Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
The following derives from some readings on Chinese philosophy (Confucian) and a discussion thread on Facebook with a senior member of the OTO. While these criticisms started as specific to the OTO, they are applicable to any leadership and follower-ship situation. In other words, do not take this as a criticism of the OTO, but of a dynamic at play with multiple organizations operating within the modern world.
Mengzi
I would like to start with a selection from Mengzi, or Mencius, Book 1, Part B, Chapter 6 — or Mengzi 1B6. I apologize in advance for any butchering I do with the pronunciation of transliterated Chinese.
Mengzi spoke to King Xuan of Qi, saying, “If, among Your Majesty’s ministers, there was one who entrusted his wife and children to a friend, and traveled to the state of Chu, and when he returned, he discovered that his friend had let his wife and children become cold and hungry – how should he deal with this?”
The King said, “Abandon him.”
Mengzi said, “If the Sergeant-at-Arms is not able to keep order among the scholars, how should one deal with this?”
The King said, “Discharge him.”
Mengzi said, “If the reign within the four borders is not well ordered, then how should one deal with this?”
The King turned toward his attendants and changed the topic.
Facebook Thread
OTO: Leadership and How the Lack Thereof Impacts the Unfolding of One’s Will (Excerpt from Thelemic Discussion Group)
I apologize in advance for using “They” as a gender neutral singular pronoun. However, I do not have permission to use the other parties name & decided to use it to preserve anonymity
On the Thelemic Discussion Group, as often occurs, a discussion came around to the leadership of the OTO. The usual participants were present and the discussion came down to a comparison of strong leaders or independent sovereign Thelemites. Since “or” is typically interpreted in such cases as being exclusive (XOR), I asked why it needed to be so. [A Senior member of the OTO], whom I have known for many years, clarified that the XOR was inferred by myself. They didn’t quite deny that it was an XOR. They then asked “How does having any leaders of whatever caliber interfere with us doing our work?” Below is my edited and slightly expanded response.
Thank you for answering rather than going straight to asking me for my opinion. It is a refreshing change.
Being in the military, I have been taught leadership principles. I’ve also read up on the subject, both titles recommended by the military and those recommended by friends. The essential point I feel that is relevant is that, no matter what modern ideology claims, we exist in a framework. That framework can be either overtly hierarchical (as in the military) or covertly hierarchical (as in society), or both. As such, any leader is also a follower. A primary principle of good leadership is that one must also be a good follower. This is a classic example of leading by example. If I do not follow the instructions of those above me, how can I logically expect those under me to follow my instruction (this is also explained in “Duty”). It is a basic magickal principle.
As to your question, we joined the OTO. The OTO is an overtly hierarchical organization. The OTO is meant to be a force for manifesting the Law of Thelema within society. It is described as being militant in nature. This means we need a plan of attack, a way of coordinating the battle so that our forces are not dissipated. While I don’t claim that corporations are people, it is logical to extend certain principles to any organization. The OTO has a “Will” (which I described above). If one’s will is not focused, then, as Crowley explains for the individual aspirant, one works at cross-purpose and fails to manifest one’s will. This is the case for organizations as well.
Our magickal work is our own. The exact details of our work as a vehicle for manifesting our will is our own as well. However, by virtue of our being drawn to and having joined the OTO, the “will” of the OTO is necessarily a component of our will. The purpose of initiation into a body is to align ourselves with that body, to incorporate that body’s goals into our own will.
If the leaders fail to unify our strategy (if I may extend the analogy, if they fail to play the part of the HGA for the OTO) then that component of our will is frustrated.
Any argument regarding leadership, organizations, and the individual’s will that fails to take into consideration that we are not isolate individuals is inherently flawed. Other people’s actions do act upon and modify the expression of our will. If the brain ceases to perform its job, the hands and feet will be hampered. The body may not die, autonomous systems will continue to perform, but effective action is stymied. The hand will still be a hand and may still develop in strength and “Hand-ness,” but the body will be ineffective. Likewise, if the leadership of an organization fails to lead, the members of that body will, by extension, be hampered in their will which was to, at least in part, manifest the will of the organization they joined. One could argue that the failure of the leadership to lead is, in fact, a betrayal of the membership.
Truth is found in the rubble of falsehood.
Love is the law, love under will.
Bibliography
Ivanhoe, Philip J. And Bryan W. Van Norden, ed. Readings in Classical Chinese Philosophy. Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 2005.
Video Locations:
- LBRY: https://open.lbry.com/@O+X:5/Leadership-and-Followership:8?r=4qeuPNGvz2DHWJXWrWn8Ev1a3shNU7mo
- Youtube: https://youtu.be/KbDtvaqWU2M
- Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/video/pyQabNYJYBCE/
No comments:
Post a Comment