Morality of the Left Hand Path – 1: Morality

02e1039297e566cd-kalda_jhu_sleep_morality_web

 

You should forget about morality. Conversations about morality are simply empty talk. Your aim is inner morality…until a man uncovers himself he cannot see.

– G.I. Gurdjieff; Maxims

 

Morality

What is morality? Where does it come from? Throughout the ages Priests, assorted demagogues and various other ‘experts’ have bombarded us with judgments, imperatives, and commandments in regard to the idea of morality. Many who have come to the Left-Hand Path have themselves made a direct and personal study of common morality as it is dictated down to us by authoritarian systems such as Religion or State – or as some of us have come to call it, the Right Hand Path – and rejected this morality as being simply untrue, disingenuous or otherwise dispensable. Understandable considering this popular morality tends to encourage and affirm such things as self-sacrifice, obedience, collectivism, sublimation and slavery; things that are anathema to someone who values individuality and independence. But is this the only sense of the word “morality”? Need we dispense with the idea of morality all together?

My belief is that morality is real, that it is something we naturally express and thrive from, and that is an essential feature of the Left-Hand Path. However we have trouble seeing this because it is something we have been robbed of. Our moral basis has been stolen from us by kingly crooks and priestly thieves. The work of initiation is in one sense the work of recovering our morality, and reclaiming the moral high ground; of finding the supersubstantial gold at the basis of our willed existence. In fact our morality is like the ‘gold standard’ of our praxeological existence, the core at the center of the sum total of all the decisions we make throughout our willful existence. Should we expect anything less of one who aspires to the enlightened realm of the divine?

A simple definition of Morality from Merriam-Webster’s is ‘beliefs about what is right behavior and what is wrong behavior.’ Nothing about having morals requires acceptance of ideas about self-sacrifice or obedience; rather self-sacrifice and obedience might be an example of a particular morality. There may then be other moralities, rather than just one dictated by a central authority. Yet many have tried to make it seem as though there were only one true morality, and because of this the term may seem to carry with it a bit of a charge and may even stir some reactivity. But simply because some have to tried distort the meaning, does not mean that the concept of morality must be dispensed with entirely.  Rather we might consider making an effort to clarify, even rehabilitate it. Pointing back to Merriam-Webster’s and the essentially agnostic nature of the word, I’ll emphasize here that I am not attempting to create any new special meaning or sense, only that it may be effectively applied in a certain way, and that – despite what the establishment might say – simply because we reject a morality of self-sacrifice does not mean that we are immoral.

Many who have gone through the process of rejecting an RHP system and subsequently developed a distaste for the word “Morality,” will often opt for a sort of blanket rejection of the whole concept. They may take Nietzsche’s idea of ‘beyond good and evil’ literally, and interpret this as virtuousness in morality – in living without any moral standards. But of course, simply rejecting all moral standards in toto really just puts you in the same neighborhood as sociopaths, criminals and street gangs; since (in accordance with the dictionary definition) not having morality means basically not distinguishing right from wrong. And in fact Nietzsche himself did practice a system of good and evil albeit an unconventional one.

A rational person who spends some time working out their own ideas about their own inner values; is likely to eventually move beyond this blanket-rejection phase, toward more of a reconstruction or re-evaluation of these concepts, the result being a more self-centric – or psyche centric – ethical system. This is one of the overriding themes of Dr. Aquino’s book The Church of Satan: those early pioneers of the LHP, having destroyed what ‘was’ found themselves in the position of having to rebuild something better in it’s place. It was here that COS faltered, hesitating to make that definition, and it was here that TOS arose to take up the torch. It’s also a theme in the Diabolicon, the Daemons building Pandemonium, and a new system that allows for everyone’s uniqueness and individuality to shine forth.

So, stepping beyond reactivity over the term, I will argue that such a new psyche-centric ethical system is based on the morality of rational self-interest, or the morality of self-deification, or self-consciousness, and so forth. We may here recall that back in our own rebellious days it was not so much the concept of morality against which we were rebelling, but rather the fact that it seemed forced, coerced and required. It did not allow for deviation, or much of a personal opinion on things. It was the morality of authoritarianism and obedience; And it is this that is more properly understood as the Morality of the Right-Hand Path.

Part 2: The Four Precepts

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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