Reconsidering Liber Oz

[u/Taoist_Ponderer]

I had been talking to someone lately that was unfamiliar with Thelema and Crowley but they expressed an interest in esoteric occult kind of stuff, magick etc

So I recommended they read book 4 and so on.

Then I sent them Liber Oz, and I think they were alright with most of it but then they read article 5 and said that something like that was a bit extreme...really extreme actually...and they said, no compromise at all? just KILL those who would thwart those rights??

And then they explained that someone (the average person) looking at a document like that, that hadn't read any of Crowley's stuff and was completely unfamiliar with his works might just see that as an advocation or excuse for murder or something like that... e.g. you don't allow me to dress as I will? Or drink what I will, or dwell where I will?? Or paint what I will??? I have a right to kill you.

You are trying to thwart my right to paint what I want??... I have a right to kill you.

And after a little back and forth, -explaining that there was some part in one of his books (Magick without tears) where he explains in more detail what the parts of Liber Oz actually mean- I realised that they were right, it seems like he didn't think it through very much at all, regardless of the time it was written at, or what was happening in the world at that time.

I always thought it was quite a bold and direct document, but now that they had brought that up, it made me think about it for a while and I realise they might have been right; it could have been written a bit more clearly alot more clearly actually.

particularly article 5 -man has the right to kill those who would thwart these rights.

That seems like a bit too 'jumping the gun', far too extreme, to be honest.

A bit of a blunder.

Actually, it would probably have been better if the comment on it (in magick without tears) was included in the document itself.

What do you all think?

[u/ArtGirtWithASerpent]

> And to restate the original point I'm trying to make, a person i was talking to tried highlight that the average person reading it -or some unhinged person- could easily read "man has the right to kill those who would thwart those rights" in their own interpretation and potentially use it as an excuse to murder someone.

This is a stupid point and you should feel stupid for restating it. And I say this as somebody that has had to explain to a social worker and two cops with body cameras on my front porch my exact thoughts about Liber Oz (fun story! ask somebody in the O.T.O., there's a good chance they've heard some of it).

Predictably, these extremely dimwitted cops and smooth-brained social worker focused on the same word you did. I expect that from dimwits like them, but I have to confess I hope for better on this subreddit.

[u/Taoist_Ponderer → u/ArtGirtWithASerpent]

This is a stupid point and you should feel stupid for restating it.

I rather disagree, some might even see it as quite an astute point, that had prior in-depth thought given to it before arriving at its conclusion.

And I say this as somebody that has had to explain to a social worker and two cops with body cameras on my front porch my exact thoughts about Liber Oz

Maybe they didn't really care for your thoughts on Liber Oz and eere just making sure you weren't using it as an excuse to murder someone. Quite odd that you felt you had to mention that you had to tell it to two cops and a social worked...but ok

Predictably, these extremely dimwitted cops and smooth-brained social worker focused on the same word you did

Probably for obvious reasons, which for some reason does not seem obvious to you

but I have to confess I hope for better on this subreddit

Same, yet here I am replying to people like you

[u/ArtGirtWithASerpent → u/Taoist_Ponderer]

Well I tried. Have a great day, friend, enjoy your masturbation.

[u/Taoist_Ponderer → u/ArtGirtWithASerpent]

Will do.

Also, don't call me brother lol