the expression “love under will” is inadequate philosophically

It’s adequate and very suitable psychologically, for the role in which Crowley placed it, but not as an axiom. It comes forth as Crowley’s version of the omnipotence of the will, the triumph of the will to power, just as Nietzsche conceived it. “Do What Thou Wilt shall be the Whole of the Law! Love is the Law, Love under Will,” you recall. This is the masculine challenge. It’s the trusty old knight riding forth, ostensibly calling out all the malefactors to come forth and account for themselves in good clean conflict, man to man. In fact he is not doing this just to make some moral or chivalric point in the realm of the ideal. He is proposing to off the princess’ suitors one by one if they don’t make themselves scarce, and the response of said princess, spoken or unspoken, could take some logically inverse form, aiming to place Will under Love before everybody gets killed. It would be equally valid and it would cancel out the first slogan, leaving nothing but a more or less silently loving union of the opposites. There is quite a clear, traditional division of gender identities in this story. It doesn’t rely on gender-bending behaviour in the external world. But it is true that in the interior world, there is an identity flux that entails what I would call gender-blending, actual blending of selves. Anyway this is like, I’m seriously ready to live my own life, retire from politics, can u imagine – RB

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s