220A2-3.ASC 22. Drunkeness is a curse and a hindrance only to slaves. Shelley's couriers w
220A2-3.ASC
22. Drunkeness is a curse and a hindrance only to slaves.
Shelley's couriers were `drunk on the wind of their own
speed.' Any one who is doing his true Will is drunk with the
delight of Life. Wine and strange drugs do not harm people
who are doing their will; they only poison people who are
cancerous with Original Sin. In Latin countries where Sin is
not taken seriously, and sex-expression is simple, wholesome,
and free, drunkenness is a rare accident. It is only in
Puritan countries, where self- analysis, under the whip of a
coarse bully like Billy Sunday, brings the hearer to
`conviction of sin,' that he hits first the `trail' and then
the `booze.' Can you imagine an evangelist in Taormina? It is
to laugh. This is why missionaries, in all these centuries,
have produced no conversions whatever, save among the lowest
types of negro, who resemble the Anglo-Saxon in this
possession of the `fear-of-God' and `Sin' psychopathies.
Truth is so terrible to these detestable mockeries of
humanity that the thought of self is a realization of hell.
Therefore they fly to drink and drugs as to an anaesthetic in
the surgical operation of introspection. The craving for
these things is caused by the internal misery which their use
reveals to the slave-souls. If you are really free, you can
take cocaine as simply as salt-water taffy. There is no
better rough test of a soul than its attitude to drugs. If a
man is simple, fearless, eager, he is all right; he will not
become a slave. If he is afraid, he is already a slave. Let
the whole world take opium, hashish, and the rest; those who
are liable to abuse them were better dead. For it is in the
power of all so-called intoxicating drugs to reveal a man to
himself. If this revelation declare a Star, then it shines
brighter ever after. If it declare a Christian -- a thing not
man nor beast, but a muddle of mind -- he craves the drug, no
more for its analytical but for its numbing effect. Lytton
has a great story of this in `Zanoni.' Glyndon, an
uninitiate, takes an Elixir, and beholds not Adonai the
glorious, but the Dweller on the Threshold; cast out from the
Sanctuary, he becomes a vulgar drunkard. `This folly against
self;' altruism is a direct assertion of duality, which is
division, restriction, sin, in its vilest form. I love my
neighbour because love makes him part of me; not because hate
divides him from me. Our law is so simple that it constantly
approximates to truism. `The exposure of innocence.' Exposure
means `putting out' as in a shop-window. The pretence of
altruism and so-called virtue `is a lie;' it is the hypocrisy
of the Puritan, which is hideously corrupting both to the
hypocrite and to his victim. To `lust' is to grasp
continually at fresh aspects of Nuit. It is the mistake of
the vulgar to expect to find satisfaction in the objects of
sense. Disillusion is inevitable; when it comes, it leads
only too often to an error which is in reality more fatal
than the former, the denial of `materiality' and of
`animalism.' There is a correspondence between these two
attitudes and those of the `once-born' and `twice-born' of
William James (Varieties of Religious Experience). Thelemites
are `thrice-born;' we accept everything for what it is,
without `lust of result,' without insisting upon things
conforming with a priori ideals, or regretting their failure
to do so. We can therefore `enjoy' all things of sense and
rapture' according to their true nature. For example, the
average man dreads tuberculosis. The `Christian Scientist'
flees this fear by pretending that the disease is an illusion
in `mortal mind.' But the Thelemite accepts it for what it
is, and finds interest in it for its own sake. For him it is
a necessary part of the Universe; he makes `no difference'
between it and any other thing. The artist's position is
analogous. Rubens, for instance, takes a gross pleasure in
female flesh, rendering it truthfully from lack of
imagination and analysis. Idealist painters like Bourgereau
awake to the divergence between Nature and their academic
standards of Beauty, falsify the facts in order to delude
themselves. The greatest, like Rembrandt, paint a gallant, a
hag, and a carcass with equal passion and rapture; they love
the truth as it is. They do not admit that anything can be
ugly or evil; its existence justifies itself. This is because
they know themselves to be part of an harmonious unity; to
disdain any item of it would be to blaspheme the whole. The
Thelemite is able to revel in any experience soever; in each
he recognizes the tokens of ultimate Truth. It is surely
obvious, even intellectually, that all phenomena are
interdependent, and therefore involve each other. Suppose a b
c = d, a = d - b - c just as much as b = d-c-a. It is
senseless to pick out one equation as `nice', and another as
`nasty'. Personal predilections are evidence of imperfect
vision. But it is even worse to deny reality to such facts as
refuse to humour them. In the charter of spiritual
sovereignty it is written that the charcoal-burner is no less
a subject than the duke. The structure of the state includes
all elements; it were stupid and suicidal to aim at
homogeneity, or to assert it. Spiritual experience soon
enables the aspirant to assimilate these ideas, and he can
enjoy life to the full, finding his True Self alike in the
contemplation of every element of existence.
23. This refers to the spiritual experience of Identity.
When one realizes one's Truth there is no room for any other
conception. It also means that the God-idea must go with
other relics of the Fear born of Ignorance into the limbo of
savagery. I speak of the Idea of God as generally understood,
God being `something not ourselves that makes for
righteousness,' as Matthew Arnold victorianatically phrased
his definition. The whiskered wowser! Why this ingrained
conviction that self is unrighteous? It is the heritage of
the whip, the brand of the born slave. Incidentally, we
cannot allow people who believe in this `God;' they are
troglodytes, as dangerous to society as any other thieves and
murderers. The Christians to the Lions! Yet, in the reign of
Good Queen Victoria, Matthew Arnold was considered rather hot
stuff as an infidel! Tempora mutantur, p.d.q. when a Magus
gets on the job. The quintessence of this verse is (however)
its revelation of the nature of Hadit as a self-conscious and
individual Being, although impersonal. He is an ultimate
independent, and unique element in Nature, impenetrably
aloof. The negative electron seems to be his physical
analogue. Each such electron is indistinguishable from any
other; yet each is determined diversely by it relations with
various positive complementary electrons. The verse is
introduced at this juncture in order to throw light on the
passage which follows. It is important to understand Hadit as
the `core of every star' when we come to consider the
character of those stars, his `friends' or sympathetic ideas
grouped about him, who are `hermits,' individualities
eternally isolated in reality though they may appear to be
lost in their relations with external things.
24. The Christians to the Lions! A hermit is one who
dwells isolated in the desert, exactly as a soul, a star, or
an electron in the wilderness of space-time. The doctrine
here put forth is that the initiate cannot be polluted by
any particular environment. He accepts and enjoys everything
that is proper to his nature. Thus, a man's sexual character
is one form of his self-expression; he unites Hadit with Nuit
sacramentally when he satisfied his instinct of physical
love. Of course, this is only one partial projection; to
govern, to fight, and so on, must fulfil other needs. We must
not imagine that any form of activity is ipso facto incapable
of supplying the elements of an Eucharist: suum cuique.
Observe, however, the constant factor in this enumeration of
the practices proper to `hermits:' it is ecstatic delight.
Let us borrow an analogy from Chemistry. Oxygen has two hands
(so to speak) to offer to other elements. But contrast the
cordial clasp of hydrogen or phosphorus with the weak
reluctant greeting of chlorine! Yet hydrogen and chlorine
rush passionately to embrace each other in monogamic madness!
There is no `good' or `bad' in the matter; it is the
enthusiastic energy of union, as betokened by the
disengagement of heat, light, electricity, or music, and the
stability of the resulting compound, that sanctifies the act.
Note also that the utmost external joy in any phenomenon is
surpassed a millionfold by the internal joy of the
realization that self-fulfilment in the sensible world is but
a symbol of the universal sublimity of the formula `love
under will.' The last two sentences demand careful
attention. There is an apparent contradiction with verses
59,60. We must seek reconcilement in this way: Do not imagine
that any King can die (v.21) or be hurt (v.59); strife
between two Kings can therefore be nothing more than a
friendly trial of strength. We are all inevitably allies,
even identical in our variety; to `love one another with
burning hearts' is one of our essential qualities. But who
then are the `low men,' since `Every man and every woman is a
star?' The casus belli is this: there are people who are
veiled from themselves so deeply that they resent the bared
faces of us others. We are fighting to free them, to make
them masters like ourselves. Note verse 60, `to hell with
them:' that is, let us drive them to the `hell' or secret
sanctuary within their consciousness. There dwells `the worm
that dieth not and the fire that is not quenched;' that is,
`the secret serpent coiled about to spring' and `the flame
that burns in every heart of man' -- Hadit. In other words,
we take up arms against falsehood; we cannot help it if that
falsehood forces the King it has imprisoned to assent to its
edicts, even to believe that his interests are those of his
oppressor, and to fear Truth as once Jehovah did the Serpent.
25. By `the people' is meant that canting, whining,
servile breed of whipped dogs which refuses to admit its
deity. The mob is always afraid for its bread and butter --
when its tyrants let it have any butter -- and now and then
the bread has 60% substitutes of cattle-fodder. (Beast-food,
even the New York Times of November 13, 1918, E.V. has it.)
So, being afraid, it dare not strike. And when the trouble
begins, we aristocrats of Freedom, from the castle or the
cottage, the tower or the tenement, shall have the slave mob
against us. The newspapers will point out to us that `the
People' prefer to starve, and that John D. Rockefeller for
the permission to do so. Still deeper, there is a meaning in
this verse applicable to the process of personal initiation.
By `the people' we may understand the many-headed and mutable
mob which swarms in the slums of our own minds. Most men are
almost entirely at the mercy of a mass of loud and violent
emotions, without discipline or even organization. They sway
with the mood of the moment. They lack purpose, foresight,
and intelligence. They are moved by ignorant and irrational
instincts, many of which affront the law of self-preservation
itself, with suicidal stupidity. The moral Idea which we call
`the people' is the natural enemy of good government. He who
is `chosen' by Hadit to Kingship must consequently be
`against the ' people if he is to pursue any consistent
policy. The massed maggots of `love' devoured Mark Antony as
they did Abelard. For this reason the first task of the
Aspirant is to disarm all his thoughts, to make himself
impregnably above the influence of any one of them; this he
may accomplish by the methods given in Liber Aleph, Liber
Jugorum, Thien Tao, and elsewhere. Secondly, he must impose
absolute silence upon them, as may be done by the `Yoga'
practices taught in Book 4 (Part I) Liber XVI, etc. He is
then ready to analyse them, to organize them, to drill them,
and so to take advantage of the properties peculiar to each
one by employing its energies in the service of his imperial
purpose.
26. The magical power is universal. The Free Man directs
it as He Will. Leave Him alone, or He will make you sorry you
tried to interfere! There is here a reference to the two
main types of the Orgia of Magick; I have already dealt with
this matter in the Comment. Observe that in the `mystic'
work, the union takes place spontaneously; in the other,
venom is shot forth. This awakes the earth to rapture; not
until then does union occur. For, in working on the planes of
manifestation, the elements must be consecrated and made
`God' by virtue of a definite rite.
27. Humanity errs terribly when it gets `education', in
the sense of ability to read newspapers. Reason is rubbish;
race-instinct is the true guide. Experience is the great
Teacher; and each one of us possesses millions of years of
experience, the very quintessence of it, stored automatically
in our subconscious minds. The Intellectuals are worse than
the bourgeoisie themselves; a la lanterne! Give us Men!
Understanding is the attribute of the Master of the Temple,
who has crossed the Abyss (or `Pit') that divides the true
Self from its conscious instrument. (See Liber 418, `Aha'!
and Book 4, Part III). We must meditate the meaning of this
attack upon the idea of `Because.' I quote from my diary the
demonstration that Reason is the Absolute, whereof all Truths
soever art merely particular cases. The theorem may be stated
roughly as follows. The universe must be expressible either
as n, or as Zero. That is, it is either unbalanced or
balanced. The former theory (Theism) is unthinkable; but
Zero, when examined, proves to contain the possibility of
being expressed as n-n, and this possibility must in its turn
be considered as p. This thesis appears to me a reductio ad
absurdum of the very basis of our mathematical thinking. We
knew before, of course, that all reasoning is bound to end in
some mystery or some absurdity; the above is only one more
antimony, a little deeper than Kant's, perhaps, but of the
same character. Mathematicians would doubtless agree that all
signs are arbitrary, elaboration of an abacus, and that all
`truth' is merely our name for statements that content our
reason; so that it is lower than reason, and within it; not
higher and beyond, as transcendentalists argue. I seem never
to have seen this point before, though `men of sense'
instinctively affirm it, I suppose, The pragmatists are mere
tradesmen with their definition of Truth as `the useful to be
thought; ' but why not `the necessary to be thought?' There
is a sort of Berkeleyan subjectivity in this view; we might
put it: `All that we can know of Truth is `that which we are
bound to think.'' The search for Truth amounts, then, to the
result of the analysis of the Mind; and here let us remember
my fear of the result of that analysis as I expressed them a
month ago. This analysis is the right method after all.
Now, are we justified in assuming, as we always do, that our
reason is either correct or incorrect? That if any
proposition can be shown to be congruous with `A is A' it is
`true,' and so on? Does the `reason' of the oyster comply
with the same canon as man's? We assume it. We make the
necessity in our thought the standard of the laws of Nature;
and thus implicitly declare Reason to be the Absolute. This
has nothing to do with the weakness or error in any one mind,
or in all minds; all that we rely on is the existence of
some purely mental standard by which we could always correct
our thinking, if we knew how. It is then this power which
constrains our thought, to which our minds owe fealty, that
we call `Truth;' and this `Truth' is not a proposition at
all, but a `Law!' We cannot think what it is, obviously, as
it is a final condition of philosophical thought in the same
way as Space and Time are conditions of phenomenal thought.
But, can there be some third type of thought which can escape
the bonds of that as that can of this? `Samadhic
realization,' one is tempted to rush in and answer --- while
angels hesitate. All my `philosophic' thought, as above, is
direct reflection upon the meaning of Samadhic experience. Is
it simply that the reflections are distorted and dim? I have
shown the impossibility of any true Zero, and thus destroyed
every axiom, blown up the foundations of my mind. In failing
to distinguish between None and Two, I cannot even cling to
the straw of `phrases,' since Time and Space are long since
perished. None is Two, without conditions; and therefore it
is a positive idea, and we are just as right to enquire how
it came to be as in the case of Haeckel's monad, or one's
aunt's umbrella. We are, however, this one small step
advanced by our initiations, that we can be quite sure this
`None-Two' is, since all possible theories of Ontology
simplify out to it. Nevertheless, with whatever we try to
identify this Absolute, we cannot escape from the fact that
it is in reality merely the formula of our own Reason. The
idea of Space arises from reflection upon the relations of
our bodily gestures with the various objects of our senses.
(Poincare - I note after reading him, months later, as I
revise this note - explains this fully). So that a `yard' is
not a thing in itself, but a term in the equations which
express the Laws according to which we move our muscles. My
knowledge consists exclusively of the mechanics of my own
mind. All that I know is the nature of its norm. The
judgments of the Reason are arbitrary, and can never be
verified. Truth and Reality are simply the Substance of the
Reason itself. My demonstration that `None-Two is the formula
of the Universe' should then preferably be re-stated thus:
`The mind of the Beast 666 is so constituted that it is
compelled to conceive of an Universe whose formula is None-
Two.'
E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank