Do What Thou Wilt Is The Whole Of The Law

Great Beast 666Aleister Crowley, an early 20th century occultist, asserted that “Do what thou wilt is the whole of the law.” (Crowley 1978). Crowley’s statement is the closest maxim I have found to be representative of human ethical theory. By acting upon this maxim, each individual is forwarding the well being of all humanity. This is because through the process of competing forces the most useful for that specific set of circumstances will arise as the victorious force. However, this does not mean that any issue contains any inherent ethical meaning, rather in the context of the specific “game” that is being played pragmatic value can be assigned.

Eastern philosophical theories highlight the illusory nature of human existence. For instance, if we look at early Indian traditions, we inevitably recognize that the world has no logical basis for being “real.” Early Hindu thought had various different darsanas, which ranged in thought on a variety of issues. However, conserved across all these different schools of thought is the idea that the world is logically paradoxical. One of the most elementary versions of this paradox is very closely related to Zeno’s paradox of motion. In this thought experiment, the great Achilles is in a race against the lowly Tortoise. Since Achilles is a far superior runner, the tortoise is allowed to start running one hundred meters ahead of Achilles. As the race starts, Achilles quickly reaches the point at which the tortoise has started. However, by this point the Tortoise has progressed another ten meters. Again, Achilles reaches the point where the Tortoise was when Achilles was at the one hundred meter mark, but the tortoise has progressed one meter. This process continues ad infinitum with Achilles arriving at the point where the Tortoise last was, but the Tortoise having progressed a given amount. From this paradox, Zeno draws the conclusion that Achilles will never pass the Tortoise, thus inevitably losing the race (Cohen 2005). This argument at first look appears to be airtight, but also fly in the face of all experience. It is important to notice that within this mental experiment there is an assumption that this pattern, Achilles reaching the point where the Tortoise just was, can continue indefinitely. In essence, this experiment elucidates that it is impossible to come to a certainty about the reality of motion (Cohen 2005).

Still other Eastern philosophies reflect this trend, too. The Buddha’s teaching embodied the illusory nature of everyday religion, and these ideas were developed even more in-depth by later Buddhist schools of thought namely Yogacara and Madhayamika. The main philosophical school, which was in dialogue with the Yogacarins, was the representationalist realists (Siderits 2005). They believe that there is an outside environment, but it is mediated by our inability to directly contact it; rather we always see representations of what occurs in the outside world (Siderits 2005). For instance, while I may see a white sea shell, an individual with jaundice would see a yellow shell (Siderits 2005). The Yogacarins, on the other hand, believe there is no external reality, just internal impressions (Siderits 2005). The representationalist realists created four objections to this idea, which Vashudanhu then refuted (Siderits2005). Their first and second objections are based on the correlation between an event and space-time. However, Vashubandhu answers this objection with an analogy: in a dream there is also spatial and temporal correspondence. In a dream, if one walks into a kitchen where bread is baked, at a time bread is being baked, they will experience the smell of bread. In this situation, reality in the sense of spatio-temporal correspondence is equivalent to dreaming (Siderits 2005). The representationalist realists ask about another discrepancy: if dreams and reality are on the same ultimate level of existence, why is it that dreams do not affect the physical body in the same manner that awake experiences do? Vasubandhu replies that there is a correlation between dream experiences and the body, he says that “wet dreams” are an example of this correlation (Siderits 2005). The last objection to Vasubandhu’s standpoint relies on the agreement between different people on their experiential surroundings. Vasubandhu denies this by claiming that karma creates these inter-personal agreements. Since all beings that come in contact with each other on the same karmic level, their experiences (dharmas) are the same because it reflects their karma (Siderits 2005). The essential nature of Yogacarin Buddhism arises from this discourse between Vashudanhu and the representationalist realists.

Another derivative of Mahayana Buddhism is the Madhyamaka school, whose main proponent was Nagarjuna (Siderits 2005). Nagarjuna developed the idea of emptiness (sunyata) within his writings. He did this by using a combination of the reductio ad absurdum method, along with the concept of dependent origination (Siderits 2005). Reductio ad absurdum involves taking an assumption to a logical end in which it is paradoxical and rejecting the validity of the assumption based on this (Siderits 2005). The theory of dependent origination relies on the concept that everything is a product of cause and effect, in other words, something must arise from something (Siderits 2005). Nagarjuna uses these two tools to show that everything is empty. Due to the fact that origination results from an effect being inherent in a cause, there can be no true reality because if something is to be ultimately real it must only have one property (Siderits 2005). Through this method, Nagarjuna disproves the ultimate reality of movement and also proves the eye cannot see. (Siderits 2005) The end product of Nagarjuna’s logic is ultimate reality not falling into any of the categories of, is, is not, is and is not, or neither is nor is not. The Madhyamaka school’s main goal is for its disciples to recognize the ultimate emptiness of everything and, in doing so, achieve enlightenment.

Lastly one of the main eastern philosophical schools that questioned the inherent essence of positive or negative ethical attributes was Daoism. Daoism is considered a very naturalistic philosophy that disapproves of a large dialectic. In Daoism, the Dao (the path) is viewed as a lifestyle, something that should structure one’s life. There is a very large emphasis on the concept of wu-wei, not doing (Slingerland 2003). Through not doing, one is supposed to be emptying oneself of artificial constructions and letting the essential self emerge (Slingerland 2003). To do this seems obviously paradoxical, but it is based more on a mental level than on a literal level. The important emphasis of wu-wei is not regarding. Regarding in this situation refers to assigning values to things (Slingerland 2003). When one assigns value, it is necessary that an opposite thing arise to define the first value (Slingerland 2003). For instance, without any bad there is no good, without rich there is no poor, and so on. So by doing wu-wei, one is to completely emerge as a natural entity that is able to act in harmony with the will of the cosmos.

While these philosophical theories all suggest that any inherent meaning is absurd, it does not mean that if we take the world we live in as an assumed axiom we cannot create meaning within it using our own selves. For instance, consider a game of Risk, the strategic war game. Outside of the game there are no effects of playing the game, aside from the banter of the players. However, within the game, different strategies and group movements result in varying successes within the game. The success of a strategy is dependent on the rules of the game and the various ways the players respond to them. Thus, while our lives are meaningless outside the context of our lives, we still are within the game and thus must respond to how the game works (rules) and how others strategize. As another example take for instance a fictional game in a scene in David Wallace’s Infinite Jest. Eschaton is a fictional game much akin to Risk, played on a tennis court representing the surface of the planet Earth. The game becomes chaotic when it begins to snow. The snow is outside the scope of the game but this is confusing to those playing the game. Some players do not comprehend this difference and claim that the snow changes the dynamics of the game. An individual then launches an attack and punches another player instead of affecting the map. An authority on the game becomes quite livid and exclaims, “Players themselves can’t be valid targets. Players aren’t inside the goddamn game. Players are part of the apparatus of the game. They’re part of the map. It’s snowing on the players but not on the territory…. You can only launch against the territory. Not against the map. It’s like the one ground-rule boundary that keeps Eschaton from degenerating into chaos. Eschaton, gentlemen, is about logic and axiom and mathematical probity and discipline and verity and order. You do not get points for hitting anybody real. Only the gear that maps what’s real.” This once again represents the important difference between the relative meaning within the game as opposed to the ultimate meaning outside of the game itself (Wallace 1998).

Many existentialists have also made this point. In the work Nausea by Jean-Paul Sartre, he fictionally develops his existentialist theory. Within the book, the protagonist, Roquentin, finds himself in existential horror because he realizes that the world itself is indifferent to him. Rather, he sees that his very apprehension is inherent in all that he sees around him. The world itself has no meaning aside from what he gives to it. This idea can be summated as, “existence precedes essence.” Alfred Camus also touches on this issue in The Stranger. The protagonist Mersault is able to live with dualities such as happiness and sadness because he realizes each is fleeting. However, he cannot live with the duality that his life is meaningless while also recognizing that he thinks there is great value in his life (Camus 1982). He decides that this is absurd, but this is because he is taking to different types of truths and assuming that they are equivalent. The truth that he assumes his life is of great importance is relative to the “game” of life. The absolute meaninglessness of it is only applicable outside of the game, while Mersault is actually within the game. Between the two realizations, indeed, there is no real meaning to reality, but that there is in fact meaning within the context of life, we find a grounding of moral meaning. However, this does not give us any reason for assuming different moral precepts.

Another important point is that free will and consciousness are also products of the “game of life.” We must act as if we have free will and consciousness in order to function and even if these things are not real they are convenient fictions. If one were to understand how physical processes determine the future, the individual would need to have knowledge of every particle in the universe. However to do this, an individual would have to recreate the universe because as Alfred Korzybski said, “the map is not the territory.” (Korzybski 1994).There could be no generalizations about the particles in the universe only knowledge of every particle if one were to determine any exact results. Thus, even though these two things are not absolutely true, within the game they are necessary to functioning, and irreducible to their basal elements.

When we consider human ethics, we often think in the terms of a specific spatio-temporal slice. This slice is representative of a certain point of time and also a certain limit of space which our focus bounds. However, this view is flawed. Ethics has continually changed throughout the course of human history. This phenomenon has been noticed by Karl Marx. His analyses of class structure as a commonality among human society clearly elucidates the ever-changing nature of human ethical theory (Guignon 1995). While the recognition of this phenomenon shows a great deal of mental acumen, how Marx applied this observation to the generation of his own ethical theory is problematic. Marx claims that through an empirical analysis of the changing ethical theories throughout history, he can extrapolate how future ethics will come about, and in what form they will appear. However, by making this statement he is creating a self-reflexive loop that is irresolvable by logic. For instance, the Russian Revolution was influenced by Marx’s writing, and because of this, whether or not history would have taken this course without Marx’s theories having been known is an unsolvable issue. Thus, when Marx makes a claim about the future of ethical and societal trends, he is affecting them by the very fact of claiming them as eventualities. The self-reflexivity of predictive claims makes them almost improvable and thus inconsequential. This means that to generate a framework for ethical theory, which can be used to understand ethics, it must not make any predictive claims, as this causes a self-reflexive logical loop. Instead, ethical theory should be examined in hindsight to attempt and recognize the conserved patterns across all historical timelines.

If we stop to remember Crowley’s assertion that, “Do what thou wilt is the whole of the law” we can see that this is not a predictive statement but rather a maxim by which individual’s live. To update the assertion, it should be put into the form: by doing what one thinks is best and trying to craft the world in this manner, an individual is fulfilling their ethical obligation.

John Stuart Mill’s utilitarianism relies on the idea of the greatest happiness for the greatest number of principle. Essentially, the central maxim is the greatest happiness principle claims that one should act for the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people (Mill 2005). However, because we have previously come to conclusion that meaning is not an inherent thing, we must realize that the definition of what causes happiness is malleable and relies on a specific set of circumstances. From a purely biological point of view, happiness can be defined as reproductive success and continued existence. From a societal point of view happiness can be defined as trying to reach the ideal of the views that a society holds relative. Thus the sum of these two types of happiness would be biological viability along with the capability of achieving what society has deemed to be happiness. So, one should act to promote the most biological viability along with what society deems to be happiness.

The question then is, how can this idea be reconciled with Crowley’s statement? The response is found in the field of memetics and genetic evolution. The term meme arose from Richard Dawkins’ work with genetics, and it is generally accepted to mean a basal unit of an idea that can be transferred from person to person. These memes are posited to act as mental analogues to genetic material. Assuming that this is correct, ideas can replicate throughout a culture and also be eliminated by the culture in the same manner that poor genes are removed from the gene pool. In this situation, natural selection would be analogous to the sum total of individuals who reject a meme, meaning that the most prominent meme has the widest appeal and the most socially transferable nature. Thus, when every individual decides to act as they want and try to impose their preferences upon others, their actions come in to tension. One of two things can happen at this point: first, an individual can change their behavior to preserve themselves, and second, they can try to force this viewpoint onto the other. This can obviously come to physical harm or just a change of opinion and action. However, through this process we see an analogue of evolution. If we view each interaction as an example of memetic change, and the meme that is most fit will always be adopted because it is the most useful for the specific set of circumstances, then gradually the population will come to be dominated by this viewpoint, just as an unfit mutation will result in the selection against the unfit organism. Then, if circumstances change and there is a shift in the usefulness of one meme, gradually another will arise to assume its niche. As such through acting as one wants, the net result is a societal trend towards the most happiness for the most individuals.

Crowley’s statement very closely mirrors Nietzsche’s assertion of the will to power. Nietzsche focused in Thus Spake Zarathustra on the idea of the ubermensch, an individual who crafts their own goals and does not obey the morals of others (Guignon 1995). This suggests that because the ubermensch creates their own morals they should be able to do what they will themselves to do in all situations. By doing this, they are crafting their own existence and forcing themselves upon the world (Guignon 1995). What Nietzsche fails to realize, however, is that the ubermensch/man dichotomy is a false one. All individuals craft their own life and force themselves upon the world by the very act of passing moral judgment. Just because an individual may share the views of others does not mean that he is wrong, just that at that point in time a greater number of people are being served usefully by a certain ethical paradigm, and that is why it is so widespread. Thus, if we remove the distinction between these two types of men, we end up with Crowley’s initial statement that, “Do what thou wilt is the whole of the law.”

In conclusion, although life is inherently meaningless outside of itself, since all human beings are within the system, meaning can be ascribed. Also, because any predictive ethical theory is self-reflexive, it is incapable of ever making claims about the future that are verifiably true or false. Finally, through the process of memetic and genetic evolution, if every individual was to follow Crowley’s maxim, the net result would be a greater happiness for the most individuals.

Camus, Albert. The Stranger, trans. Joseph Laredo, 1982.
Carruth, Hayden (1964). Jean-Paul Sartre. ed. Nausea. New York: New Directions.
Cohen, Mark. (2005) Readings In Ancient Greek Philosophy: From Thales To Aristotle. Indianapolis.
Crowley, Aleister (1978). The Book of Lies. New York: Samuel Weiser.
Mill, John Stuart, Utilitarianism, ed. George Sher (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1979). IN: Hackett Publishing Company, 2005.
Science and Sanity An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics, Alfred Korzybski, Preface by Robert P. Pula, Institute of General Semantics, 1994, hardcover, 5th edition
Siderits, Mark. “Buddhist Reductionism and the Structure of Buddhist Ethics.” Indian Ethics: Classical and Contemporary Challenges. Edited by P. Bilimoria, J. Prabhu and R. Sharma. Abingdon, UK: Ashgate, 2005.
Slingerland, Edward Gilman. Effortless Action: Wu-Wei as Conceptual Metaphor and Spiritual Ideal in Early China (Oxford University Press, 2003).
The Good Life, edited by Charles Guignon (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1999).
Wallace, David Foster. Infinite Jest. 1st. ed. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company. 1996

Joe Chiarenzelli is the editor of The Gadfly Press. He has degrees in biology and philosophy from Saint Lawrence University. His honors thesis was on the subject of Cosmetic Psychopharmacology. Joe graduated in 2011. He now lives in Potsdam, New York, and frequents bars in order to goad people into arguments. The Gadfly Press endeavors to publish articles, stories, poems, and sayings which will provoke, intrigue, and most importantly, cause people to stop and think.

57 Comments on "Do What Thou Wilt Is The Whole Of The Law"

  1. From the article:

    “Finally, through the process of memetic and genetic evolution, if
    every individual was to follow Crowley’s maxim, the net result would be a
    greater happiness for the most individuals.”

    This seems to fall in line with the recent post “The Top Five Regrets of the Dying.”

    The first of those regrets:

    1. I wish I’d had the courage to live a life true to myself, not the life others expected of me.

  2. Mr Willow | Feb 6, 2012 at 10:54 pm |

    People often misinterpret Crowley’s maxim as meaning ‘Do whatever you like’, claiming it gives one leeway to commit all manner of debauchery without any ethical strings—‘Take what you want, to hell with everything’ mentality—when it is a statement advocating each person to form their own opinions, and to adhere to their own morality. 

    Don’t be a follower. . . 

    • Ghostlore777 | Feb 6, 2012 at 11:26 pm |

      I agree…sort of. Crowley was raised in a structured and rigid environment and during a period where the education system was also regimented and very strict. I imagine his philosophy came from the sense of freedom he deveolped when breaking away (in Crowley’s case, very far) from the norm of the day. I think he was simply a man a little bit ahead of his time and would probably find our open (relative to his time on earth) philosophies more akin to his line of thinking.

    • Irving Greenfield | Feb 7, 2012 at 10:49 am |

      Oh yeah, I’ve met quite a few Thelemites over the years that are like that.

  3. DeepCough | Feb 6, 2012 at 11:16 pm |

    Aleister Crowley’s “Law” is what happens when a child is raised in a paleoconservative Quaker family (much like he was).

    • Aleister Crowley 2012 | Feb 7, 2012 at 2:24 am |

      Quaker? Nope.

    • A) Crowley’s parents were Plymouth Brethren, not Quakers.
      B) The law predates Crowley almost in its entirety, going back to Francois Rabelais, a Catholic Monk from the 15th and 16th centuries, who Crowley does indeed refer to directly at various places in his writing.  See his book “Gargantua”.

  4. Ghostlore | Feb 6, 2012 at 11:20 pm |

    I think the problem with individuality is that there is more than one of us on the planet.
    And you can be sure as shit Crowley wrote that little blurb before the advent of nuclear weapons.

    • Nostromo Operator | Feb 7, 2012 at 1:16 am |

       Well, he didn’t claim to have written it but received it from a “praeterhuman intelligence known as  Awaiss, who claimed to be  the minister of Hoor-par-kraat aka the Egyptian Horus.

      it should be noted, that blurb is closely associated with the motto “Love is the law, Love under the will”.

      But then again Horus is the god of vengence and the printing of the book of the law (from where that blurb originates) was supposed to coincide with the first two world wars.

      But then again evil often begets good. I am reminded of the rare heard masonic maxim “we are the founders of religion, we are those do evil to create good”.

      All of this is mystical writings to be interpreted personally and probably not prosaically so arguing it’s “true meaning” is a fools errand. Not that we can’t gleam usuable truths and philosophies from it, however.

      It should also be noted that Crowley did a lot of work to defeat Hitler. But then again it was the Allies who dropped the bomb, so….

      I don’t think anything is really as black and white as our lazy minds would like.


  5. Basically, do what thou wilt to others, but beware of the consequences. They can do what they will to you.

  6. “There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt. Love is the law, love under will.”

    As if taking soundbytes and twisting content around them was the domain of mainstream media, the fringes always try to push theirselves in.

    [ For instance, if we look at early Indian traditions, we inevitably
    recognize that the world has no logical basis for being “real.”]

    They were also high as fuck and unreliable.

  7. Kconroy508 | Feb 7, 2012 at 1:41 am |

    “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.”

  8. discusthrower | Feb 7, 2012 at 1:43 am |

    yeah do moar durgs… Personally, I believe that intelligence is cooperation, cooperation is self-preservation, so intelligence is cooperating with the environment and other people… that is why we are so smart.

    I like the author’s references but I am not sure that I like what he wrote…maybe I am just being impatient…

  9. Aleister Crowley 2012 | Feb 7, 2012 at 2:22 am |

    You misquoted the verse in four places including the title. Sigh.

  10. By the way, the product that you link to at the top of the article, the schlock-lamentary “The Great Beast 666,” is badly researched and full of idiotic lies.

  11. it might have made more sense for disinfo to introduce its readers to aleister crowley in the late 90’s.  or to have kenneth anger and grant morrison and robert anton wilson talk about his ideas at disinfo.con 2000.

    oh right, those things happened.

    • Buddhaballa | Feb 7, 2012 at 3:31 pm |

      Right? Plato talked about Socrates thousands of years ago, who needs to hear about him again?

  12. InTheDoldrums | Feb 7, 2012 at 2:55 am |

    What happens when you lose your will to live? When you just don’t care anymore, when you hope you don’t wake up after you go to bed… Is that where telemarketers come from? Or spammers? Is that my future? 

    • gwen jackson | Feb 7, 2012 at 6:38 pm |

      no, those of us who have lost all will to live content ourselves with trolling websites, provoking people and generally being assholes while we wait for the angel of mercy (or just the angel of dope, if the angel of mercy is busy) to bring us enough oxycontin to quietly kill ourselves. Consider yourself trolled. 😉

  13. Lettuce thou wilt shall be the cole of the slaw!

  14. ThelemicPolice | Feb 7, 2012 at 12:27 pm |

    It’s “Do what thou wilt SHALL BE the whole of the law.”  It IS not yet the law.

    And nowhere in The Book of Lies ( does it say either in full.

  15. UselessJunk | Feb 7, 2012 at 2:15 pm |

    Alaister Crowley was a douche who contributed nothing to humanity.  Can we stop worshipping this loser now?

    •  “We” who?

    • fenris23 | Feb 7, 2012 at 9:51 pm |

      You’ve contributed more, have you?

    • Thank you. Crowley was a world class asshole if ever there was one. He wasn’t just an MI-5 agent whom every accolyte he ever had either went insane, became a drug addict, or died under mysterious circumstances for nothing. And how about leaving behind his party to die on Mt. Everest? World class champ of assholes. Utterly loathe the man.  

      • May I also add that if he’s so great and such a free thinker and all, then why do so many serial killers, satanists, and douchebags worship the ground he walks on in his name? Who cares if he would have loathed these people as well? He was a misanthrope who used people- not “do as thou wilt under love”- bullshit. The man was a sociopath. Research the occult in the military and see what his very enthusiastic contributions were to the process. Check out what his fanboys Jack Parsons, the father of modern rocketry in this country and L. Ron Hubbard (the ultimate Crowley fanboy) did with a woman in Crowley’s “Moonchild” ceremony in an attempt to create Crowley’s Babylon Workings. Crowley thought they were idiots as well, but it’s interesting how so many sociopaths and megalomaniacs tend to drift towards his ideologies and commit so many atrocities by his influence so well. Hubbard’s “Dianetics” is most definitely written in the style of some of Crowley’s works- the wording is almost like a Thelemite working, and Hubbard has been known to even say that Crowley was a “good friend” even though the two never met. If Crowley was so great, then why wasn’t Ghandi hanging out with him? Or MLK? No shortage of serial killers love the guy, he may have influenced many, he may have studied many esoteric philosophies, but a to call him a humanitarian and positive influential visionary is kind of overkill. 

  16. first address what/who he means by will
    your “soul” owns younot the other way around
    discussing a lot of these eastern ideas without really addressing dharma (no, it doesn’t mean experience – it refers to your place in the society in the cosmos, your duty) kind of skips half the pointregardless of the arguments of the illusory or dreamlike nature of our reality, these philosophies still promoted a duty-based lifestylenot some post-anarchist libertarian randian eutopia

    • Buddhaballa | Feb 7, 2012 at 3:23 pm |

      You are mistaking the use of the term dharma in traditional Indian/Buddhist culture with how it is used in Vasubandu’s writing. In the Abhidamakosha the term dharma refers to momentary elements of consciousness. Also in the Yogacara school talk of the “soul” makes no sense, seeing as a basic tenet of Buddhism in most forms is the non-self.

      • no, it doesn’t have to be objectivistor anarchistor any other specific -ism
        that’s not the pointthe point is: address what crowley means by willwhat about the holy guardian angel?neither does it matter if a term like dharma has multiple meanings and uses when the philosophies using the term do not promote “do what you think is best”nor did crowley
        neither does it mattered whether or not buddhists believe in a “soul” if crowley did believe in something along the lines of soul when the writer quotes himthe point is whether or not crowley and/or these other philosophies actually promote what this writer says they doi don’t see it

    • Buddhaballa | Feb 7, 2012 at 3:27 pm |

      Also, the article takes an essentially existential stance towards morality. So because an individual crafts their own morality they are necessarily libertarian Randians? Just because someone crafts their own morality doesn’t mean that they necessarily must craft an objectivist morality, your logic doesn’t follow.

  17. gwen jackson | Feb 7, 2012 at 6:31 pm |

    LOL, he made a few interesting philosophical points but it’s hard to respect a guy whose main purpose in aspiring to gain power was so he could convince others to engage in analingus and drink cat blood.

    I classify anyone who still reads his shit past the age of 16 to be incredibly emotionally immature if not possibly psychotic (genuinely psychotic, not in that cutesy i-just-do-it-to-scare-my-parents way).

    • Nostromo Operator | Feb 8, 2012 at 11:56 am |

      I’m not a crowley-ite by any means but Iv’e read his works and biographies and your breif commentary sounds rather shallow and cheap by comparison.

  18. And Z Scatterbrain | Feb 8, 2012 at 1:27 pm |

    Good read. I always delight in hearing these deep thoughts.
    One thing I have to disagree with though is the thing about the future not being predictable. Its true that our predictions can effect the future, but this doesn’t make it unknowable. See quantum mechanics for a framework that makes pinpoint predictions while taking the changes made by observation into account. Sometimes our predictions provably have no effect, and sometimes they have predictable effects themselves.

  19. Caseyoburns | Feb 8, 2012 at 5:43 pm |

    Life is the real thing inside the so claimed falseness of reality. Consiousness is real and it determines wether or not you do or dont do a thing. Why did that achilies guy race the tortus??? What was his consiousness then. He was experiencing life and that was very real. These people are astrainged to think that the mind is a substance that makes everything what it is. That is why there is god and god determines wether or not you take a left turn or a right every path has been layed out before you and living your life is why were here. Life is real and your consiousness determines what you find through living your life. What you discover about your consiousness is real and is also a reason. These authors must have been extreamly depressed.


  21. Leshnotec | Feb 16, 2012 at 8:02 pm |

    ‘Do as thou wilt’, does not mean ‘do what you like’. Crowley’s system involved the finding of your ‘true will’ with sustained yogic practice; your true purpose on this plane, your ‘inherent dream’..

  22. Zullumumma | Feb 25, 2012 at 6:26 am |

    Joe you shud stick to biology. You are not even quoting the full statement and are taking it out of context. Did you need to come up with some kind of think piece? By the way, I am neither pro, nor anti Crowley, but he died a very lonely,broken, heroin addicted ‘husk’ of a man. For better or for worse the end product of his musings ( it least in terms of his application of them ) is there for all to ponder.

  23. you speak so higly from one of the worst human beigns has ever lived. A Psichotic satanist who inspired many of the evils what happened in the last century, wich rituals still being practised by bohemian groove and skull and bones, (also was the grand grand father of G W Bush!!) his doctrine is faulty since the simply statement of what the rights of someone finish when starts the rights of someone else.So selfish and egomaniac, almost inhuman… like the entities he claim can contact… and rightly identified as the devil

  24. Though Melville omitted it, Captain Ahab said, “In one sense, Aleister Crowley is lower than whale shit. In another, he’s as high as God’s hat. The true shaman knows that God’s hat is made out of dried whale shit.”

  25. mm not a very good summary or understanding of Buddhism.
    You forgot Karma and rebirth.
    Sure do as thou wilt.. as long as you are prepared for the consequences..

  26. moongrim69 | May 18, 2012 at 6:28 pm |

    Do what thou wilt is the law of the Republicans.

Comments are closed.