Death is a natural change of state. Like Yuri [in "Talking to the Dead"], humanity walks up to the door of change and passes out cold time after time again, generation after generation. But finally, at some point, it reaches that critical mass of being able to fulfill its destiny. And it pushes forward. The clash of the new with the old no longer standing in the way of principle and dedication. The new is almost always the fad of the day. The old—defined as tradition—is that which pushes forward, upward, onward not static and unchanging but in a higher octave or fuller presence with each iteration, hesitant to make radical change but confident enough to keep pushing ahead anyway. Eventually it takes its place as the protector of humanity, that into which we all eventually sink and find comfort in the rituals and ethos of our own, and it goes about pursuing its own destiny while leaving the fads to prematurely clink glasses and say solemn words at a party for what they perceive to be the passing of tradition never realizing that tradition has carried on without them and will continue on without them long after they are gone home to their 9-to-5 in a suit and tie.

Competition polarizes. She makes better chicken. I make better chili. Over time, I stop making chicken and she stops making chili. While it appears that this moves into a cooperative area of life, the truth is that it is merely a result of competition, however implicit it may have been. Competition has a winner and a loser—again, however implicit or minor in importance—and is geared toward exposing our weaknesses.

Cooperation provides a platform to expose our strengths since four eyes are better than two, four arms are better than two, two brains (sometimes) are better than one; the point being that when cooperation is required, each strength contributes to the whole and supports the whole to rise above a mere individual strength.

So how do we get these two concepts to exist in equilibrium on a relationship level? With apologies to St. Augustine …

Cooperation in the essentials;
Competition in the nonessentials;
Love in all things.

What it comes down to is a need to determine what is essential and what is nonessential in a relationship. Each relationship will be different, and there is no way to suggest that any relationship will have the same areas of competition and cooperation as any other. But I do think there are some basics that apply across the board. When those are out of whack, then the whole relationship suffers.

Addicts (of any kind) are all about themselves. I know. I have been one in the past. I’m preaching to the choir here, and I’m not exempt from anything I say about addicts. Addicts are some of the most selfish people around. They live, play, and breed selfishness. They will abandon families, friends, and small amphibious creatures all because of their search for personal, selfish, instant gratification. They will lie, steal, cheat, and otherwise be inhumane to whomever they wish just because it’s all about them.

So, have you ever really watched what happens to an addict when you put them into a program such as Not-So-Anony-Mouse Anonymous? You begin to hear phrases like this:

Back off. I’m in recovery and it’s all about me now.

Oh?

In other words, nothing has changed. Thank you for clarifying that for me. The central problem of an addict is that they have selfishly placed themselves above all else to pursue their addiction. Now, “in recovery” (a misnomer if there ever was one), they have the same central problem: they have selfishly placed themselves above all else to run away from their addiction. See a common theme here?

Addiction is a choice. Choices have consequences. In this modern age, we are taught on a near daily basis by everything around us that we can make choices without consequences or at least make choices and ignore the consequences. That’s just not the way the universe works. But making the choice to walk away from an addiction takes a lot more than coffee and poker chips. (No. I do not accept or affirm the disease model of addiction. I find it to be one of the greatest deceptions of all time even beating out Eve and the iPod in spades.)

So why do we have the consumerist approach to love and relationships? Of course, I mean, other than the obvious answer to that in perspective of the American obsession with instant gratification and consumer insanity. Have we truly become so shallow that we can order our relationships as easily as we can order a Happy Meal? Have we sunk so low that we actually treat our relationships like a Happy Meal? If it doesn’t come with a toy, we get pissed off, throw it away, and sulk until we can go get another one?

Humans have a need to be complicated. Or at least appear complicated or mysterious. The problem is that when I decided that I no longer wanted to be complicated, apparently I wasn’t aware that it wasn’t a choice I was allowed to make for myself. So when I simplified my life, another decided to complicate it for me.

My problem lies in the fact that I think every challenge has a response and every problem has a solution. I don’t think it takes a rocket scientist to figure that out. Nor do I think that it takes any amount of education to realize the profitability of a solution versus the devastation of remaining within the problem. Ignoring or walking away from the problem doesn’t resolve it nor does it make it go away.

But apparently those who lack any ethical standards at all (and I don’t mean some narrow Christian morality lesson here) are incapable of anything but creating problems and then walking away from them until they are like those obnoxious cans tied to the back of a newlywed’s car. They make a lot of noise but you can’t always see them and you’re driving too fast to figure out how to get rid of them.

If there is one thing that I see consistently through our studies of culture is the scars that exist throughout the various attempts both to change culture and to avoid change in culture. Humanity reaches out toward a new dawn in a new millennium and we have already seen it scarred by terrorist attacks on scales never before seen, wars of vengeance and retaliation from the most “advanced democracy” in the world, cultural imperialism over the greed for natural resources, and mere simple ignorance. We face the threat of a coming winter of human brutality across the globe in every area from nationalism to religion.

I find it highly unlikely that someone holding to the Law of Thelema could simultaneously disregard some kind of intervention into the evolutionary process (even if merely to start the process, i.e., watchmaker deism) without being logically and philosophically conflicted

Kings feel. Kings feel deeply, I would submit. “Love one another with burning hearts,” the Book of the Law demands. “Wisdom says: be strong!” And there is more strength in the little pinky of a king who understands that his vice is not to be veiled in virtuous words interpreted as some New Age love-fest but a directed, dedicated, and firm empathy for all that is connected to him. Every man and every woman is a star. We are all a part of the Body of Nuit that brilliantly connects each of us to the other. This, as Crowley states, is one of the most difficult doctrines of the Law. And I agree with him.

One of the more interesting aspects of Thelema—and one of those particular principles that not only proves the Law to me daily but affirms to me that I’m heading in the right direction here—is that the Law is not for those who have no ability to learn discipline or exhibit self-control. Wimps need not apply within. Those who need to feel secure only through the lies they tell and weave need not apply within. Facing life honestly, I believe, is a thelemic virtue. Someone said recently to me that “Gnosticism is just too hard.” I agree. The whole idea that one must actually strive to know themselves at the deepest levels is hard work. It’s not an overnight miracle. It’s easy to throw your life at a church or a religion or a god, but it’s really hard to face yourself in the mirror when the only thing going for you is an illusion, a lie, a nightmare based on the false image you portray to others. Being real is the most difficult course in life. And being real is what the Law of Thelema demands of its adherents. And that is one of the most difficult things to do in this world today.

It is often said that there is a fine line between pleasure and pain. I will certainly agree with that. But what most don’t actually understand is that there is a similarity precisely because they are two sides of the same coin that is to be pocketed rather than played. Once you have mastered one or both, there is no reason to grovel before either ever again. Does this mean that one will never feel pleasure or experience pain? Of course not. But the control they have over human nature is broken and lays wasted on those who are truly masters of themselves.

I don’t believe that every definition of Thelema can be “right.” I don’t even think that is inherent in the system. It comes back to that Eco quote: “I accept the statement that a text can have many senses. I refuse the statement that a text can every sense.” If Thelema can mean anything—meaning that it has the potential to mean everything—then it is not truly a symbol set for communication. It becomes worthless since no common center of language can be determined. This does not mean that the individual symbols cannot have a great amount of depth that translates into various interpretations. But if the core language is out of whack with the culture of the individual (e.g., Esperanto) or too specialized for general use (e.g., Klingon), then failure is certain. Sure, some people may latch on to it, but it will be a very small, geeky few. But we know, contrary to that kind of isolation, that the Law is for all. The symbol set of Thelema, the language of Thelema is capable of a great deal of depth that extends from a basic mystical experience within us to a complex scientific understanding of the universe around us.

I’ve said for years that the Pro-Life agenda isn’t about life, but about institutionalized child abuse. (This is aside my quite solid case that "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are merely political terms and not ethical positions in the first place.) Pro-Lifers don’t think about the consequences of their actions. They only see their moral stench and think that it entitles them to impose their vile ethics on others.

I find that if a principle in nature cannot be applied to the creator of that nature then it is a false principle. Since nature changes, God changes. If God changes then his revelation through time might be capable of changing too. If the revelation is capable of changing, then we find ourselves in a religious paradox for which orthodox Christianity has yet to find a solution.

Someone suggested that Christians are frustrating to me. That’s not completely correct. It is more accurate to suggest that bland stupidity irritates me. Ignorance can be overcome by education. Stupidity is a chosen route of intellectual hebetude. It is the intractable judgment against any fact whether it be natural or logical. But what really gets under my skin is when stupidity is labeled acceptable in apologetics and theology. Look through your discussions. Anywhere you find someone who repeats themselves using the same scripture over and over again to beat their opponent and suggest that any logical or reasonable discussion over differences in interpretation is heretical, there you will find intellectual discombobulation in the underlying personality. Such individuals are spiritually monotonous and ethically reprehensible on any level you wish to measure.

Faith, as defined within Christianity by Paul, is the antithesis to reason. Once a Christian pulls that rabbit out of their magic hat, the conversation is over. Faith will be the final card pulled on both sides of that debate while the label ‘heretic’ thrown across sacred borders. It’s sad. But the solution for sane dialogue was so very easy. But since no one believes they can think like a New Testament saint, then no one will figure out how to find the truth like a New Testament saint. (I mean, how hard was it to play “We All Live In The First Century”—with apologies to The Beatles—and go from there?) Therefore, faith not truth is all anyone will accept for their own validity. “Paul said it, I believe it, and that settles it.”—pretty standard Christian epistemology. It doesn’t fly in the real world, but if it’s good enough for the few, the arrogant, and the short-sighted, they will try to enforce it on the rest of the world.