misunderstand this essential virtue or see it as a threat to their belief that being a Thelemite means being like them. To that, I'll let Crowley (from Confessions, ch. 69) speak for me: "Intolerance is evidence of impotence."
Tolerance requires Strength and Courage, and is the key to Love. It is time to rehabilitate this word, to give it its rightful respect and return it to a place of honor, a true virtue to which we should aspire. With that, I end this epistle with our traditional salutation: Peace, Tolerance, Truth.
Page Summary
![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif)
jessicamelusine : (no subject) [+1] - fyoosh : (no subject) [+2]
- beloved56 : (no subject) [+9]
- anubis75 : (no subject) [+0]
- pangaia93 : (no subject) [+1]
- scorpio111 : (no subject) [+2]
- peripsol93 : I smell a Shell [+1]
- ensurientchaos_ : Can you tolerate this? [+8]
- aq777 : Good post [+5]
- panshiva : The limit [+5]
Comments
*clap clap* Well said!
I think some people confuse tolerance with apathy. Totally different beasts.
Either that or they confuse it with wishy-washiness. As someone who spent the better part of his life walking a hard-line, I know it took me a while to learn the difference in the two myself.
Just because Crowley was inconsistent does not mean that we have to be too.
Once people get over the Aleisterisms of Thelema (in another hundred years or three), maybe we'll actually see Thelema in the light of its actual princples rather than those perceived by the Aleistarians. Or at least one can hope.
That is certainly a common argument. I can understand the fear...it is the irrational fear that all standards will be abandoned, all discipline scuttled, and all good practices forsaken. When this fear becomes too strong, a common coping response is to develop ever more rigid standards, self-righteous cries for discipline, and narrow lists of acceptable practices. This is the road to intolerance.
Once people get over the Aleisterisms of Thelema (in another hundred years or three), maybe we'll actually see Thelema in the light of its actual principles rather than those perceived by the Aleistarians. Or at least one can hope.
I share that hope.
Also
"As brothers fight ye."
and
"may beauty answer beauty."
one might also say there is a certain fraternity between all living things, a natural fraternity that is an expression of their essential will to be what they are.
this is also thelemic.
I am fascinated by the idea of it being impossible to connect thelema and fraternity. If you don't want to stuff ash's journal, stuff mine.
this is also thelemic.
Sorry. This is rhetoric and not based on reality. There is no fraternity between the lion and the lamb. One is a meal. And there's nothing fraternal about that. And the "expression of their essential will to be what they are" isn't about fraternity. It's about nature.
Fraternity is the state of being fraternal. Fraternal is "(a) Of or relating to brothers: a close fraternal tie. (b) Showing comradeship; brotherly."
Now. Sure. Anyone can talk about the "great circle of life" and how "everyone is related" and "we're all brothers in the Lord" and all kinds of crap. But that's exactly what it is: crap. It's equalitarian crap.
While there certainly are certain fraternal aspects within thelemic doctrine, the manifestation of that within the Order is not complete. It comes back to that same philosophy that is so typical of dilettante thelemists that everything is relevant and everything is right. While you want to quote what you want, I can do the same with "let them die in their misery". It gets us nowhere when spouting verses without a holistic understanding of Thelema itself. It is more than a couple of neat quotables to throw at people during a discussion or debate.
But that's more than most people want. Most are looking for a justification for their anti-social and misanthopic lives rather than a system of enlightenment, personal responsibility or social justice.
(Sorry. I'm already having a morning so I'm a bit more confrontational than normal. My apologies to you and to Ash. I just wanted to get that off my chest quickly.)
"let them die in their misery."
and
"having respect for the will of thy fellow [,] not jostling him in his way."
is non-interference.
If you do not think fraternity is part of thelema as a member of the OTO you are not paying attention to your initiations.
To me, the thing about tolerance has to do with understanding Thelema from a scientifically philosophical standpoint. With true individuality it is inevitable that not everyone is going to agree with, or coincide with the lifestyles, views, behaviors and perspectives of everyone else. However, people are the way they are, and act the way they do because, from THEIR perspective, based upon THEIR experiences and viewpoint, this is what they should do and how they should be. It may not make sense to me, and it may seem all kinds of crazy and wrong to me, because it doesn't tally with my perspective and experience. Nevertheless, because I am not them, and have not experienced being them, i.e. lived life as them from their perspective, I must practice tolerance. To not do so would imply that somehow I can judge or assess what's valid for them, even though I haven't seen it, or lived it (whatever the 'it' may be) as they have. IMO, not only is this illogical, but also kind of transgresses the entire basis of "Every Man and Every Woman is a Star".
The obviousness of this is deafening. And yet, people insist that there are better or more accurate perspectives, beliefs, and behaviors. Built upon the substrate of human biology and psychology is a nearly infinate range of personal manifestations, shaped by genes, culture, family, nutrition, and a multitute of life experiences. It is utterly irrational to suggest that a Thelemite both accept that everyone has their own Will while also maintaining that within the huge range of human manifestation only a narrow band of belief and behavior is acceptable. Of course, humans continuously display an amazing ability to hold multiple incompatible beliefs...this ability is the foundation of religion.
While too much tolerance is a problem, I see a great deal of intolerance as an anger issue in an individual. Many people have a large amount of anger and resentment held within. Instead of dealing with and expelling anger in a proper manner, intolerance is one of many ways that people use to vent anger on targets exterior to (and perhaps safer than) the original source. Intolerance of a particular thing or action is only the vehicle and excuse for the anger discharge. For the Magus, this motivation can only impede the work. It needs to be recognized, targeted, and controlled.
Mapped on the Qliphothic tree: Malkunofat, connecting the Qliphoth of Hod and Geburah.
Thanks, Ash for providing me with the inspiration for another paragraph in my book.
My pleasure, I'm sure. :)
While too much tolerance is a problem, I see a great deal of intolerance as an anger issue in an individual.
I think this kind of thing usually comes down to fear and a weak self-image. When one doesn't have a strong sense of self, it can be substituted with rigid standards powered by self-righteous judgment of those who do not conform. Having standards is a good thing, but being self-righteous generally is not. I think that this is what tolerance is really about...getting rid of sanctimonious judgment.
it's very easy to agree with somebody when they throw around loaded words like "tolerance" and "freedom" and "democracy". Hell, the president does it. What do you think got him into the White House? But when you present these banner waving words as an argument against someone else's more specific points, it just makes you look silly.
But I would expect as much from you Ash. You are an excellent writer. But you are also sentimental and illogical.
And I think some of this has to do with a certain lack of self-reflection. For example, refusing to mention certain people's names anymore on LJ and then proceeding to speak of them anyway but as "some people". To not see the absurdity of this...well...it just makes you look silly.
And I suppose I should ask you what you mean by tolerance, because from your post I haven't the slightest. But I don't think you do either.
"Stamp down the wretched and the weak. This is the law of the strong, this is our law and the joy of the world."
For example, "For so many, this word is antithetical to Thelema, and epitomizes everything that is wrong with left-leaning people."
who are you talking about here. One would naturally think you are talking about Keith418. Is that the case?
If so, that's a great tactic. You can rely on your reader's to make the connections you want them to make without having to demonstrate how what you say specifically applies to your opponents. Of course it only works if you don't think about it that much.
Of course, I may be misunderstanding you completely. You could be talking about some other person and people associated with them.
I actually feel very little need to do this for you, because I sincerely believe your "challenge" has no constructive end. I have learned to read cues in posts and comments that suggest this conclusion. In yours, you say that I am "sentimental and illogical. And ... this has to do with a certain lack of self-reflection." Whenever I hear a "challenge" that is based on an assumption that I am (a) illogical, and (b) shallow of thought, understanding, or self-knowledge, it means that I can't win. You have already decided that my ideas are of little value. Therefore, you aren't really interested in what I have to say, you are simply picking a fight with me, I assume because you find it entertaining. While you are free to enjoy that kind of thing, I honestly don't have the time or interest for it myself.
I will close this thread with a challenge, sir, for you. I challenge you to adopt, at least for a moment, a different viewpoint for this post. Instead it reading it as an attack on other people, try reading it as a discussion of attitudes and concepts—some of which I am attacking, and some of which I'm trying to rehabilitate. If you are able to do this, then we might be able to have a discussion.
To me, this answers the question of definition, and in context seems to appropriately encapsulate the rest of the piece.
Here's where it gets tricky and I think when it comes to the OTO, if you have people making policy or bolstering the opinion to motivate its production, that aren't committed to thelema they are definitely overly jostling one's will.
Not only that but the imperative of our oaths require us to act on certain directives both towards ourselves and our brothers may look a little like jostling sometimes.
If so, adhering to them is also your will, and if anything is jostled it is perhaps your desires, which are somewhat different, though often related.
If not, then why did you take them, and why would you not repudiate them upon discovering that they do not accord with your will?
The Jews are successful in their cosmopolitan (the actual definition used here) outlook. But more importantly, while they are tolerant of many different cultures, they have no room for compromise in their own beliefs and their own culture. They know exactly where they, as a people, stand. They even quibble "as brothers" between themselves and the various sects, but at the end of the day, they are all Jews.
Try saying that about Thelemites. I would challenge — even dare — anyone to prove to me that this is true of Thelemites in our time.
The difference is that Thelemites, generally speaking, tend to promote the idea that there is no standard, no bottomline, no line to be drawn in the sand. This doesn't make Thelemites tolerant. It makes them blown around by any philosophy that is the last fad or the newest trend that they can thrown the word "thelemic" in front of and then tell people they can't judge them for being an individual. Many Thelemites, in my experience, have yet to learn to stand on their own while understanding the fundamentals of a system that is universal. And the fact of the matter remains that anyone who actually digs deeper than a verse or two for spouting off to the masses is labeled a "CoP". (And, believe me, we actually see a lot more of this now than fifteen years ago.)
Someday we'll grow up. Just because we are in the aeon of the crowned and conquering child does not mean that we have to act like spoiled brats ... or ignorant and arrogant teenagers.
This hasn't been my experience at all. Being at Scarlet Woman Lodge, Therion-Babalon Oasis, and working with many members in the Order, both in Grand Lodge and from around the country, I can say that the vast majority of them had very high standards for their brothers and sisters. One of the reasons I'm still in OTO is because my own siblings demanded more of me, and their challenge and support of me over the years helped me become a much better person.
At the same time, I agree that in general there has been no consistent "line in the sand." However, I do not believe that is because of a misguided attempt at tolerance. I think it is because we in OTO haven't really articulated what our shared "line" should be. Fortunately, in the last 2 or 3 years especially, I've been seeing that line become more sharply defined.... keep to your oaths, become competent ritualists, run our local bodies in business way, maintain our core fraternal principles (honor, beneficence, harmony, tolerance, nobility), and so on.
I am truly sorry if your experience has been different. If it gives you any hope, I can tell you that your's is in the minority.
But I'm rambling. Please forgive me.
My experience including outside the Order in some of the more inhospitable regions of Thelema; at least for OTOers. I've walked away with a very broad (and seemingly narrow) view of Thelema and its fundamental elements. And while the Order may be working on trying to "draw that line" or come up with acceptable "standards", Thelema is flailing about, reduced to catch-phrases and trite spouting of overblown and underexamined verses. Confrontation, like some of your readers, is not "anti-thelemic". But I would hold that stupidity is.
"Beware therefore! Love all, lest perchance is a King concealed! Say you so? Fool! If he be a King, thou canst not hurt him.
Therefore strike hard & low, and to hell with them, master!"
It depends on what frame you are using It seems that you are here comparing the force of the Sun in reference to living things on the Earth. However, a more relevant frame might be the Sun in reference to all other Suns. In this sense, I would say that the Sun is indeed tolerant, being perfectly happy to let them all travel as they will, while also being connected at a deep level to form the fraternal Beauty that is the Milky Way Galaxy.
"Every man and every woman is a star."
In turn, its not a Thelemites job, IMO, to curtail their shining, even burning.
Stars also clash. Black holes consume stars. The universe is a continuum of harmony and strife. Below the abyss, there are contending and cooperating forces always in dynamic interchange.
Tolerance is appropriate in some domains, and not in others. That is to be determined by recourse to ones Will as applied to the circumstances and situation before one in each moment.
Yes! And this is one of the core (if not THE core) purpose of the OTO. We provide a sanctuary built upon the foundation of fraternity wherein initiates may conduct their Great Work. As AC says, there is "no circumstance of life in which the O.T.O. is not both sword and shield" (CLXI). In this sense, we are a Stellar Nursery!
Stars also clash. Black holes consume stars. The universe is a continuum of harmony and strife. Below the abyss, there are contending and cooperating forces always in dynamic interchange.
Indeed...and as I pointed out, Tolerance does not require passivity or avoidance of necessary conflict. What it does do is prevent needless acrimony and hostility, especially the kind that is based on narrow-minded discrimination against ideas that are different.
Tolerance is appropriate in some domains, and not in others. That is to be determined by recourse to ones Will as applied to the circumstances and situation before one in each moment.
Absolutely! However, within the framework of OTO, the Order offers initiates many opportunities to exit their initiations and thereby refuse the fraternal obligations which they otherwise swear to under Will. Tolerance is built into the System they are entering into, being an integral aspect of fraternity. At the same time, tolerance does not require allowing another to violate one's personal boundaries...every member has the right to protect his or her integrity. Tolerance is more relevant on the other side of that equation...it includes the acceptance of other's boundaries, hopefully fulfilling the principle of non-interference. I agree with you that it is a complex dance, but I think the OTO stresses an aspiration towards increased tolerance rather than a decrease of it.
Adding my emotional baggage to what you wrote, certainly helps me to understand your post and how it does not apply to my experiences and probably not anyone's.
Tolerence turned me into a newt! No one told me this would happen and it must be negligence on someone else's part. *Oh look! Something shiney...gotta go*
Agreed.