Thelema, the Big Al, Rabelais, and the Question of Human Freedom

I decided to get lazy and just re-write the article I have sort of banked in the organic-RAM module without looking for a previous article on the topic. I have far more thoughts on this topic today than when I conceived my last version of the article, and in fact, my most particular, "hard philosophy," research is in - long words - excellent words - "the ontology of human will." I've considered making a reference to Big AL Crow in the essay, since the essay will probably not be published until I meet my demise. LOL! Just to be an SOB. My tribes do that too.

So let us start with Rabelais. I keep wanting to date Rabelais as 19th century, but everything keeps pointing to late-Renaissance. Rabelais makes the Western Great Books list. His major work is called, "Gargantua and Pentagruel," is explicitly scatalogical, and also includes a long list of human perversions that don't make the Western Great Books list.

He is worthy of academic study, according to academia. Your problem is that as a scholar you get one and only specialty - and a lifetime of Rabelais does not suggest a very healthy mind. If you start with a healthy mind, a career like that is sure to cause leprosy.

Rabelais was a very defiant man, what they called a, "free-thinker," back then, and he made some people a little more than peeved, so they sent him off to a cloister. Rabelais escapes the cloister, and he sets to pen one of the best satires written in the West since Petronius' "Satyricon," before being summarily burned at the stake for being even more free-thinking and annoying than he started out.

"The Satyricon," and the "Gargantua and Pentagruel," are similar as works in character to one another, although they do not have a similar theme. What Rabelais experienced in the Cloister was that every minute of his life was planned and watched, and it drove him - insane. Yet Rabelais was no fool, and what happens in GnP shows that amply.

Rabelais creates a satiric monastery and writes a satiric monastic rule. The monastery is called the, "Abbey of Theleme," and Theleme is actually a fairly good Attic Greek declension of somewhere around, "human freedom." Typically monastic rules stretch out for page after page - the Qumran Indices is a sterling example - but in the Abbey of Theleme, there is one monastic rule - "Do what you wish."

So we begin GnP with farcical clowning. The Abbey is tons of fun, and nothing gets done because everyone sleeps well into the afternoon and - you can kind of guess! As the work proceeds however - this total anarchy leads to total degradation, and at the end, our Abbey of Theleme burns to the ground with Gargantua and Pentagruel trapped inside it.

So let us consider of the dramatization of the theme. Clear in Rabelais' mind is that having every minute and decision monitored and controlled in a cloister is not freedom. Clear from our satirical Abbey is that total anarchy is not a very rational sort of freedom.

So we are presented with a question, "What is human freedom?" Scatology and total degradation - not human freedom. Precise control of my every move - not human freedom. This is the point of this satire, and it is just an incredibly explicit satire. That is the basic problem with the work. It is also very well written and realized.

So here comes the issue with the Big Al. Al was familiar with Rabelais. Al was an aristocrat from a fairly notable aristocratic family in England. All from England can heave a sigh of relief knowing that no one can remember what notable aristocratic family that was, as he got into big trouble with the law and proceeded to be - deleted. In fact, Alex Crow was a slang term for a nasty sort of character in England, and he Latinized it to, "Aleister Crowley."

Now Big Al was genius quality material. Big Al's problem was that he had no self-discipline. He contacted the Memphis Rite of German Freemasonry, which had been ejected from German Freemasonry for its wild practices. The Memphis Rite reformed under some of Crowley's principles to form the Ordo Templi Orientiis. However, Big Al couldn't get very high in the ranks, and wandered off in a rage.

Big Al may have lived in Asian India for a while, as he was familiar with yogic practices and yogic tantra. Asian India was a British colony at the time, and it is possible. By the way - just as associating with esoteric mysticism in the West might get you forked fingers at the local Jungle Jim's and a mark to ward off evil on your door, they feel the same about tantric practices in Asia. Still - broadminded people in Asia - just as in the West - might say, "Which version of esoteric mysticism/tantra are you speaking of?" - as sometimes people who pontificate on the wrong soccer field do get a modicum of respect in both Asia and the West.

So we arrive at the kick in the pants to the establishment, just to be an SOB. Crowley had a few ideas that are interesting, and it's not so much that they are original, but that they are unique in their re-casting. The first is - remember - explanation will follow - "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law," or, "There is no law but do what thou wilt."

So we see from Rabelais' satiric drama that anarchy isn't a working model. Also, Crowley recast the idea (yes, phony archaicisms, heave a different sort of sigh) using the word "will," as a pun. So we have a statement that could mean, as Rabelais satirized, "Do what you wish," but could also mean, "What you are capable of doing is what you are free to do."

Crowley discussed how this statement touched on a fundamental reality - capability to do something is the freedom to do something. That is an ontology, and not just, "flit and flout about following your whims." The idea is so fundamentally interesting, as what we see is - consider - as an existence I am capable of saving this draft and taking a nap instead of finishing this article. That is a freedom I have. I don't have the freedom to walk all the way to the store, as I'm not physically strong enough to walk all of the way there.

We're not making an ethical statement about freedom - important to think about as well (?) - but we're making an ontological statement about freedom. What can I as an existence achieve within my limitations as an existence? Sometimes we may not be aware of a freedom we have in this sense, and that is also an ontology - because we look at where our knowledge of existence meets the reality of our existence.

The other question relates to a different piece of my work and it deals with "losing lust for results." In the Eastern part of the West, this is a massive part of Byzantine Orthodox Christianity. It isn't whether you believe in being a Christian or feel it will achieve "eternal bliss," it is about practicing as a Christian. Understood that Christian salvation is also of faith, but what the Orthodox are getting at is that it is the practice of being Christian that is the faith of Christianity.

In Orthodoxy, no mortal man or woman can determine salvation, and the tradition is that the best member of a congregation - blameless and a stout practitioner of the faith - can still obtain perdition. Salvation is up to the Lord, and not the member of the congregation - or its leaders. By contrast, there are tales in Orthodoxy that Judas the Iscariot could have obtained salvation - for all we know - the worst sinner of all time - and why? - because the Lord preferred it to be that way, and for no other reason.

Obtaining a good confession before death - as in Catholicism - is considered a great blessing and a very good omen, but that is all you get for such a confession. In Catholicism this is really a core tenet as well, or it is meant to be - one is Catholic because one shows up at Church, shows up at Confession, and practices the faith - and no one knows much more than that, but the cast in Catholicism differ in some significant ways. Both true Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity are incredibly austere, and very few people practice for a long period - much less their entire lifetime.

So - my reason for the interest is this - in life we meet the Mother I call An, and in her face - we don't know so much as we would like to think. So we practice the, "art of living," whether it is what will be my, "Work of Completion," or some other art of living. We just practice being alive, and there is a great gaping wound where almost all of our knowledge just pours right out - to be poetic - pours right out into our graves!

Seen in this light, we live not to achieve results, but to practice being alive. We don't worry if someone with my talent posts at a freebie blog and doesn't get a paycheck - did I misplace that too? - and remains fundamentally alone in his surrounding world. We practice living to live - a verb - with no concept of what the results will be. Very simple, very austere, and a very simple fact about life. I never use the word, "fact" - a powerful and curious word in English - except in a certain sense, and in this case, I use it by no mistake.

This is going to lead back to the philosophy blog, where I'm going to do that article on categories I've been planning for weeks. I've held off because the work is incomplete, and my processors are still trying to form the piece a bit better. Still - I want to make a stab at it today, and the completed book on logic will get done if I don't die too quick. I don't think I will. I'm that bad of an SOB.