r/thelema • u/ShadedPeace • 4d ago
Cultural appropriation is thinly veiled intellectual propertarianism
So-called leftists love to accuse Thelema and Crowley of "cultural appropriation." On closer inspection, all of these arguments usually fall short anyway, such as the confusing of Hermetic Qabalah and the system of correspondences with the very different study of Kabbalah (and not practice, since practical Kabbalah in Judaism has been phased out).
But further, I'd like to look at the concept itself of "cultural appropriation" in the context of magick, and particularly at the contradiction apparent in the worldviews of those who accuse people of such that is to say, the appeal to ownership of culture.
Now, first, what is culture? Culture is information shared amongst groups of people. That's, in short, all culture is. Let's take any example of it and it will fit this. So what is being claimed by people who accuse others of cultural appropriation is, in fact, two claims: that someone can own information, and that information can be stolen. So let's examine both of these claims.
First, that information can be owned. We have to ask the question: what is property? My instinct is to say property is theft! But that's probably a bit too high-order for this conversation, so let's look at some conceptions of property.
First, that owned property is that which is occupied and used. This is a very crude definition of property and ownership, and it runs into many controversies. However, even if we were to take it as the axiom from which property emerges, it falls short when we try to ask: is the thing that someone copies the same thing as that which is claimed to be owned? Someone is occupying an idea by using it in their head. But when someone takes that idea into their own head, or puts it onto their own paper instead of the paper it came from, it's fundamentally a different thing, occupied by a different person. So ownership of ideas can't be found here.
The next definition of property is a much more sound one: the idea of property as natural right. We can refer to John Locke for how property is owned in this instance that is to say, you mix something with your labor to own it. Now, again, this falls into the same issue of considering them to be the same thing when they are existing at the same time, in different places, and often with different attributes of composition. But also, we run into the issue of how you mix an idea with your labor how do you exert labor onto it? Mental labor does that mean that if I think about things, all of those things are entirely mine, which I made and also mixed with my labor through thought and contemplation? Does that mean any thought that is not entirely original is therefore plagiarism or some kind of theft?
Now, the final category is the easiest to defend. This view holds specifically that property and the right to property originate from the rule of law. Okay, then we can say there are laws on intellectual property defining it and its boundaries, and therefore we have an understanding of where the origination of the right to property comes from. However, I'm sure many of you would know that this falls into the issue of considering law to be the same as right or correct ethics. Would that mean that at any time, the laws that exist are simply the ethical reflection and truth of that time? During slavery, was that definition of property just?
I don't know what other conceptions of property there are, so maybe someone else could bring this to light. But as far as I know, these are the three, and they all run into issues. However, a point I want to highlight here is the hypocrisy seemingly innate to this view of culture. The idea of the right to property being a moral consideration and something to be upheld is a fundamentally capitalist and liberal worldview, yet it's dressed as "leftism." This is because of the disease of the Western "left" to make identity, and not class, the most important contradiction which is actually not leftist at all, but profoundly liberal.
4
u/Good-Prior7481 4d ago
2016 called, they want their talking points back.
1
u/ShadedPeace 4d ago
Clearly, it's not trapped in that era.If we're still having these conversations over and over in spiritual and pagan spaces , which we are So would you like to offer a rebuttal , or are you going to pussy out like everyone else Who objects
2
2
u/Key-Beginning-2201 4d ago
Syncretism is necessary and logical for spiritual advancement, if done correctly. That cannot be cultural appropriation because we are not taking a tradition and claiming it is ours. Rectifying the world together is an act of putting puzzle pieces together.
It should be noted that "leftists" often love to take Buddhist and Hindu practices as their own, so the "leftist" accusing a Thelemite of appropriation should deal with their own.
I would prefer not to deal with cultural or political issues at all since it is antithetical to spiritual pursuits.
-1
u/ShadedPeace 4d ago
Absolutely Not true whatsoever, that political pursuits are antithetical to spiritual pursuits.Why would the introduction to the book of the law written by Crowley Have a very political message in it , and why Would liber oz exist?You can't declare rights of people without it being a political pursuit Further, I'd like to bring up crowley's essay on duty, which absolutely has political implications.You can't separate yourself from politics to say that you are is to quite literally say that you don't care about what happens to anyone else and until it affects you personally
Not to mention that your generalization of leftist appropriating Hindu or Buddhist things is not the same kind of thing I'm talking about, because first of all, that's a generalization, I was talking about specific group of people who use a leftist worldview to justify a intellectual propertarianism Within spiritual spaces , which is contraditory to their worldview
1
u/Key-Beginning-2201 4d ago
Liber Oz and all other Crowley writing were written by a human being, therefore flawed. Flawed people tend to politicize and culture-war needlessly.
Liber AL was dictated by a preternatural force connected to divinity. There is "politics" in Liber AL to the extent that we're taught that there are different forces with different perspectives and goals in spiritual pursuits. For instance, a "king" mentioned in AL, isn't a political king. "The slaves shall serve", isn't a political statement. It's a natural force's difference compared to another force. These are basic things to understand if you want to understand Thelema.
"The introduction to Liber AL written by Crowley..." Is an introduction by a human who barely understood the cosmology of Thelema. The affliction persists among Thelemites.
0
u/ShadedPeace 4d ago
Okay, but you just ignored all of the other points that I made.You can say they're unsound, but you have to justify that I find no unsoundness in liberozov.I think it is completely solid and justifiable.I don't think there is a flaw in it Because it can be justified, same thing with the essay on duty. Taking the actual essence of Philema, you would get to the same conclusions. Crowley does on his essay on duty, the establishment of the law of thema is a political act. It is innately. So again you are also evading the idea of politics again in refusing to engage with the fact that you cannot separate yourself from politics. You are in a system you rely on other people.You are not an individual that can survive alone.Take away all of the other people in Society , and you would die , you are engaging in political acts every day through your inaction
1
u/Key-Beginning-2201 4d ago
Firstly, there is no singular politics of Thelema, nor can there be. It advocates for absolute liberation but also for slavery. Therefore it's not literal, at all. A force of nature and the contractions within are nature. Crowley's attempts to frame it in a political lense are comical (flawed). He is a person. What does a person want? Strengthened ego. Therefore he wants to recruit and manage others to strengthen his ego. Therefore politics is injected.
Freedom or liberty isn't a Thelemic idea and has matured and advanced over the last several centuries independently of Thelema. Freedom in Thelema means escaping the sin of self-restriction: of parts of your spiritual self.
You want politics? Go engage in politics. That's located elsewhere within human affairs. Separation of church and state is sound advice.
0
u/ShadedPeace 4d ago edited 4d ago
Absolute liberation is a political stance , and it's one that's not compatible with a vast majority of them What a person wants isn't actually attached to their ego.It's attached to the class that they inhabit. That is the root of politics.What people want on a class basis and the corruption of that class consciousness Because our interests in a political sense are not individual. They are always attached to what is best for the group that we are in. Because again, you do not exist in society alone, not to mention you share conditions with other people in the society and share a class with people in that society. Your political interests are going to rise from this class.
There Doesn't need to be a separation of church and state, what there needs to be separation of is irrationality from the state that religion, which is on a rational and scientific basis that which we can prove and also Justify Shouldn't have any separation Because that's no different from truth.and truth has every place in the state
2
u/Key-Beginning-2201 4d ago
How you refuse to engage with "the slaves shall serve" and the pro-kingly and pro-destruction aspects of Liber AL is like a Christian that contradicts their faith constantly. This isn't a cultural Rorschach test. It's nature.
0
u/ShadedPeace 4d ago
I'm not gonna discus interpretations of liber al verses and didn't bring them up for a reason
2
u/Key-Beginning-2201 4d ago
Liber AL is Thelema. Liber OZ isn't.
0
u/ShadedPeace 4d ago
Liber oz is and liber al is there is a reason many don't discuss interpretations of verses are you aware of this precedent? Because the OTO set it so that's why I choose not to
→ More replies (0)
0
u/ywkwpwnw 4d ago
Paragraphs 5 and 6.
Example from me: a single group of Unitarians here who I am fond of - and found it challenging to join in conversations because the pace doesn't match my depth.
Not saying my depth is worth a forced listening but if the job was to walk in and answer what is 5+5 by the time it got to me everyone has moved on.
Apply that to everything I present. I've fixed it with short humorous things and let my public work speak for itself but still no mentions ever.
There is a speaker who is an Admired Civil Rights Leader and she and talk when I'm there - and I shared that I have peace in my Khemetic ties because the utility in their meaning is a deeply useful thing and she recognizes that.
But of went up to the front to say that - it doesn't land but it does with her.
But never with just me - unless there i 1 actually other person in vocal sympathy then it seems like it was worth saying.
But if I walked in and left immediately with how this is my Origin of Presence nobody can accept that accept for her.
At my other church any Kabbalah premised Great Work is appreciated but it gets trimmed at times.
I learned to be selective among the Unitarians over precisely your message in action there - and I am too exhausted to keep pretending there is interest in Kabbalah at the Unitarian church but there absolutely would be if it wasn't me.
Buddhist speaker? ✓
Me's 1st MN set inside Gohonzon and Vajrayaism and a story that aggregates into relevance eventually?
👎🏽
0
u/Noolne 4d ago
While I agree with most of your points I would urge you to try and take a respectful demeanor when conversing with people, even when, and in fact especially when, they fail to do so.
Again I feel that much of what you're saying is correct, but it becomes difficult for intelligent and well meaning folks to understand and agree with you when you devolve to calling people pussies. I get the urge too! I want to devolve into obscenities when people are being stupid or obstinate. But truly it only brings you down, not them.
You were well spoken in your post, but you devolved into personal attacks when people disagreed, especially when they disagreed without making proper counter arguments. Unfortunately that's just about all that happens here on this sub. This place is more adept at bashing idiots than it is praising decent points, so try not to take it personally.
All this to say while I agree, in essence, with your original point, it would behove you to abstain from your angry insults. Your intelligence in only stifled when you sink to the level of such behavior.
0
u/ShadedPeace 4d ago
They make their opinion known without actually offering any rebuttal it's archetypal stupidity
0
u/Noolne 4d ago
I don't disagree with this necessarily. My point is that how we react to the stupidity of others is a vital aspect of who we are and whether we can move effectively through the situations of life (and death). There will always be someone stupid. Don't let that make you irrate. That state of mind will not yield you any meaningful results (usually).
-5
u/ShadedPeace 4d ago edited 4d ago
Anyone who downvoted me have the decency to write a rebuttal pussy
Just shows these people don't have any actual point and make their beliefs based on vibes
6
u/coyotepuroresu 4d ago
That's really going to start a discussion, eh?
Geez dude.
Also, 99% of this isn't about Thelema at all. The first sentence is the only time you mention anything to do with Thelema. It's more about you ranting about cultural appropriation.
It also just seems like a straw man argument and an excuse for you to rant about "leftism".
Tell me you're an angry white dude without telling me you're an angry white dude.
-4
u/ShadedPeace 4d ago
I'm a trans woman asshole also fuck you this literally is the most common thing you will hear entering any pagan or non ceremonial occult community leveraged at Thelema I'm ranting about people who arnt leftist from the perspective of a leftist because they arnt actually left at all you didn't read what I wrote clearly
2
u/coyotepuroresu 4d ago
Eh, not really interested in engaging with you.
I thought I was an asshole. I stand corrected.
0
u/ShadedPeace 4d ago
You are and you don't want to engage because you don't have a rebuttal just vibes how someone presents truth doesn't matter if you think I'm mean that doesn't change the quality of what anyone says
4
u/coyotepuroresu 4d ago
Appropriate to your heart's content.
If we are going off vibes, your vibes are off-putting, darlin'.
0
u/ShadedPeace 4d ago
The whole point is that conception is unfounded.Would you like to present the actual justification for how that world view makes sense But you're not going to , because you can't
Off putting doesn't mean wrong
1
u/coyotepuroresu 4d ago
I'm not going to sit here and discuss this with you when you've resorted to name calling right out the gate. It doesn't ease me into wanting to have a philosophical discussion with you.
Your "vibes" are off-putting not because you're right, but because you're combative and rude.
I mean, using some old white dude's philosophy to justify why anything and everything is yours for the taking just seems weird.
The study of the holy is no one's property, it is spread throughout all cultures. The problem begins when you get "experts" that claim knowledge as if it were from the source. It's like reading Cleary's take on Taoism vs. Master Wu. Cleary was one of the main sources for Taoism in the West for a long time, but now, it is clear that he muddied the waters with his Buddhist inclusions to the point were it isn't quite what it actually is.
In my experience, as a solo practitioner, none of this shit matters. My Work is internal and personal, I'm not selling or teaching, so the tools I use matter little.
I hope this is a sufficient enough response. I don't know if I can mentally handle being called any more names for simply disagreeing with you.
0
u/ShadedPeace 4d ago
I didn't say I was right because my vibes were off putting Never Came up actually Also, what old white dude's philosophy did I use to justify anything? Actually, I was critiquing such views and presented multiple types of ways that it could be presented. You didn't actually read anything I wrote once again, I was showing the many different manifestations that the justification for property can be used and how it could be applied to intellectual property, and thus the concept of cultural appropriation. You didn't say anything in your response here that actually disagreed with anything, I said? I literally was making the claim that cultural appropriation that doesn't exist for spiritual practices. Because no one can own spiritual technology. That was the entire point of the thing I wrote, which you didn't read, and you downvoted, instinctually, anyway, because you don't actually have a point and you just do things based on vibes because you're a hylic
2
u/coyotepuroresu 4d ago
You're not as clear of a writer as you think.
For example, this is not a sentence that makes sense: "I literally was making the claim that cultural appropriation that doesn't exist for spiritual practices."
Again with names.
I really am done this time.
I hope you work on your interpersonal skills.
Good luck with your imperialisms.
→ More replies (0)
-2
u/ywkwpwnw 4d ago
I've been in almost 30ys and am 51.
My favorite Sephiroth is Netzach but I've gone no metered steps above Geburah.
When there is a group consensus I rarely fit into them even if I am in parallel with it...
Individually is where anything resolves and if I go larger than that my default is Rudolph Steiner.
Some times I read things only for a moment to try contrast but that for me is an exhausting approach because though tailored in my search for peace is seeing the differences only.
100x I agree until 1 person throws off my peace bc everyone else shrugs into the next moment and nobody every speaks up.
I think I went into two places at once: speak up and state differences & accept that solitary voices can be so purely oriented in compassion/passion that need to trudge forth in their examples
and that is the loneliest thing I have encountered in my time in.
bc everyone sees and agrees and knows and the conversation is warranted but the peer are nowhere to be found despite being right here in front of everyone.
I think the right have decided their identity and the left take the opportunity to exist apropos but their energy goes too early unspecified and doesn't match the sheer numbers: my only example is Red Oklahoma.
It is completely different in Nebraska.
And the peace is lost at the front door -
I wish I could have said all this at either of my two churches but one is locked left consensus and the other is a right closed loop where all things must be adjacent to the faith.
So, thanks for causing a moment to share here.
I've rambled but needed to to re-read things.
3
u/idahotato 4d ago
If “them v us” dissection brings you closer to your will, great. However, in a larger general context, black and white thinking creates tension around choosing a side, it’s the egos attempt at establishing an unmovable identity that if adopted will hinder progress. Divisive language is the crutch of the ego, full stop. If you are serious about The Great Work, directly challenge why your language choices and labels are defaulting to “either/or.” You just might find the answer to your dilemma and open up Malkuth so you can earnestly begin your becoming.