Not sure where that is from, but typically these folks use the word "love" to mean the carnal sort of love. These folks think that passion should rule their lives (and yours). Pathos, not Logos.
As such, they are at best Rousseau-ian. But, really, it is just better to say they are Satanic.
It's the second half of the quote you just quoted. It is the second line that follows the line you posted in crowleys work. You speak with such authority but reveal that you are clueless about what you speak, only repeating what others have fed you.
The Trinity in esoteric religions is the heart, the mind, and the will. Crowley was very big on will above all (and then the degenerate died a heroin addict with no will of his own, the irony).
Love under will means to act with love (open to interpretation) within your own will, or what YOU want to accomplish.
As usual the fundamentalist nutjobs in here go nuts and act out their own version of “everything is proof of white supremacy and systemic racism”. Only instead, it’s “everything is proof satanism is in all things in the secular world”
Effectively what the thelemic law states is that no man can control man or should control man, only gods will controls man.
Crowley was a giant piece of shi, flawed like all of us, but he did have really solid writing and ideas. His over all concept is that there is a divine will for all of us, and all we need to do is to tap into it and play the role. Whether that means you are charles fucking Manson or Nikola Tesla is irrelevant, as each role plays a part.
Inb4 some dolt takes a quote from Crowley out of context to push their agenda … same way atheist cucks will try to put all their eggs in one basket based on a passage about keeping slaves or women being seen and not heard
You trying to explain how it’s possible to extract good logical philosophical insight from the life and writings of Crowley is like watching someone lick the choad of a gangbanged tranny and turn around to explain to people about how the salt you extracted is actually beneficial to the human body.
we all know what happens when the left actually try to engage an argument and hit a wall - they resort to baseless and/or weak character attacks, aka The text equivalent of chimping out
I could honestly care less about engaging in a useless conversation with someone trying to shill for some dipshit who liked to bugger little boys, Good for you noble defender of the pedophiles.
What does "love is the law, love under will" mean?
Not sure where that is from, but typically these folks use the word "love" to mean the carnal sort of love. These folks think that passion should rule their lives (and yours). Pathos, not Logos.
As such, they are at best Rousseau-ian. But, really, it is just better to say they are Satanic.
It's the second half of the quote you just quoted. It is the second line that follows the line you posted in crowleys work. You speak with such authority but reveal that you are clueless about what you speak, only repeating what others have fed you.
The Trinity in esoteric religions is the heart, the mind, and the will. Crowley was very big on will above all (and then the degenerate died a heroin addict with no will of his own, the irony).
Love under will means to act with love (open to interpretation) within your own will, or what YOU want to accomplish.
As usual the fundamentalist nutjobs in here go nuts and act out their own version of “everything is proof of white supremacy and systemic racism”. Only instead, it’s “everything is proof satanism is in all things in the secular world”
Effectively what the thelemic law states is that no man can control man or should control man, only gods will controls man.
Crowley was a giant piece of shi, flawed like all of us, but he did have really solid writing and ideas. His over all concept is that there is a divine will for all of us, and all we need to do is to tap into it and play the role. Whether that means you are charles fucking Manson or Nikola Tesla is irrelevant, as each role plays a part.
Inb4 some dolt takes a quote from Crowley out of context to push their agenda … same way atheist cucks will try to put all their eggs in one basket based on a passage about keeping slaves or women being seen and not heard
You trying to explain how it’s possible to extract good logical philosophical insight from the life and writings of Crowley is like watching someone lick the choad of a gangbanged tranny and turn around to explain to people about how the salt you extracted is actually beneficial to the human body.
we all know what happens when the left actually try to engage an argument and hit a wall - they resort to baseless and/or weak character attacks, aka The text equivalent of chimping out
You may have hit that wall my friend.
I could honestly care less about engaging in a useless conversation with someone trying to shill for some dipshit who liked to bugger little boys, Good for you noble defender of the pedophiles.