| From the Galleries |
2165 pictures in 33 albums
Boleskine
Last Updated Picture:
Abbey in 1950
|
|
| Statistics |
Site visits since 30 September 2003:
37,253,355
Yesterday's visits:
20,405
Registrations:
Today: 2
Yesterday: 4
Overall: 7439
Newest Members:
|
|
| Random Quote |
|
Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp / Or what's a heaven for?
-- Robert Browning
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Jenn |
|
Post subject: Liber B vel Magi
 Posted: Nov 15, 2004 - 04:42 AM
|
|
Joined: Jul 08, 2004
Posts: 17
Location: Toronto Canada
Status: Offline
|
|
I have read few of Crowley's works, but in what I have read I notice that his writing style leans towards sarcasm quite a bit. At least at first glance, this is what it appears to be. For example, in Liber b vel Magus it reads:
"00. One is the Magus: twain His forces: four His weapons. These are
the Seven Spirits of Unrighteousness; seven vultures of evil. Thus is
the art and craft of the Magus but glamour. How shall He destroy
Himself?"
"1. In the beginning doth the Magus speak Truth, and send forth
Illusion and Falsehood to enslave the soul. Yet therein is the Mystery
of Redemption."
Why does he contradict himself by calling Truth illusion and falsehood, unless he is expressing distaste toward the common (or Christian) view of Occultism? It seems to me like sarcasm. When I read the Book of the Law, at the end it reads "the study of this book is forbidden. It is wise to destroy this book after the first reading" I took this statment as sarcasm intended to scaring potential dabblers out of getting involved. I was later informed that what it means is "don't interperate what's in this book to others. Thats for the individual to figure out" I'm not quite sure.
I suppose that the more of Crowley's works I read, the easier it will be to get past the cryptic qualities of his writing style, and his poetry will be even more enjoyable.
Any thoughts about this? |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
pike66 |
|
|
Post subject: the mystery of redemption
Posted: Nov 15, 2004 - 08:13 AM
|
|
Joined: Nov 05, 2003
Posts: 112
Location: New York
Status: Offline
|
|
When Crowley mentions 'the Mystery of Redemption', after describing the Magus's devotion to 'Truth', he is being sarcastic. But, it's not in such a covert way that we can't figure out what he really wants us to comprehend (in fact, the exact opposite of what he writes in that line). We know, from his wanderings across the abyss, that there is no redemption. Only in christianity, and other hypocritical religions, is there a justification for sin, in the guise of redemption.
-R.Pike-
http://www.totic.net |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Caradoc |
|
|
Post subject: Re: Liber B vel Magus
Posted: Nov 15, 2004 - 02:06 PM
|
|
Joined: Apr 07, 2004
Posts: 153
Location: Mansfield
Status: Offline
|
|
Jenn wrote: › I have read few of Crowley's works...
I suppose that the more of Crowley's works I read, the easier it will be to get past the cryptic qualities of his writing style, and his poetry will be even more enjoyable.
Any thoughts about this?
Liber B vel Magi is a class A book, and so is not really one of Crowley's works; it is considered "the utterance of an Adept entirely beyond the criticism of even the Visible Head of the Organisation." |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Aeon-93 |
|
 |
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 16, 2004 - 06:49 AM
|
|
Joined: Nov 07, 2004
Posts: 62
Location: Nottingham, England
Status: Offline
|
|
Truth cannot be communicated by Speech because that implies duality.
The first verse of Crowley's version of the Tao Te Ching springs to mind.
"The Tao-Path is not the All-Tao. The Name is not the Thing named." |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
pike66 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 16, 2004 - 07:30 AM
|
|
Joined: Nov 05, 2003
Posts: 112
Location: New York
Status: Offline
|
|
And also, there is the saying: "the Tao which can be adequately explained is not the True Tao."
-R.Pike-
http://www.totic.net |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Jenn |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 16, 2004 - 11:08 PM
|
|
Joined: Jul 08, 2004
Posts: 17
Location: Toronto Canada
Status: Offline
|
|
"Liber B vel Magi is a class A book, and so is not really one of Crowley's works; it is considered "the utterance of an Adept entirely beyond the criticism of even the Visible Head of the Organisation."
I'm not sure about the meaning of the classes of books relating to Thelema. So I really cannot comment about that.
"The Tao-Path is not the All-Tao. The Name is not the Thing named."
That's very true, and I agree. However everyone is going to see the same thing a different way, and language is important if I wish to see where Crowley was coming from. I cannot possibly see his personal point of view from his eyes, but I like to compare different viewpoints to my own, to have a better understanding of where I am myself. I mean it's not crucial to study his mindset with zeal (it's all commentary outside of the Law of Thelema anyways) Crowley and his work will never be the final authority regarding my practice. Still, I find it interesting, and so I analyse it to death. But your right, the name is not the thing named.
Tao Te Ching, hm? I never even heard of it! I'll take a look. 
Thanks. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
zardoz |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 17, 2004 - 02:53 AM
|
|
Joined: Jul 16, 2004
Posts: 535
Location: Grass Valley, CA USA
Status: Offline
|
|
Quote: › When Crowley mentions 'the Mystery of Redemption', after describing the Magus's devotion to 'Truth', he is being sarcastic.
Crowley or whoever wrote this is not being sarcastic. There is a real truth there. Redemption is not a justification for sin but a way to transform negative experiences into something useful to the Great Work.
Quote: › We know, from his wanderings across the abyss, that there is no redemption.
I'd be interested to know what excatly what Crowley wrote and where it is which leads to that conclusion. Thank-you
zardoz |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
pike66 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 17, 2004 - 09:20 AM
|
|
Joined: Nov 05, 2003
Posts: 112
Location: New York
Status: Offline
|
|
Zardoz, I'm merely using Crowley's own point of view, and seeing it in a biographical context. If we know anything about Crowley it's that there is no Redemption. The Great Work doesn't always have to be so great.
-R.Pike-
http://www.totic.net |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Caradoc |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 18, 2004 - 02:19 PM
|
|
Joined: Apr 07, 2004
Posts: 153
Location: Mansfield
Status: Offline
|
|
You could read Crowley's Commentary on the text if you want his point of view.
You can find it HERE, though the server seems to be down at the time of my posting this. It was working fine yesterday though so hopefully it will be back up again soon. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Jenn |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 18, 2004 - 05:37 PM
|
|
Joined: Jul 08, 2004
Posts: 17
Location: Toronto Canada
Status: Offline
|
|
Thanks for the link! It's still down at the moment but I'll keep checking every once in a while and take a look at it.
"When Crowley mentions 'the Mystery of Redemption', after describing the Magus's devotion to 'Truth', he is being sarcastic. But, it's not in such a covert way that we can't figure out what he really wants us to comprehend (in fact, the exact opposite of what he writes in that line)."
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that sarcasm is the only thing cryptic about Crowley's writings. Yes, I realize that sarcasm is usually the exact oposite of what has been said or written. I should have worded it differently. What I intended to ask was if it was indeed sarcasm, and if it was, what was the motive behind it? Zardoz expressed that it was not intended as sarcasm at all, but interperetes redemption as a way to transform the negitive into something positive towards the Great Work, which makes sense. How does one come to a solid conclusion about it? I wish I can be more clear about my confusion on the matter. Sometimes when I read his work it seems to be a reference to a part of another work he (or someone else) had written. I can understand symbolism in writing particularly well, but I think my problem might just be the context in which it is written. Sometimes a sentance can have several meanings at once. The best analogy I can give is a song. A song can have a particular meaning to the listener (and that dosn't make it incorrect in the slightest sense) however the songwriter had something else in mind when writing it. I as a listener with my own interpretation would like to explore that. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
pike66 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 18, 2004 - 11:05 PM
|
|
Joined: Nov 05, 2003
Posts: 112
Location: New York
Status: Offline
|
|
I think one problem with Crowley being so prolific a writer, is exactly that there was so much written, at any given time. Emotions were exchanged liberally, throughout the same subject, in different writings.
He may be sarcastic one minute, and then be sincere the next, in another text. I don't know his motives for being sarcastic, although they were possibly psychological, one can only speculate. What we do know is that he had a great sense of humor, and this figured prominently in many of his writings. Remember that, and don't take it too seriously. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Jenn |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 19, 2004 - 07:12 AM
|
|
Joined: Jul 08, 2004
Posts: 17
Location: Toronto Canada
Status: Offline
|
|
| Thank you! |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
zardoz |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 19, 2004 - 10:52 PM
|
|
Joined: Jul 16, 2004
Posts: 535
Location: Grass Valley, CA USA
Status: Offline
|
|
The song analogy is a good one. That can apply to any form of art, I feel. Crowley's writings, especially the received ones, reveal themselves to be art in the highest sense when seriously studied.
It is my view that there is very little or no sarcasm intended in the Holy Books and Crowley's other magickal writings.
[Jenn said] How does one come to a solid conclusion about it?[/quote]
Maybe one doesn't. Believe nothing. Verify everything for yourself. Experiment - apply the method of science.
-zardoz |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
lvx23 |
|
|
Post subject: re: class A
Posted: Nov 20, 2004 - 06:14 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 05, 2004
Posts: 23
Status: Offline
|
|
I agree with Zardoz. The Class A texts (jenn, these are the received transmissions Crowley channelled during trance) are very rich and dense and multilayered. I don't think sarcasm is involved, but there are certainly paradoxes and contradictions.
Crowley offers breadcrumbs but it takes a lot of study and practice to find your way through the woods. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Jenn |
|
|
Post subject: ok
Posted: Nov 20, 2004 - 06:11 PM
|
|
Joined: Jul 08, 2004
Posts: 17
Location: Toronto Canada
Status: Offline
|
|
Everyones replies have been a huge help.
But what about this one?
"00. One is the Magus: twain His forces: four His weapons. These are
the Seven Spirits of Unrighteousness; seven vultures of evil. Thus is
the art and craft of the Magus but glamour. How shall He destroy
Himself?"
I think the twain forces might be polar opposites, perhaps dark and light, or maybe even microcosm and macrocosm. Then the four weapons are the four elements with their corrosponding symbols (cup, sword, coin and wand) as explained further in the Liber B vel Magus. Why are these the seven spirits of unrighteousness? How is this the craft of glamour? I may have missed something. I'll go back and read it again.
Ok, so class A texts are the recieved transmissions he recieved through trance. I think I have read about it somewhere a while ago but I cannot find anything on it at the moment. I'll google. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
zardoz |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 21, 2004 - 03:51 AM
|
|
Joined: Jul 16, 2004
Posts: 535
Location: Grass Valley, CA USA
Status: Offline
|
|
Best to discover for oneself rather than be told - not that I know...
May be that there are clues to this in Book of Lies (falsely so-called).
May be speaking of thaumaturgic as opposed to theurgic magick, that is magick which seeks to control the environment rather than magick to raise consciousness.
What is missing may be years of study, experimentation and work.
-zardoz |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
pike66 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 22, 2004 - 04:45 AM
|
|
Joined: Nov 05, 2003
Posts: 112
Location: New York
Status: Offline
|
|
Remember that the four weapons are to dare, to will, to know, and to keep silent.
-R.Pike-
http://www.totic.net |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Jenn |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 22, 2004 - 06:36 AM
|
|
Joined: Jul 08, 2004
Posts: 17
Location: Toronto Canada
Status: Offline
|
|
Thanks Pike66, Ill remember that!
I know perfectly well that it's better to learn for oneself than be told. People who don't question things for themselves only cause trouble, and people who only ask questions end up being dependant on everyone elses answers. Still, it's wonderful to have help on the way. No man is an island in the ultimate sense. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Alastrum |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 22, 2004 - 03:24 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 02, 2003
Posts: 240
Location: London, UK
Status: Offline
|
|
| For me, the ultimate example of Crowley's sarcasm is the comment to Liber AL, where it is forbidden to discuss the book. This is so obviously ridiculous that it amazes me the number of blind fools who adhere to it literally! Clearly, the only way any religion, and the individuals practising it, is going to grow is by examination, debate, discussion etc. If Crowley himself had never questioned his original religion, he would have remained a Plymouth Brother, and Aiwaz would have had to find someone else to act as his scribe! It is imperative that we discuss, debate, and share our insights into Thelema, otherwise it becomes a stagnant belief and nothing more. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Horemakhet |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 22, 2004 - 04:20 PM
|
|
Joined: Nov 05, 2003
Posts: 393
Location: Montreal,Quebec
Status: Offline
|
|
| Crowley wrote the closing comment to Liber Al in response to his growing annoyance with Norman Mudd. Read 'Perdurabo'- the latest (and best) of the biographies. Crowley had a habit of attracting those who attatched their car to his Star for a short time, only to later dismiss his 'ways'. A few of these students attempted to overrule AC on matters pertaining to the book. In AC's mind this was a contradiction of certain statements in the book itself which acknowledged his sole superiority. He could be a very patient man at times, but I think that Mudd drove him over the brink of what he could take. Mudd also drove himself over the brink, never to return... |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
frater_nun |
|
|
Post subject: Twain forces
Posted: Nov 23, 2004 - 02:23 AM
|
|
Joined: Nov 23, 2004
Posts: 1
Status: Offline
|
|
Dear Jenn,
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
On the twain forces: observe the division of the forces flowing down the twin pillars of the Tree of the Life and take note of the position of the Magus on the Tree.
Now I must exercise the Powers of the Sphinx before I too am interrupted during my composition of Xanadu.
Love is the law, love under will.
In Light, Life, Love and Liberty,
Frater Nun
"I am that which exists before the Alpha and the Omega." |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Alastrum |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 23, 2004 - 03:01 AM
|
|
Joined: Oct 02, 2003
Posts: 240
Location: London, UK
Status: Offline
|
|
oooh picky, picky, picky! So "shun" me then  |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
pike66 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Nov 23, 2004 - 04:24 AM
|
|
Joined: Nov 05, 2003
Posts: 112
Location: New York
Status: Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Excoriator |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Dec 17, 2004 - 11:14 AM
|
|
Joined: Jul 25, 2004
Posts: 69
Location: Edenglassie
Status: Offline
|
|
Alastrum wrote: › For me, the ultimate example of Crowley's sarcasm is the comment to Liber AL, where it is forbidden to discuss the book. This is so obviously ridiculous that it amazes me the number of blind fools who adhere to it literally!
So where are all those other Blind Fools, then? I've been looking for others for a few years now and I've yet to hear of even one.
Obviously, dismissing The Comment as mere sarcasm is a view. Those who hold that view can go their way so far as I'm concerned. To reduce it, as Horemakhet does, to merely a response to annoyance with Mudd is also a view. One could similarly say that Liber El was merely a response to A.C.'s annoyance with Rose acting strangely and dragging him around the museum. And to dismiss the authority of the A classification is also a view. As is including any old rubbish that A.C. wrote as amongst the Writings. But they aren't my views.
Alastrum wrote: › It is imperative that we discuss, debate, and share our insights into Thelema, otherwise it becomes a stagnant belief and nothing more.
That is also a view. While I don't completely dismiss discussion and debate, or I wouldn't be here, it is my view that the enemy of the individual will, of god in man, IS the stagnant water of empty social interaction; or, more particularly, the crocodile of destruction in it. One can accept, as it is written in Liber 418, that Liber El is the voice of a god and not a man - and just keep the chatter about the Contents to yourself. As John Lennon said: It's easy if you try. And rather than it making it stagnant, what I have found is that the discipline of maintaining a personal relationship with the text helps to free one from peer-group pressure and the merely-conventional views that inevitably arise in social groups. I also used to dismiss The Comment as some sort of guard on Liber El, one which just had to be defied, but I have come to the view that not only can it be obeyed but that it is wise to do so. And, what's more, it would do most groups, as well as the individuals in them, a world of good to do so.
Close reading of The Comment - which the "Creator" post pointed out the basics of - allows, in my reading, quite a degree of lattitude in debate and discussion, depending upon how one chooses to read it - as opposed to being told how one should read it. One doesn't have to dismiss it outright and one doesn't have to accept that one is a fool to take it seriously.
An example of a merely-conventional belief that has come to be accepted as Thelemic is, in my view, the one expressed in this thread that there is no such thing as Redemption in Thelema. Yet there it is, as was pointed out, in Liber B; and there is also this neglected passage in Liber 418, 3'rd Aethyr:
"And for this is BABALON under the power of the Magician, that she hath submitted herself unto the work; and she guardeth the Abyss. And in her is a perfect purity of that which is above; yet she is sent as the Redeemer to them that are below. For there is no other way into the Supernal Mystery but through her, and the Beast on which she rideth..."
Compare the Ape's version in John 14:6: "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me."
Moreover, Thelema is a creed which proposes a series of three initiaory Grades (re. Liber 418, again, Liber Tau and others) and I, personally, find it difficult to understand them except as, in part, a redemptive process. The word means, one should note, to buy back. There are many ways to read that but being bought out of slavery is an obvious one. But, again, this is just my view and my reading of the texts. Of course, if one doesn't respect the texts, that is another matter. I just hold the view that if one does have a respect for Liber El, not imposing one's interpretations of its Contents (note: plural) on others is, at the very least, polite.
CSM
P.S. And before anyone asks: yes I do shun Discussers, in the ordinary sense of the words "shun" and "discuss" - which makes me quite a lonely, little Thelie out here in the colonies. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Maledoro |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Dec 17, 2004 - 11:25 AM
|
|
Joined: Dec 07, 2004
Posts: 16
Location: In the Wasteland
Status: Offline
|
|
To play the Devil's Advocate, if Crowley didn't want any discussion of Liber AL, then why was Equinox IV:1 published?
 |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Excoriator |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Dec 17, 2004 - 12:28 PM
|
|
Joined: Jul 25, 2004
Posts: 69
Location: Edenglassie
Status: Offline
|
|
Maledoro wrote: › To play the Devil's Advocate, if Crowley didn't want any discussion of Liber AL, then why was Equinox IV:1 published?
One would have to play Devil's Psychoanalyst to explain why they do what they do. For instance they persist with the statement on their Theology page that there is no Satan in Thelema:
http://oto-usa.org/theology.html
Just do a little word-search through Liber 418 to put the lie to that one. Moreover, doing what Crowley wanted, or might be presumed he wanted, is not something that I subscribe to as deciding my relationship with the Law, or the Book of the Law, whatever the fashion is over there. As it is written: "All questions of the Law are to be decided only by appeal to my writings, each for himself."
Some might decide that that includes all A.C.s writings and some might decide that A.C.'s writings don't qualify except for those which are accepted as A-f-n-k's. The latter group might still look upon A.C.'s writings, including his Discussion, as valuable illumination of the Law but then define "appeal" as something more determinative. It really is a matter of interpretation. But as Alastrum's ignorance demonstrated, the study of The Comment, though not forbidden, is, nevertheless, somehow, mysteriously neglected. It's like some sort of magick...
But, regarding how to treat such material as is in that Equinox, one can proceed with various readings of The Comment. To start with, one should remember that it wasn't received for almost two decades after the Reception of the Law and so, obviously, there was that period when there was no such check. One might speculate as to why that was but the practical result, as with A.C.s commentary after the writing of The Comment, is that body of work. I see no difficulty in it - the injunction is to shun the Discusser, not the Discussion. Though, if the prophet were still alive, and still persisting with his Discussion, I would shun him.
But, as there was that period without the Comment, and there has been the longer period when, following A.C.'s example, few people have taken it literally, one might presume that it is something which was anticipated might take awhile to establish. That isn't to say it is an excuse. Or one might say that it was an outright failure of the prophet to understand and practice the injunctions of The Comment.
In practice, it might be difficult for the publishers of that or any other Discussion, if it is deemed them to be Discussion, to publish Discussion without themselves Discussing - but I imagine it is possible. Some biohazard suits might come in handy...
CSM |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
the_real_simon_iff |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Dec 17, 2004 - 01:46 PM
|
|
Joined: Nov 07, 2003
Posts: 875
Location: Munick / Germany
Status: Offline
|
|
93, all!
Sometimes I tend to think that the Tunis Comment was (as Dr. K's "Perdurabo" seems to suggest) just a convenient tool to silence Norman Mudd, who annoyed AC with his persistents demands about the instructions of Liber AL that were not caried out then. After that, AC had to live with this comment and probably liked the paradoxes it arose.
On the other hand it does fit into the final words of Liber AL's "The Summons": Know - will - dare - AND BE SILENT!
And furthermore I also like this passage from "Red Flame 8" very much: "Now, as to the issue of the study of TBOTL being "forbidden", well, IT IS! But as Thelemites it is our duty to trespass and thereby transcend all taboos. If we cannot be our own Master then what good are we? If we blindly follow dogma, even Therion's, then we remaain little better than slaves. The Tunis Comment is a great example of a magickal, semantic weapon aimed directly at those who would invoke Because through Why. And it destroys and drives slaves and fools mad. That much is evident within a certain sector of the "Thelemic" community at large that have taken it upon themselves to ban study, commentary and publication upon Liber Legis. One cannot rationalize this issue at all, much less lay down "the law" concerning it, without failing the "ordeal" of the Comment itself."
On the other hand (I have got a lot of other hands left) the study is said to be a MUST for anyone who took the Minerval's oath. And there are people who say that this is a kind of oath that IN NO WAY is allowed to violate.
All in all, in my opinion it is probably just another example for the obsoleteness of any Aristotelean either-or truths in this New Aeon. Which can be hard because it forces us to think and decide for ourselves and which always involves the danger of the possibility of interpreting-anything-in-any-way-you-like...
Love=Law
Lutz |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Excoriator |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Dec 17, 2004 - 03:44 PM
|
|
Joined: Jul 25, 2004
Posts: 69
Location: Edenglassie
Status: Offline
|
|
the_real_simon_iff wrote: ›
And furthermore I also like this passage from "Red Flame 8" very much:
Red Flame 8 wrote: ›
Now, as to the issue of the study of TBOTL being "forbidden", well, IT IS! But as Thelemites it is our duty to trespass and thereby transcend all taboos. If we cannot be our own Master then what good are we? If we blindly follow dogma, even Therion's, then we remain little better than slaves.
So - somehow - some Californian dipstick who can't even read the thing saying that every Thelemite should do what he says and not what the Class A text says, when it says to decide all questions of Law for oneself, makes one not a slave? Yea, verily, Californication proceedeth like an almighty flood which overturneth even the mighty timbers of Lebanon, yea, even the mighty timbers of Lebanon.
Red Flame 8 wrote: ›
The Tunis Comment is a great example of a magickal, semantic weapon aimed directly at those who would invoke Because through Why. And it destroys and drives slaves and fools mad. That much is evident within a certain sector of the "Thelemic" community at large that have taken it upon themselves to ban study, commentary and publication upon Liber Legis.
Who ARE these people?! Where ARE these banners?! Is it just me reflected down some great, distorting echo-chamber? But to put my view again: Do what you decide, even if that is what I, or anyone, might deem to be Discussion - but I reserve the right to shun you; and, indeed, I hold that to be my duty as a Thelemite. Is that really such an affront to a bunch of people who don't want to know me anyway? But why anyone would take a lesson in semantics from someone who fails in basic comprehension, I really do not know.
Red Flame 8 wrote: ›
One cannot rationalize this issue at all, much less lay down "the law" concerning it, without failing the "ordeal" of the Comment itself.
So sayeth the prophet of the pointy-heads. Blessed be the name of the prophet.
the_real_simon_iff wrote: ›
On the other hand (I have got a lot of other hands left) the study is said to be a MUST for anyone who took the Minerval's oath. And there are people who say that this is a kind of oath that IN NO WAY is allowed to violate.
People say... (The Go-Betweens - old local band - did a song called that a long, long time ago.) I have studied Liber El. Presently, I refrain from what might be called "study" but I still reserve the right to do that - or to Discuss the Contents. If one actually studies the text of The Comment - which is Magically Guarded by the Great Magical Ordeal called Reading, and Forbidden by the Great Authoritarian Forbidding of Having To Decide For Oneself, and Veiled by the Great Semantic Veil of It Being Itself a Veil - there are many possibilities. I have considered inflicting a logical flow-chart upon the Thelemic community to illustrate the ways it can be read; and I might yet do it if I feel cranky enough one day.
the_real_simon_iff wrote: ›
All in all, in my opinion it is probably just another example for the obsoleteness of any Aristotelean either-or truths in this New Aeon. Which can be hard because it forces us to think and decide for ourselves and which always involves the danger of the possibility of interpreting-anything-in-any-way-you-like...
One doesn't have to go so far as despairing of logic to see that it is hard to think, and to decide, for oneself. However, I think that it is tendentious to portray The Comment as being any more illogical than any other instruction or statement. It can be read plainly. It's just that, in my observation, people would rather not practice what it plainly says because other people might say that they are fools. More fool them, I say.
CSM |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
lashtal |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Dec 17, 2004 - 04:11 PM
|
|
Site Admin
Joined: Sep 30, 2003
Posts: 3431
Status: Offline
|
|
Hi Maledoro,
Maledoro wrote: › To play the Devil's Advocate, if Crowley didn't want any discussion of Liber AL, then why was Equinox IV:1 published?
I don't understand your point here. The Comment relates to the study and discussion of Liber 220. Equinox IV:1 includes Commentaries on Libri 1, 7, 27, 65, 66, 370, 400, and 570. Also, of course, Crowley wasn't involved (or consulted!) in the publication of Equinox IV:1.
Paul
webmaster@lashtal.com |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
the_real_simon_iff |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Dec 17, 2004 - 04:54 PM
|
|
Joined: Nov 07, 2003
Posts: 875
Location: Munick / Germany
Status: Offline
|
|
93, all!
Just to be nice to some Californian dipstick once, the quote is from only one of the essays in RF8 and is titled "One Perspective" and is clearly for those who feel the need to justify their studying of TBOTL although it seems forbidden.
Since the comment also says "Whoeever disregards this does so at his own risk" there is in the end not even a problem for anybody. Which seems pretty boring to me. If that's all: you have the right to shun but be prepared to be shunned - I don't wonder why so many Thelemites I know are "Libertarian Universalists" (or the other way round) when doing the "What's your Religion?" test somewhere on the web. Although I have to say that I don't know too much in person.
As Excoriator said: "But, again, this is just my view and my reading of the texts. Of course, if one doesn't respect the texts, that is another matter. I just hold the view that if one does have a respect for Liber El, not imposing one's interpretations of its Contents (note: plural) on others is, at the very least, polite." Since I am not defintely sure yet what my view on the Comment, Liber Al and Thelema as a whole is, I simply love collecting different views from all over the world.
Shunned discussers, forbidden studies, destroying books - in the end all is semantics, language. Ah, I guess I like the Shut-up!-Mudd!-theory most.
Love=Law
Lutz |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
in 8° 
: 
in 11° 
: Anno IVxviii 
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
