Notifications
Clear all

Introduction  

Page 2 / 2
  RSS

jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
30/11/2012 5:26 pm  

It is rather disappointing to have The Comment quoted at me, Azidonis!  I thought we were all above that sort of thing.  Have you only read The Book of the Law the once and destroyed your copy thereafterwards?

I was hoping that my Proposal may have been taken more in the spirit in which it was written...

Shiva, yes I see your point - I did mean "read out" - the point that I was making was that chapters vary in length, and Crowley said somewhere (don't know where - The Equinox, perhaps?) that the sessions lastly strictly from 12 to 1 o'clock.

Happy "Easter" tomorrow, everyone.  I will not be around for 3 days (I think)...

Woo Hoo,
N. Joy


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4944
30/11/2012 6:36 pm  
"jamie barter" wrote:
I thought we were all above that sort of thing.

You've got to be kidding. Nobody here in this octagon is above anything.

[/align:asza9ybf]

And you are even funnier to think that "we all" are above something.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
30/11/2012 7:42 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
THE COMMENT.

Erwin's "Concerning The Comment": http://www.erwinhessle.com/writings/comment.php

Los' "Finding Your Own Answer": http://thelema-and-skepticism.blogspot.com/2011/09/finding-your-own-answer.html


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
30/11/2012 8:07 pm  
"jamie barter" wrote:
Please "clarify" this OP abbreviation exactly and the general sense of your sentence as to which certain segment of Thelemite population it is you're referring to?

"OP" is common internet shorthand for "Original Post" or sometimes "Original Poster." I was indicating that I was not specifically criticizing you (the "original poster" on this thread) or anyone else in particular. I was aiming my remarks at a "certain segment" of people who call themselves Thelemites, and, as I went on to explain, this segment includes anyone who seeks a "hidden" meaning to make the Book say something that they're more comfortable with.

So clearly, when the text is straightforward, there's no reason not to read it in a straightforward way.
But let's not forget that it is also written and concealed, and there is also "the half" and "half"...

I'm certainly not trying to say that everything is crystal clear in the Book -- that's the whole point of study and exegesis. It's beyond question that there are multiple ways to read certain lines (including ways to use Qabalah to elucidate passages), but any elucidation must be one that, in Crowley's own words, "confirms, amplifies, deepens, intensifies, or clarifes the obvious common-sense significance" of the straightforward parts of the Book.

It simply won't do to try to explain away all the violent imagery as metaphors for lovey-dovey stuff: one would have just as much justification to interpret the more pleasant parts as metaphors for war. The only point I'm trying to make is that interpretations that serve to make the interpreter more comfortable with the Book should be questioned.

"Choose ye an island." (v.4)
Select a vehicle in which to Incarnate as a Microcosm.

"Fortify it" (v.5)
Establish an Ego/Ruach with the Four Neurological Circuits [see Leary or Wilson]

"Dung it about with enginery of war!" (v.6)
= The defence (/attack) mechanism of the survival urges and a [Reichian] character armour as an unavoidable 'break' or excrement of spiritual energy

"I will give you a war-engine" (v.7)
Augmented by Thelema as a superior means of Accomplishment.

"With it ye shall smite the peoples, and none shall stand before you (v.8)
= peoples as undisciplined mentation activity in the Ruach, none is the Unmanifest, or resolution of 2=0, as is smite in terms of "rectify balance"

[best sarcastic voice] Oh, and "none" is really Nun (N in the Hebrew alphabet), so when Nun (N) stands before you (U) you get NU! And she is NONE!"[/best sarcastic voice]

My eyes kind of glaze over when people advance readings like the above because they're so wishy-washy and useless. According to these kinds of readings, way too many passages in the book are just symbols for the 0=2 equation or some kind of vague mystical trance state.

Here's an idea: how about we take the idea of "peoples" seriously, as signifying the actual people with whom one interacts on a daily basis, or at least the idea of others that one forms in the mind, internalizes, and carries around on a daily basis (remember, the Thelemite is "against the people," according to Chapter II)? In addition to a literal reading of these words -- which seems to be saying, like much of Chapter Three, that the world is a violent, unpleasant place, and we need to accept that and prepare for it -- we might also read them as an injunction to obliterate, as best we can, the influence that other people have upon us.

The idea that one has obligations to others or that one has to live up to the expectations of others -- these ideas are entirely imaginary, not binding on the Self in any way. The opening of Chapter III might well be read as encouraging each individual to see itself as Supreme, to understand itself and its Will as the only valid motivations for action. This Will could very well include violence, aggression, conflict, being "a dick," and other things that "the people" look down upon. Or it could include certain sexual proclivities that "the people" look down upon (that Chapter III will also enthusiastically endorse). Or it could include none of those things. There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt.

Now that's an interpretation that "confirms, amplifies, deepens, intensifies, or clarifes the obvious common-sense significance" of much of the rest of the Book.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
01/12/2012 12:33 am  
"jamie barter" wrote:
It is rather disappointing to have The Comment quoted at me, Azidonis!

At you? No.

As a response to your proposal, yes.

If verse X means Y to you, then it means Y to you.

If you want to make a thread about it, and sit and chat about it with others, don't let me quoting the Tunis Comment stop you.

As for burning the book - no. I cut it up into pieces, and pasted the sheets, as chapter 3 says, not as Crowley's response to Neuberg's pining over Leah says.

Although, I suppose I could burn a copy, or two, or three. When I run out of newspaper to light the hearthfire with, I'll throw one into the flames unto Nuit. I wonder if it makes good rolling paper...


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
02/12/2012 3:05 pm  

I find I'm able to 'get back' to Lashtal sooner than I anticipated, although I may be 'off' instead unexpectedly later in the week, and the moment now seems right to discuss the matter of verse 3.  I am actually in full agreement with Los on this one and that it appears to be wholly "simple straightforward English" as far as I can see.  There is no getting away from the fact that Horus, or more specifically RHK, can be a most altogether horrible bastard and one mean dude, to use the vernacular.  There is no doubt that he is a god of War and that the 20th century has been choc-full of them, so I won't get involved in the New-Age niceties of trying to explain "War" in terms of anything other than bloody conflict and painful opposition, nor that Chapter 3 does not involve intimations of the most awful suffering and violence.  However I think Vengeance possibly means corrective "Adjustment", by force majeure if necessary, of refractory elements to the correct balance of the Divine and Universal Will.  But I think the most apt, accurate, and yes beautiful description of this 'terrible' image of RHK which I have ever seen is this little extract which appears at the end of Chapter 6 of "The Egyptian Revival" (1923) by Frater Achad (Charles Stansfeld Jones):

Horus appears as the avenger Apophis to those who try to Go Back, or retrogress.  He has to destroy them in order that they may be renewed.  But as long as we go forward, we travel with the Ever Coming Son, who is after all our Destiny, since He is within each of us as the True Urge of our Being.  This, then, is the secret of the Way of the TAO; step boldly out on the Path of Destiny, having aligned the personal with the Divine Will, and thus prepared oneselves for the acceptance of that destiny. Keep ahead of the urge from behind, and it will not fret us.
Then we become Free, Goers, Doing the Will of God upon Earth, Ever-Coming Sons of God.
But if we attempt to lag behind to carry out some personal whims and wishes, Destiny catches up with us and forces us on.  To those who wilfully turn back and seek to avoid cooperating with the Divine Plan, Horus is the Great Avenger.  Has he not said "I am a God of War and of Vengeance.  I will deal hardly with them." [sic]
Thus at his coming in 1904 he found the Race in a state of definite retrogression.  "Civilization" met him as he advanced in triumph, and millions fell, without understanding what was happening.  He still drives ahead in his Chariot, and millions more will feel his Force and Fire, until the Race recognizes that it must right about face, and cheer the Conquering Hero on.  Then we shall have Peace and Rejoicing, and the Stern Warrior will seem as the Gentlest Child
. [My emphases.]

While on the subject of these earlier verses I may as well 'add some more wood on the fire' with the following logs.  I may come back to the first two verses and vv. 9-11 later; as always my comments are in Class C and There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt.  Incidentally I don't know how the smiley logo  8) got included instead of "(v.8.)" last time - I had time to check in Preview before posting and could have sworn it was not there then!  Perhaps it was as a result of the same gremlin or higher agency in the works that made 3 of my earlier replies - the best part of nearly an hours typing in each case - annoyingly disappear at the touch of a button!  But, to proceed:

"Sacrifice cattle, little and big: after a child" (v.12)
Rather than implementation of child sacrifice I would suggest that the meaning of after a child instead refers to an honorific "in the name of the Crowned & Conquering Child".  As I pointed out in my essay "Thelema and Money" (which was issued under my pseudonym at the time of Rex Monday, until later on someone else appropriated it!) Cattle, or rather head of cattle, was the precursor of Money, which originated in the 7th century B.C.E. and has been in omnipresent use in the 'civilized' world since then.  It is where the word "Capital" came from, which is derived from the Latin root for "head", as in head of cattle (from which we get, for example, per capita).  It seems to be suggested that it (money) should be (like income-tax was meant to be!) a temporary economic measure of convenience only, and be superceded by something which is better and a lot more equitable distributed in tems of worldwide resources.  Where capital big implies money and "big business" in general, little implies interest and the application of Usury.

But not now (v.13)
This might - as "But not, now" - have been a sotto voce rebuke by Aiwass to A.C. in the nature of "don't you quibble with me at this moment about it" - or words to that effect - taking issue with A.C.'s unspoken but not unthought opposition to the idea of murdering infants, & similar to the manner in which 'he' intercedes to observe that A.C. hates the pen and for Why, etc. , in II. vv.10-13.  {As synchronicity with people's comments about dictating and Finnegans Wake [see Replies #45 and #46], it reminds me of that possibly apocryphal tale where Samuel Beckett in his position as James Joyce's secretary, was taking down FW as Work In Progress when there was a knock on the door and J.J. broke off in mid-flow to say "come in".  Later on, when S.B. was reading the text back, Joyce interjected "What's this bit about 'come in' doing there?" - or words to that effect - to which S.B., acting either innocently or with mischief aforethought, then gave the explanation for it.  Apparently J.J. mused thoughtfully for a moment, then remarked: "let it stand."  The proof as such is presumably buried amongst the verbiage and cunning linguistry; if anybody has a suitable search mechanism maybe the veracity of this tale could be determined!  Incidentally, would anyone like to see my sequel to Ulysses?  It's called "Bloom'sDay - The Weekend After" (This is not a joke by the way - or not just in that sense - I have actually written something!}

But not now (v.13)
An alternative interpretation - as "But, not now" - is that although the temporary nature of the preceeding verse is indicated and in fact seemingly commanded, it was not meant to happen 'now', or rather immediately in 1904.  I suggest that in view of the following verse:

Ye shall see that hour, o blessed Beast...
a possible catalyst for this would have been precipitated by the Wall Street Crash of October 1929, as itself a result of the collapse of the Gold Standard as a by-product and effect of 'the war to end wars' (i.e., WW1), as a result of which  money ceased to be related to anything 'real' such as the precious metals of gold and silver themselves, but paper and later electronic promissary equivalents "to pay the bearer on demand" and fiduciary, i.e., a matter of 'faith' - not certainty - only.  If so, there appears to be a clear splitting of the timeline at this point, as eighteen years later the Prophet died in 1947, with two distinct strands of divergence into alternative futures here - one a society with money, one without - in the same way that the Aeon might have developed differently say if Crowley had abstructed the Stele of Revealing from the Boulak museum, had established the clerk-house at his Kaaba, had not sold off Boleskine in 1917, etc...

...and thou the Scarlet Concubine of his desire!" (v.14)
The use of Scarlet Concubine instead of the more common ' Scarlet Woman' is conspicuous here & the only example in The Book where it occurs.  Unless there is a cabbalistic reference involved I am not sure what the particular significance is.  It suggests a role of slightly less importance, perhaps secondary to that of 'Scarlet Womanhood', maybe an extra mistress he may have taken at the time e.g., like he did at Cefalu.

Ye shall be sad thereof."  (v.15)
This seems straightforward and/but curious.  It is also unclear if A.C. and the S.C. will be thus affected.  'Sadness' is not a virtue in The Book of the Law - the only other references are II.18 & II.56, neither of which seem to apply to being of the 'highest' or the 'supernals'.  Possibly it is a cypher as in "I will hide thee in a mask of sorrow" (II.53) instead of its existential opposite Joy, for convenience purposes as a stratagem.  There may possibly also be a reference to Binah as encompassing/ involving the Trance of the Illusion of this 'vice'.

Shiva - perhaps I meant "beyond" rather than "above"?!?  I will respond to Los' and Azidonis' points and "any other business" maybe tomorrow...

Yabba-Dabba (Do!)
N. Joy
 


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
02/12/2012 5:08 pm  

Methinks you would love the blog feature of this site.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
03/12/2012 5:19 pm  

I would not normally go into such biographical details about my personal history and was not intending to on this "board", but am doing so now in the interest of hopefully enhancing the general perspective of the larger picture.

In the early 80s I came across Vol. 1 No. 1 of The Cincinnati Journal of Ceremonial Magick while mooching through bookshops, which was primarily concerned with Liber Pennae Praenumbra, a received "holy book" similar in terms of its Thelemic message to Liber AL, which I had already had and "studied" for some years.  Having read it and been sufficiently interested and intrigued by it I then corresponded with Ma'at Cabal [or Qabal; now I believe the European Ma'at Network] and was provided with documents and papers not publicly released and also obtained issues of The British Journal of Ma'at (which was sold publicly), both of which I found contained a noticeably high signal-to-noise ratio, and in which I found the original allusion to Coph Nia (and Andromeda, etc), which influenced my personal interpretation and perception of this particular verse afterwards.  I am mentioning this because, in the interests of wider discussion, it may prove valuable to get further input from someone else in the Qabal (with which I lost touch when I moved in the early 90s).  I should say that I still have respect for much of the Maat material and outlook, although I am not in any way a spokesperson for the 'movement' & it may be more valuable to hear from someone on this who is or even the author of this interpretation of this particular verse him/herself.  The only alternative would be to try to unearth the item myself, which I may try to do anyway if it may prove fruitful and instructive to the debate. 

Further to the preceeding, there are three further things to draw attention to:
There is an end of the word of the God, enthroned in Ra's seat, lightening the girders of the soul (III.61) 

When Hrumachis shall arise, and the double-wanded one assume my throne and place...Another prophet shall arise, and bring fresh fever from the skies;... [III.34]

"The 'double-wanded one' is Thmaist of dual form as Thmais and Thmait, from whom the Greeks derive their Themis, goddess of Justice. [...]  We should begin already, as I deem, to regard this Justice as the Ideal whose Way we should make ready by virtue of our Force and Fire." (Comment to III.34)

"While on the subject" I may as well discuss Maat Magick, the opus in which Nema reveals all on the subject.  Again, maybe this should appear in a Reviews section, but here it is anyway.  Maat Magick is obly a cheap Weiser paperback which looks on first appearance like any ordinary New Agey sort of book you might find for example in WH Smiths [UK high street retailer]or airport bookstall.  As such, it belies what in some ways are 'masterly' contents, and in its way as complete a compednium in it sway as Therion's Book Four (which would seem to be lacking at least two sections, conspicuous by their absence, on the obeah and the wanga).  There are some genuine diamonds to be found there among the more ordinary carbon and it is unexpectedly leavened by droll interjections of a dry humour on occasion (an example is the definition of Thuggee in the Glossary at the back).  She deals with a belief in Satan/Shaitan quite coherently, however I thought the inclusion of the ritual for the Invocation for the Holy Guardian Angel on pages 167-73 might have been a little ambitious for a beginner, considering the marketing of the book was ostensibly for novices as a "guide to self initiation" and also that the Abramelin Operation for KCHGA lasts for six months and Crowley himself took three in China!  This also makes the remarks on page 173 rather optimistic, I felt:

"In the following days, spend as much time as possible in temple with your HGA, consolidating your new consciousness... Don't be discouraged if this Working takes a number of attempts to complete."

This exercise is itself preparation for the Invocation of the 'Forgotten Ones' (another Lovecraftian echo but equivalent in a sense to the Abramelin demons and atavistic levels of consciousness). All of this may possibly be a walk in the park for some compared with the process of "assuming and fulfilling the title of Master of the Temple", for example, which is gone into on p.191ff!

The manual also deals with a fairly thorough precis of Sex Magick, which may seem a bit on the spare side in a guide for self-initiation however the reader is usefully advised that although "it is written in terms of heterosexual coupling a little ingenuity can adapt it for various gender and number sitiations." (p.40) Furthermore on page 167 technique is gone into some detail and the reader is advised:

"...the man extracts a portion of the combined elixir with his tongue and shares it with the woman in a kiss.  The rest of the Elixir can then be used for a variety of magickal purposes.  It can be used to charge magickal tools and objects, talismans, amulets, and sigils.  It can be mixed with ink, paint, clay, or dye for works of art, and can be used to anoint musical instruments, costumes, and computers." (However I recommend it is possibly not to be smeared upon IT equipment shared by others, such as in an office). 

There is a novel slant on the idea of kingship, which each magickian as a benevolent self-ruler is to function "...not as one commanding, but as caretaker of one's sphere of influence and those living within it" (p.111).  It also contained a refrence of relevance to our item under discussion, regarding:

"...the galactic lens of Andromeda augmented and aimed by the Sirius system, and stepped down by our sun." (p.110) [My emphasis]

I cannot close this review without at least quoting also one of what I consider to be one of the more significant verses from Liber Penna Praenumbra in the context of (for example) communicating about matters of magick publicly to "all" on Lashtal:

"If ye would dance the Mask, then mask the Dance.  Exquisite must be the Art in this wise; and balance in the Centre be maintained, or else ye shall give unwonted Life unto thine own creations.  Tread carefully this path of Working, Mage.  A tool, by Will devised, makes an ill master." (v.61)

I would unhesitatingly recommend Maat Magick to anyone who has not come across it already, and it also handily contains the complete text and Comments to Liber Pennae Praenumbra. I vouchsafe that any effort expended as a result of an interest will in itself be returned "with interest", and I daresay that if it happened to be produced in a glamorous and fetching 'talismanic' special edition, as some excellent magick books are these days, it would generate a completely different 'aura' to it than it currently presents (hint, Michael!).

Normal service will be resumed tomorrow!

Busy-Blessed-Bee!
N. Joy 


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
04/12/2012 6:11 pm  

If my last posting came over as a little bit rushed - it was!  I was concerned that my industry might have all been in vain and vanish into the ether at the end of the hour, like Cinderella's carriage as happened to me previously - and therefore was not able to proof it through as carefully as I would do normally.  Please someone let me know if there is some "unspoken" etiquette procedure on these forums as to the length of replies or similar, as I would not wish to inadvertently go against the grain and irritate anyone or tire them out!  I just wanted to 'tidy up' the discussion of III.72 around Coph Nia a little bit better before moving on further, simply because I regard this as one of the more resonant verses in Chapter 3  (I am still no wiser why it is "Cop Nia-I in the handwritten ms. and "Coph nia" in every printed edition?)

Los, thank you for your clarification, which will do nicely!  Do you still perhaps owe Michael an explanation as well, though? [see Reply #44].  Your comment about

[best sarcastic voice] Oh, and "none" is really Nun (N in the Hebrew alphabet), so when Nun (N) stands before you (U) you get NU! And she is NONE!"

was rather funny, although I certainly wasn't saying that at all!  I think you can tell by some of my remarks - especially re. v.3 - that I am not against a straightforward literal reading where appropriate, but I can't acquiesce with your observation that according to even "wishy-washy" readings

way too many passages in the book are just symbols for the 0=2 equation

as many passages in The Book are indeed bound up with it directly or indirectly.  Surely you cannot have a problem with that?

Here's an idea: how about we take the idea of "peoples" seriously, as signifying the actual people with whom one interacts on a daily basis, or at least the idea of others that one forms in the mind, internalizes, and carries around on a daily basis (remember, the Thelemite is "against the people," according to Chapter II)? In addition to a literal reading of these words -- which seems to be saying, like much of Chapter Three, that the world is a violent, unpleasant place, and we need to accept that and prepare for it -- we might also read them as an injunction to obliterate, as best we can, the influence that other people have upon us.

I think taking the idea of "peoples" seriously turns into trouble early on because this literal transcription of III.8, say, would doubtless appeal to Mr A. Hitler of Berlin and other assorted wackos and psychotic sociopaths, but cannot be in line with spiritual or any other sort of balanced development.  And why not simply murder children too in that case, while we're about it (III.12)?

It would be too simple to say: the Thelemite is against the people - that would certainly seem to be the case if you just look at II.25, but then when you also have to take into account II.34 it's not quite so clear cut as all that.  But although I disagree for the reasons mentioned, I found most of your remainder to be thought-provoking & stimulating, which is after all the main object, I would think, of collective debate.

Now Azidonis, I'm not quite sure exactly where you are coming from on this one!  I said quoted "at me", as your Reply #48 consisted of The Tunis Comment in full, with a complete absence of any covering note placing it in context with what you had to say (which you then provided up to a point in Reply #54).

If verse X means Y to you, then it means Y to you.

True, but "Y" really consists of Y[sup:2dtuwmpw]1[/sup:2dtuwmpw] and Y[sup:2dtuwmpw]2[/sup:2dtuwmpw] = X, where Y[sup:2dtuwmpw]1[/sup:2dtuwmpw] represents what the verse says to the individual alone on the basis of their subjective life experience; Y[sup:2dtuwmpw]2[/sup:2dtuwmpw] to any of those common aspects of experience which can be shared as valid and applicable to others of 'like' mind - which is the aspect I am interested in (and which I have indicated before in my comments about a 'group consciousness' - octagon notwithstanding!)

I don't know if you're jesting & yanking my chain about

I cut it up into pieces, and pasted the sheets, as chapter 3 says, not as Crowley's response to Neuberg's pining over Leah says.

But taking it at face value, what struck you when you beheld them?  Please would you also be a little more specific about Crowley's response & Leah, etc. for the benefit of readers who may be hard of hearing (i.e., do not know that much about the life of A.C. around the episode in question) - are you sure you whether you mean Neuberg or My-name-is-Mudd?

'Thelemites' who self-righteously quote The Comment are the most godawful hypocrites unless they are going to slavishly obey all of the injunctions - and then if they do, I question their intelligence and powers of discrimination (particularly vital in Malkuth, of course).  And just to clarify, this is not specifically directed at the OP or anyone in particular...  It is patently obvious, surely, that the Comment is not to be obeyed without question; that Crowley as Ankh-af-na-khonsu did not intend people to become "slaves" to it; that it is a form of aptitude test in which 'truth' and 'falsity' are mixed in together, in the same mercurial-hermetic manner as the received wisdom and folly of Aiwass in the Book of the Law itself.  If the 'contents' of the Book are not to be discussed, why for example does III.42 state: "...argue not: convert not: talk not overmuch"? It doesn't say that any talk, conversion or argument is going to be punished by shunning, presumably a Thelemite equivalent of excommunication?  Quite often A.C./ 666/ AnfK didn't comment adequately or fully enough himself especially in the matter of the 3rd Chapter, and without proper discussion where everybody's contributory comment is equal with the one proviso that To Mega Therion's takes precedence, there is the risk that some of these verses may be doomed into obscurity forever.

At this point, let's define pestilence and analyze its meaning.  According to the OED it refers to "...bearing contagion [e.g., what I see as the infection and transmission of ideas]; mischievousness...that which can be fatal or injurious to religion, morals, public peace or well-being [of which I interpret the last four phrases as being in their unbalanced and/or qliphotic forms: "institutionalised worship", "the veiling of vice/ virtue", "stagnation/ entropy" and "complacency", which is then when corrective action should and needs to occur.]

It is odd and quite ironic that people discuss verses and elements relating to Liber AL all the time on this website, as you yourself have acknowledged (in your comment on Coph Nia in Reply #21) but no one seems to get out of their pram about infringing The Comment.  I myself have discussed and declared my intention of discussing the handwritten contents of the Book of the Law right from the very start in my very first posting, where I even signed off "Yours in the cause of constructive blasphemy".  I also made my point regarding the "centre" perfectly clear in Reply #11, and don't know how much clearer I could have signalled my intentions to everybody without broadcasting and underlining them in BLOCK CAPITALS.  However, it is only at the point when I make a proposal to formalise these contributions into some higher system of order so that people can go easily straight to them for information, and furthermore when I propose to give this forum a name - the centre of pestilence - which would automatically generate a knee-jerk reaction from amongst the unthinking - that any sort of opposition arises.

I am sure as eggs are eggs that Azidonis is not the only one who has reservations about discussing The Book - the Caliphornian "OTO" appears to be riddled with paranoia and craven cowardice, fear, loathing & wariness - hardly Thelemic behaviour in itself! - about doing so: I seem to recall Jerry Cornelius of Red Flame fame going into some detail about it & other experiences on some posting somewhere.  But if anyone has read my piece "Metaphor, Media, Magick & the buried Crowley" you may recognise my proposal as an example of Blue Magick in action.  I really must try to upload it this week.

"The blog feature", Azidonis?  "Believe it or not", that is all rather a mystery to me at the moment - as is Facebook - and I have never blogged, tweeted or texted in my life and wouldn't know where to start.  I am a bit of a neanderthal as far as computer stuff is concerned, and am increasingly receiving a reaction from people like in a H.S. Bateman cartoon: "The man who wasn't up to speed with Information Technology..."  But perhaps things may change if and when I eventually get one of my own & spend some time with it...

Sassa-Frassa-Nassa! (attrib. Muttley),
N. Joy


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
04/12/2012 7:07 pm  
"jamie barter" wrote:
Please someone let me know if there is some "unspoken" etiquette procedure on these forums

The only 'etiquette' you seem to be overlooking is the use of the quote feature. It's lack of use, especially on elongated posts, makes following your points more of a hassle than necessary given current technology.

"jamie barter" wrote:
Now Azidonis, I'm not quite sure exactly where you are coming from on this one!  I said quoted "at me", as your Reply #48 consisted of The Tunis Comment in full, with a complete absence of any covering note placing it in context with what you had to say (which you then provided up to a point in Reply #54).

If verse X means Y to you, then it means Y to you.

True, but "Y" really consists of Y[sup:1mvq4bkp]1[/sup:1mvq4bkp] and Y[sup:1mvq4bkp]2[/sup:1mvq4bkp] = X, where Y[sup:1mvq4bkp]1[/sup:1mvq4bkp] represents what the verse says to the individual alone on the basis of their subjective life experience; Y[sup:1mvq4bkp]2[/sup:1mvq4bkp] to any of those common aspects of experience which can be shared as valid and applicable to others of 'like' mind - which is the aspect I am interested in (and which I have indicated before in my comments about a 'group consciousness' - octagon notwithstanding!)

Okay then, as I said, "If you want to make a thread about it, and sit and chat about it with others, don't let me quoting the Tunis Comment stop you."

"jamie barter" wrote:
I don't know if you're jesting & yanking my chain about

I cut it up into pieces, and pasted the sheets, as chapter 3 says, not as Crowley's response to Neuberg's pining over Leah says.

But taking it at face value, what struck you when you beheld them?

Crowley either must have been writing very fast, or had mediocre handwriting, at best.

"jamie barter" wrote:
Please would you also be a little more specific about Crowley's response & Leah, etc. for the benefit of readers who may be hard of hearing (i.e., do not know that much about the life of A.C. around the episode in question) - are you sure you whether you mean Neuberg or My-name-is-Mudd?

The Book of the Law refers to a comment three times. Aside from the Old and New Commentaries that Crowley gave, he also created a comment, the one which I quoted, known as the Tunis Comment. It is appended at the ending of The Book of the Law, as "The Comment".

Crowley was finally inspired to create said comment in Tunis, as a response to Victor Neuberg's overwhelming desire for Leah Hirsig. However, it is not so much of a personal note addressed to Neuberg or Leah, but instead a general note reminding any reader to figure it out on their own, giving Crowley the final say and allowing the use of his words for a guideline, of sorts.

"jamie barter" wrote:
'Thelemites' who self-righteously quote The Comment are the most godawful hypocrites

The Comment was inserted into the thread as a reminder, nothing more. It carried no significance as a personal statement, and there was no hidden agenda in posting it. If you check my post history, I am known for inserting random quotes about things, without explanation, if I think they are relevant to the topic at hand. People also have a habit of chiding and chastising me for it, and I could really care less.

As I said above, "If you want to make a thread about it, and sit and chat about it with others, don't let me quoting the Tunis Comment stop you."

"jamie barter" wrote:
unless they are going to slavishly obey all of the injunctions - and then if they do, I question their intelligence and powers of discrimination (particularly vital in Malkuth, of course).

If you are planning on using this as an angle to create your "let's talk about interpretations of Liber AL" thread that you haven't yet created, that's your business. I'll probably post the Tunis Comment in that thread, too.

"jamie barter" wrote:
And just to clarify, this is not specifically directed at the OP or anyone in particular...  It is patently obvious, surely, that the Comment is not to be obeyed without question; that Crowley as Ankh-af-na-khonsu did not intend people to become "slaves" to it; that it is a form of aptitude test in which 'truth' and 'falsity' are mixed in together, in the same mercurial-hermetic manner as the received wisdom and folly of Aiwass in the Book of the Law itself. If the 'contents' of the Book are not to be discussed, why for example does III.42 state: "...argue not: convert not: talk not overmuch"?

I don't take the comment to mean that it is a taboo to talk about it. I do take it to mean that a danger exists in a group of people getting together attempting to consolidate opinions about it.

"jamie barter" wrote:
It doesn't say that any talk, conversion or argument is going to be punished by shunning, presumably a Thelemite equivalent of excommunication?

Um, lol?

"jamie barter" wrote:
Quite often A.C./ 666/ AnfK didn't comment adequately or fully enough himself especially in the matter of the 3rd Chapter, and without proper discussion where everybody's contributory comment is equal with the one proviso that To Mega Therion's takes precedence, there is the risk that some of these verses may be doomed into obscurity forever.

Say what?

"jamie barter" wrote:
It is odd and quite ironic that people discuss verses and elements relating to Liber AL all the time on this website, as you yourself have acknowledged (in your comment on Coph Nia in Reply #21) but no one seems to get out of their pram about infringing The Comment.

Have you actually done a search for this, and discovered what it was I am referring to? It's like a two sentence statement and a one sentence reply. Hardly a 'discussion'.

"jamie barter" wrote:
I myself have discussed and declared my intention of discussing the handwritten contents of the Book of the Law right from the very start in my very first posting, where I even signed off "Yours in the cause of constructive blasphemy".  I also made my point regarding the "centre" perfectly clear in Reply #11, and don't know how much clearer I could have signalled my intentions to everybody without broadcasting and underlining them in BLOCK CAPITALS.  However, it is only at the point when I make a proposal to formalise these contributions into some higher system of order so that people can go easily straight to them for information, and furthermore when I propose to give this forum a name - the centre of pestilence - which would automatically generate a knee-jerk reaction from amongst the unthinking - that any sort of opposition arises.

Then why not create your own website, or use the blog feature available in this one?

"jamie barter" wrote:
I am sure as eggs are eggs that Azidonis is not the only one who has reservations about discussing The Book - the Caliphornian "OTO" appears to be riddled with paranoia and craven cowardice, fear, loathing & wariness - hardly Thelemic behaviour in itself! - about doing so: I seem to recall Jerry Cornelius of Red Flame fame going into some detail about it & other experiences on some posting somewhere.  But if anyone has read my piece "Metaphor, Media, Magick & the buried Crowley" you may recognise my proposal as an example of Blue Magick in action.  I really must try to upload it this week.

I discuss the book, in some way, all the time. However, there is a danger inherent in trying to create a 'hive mind' consensus on the meanings inherent in the book.

If a group of 1,001 individuals get together and decide that chapter 3 verse 22 (picked at random) means A, then it still doesn't matter for someone who perceives it as meaning B. And it gets even worse if the "A" group decides it wants to try and pressure the "B" person into accepting their view.

Every man and every woman is free to interpret The Book of the Law how they Will. This concept can become severely muddled in a hive mind scenario.

However, if your goal is to try and use said hive mind approach to determine a better understanding of The Book of the Law, good luck to you.

"jamie barter" wrote:
"The blog feature", Azidonis?  "Believe it or not", that is all rather a mystery to me at the moment - as is Facebook - and I have never blogged, tweeted or texted in my life and wouldn't know where to start.  I am a bit of a neanderthal as far as computer stuff is concerned, and am increasingly receiving a reaction from people like in a H.S. Bateman cartoon: "The man who wasn't up to speed with Information Technology..."  But perhaps things may change if and when I eventually get one of my own & spend some time with it...

Oh, right... in the meantime, would you mind at least learning how to effectively use the quote feature?


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4944
04/12/2012 7:20 pm  
"jamie barter" wrote:
... I have never blogged, tweeted or texted in my life and wouldn't know where to start.

8) You have already started. Welcome to the lashtal forums, where every orator gets a soap-box and a megaphone. You use whatever style you feel comfortable with, and you'll simply get pounded if you go too far astray (like into irrelevant subjects or qabalistic proofs of your infallable magickal heritage); besides I am the one mentioned in the book  ::) .


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
05/12/2012 5:52 pm  

This is in reply to Azidonis's posting as Reply #61:

I have tried my best to follow your instructions, but have only made things disappear again & a dog's breakfast of my practice attempts so far this represents the best effort & I am not going to waste any more time on it!  Success will come in due course, no doubt, but for the moment I have had enough and have to get on with other things.  Enjoy!  (& don't complain, s'il vous plait)

Quote from: jamie barter on Yesterday at 06:11:16 pm
I don't know if you're jesting & yanking my chain about

I cut it up into pieces, and pasted the sheets, as chapter 3 says, not as Crowley's response to Neuberg's pining over Leah says.

But taking it at face value, what struck you when you beheld them?
Crowley either must have been writing very fast, or had mediocre handwriting, at best.

Or maybe both!

The Book of the Law refers to a comment three times.

Four, actually!  I.36, III.39, III.40 & III.63.

Crowley was finally inspired to create said comment in Tunis, as a response to Victor Neuberg's overwhelming desire for Leah Hirsig.

I seem to have the - apparently mistaken - impression Neuberg and Crowley had parted company before Tunis, and that it was Mudd who had the hots for Leah & had been doing the pining.  If this is not so, I stand corrected!

If you check my post history, I am known for inserting random quotes about things, without explanation, if I think they are relevant to the topic at hand. People also have a habit of chiding and chastising me for it, and I could really care less.

If I had known the frequency with which this occurs, I might perhaps have ignored it!  You sound a bit like Freddie Mercury here ("Nothing really matters, to me...!" - Bohemian Rhapsody)

Quote from: jamie barter on Yesterday at 06:11:16 pm
unless they are going to slavishly obey all of the injunctions - and then if they do, I question their intelligence and powers of discrimination (particularly vital in Malkuth, of course).
If you are planning on using this as an angle to create your "let's talk about interpretations of Liber AL" thread that you haven't yet created, that's your business. I'll probably post the Tunis Comment in that thread, too.

That will be fun for you!  And such a worthwhile way in which to spend your precious time?

Quote from: jamie barter on Yesterday at 06:11:16 pm
And just to clarify, this is not specifically directed at the OP or anyone in particular...  It is patently obvious, surely, that the Comment is not to be obeyed without question; that Crowley as Ankh-af-na-khonsu did not intend people to become "slaves" to it; that it is a form of aptitude test in which 'truth' and 'falsity' are mixed in together, in the same mercurial-hermetic manner as the received wisdom and folly of Aiwass in the Book of the Law itself. If the 'contents' of the Book are not to be discussed, why for example does III.42 state: "...argue not: convert not: talk not overmuch"?
I don't take the comment to mean that it is a taboo to talk about it. I do take it to mean that a danger exists in a group of people getting together attempting to consolidate opinions about it.

I did not have that in mind at all & never said anything about consolidation.  Horus forbid!

Quote from: jamie barter on Yesterday at 06:11:16 pm
Quite often A.C./ 666/ AnfK didn't comment adequately or fully enough himself especially in the matter of the 3rd Chapter, and without proper discussion where everybody's contributory comment is equal with the one proviso that To Mega Therion's takes precedence, there is the risk that some of these verses may be doomed into obscurity forever.
Say what?

What I was saying was that if no one discusses say what Coph Nia means, everybody on their own (including me) will be going "Duh! What does that mean I wonder?" for the rest of the Aeon, or time, or at least until the matter is answered one way or another to their subjective satisfaction.  I was simply trying to help matters along, that's all!

Quote from: jamie barter on Yesterday at 06:11:16 pm
It is odd and quite ironic that people discuss verses and elements relating to Liber AL all the time on this website, as you yourself have acknowledged (in your comment on Coph Nia in Reply #21) but no one seems to get out of their pram about infringing The Comment.

Have you actually done a search for this, and discovered what it was I am referring to? It's like a two sentence statement and a one sentence reply. Hardly a 'discussion'.

I have searched for it, and am glad you managed to keep your contribution clean!  I was not so much referring to this as an example of discussion, merely that you made the reference acknowledging that to be the case.

Then why not create your own website, or use the blog feature available in this one?

Because I am very idle and procrastinating in some respects, and often prefer others (maybe such as Paul, if feasible) to do the work instead, that's why!  But if I had the "tech", I'd do it like a shot.

I discuss the book, in some way, all the time. However, there is a danger inherent in trying to create a 'hive mind' consensus on the meanings inherent in the book.

I repeat again, if you look at what I said I was and am not talking about consensus here.  And as Liber Pennae Praenumbra in fact points out, "But know, O Children of the Hawk, a Man is not a Bee..." (v.49)

[And it gets even worse if the "A" group decides it wants to try and pressure the "B" person into accepting their view.
/quote]

Yet again, no "pressure": Horus forbid!

Every man and every woman is free to interpret The Book of the Law how they Will. This concept can become severely muddled in a hive mind scenario.

I do not quite understand your allusion here.  There are advantages and disadvantages to using a "hive" metaphor.  I tend to avoid it myself on the whole, and I actually prefer the "shoal of fish" analogy myself - so much more calm & peaceful than all those noisy, buzzing, stinging insects!  But the honey is very nice, in its proper place!

in the meantime, would you mind at least learning how to effectively use the quote feature?

I stand justly rebuked & will try my best to oblige...

I can see how for some people posting, blogging etc. can amount to an almost full-time occupation.  Unfortunately I do not have this luxury of surplus leisure to do so at the moment (assuming I would wish to do that) but I can see how it might be an agreeable and "fascinating" way to pass the time for those who do & are in that position.

Shiggur Nath!
N. Joy.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
05/12/2012 6:18 pm  

Apparently, my quote button isn't working. Drats! Ah well.

"Azidonis" wrote:
The Book of the Law refers to a comment three times.
"jamie" wrote:
Four, actually!  I.36, III.39, III.40 & III.63.

Yes, 4.

"Azidonis" wrote:
Crowley was finally inspired to create said comment in Tunis, as a response to Victor Neuberg's overwhelming desire for Leah Hirsig.
"jamie" wrote:
I seem to have the - apparently mistaken - impression Neuberg and Crowley had parted company before Tunis, and that it was Mudd who had the hots for Leah & had been doing the pining.  If this is not so, I stand corrected!

Maybe it was Mudd. It was one of them. We'll say you are right, as I don't have the resources at hand to determine which is correct, and memory is apparently faulty on the subject. I tend to get some of Crowley's acolytes mixed up.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
10/12/2012 5:09 pm  

Going back to Los' mention in Reply #42 of "when the text is straightforward, there's no reason not to read it in a straightforward way", apart from verse 3 (which I have already discussed) there appear to be six other verses in Chapter 3 which can be regarded in this way, i.e., have no clearly discernible 'concealed' meaning:

"There cometh a rich man from the West qwho shall pour his gold upon thee" (v.33)
Assuming that 'gold' means financial wealth and not something more alchemical, this appears to be a straightforward prediction which did not seem to happen, although some people think it may have referred to Karl Germer, as Crowley's main benefactor in the last twenty years or so of his life: however he was not realy rich, only relatively richer (than Crowley at that time; not difficult!)  Had Crowley lived another five years, it might well have been L.Ron Hubbard.

"Be ready to fly or to smite" (v.33)
This appears to be a clear exposition of the basic survival urge underpinning all life forms as the Primal Urge-to-Be (also publicised by secret Crowley acolyte and purloiner of inspiration, L.Ron Hubbard), sometimes expressed as the "fly or flight" response.  'Smite' is the form of attack which would involve the Blue Magickal tactic of rectifying balance [see my "Metaphor & the Buried Crowley"].

"I adore Thee in the Song" (v.36)
The 'Song' would seem to clearly relate to the translated hieroglyphics from the Stele of Revealing, with the 'I' the offerer therein (Ankh-af-na-khonsu, although it could also relate to A.C. and in fact any other worshipper of the solar 'intelligence'/ deity.)

"Curse them! Curse them! Curse them!" (v.50)
This again would seem to relate to rectification of balance (as more fully explicated in Black and Blue Magick, q.v.)

"There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt."  (v.60)
Well there isn't...

"There is success." (v.69)
Any further comment would mar the beautiful stark simplicity of the verse as is.  It is noticeable that a future tense is not specified, i.e., "There will be success" (cf. "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law" cf. "Love is the law...")

There appear to be about three times as many other verses which also appear "straightforward" in the same manner, but have an additional word or element to them which in the event may require some degree of further elucidation.

Has anyone noticed that there seems to be a curious contrast in regard to and between:

"Now this mystery of the letters is done, and I want to get on to the holier place" (v.48)  &
"I am in a secret fourfold word, the blasphemy against all gods of men."  (v.49)

The holier place is suggested as being that which is beyond human language & the letters system involved in its writing (Thoth-given such as it is).  However in the verse which is immediately following on from this statement, RHK states that "he" is in a fourfold (i.e., presumably four-Lettered) word [which has variously been held to be likely to be either ALLA, LAAL, HOOR or QVIF [see footnote 3 to Chapter 2 in The Book Of Lies.]

Hic,haec,hoc!  Hunc,hanc,hoc!
N. Joy

P.S., I would just like to "doff my hat" to Sir Patrick Moore who went on to enjoy his greater feast at the weekend -- he presented the world's longest running television programme The Sky At Night since 1957 & was possibly responsible for directing the attention of more people to the wonders of the night sky than anyone else in history.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
14/12/2012 6:38 pm  

Further to the above, as indicated in Reply #47 (q.v.) my every intention is to have gone through the whole of Chapter Three in time for the end of the yuga, sorry the winter solstice, & also the Gnostic Mass by xmas too (and which I also pointed out was my little joke – but which bit of it is, do you think?) Things are still on schedule for this, as there’s just over a week and so plenty of time still remaining…

“Abrahadabra! The reward of Ra Hoor Khut” (v.1)This appears to be a basic statement of fact (leaving aside any cabbalistic examination of the Word of Power), however the omission of ‘i’ from RHK creates a pause for deliberation, since this is one of two instances in the Book of the Law where this spelling is used.  Marcelo Motta said in his Commentaries of Liber AL (1975) – which on the whole are fairly perceptive – that “Khut” referred specifically to the force emanating from Boleskine, but although it sounds as if it might be perfectly plausible I am not sure of the reasoning (if any) behind it.
It is also unclear if “reward” is meant in the sense of an actual reward:
To recompense or pay back (injury or wrong) to a person;
To punish, chastise, requite or repay (a person) for evil doing
or if it means repeating (re-doing again) the activity of (re-)warding, which the OED goes on to describe as the following:
To take up a position of defence, take precautions; to stand on the defensive in a combat to parry blows.
To enclose, hem in, shut off; to defend, protect, guard, stand guard over
To avert, to parry, fend off, keep off, turn aside (a blow, attack, weapon, etc.)

“The half of the word of Heru-ra-ha, called Heru-pa-kraat and Ra-Hoor-Khut” (v.35)
Is the other verse where the spelling “Khut” appears.  Also, HPK is not called ‘-pa-’ anywhere else in Liber AL, and no explanation for this usage is available from Therion as far as I have been able to discover.  Apart from these anomalies the verse appears to simply refer to the active and passive forms of the solar deity.

“The ending of the words is the word Abrahadabra…  
If the Chapter had ended here this would be so, in a rather neat circular cyclical closure with the beginning.  However, since the coda goes on as:
…The Book of the Law is Written and Concealed.  Aum.  Ha.  (v.75)
it then  ends with “Ha”, preceeded by the vibration Aum.  But there cannot be any doubt that the Book of the Law is both “written and concealed”.

“Deem not too eagerly to catch the promises; fear not to undergo the curses.  Ye, even ye, know not this meaning all.” (v.16)
The first sentence seems straightforward, although it somehow feels there may be an additional meaning lurking there somewhere.  “Curses” refers again to the rectification/ readjustment of balance (as I have fully explained in my essay referred to previously).  The second sentence of this verse also seems straightforward, but was clearly explained by Fr. Achad as the cipher LA=AL/ “Not” this meaning “All”.

Other places in the 3rd chapter where a particular word or words might modify what would be otherwise straightforward renditions are:

“Fear not at all; fear neither men, nor Fates, nor gods, nor anything.  Money fear not, nor laughter of the folk folly nor any other power in heaven or upon the earth or under the earth.  Nu is your refuge as Hadit your light; and I am the strength, force, vigour of your arms.” (v.17).
“Fates” may require some further clarification, and there may be precise magical definitions and applications with regard to refuge, light, strength, force and vigour.  But apart from these this verse comes across as being relatively straightforward although the usual ‘not’ and ‘all’ ciphers with possible secondary meanings are also present, as they are in:

“The fool readeth this Book of the Law, and he understandeth it not.” (v.63)
and
“Yet to all it shall seem beautiful.  Its enemies who say not so, are mere liars.”  (v.68)

In between these two comments are the ordeals mentioned:

“Let him come through the first ordeal, and it will be to him as silver” (v.64)
“Through the second gold” (v.65)
“Through the third, stones of precious water” (v.66)
“Through the fourth, ultimate sparks of the intimate fire” (v.67)

which appear to relate to the central pillar of the Tree of Life (except for Binah as Daath) as in: Yesod (for silver), Tiphererth (for gold), Binah (for accumulated piles of residue/ islands in the great Sea) and Kether (source of the divine manifestation in the individual spirit).

There are in addition other verses which appear straightforward apart from key words:

But the work of the comment?  That is easy; and Hadit burning in thy heart shall make swift and secure thy pen” (v.40)
It is possible that ‘easy’ may have some additional meaning.

Establish at thy Kaaba a clerk-house; all must be done well and with business way.”  (v.41)
It is again possible that ‘well’ and ‘all’ may have some further meaning as well.

“I am the Hawk-Headed Lord of Silence and of Strength.  For my nemyss shrouds the night-blue sky”  (v.70)
“Nemyss” would possibly seem to be the word containing a concealed meaning here.

To be continued!

Huius, huius, huius; huey, duey, luey
N. Joy


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4944
14/12/2012 7:32 pm  

"In this fourth Yuga, matter is very, very dense and spiritual awareness has decreased by 75%.  This is the “Iron Age.” It is Kali Yuga. Kali means “One,”” Strife” and “Discord.” In this fourth Yuga, matter is very, very dense and spiritual awareness has decreased by 75%. Kali Yuga will last for 432,000 years. 5,000 of those years have already gone by."  - Treatise On Naught (c)2012


AN AEON, AT 2,000 YEARS, IS MERELY A CONVENIENT DIVISION OF A GRAND EQUINOX
- DIVIDED BY THE TWELVE CONSTELLATIONS OF THE ZODIAC.
[/align:80pip8f0]

Oh, we still have LOTS of time to finish the Yuga (and even the Aeon). The current, popular Mayan Calendar was promoted by Jose Arguelles. When his wife, Lloydine, was informed that the "work" was flawed due to the exclusion of the shift from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar (and is thus inaccurate), she replied, "Oh, we know that. But we can't tell everyone that or it will ruin the game."

It was at that point that I, and several other proponents of Dreamspell, quit the game.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
18/12/2012 5:37 pm  

I was wondering whether anybody would query my use of yuga.  I did say “sorry” which should hopefully have signified my not wholly-serious satirical intent and show that I was not 100% purely centred on this.  However these days time isn’t “what it was” & as it is not likely the Aeon of Horus will last for 2,000 years, it is equally uncertain if the Kali yuga will last out for the remaining 427,000.

It is theoretically possible to upload the remainder before Friday (the Solstice or the “end of the world” pace Lon Milo DuQuette & the Mayans.  Incidentally, on a note of meaningless trivia, has anybody noticed how “Mayan” is Maya +, as Los says, the Hebrew ‘Nun’ for none?) but I would have to put everything in three or four large uploads if I am going to do it all by the Solstice as planned.  Meanwhile,

“The other images group around me to support me: let all be worshipped for they shall cluster to exalt me.  I am the visible object of worship, the others are secret; for the Beast & his Bride are they: and for the winners of the Ordeal X.  What is this?  Thou shalt know.”  (v.22)
The Ordeal x consists in the perception that 666 is the Christ, or Messiah, of this Aeon.  This perception must be intuitional.  It cannot be a matter of dogma or faith.  Whosoever does not have it is not qualified to officiate at Thelemic rites.” (- Marcelo Motta, from The Commentaries Of AL, 1975). “x” might also apply to a stylised form of the sign for Pisces and therefore the ordeal of inaugurating/ flowing with the energies of the Aquarian Aeon of Horus.  There are also possibly concealed meanings with “cluster”, “exalt” and “secret”.

“Also ye shall be strong in war” (v.28)
This seems straightforward in one sense if it is viewed as being in terms of modern life being perceived to be a ‘struggle’ for the survival of one’s integrity, a battle to remain true to one’s true will despite opposition from whomever or whatever would seek to divert one from this aim, and against whom/ which one must take counter-action in this contest, which is compared with war.  Also, strong as in ‘Strength’ was the older form of Atu XI, Lust, as a central ‘girder’ of the Ruach uniting Geburah with Chesed and which is of key relevance as the solar sign of Leo the Sun in terms of being invigorated and a channel by & with the force of the Sun. (cf. also II.20, 21, 74 & III.17,46,70).

“From gold forge steel” (v.32)
Steel is a general name for certain artificially produced varieties of iron, but with greater hardness and elasticity.  Steel is also the material in defensive armour & in the form of weapons and cutting tools.  Steel-hearted can refer to someone who is courageous or hard-hearted or obdurate, and “steely” can refer to power of endurance or sustained effort.
“The stern joy which warriors feel in foemen worthy of their steel” – Walter SCOTT.
Iron itself (of which steel is a superior form) is the metal which corresponds to Geburah, as Tiphereth represents Gold.  It could suggest “the next step” in the progression from Adeptus Minor to Adeptus Major: as it states in One Star In Sight, to attain, this, the Adeptus Minor must accomplish the equilibrium of him/ herself, especially as to the passions; & to keep silence so as to express the Light derived from the God with which s/he has identified their life, love and liberty.
Apart from Geburah itself being “Strong”, the path involved between it and Tiphereth relates to the Atu Adjustment (VIII), which must of course involve Vengeance as previously discussed and is therefore of vital importance as a means of a correct mode of action in the Aeon of Horus.

“I am the warrior Lord of the Forties: the Eighties cower before me, and are abased.  I will bring you to victory and joy; I will be at your arms in battle and ye shall delight to slay.  Success is thy proof; courage is your armour; go on, go on, in my strength and ye shall not turn back for any.”  (v.46)
Although ‘Forties’ would fit in with World War 2 and the start of the forty-five year “Cold War”, the end of the Eighties did not relate to some war-related apocalypse as was first imagined by some in the lead-up thereto.  There would seem to be another meaning, of which there are several possibilities… The other language appears to be relatively straightforward although there have been some previous concealed meanings/ ciphers in Liber AL for “on” (and its reversal “no” - e.g., cf. III.39, “…abide in this bliss or no, it is no odds”).  “Slay” can be viewed in a similarly Blue Magickal manner of the rectification of balance as smite, concerning which the OED states it means the same thing and also as “strike” and “beat”, but with the proviso “so as to kill” (which would tie in with Liber Oz).  It also mentions these other definitions which may be of some application:
- To deprive of life by violence; To bring death upon, destroy; To put to death as a criminal
- To kill (a domestic animal or beast of game), especially for food or as a sacrifice;
- To slaughter, to destroy vermin by some means; To overcome with affliction or distress
- To bring to spiritual death
- To destroy, put an end to, suppress completely (especially something bad)

"With my Hawk’s Head I peck at the eyes of Jesus as he hangs upon the cross” (v.51)
"I flap my wings in the face of Mohammed & blind him" (v.52)
"With my claws I tear out the flesh of the Indian and the Buddhist, Mongol and Din.”  (v.53)
These are all of course metaphors and not to be taken literally, and as The Prophet remarks refer to the point of view and “outward semblance” of the institutionalised religions mentioned of Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism and what has rather unsatisfactorily been labelled as ‘Confucianism’.

Bahlasti! Ompehda! I spit on your crapulous creeds.” (v.54)
Bahlasti and Ompehda would seem to represent the onomatopoeic expression of Donner und Blitzen, Thunder and Lightning (James Joyce does one for thunder in Ulysses which is better, purely as far as that goes in my opinion).  The crapulous creeds would seemingly refer to the six ‘religions’ mentioned earlier in the previous verses, although there is no actual reason why all other creeds established prior to 1904 along with all of their various “gods of men” should not also be included.  There is no doubt a significance with the spelling; Motta seemed to think it is “obviously from the Angelic Language”, but it could as well be to do with the order & value of the English Alphabet.

“Also for beauty’s sake and love’s” (v.56)
Beauty may well be a cipher for Tiphereth here, and Love for Binah, in the sense of “ordeals” relating to those stations on the Tree of Life (KCHGA & Crossing the Abyss, respectively).  Each takes a star nearer to its ultimate consummation in the embrace of Nuit.  There would also appear to be a link with the preceeding verse, one of the apparently more terrible-sounding ones in the Book.

“As brothers fight ye!”  (v.59)
Fighting in terms of actual survival, or for one’s beliefs, or for the sake of something else – the reasons are not stipulated, but the imperative is given simply.  There would appear to be no reason not to include ‘sisters’ for women as well, although it would be a talking point to ask if they should emulate masculine (brotherly) aggression.  Fighting could mean ‘friendly’ scrapping in the manner of siblings quarrelling, or joining together with kindred spirits as “brothers in arms” to fight a common foe, e.g. those opposed to the propagation of Thelema.  It probably well also relate to the people involved in the preceeding verse or verses 57 and 58.

“There is an end of the word of the God enthroned in Ra’s seat, lightening the girders of the soul.”  (v.61)
This appears to relate to the advent of Thmaist/ Themis/ Hrumachis/ Maat at the end of the Aeon and in connection with which, the flooding of the girders of the soul (the Ka, Ba, Ren, Khu, Khabs, Ib, Sheut, etc.) with light.  And which may come from either outer or inner space, or both, or neither-neither.

“To me do ye reverence; to me come ye through the tribulation of ordeal, which is bliss.” (v.62)
I have discussed the “tribulation of ordeal” aspect more fully in my examination of Black and Blue Magick in [i Metaphor & the Buried Crowley (q.v.)

“Hail! Ye twin warriors about the pillars of the world! For your time is now at hand.”  (v.71)
This ‘apocalyptic’ sounding verse in the 1980s seemed to suggest the twin political/ economic ‘pillars’ or systems of capitalism and communism.  While it is possible that these may still apply it is increasingly beginning to look that it is something else to which was being referred.  Or it could be as straightforward as Boaz and Joachim?

Azidonis mentioned regarding III.73 (“Paste the sheets from right to left and from top to bottom: then behold!") that he had cut and pasted the sheets from his first reading of the Book of the Law.  It would be surprising in these days of computer technology if it is not possible to not only “copy and paste” the sheets from right to left & top to bottom and then behold them, but to reduce, expand, rotate and do 220 other things with it if necessary.  Also, there are 65 sheets in total which reduce to its common factors of 1, 5 and 13 only – therefore they can basically be symmetrically posted in 5 columns of 13 rows or 13 columns of 5 rows.  It may be possible for someone conversant with computer gizmos to be able to engineer a basic printout of the best few permutations of all the above?  The fact that it is so close to the end of the chapter and the closing off of the whole of Liber AL in III.75 suggests it may have a bit more importance than it currently seems to - especially as it is “framed” by a verse (III. 72 and 74) on either side of more “cosmic significance”, i.e., of a greater “extra-terrestrial” theme, than anything else in the Chapter.

Till the next time...

Hoc, Hac, Hoc!  Haw, Hee, Haw!
N. Joy


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4944
18/12/2012 6:50 pm  

Somebody appears to be taking up a lot of space bits & bytes with their own commentary on Liber AL. It's (mostly) a free speech format in cyberspace and on lashtalspace, but I find the extensive data dump commentary to be pestilential, just as described in the original comment by A.C.

And all this in an "Introduction," no less.

Say, I thought there was an icon or a function whereby one could "opt out" or "deselect" notifications of threads they no longer wished to view. Am I mistaken, or just lost in the past? Please advise if you know where it is.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4021
18/12/2012 7:59 pm  
"Shiva" wrote:
Say, I thought there was an icon or a function whereby one could "opt out" or "deselect" notifications of threads they no longer wished to view. Am I mistaken, or just lost in the past? Please advise if you know where it is.

I never receive notification of replies to any threads I'm involved in. This suggests to me that you have to opt in to receive these notifications, and you've done this at some time or other. I suggest you email Paul to find out how you can change this.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5322
18/12/2012 8:47 pm  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
I never receive notification of replies to any threads I'm involved in. This suggests to me that you have to opt in to receive these notifications, and you've done this at some time or other. I suggest you email Paul to find out how you can change this.

When you post a reply using the Reply button, you get to choose whether you're notified of subsequent posts (see under the 'Attachments and other options' icon).

If you use 'Quick Reply' or 'Quote' then you don't get the option.

Alternatively, click on the Profile button under your avatar, and you can change the Notification options there.

There's always the Help option at the top of the Forum pages, too!

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4944
18/12/2012 8:55 pm  

OK. Sorry, I thought there was some way to censor threads completely, or make them go away from one's attention altogether. Sort of like repressing psychological material. It was undoubtedly a form of wish-fantasy or hallucination. I guess some things just can't be ignored.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5322
18/12/2012 11:08 pm  

If it's a particular individual's posts that you want to avoid, there's an option in your Profile to add users to an 'Ignore List'.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4944
19/12/2012 12:52 am  
"lashtal" wrote:
If it's a particular individual's posts that you want to avoid, there's an option in your Profile to add users to an 'Ignore List'.

That's the one I was thinking of. It's good to know I'm not hallucinating, what with the "End" coming up really soon. I so wanted to be clear-headed.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
19/12/2012 6:14 pm  
"Shiva" wrote:
Somebody appears to be taking up a lot of space bits & bytes with their own commentary on Liber AL.

But I'm sure not as much as your many photographs!

but I find the extensive data dump commentary to be pestilential, just as described in the original comment by A.C.

Woo-hoo! (Have you actually read my definition of "pestilence" further back?  Or do you just seem to make assumptions like Azidonis?)

From your posting, it would seem that you're "shunning" me, Mr. Shiva?  Nice to know such broad-mindedness, intelligence and, yes – a sense of humour are evident on the Lashtal site, & that you are in accord with the precepts of Liber Oz: “…man has the right to write as he will:…play as he will:…read – [oh hang on, that’s not in there]”… {I think it would be rather hysterical and ironic if I was to somehow find myself ‘barred’ or ‘locked out’ from the Aleister Crowley website for being perceived to be such an awful blasphemer, black magician (which would be because you’re not looking at me “blue”, incidentally) and perverter of the Sacred Text!  It rather reminds me, in fact, of my experiences with the Chaos IOT wherein I seem to have had such a bad reputation that I was ‘excommunicated’ before even being (refused to) allow to join!}  I’m sorry my little contribution appears to be so unsettling to your unconscious.  Genuinely, no harm was intended!  But, if you happen to be looking one more time you will see from below that I have almost come to the end of that particular thread!

I am actually reconsidering and having second thoughts about discussing the third rest of the third Chapter which remains, as I was rather hoping by now that there would be a sufficient ‘enthusiasm’ for taking up my proposal for the centre of pestilence and relocating it into a separate forum/ subdivision for common discussion, to which I might then contribute modestly in turn.  That doesn’t seem to have quite happened yet, but which was what I was gravitating towards.  I don’t really quite see why I should have to do all the work myself, although was willing to do so, as it’s not & should definitely not have to be a “one-person show”: it is vitally important that as many other Thelemites as possible also make their input, if it is to be of some value.

Incidentally, I am myself about 93% certain that nothing eschatological or particularly out of the ordinary will happen on or around this Friday, the 21st.

To conclude therefore on the 3rd Chapter; it seems to consist of a sequential number of themes, similar in some ways to Chapters 1 & 2, which may best be approached in this manner, e.g., the theme of world religions (49-54, already discussed); the “Scarlet Woman” verses (43-45); the “recipes & creeping things” verses (23-29), &c.  As a contrast some of them do not appear to be “straightforward at all” and some are so composed that they may probably best be approached in sections rather than a whole (e.g., with III. 11, 34, 47…)

I thought I would take the current opportunity to address any loose ends & stray threads which will have evolved or accrued from my postings in this Introduction so far before I move “house” by the end of the week.  As earlier mentioned, I am not anticipating continuing my short-term residence here beyond the imminent end of the 13-bak’tun cycle – sorry, the winter Solstice; if any threads are still showing signs of life & wriggling by the beginning of the new yuga – sorry again, of course I meant year – what can I be thinking of with all this talk about the end of the world? perhaps I will then try to begin another thread to act as a continuation from their main aspects – for example: Amrita/ IT, the Elixir of Life pills; the question of Aiwass’s apparent silence; the possible influx of radiation/ intelligent LUX as Coph Nia-I from any ‘galactic superwave’, gamma ray bursts or whatever, etc., emanating from the (Sun now in) Sagittarius central region of the Milky Way (&c., &c.) – as long as we are not all “destroyed” by a manifestation of Shivatmadarshana [is that the correct phrase here?  Please somebody correct me if I am inexact in its application] in our present form by then, of course.

Going back to Shiva's remark in Reply #4 where he said "maybe there should be a thread about Crowley's poor chela performance", I agree this would be a good idea.  Someone (else) would need to do the ‘spade work’ here though.

Re. the ‘tin’ foil hats amusing little sideline which Shiva started off in Reply #22, I thought of making the point at the time that headgear which was made out of lead would be far more effective at stopping rays than tin, although of course much more heavy and inconvenient to tote around.  (Brian Eno even called one of his tracks on Before and After Science the “King’s Lead Hat”, but one of those would not be so heavy and inconvenient as a lead codpiece, such as was popularised in Philip K. Dick’s “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep”).  As to what would maybe increase the strength of the signal, I’m not sure – copper or silver or platinum, maybe?? (I am no metallurgist).

With regard to Shiva’s entertaining and soothy remark in Reply #60:
”…you’ll simply get pounded if you go too far astray (like into irrelevant subjects or qabalistic proofs of your infallible magickal heritage), besides I am the one mentioned in the book” however talking about qabalistic proof’ rather than the ‘magickal heritage’ bit, I may also try to upload “for entertainment purposes only” as they say with some products, a key to I.20 [The Management accepts no responsibility for any “locks” which refuse to oblige & open sesame as a result of the application to them of any real or imaginary Key purported to etc zzz.]  In brief, the particular key which I have discovered is, in a word, the word REVEAL, as in the Stele of Revealing.  (=Another ‘key’, AL, discovered by Fr. Achad, is here prefixed by the Tetragrammaton formula of Father-Mother-Son-Daughter but with Resh substituted for Yod, for reasons space will not allow this brief summary to go into any further into here).  This was also to have appeared in the Skoob Esoterica Anthology Vol. 2, but as the proprietor unfortunately seemed to be beginning to get an attack of the heebie-jeebies about the unexpected directions and unforeseen dimensions in which his creation now appeared to be entering, this never manifested.
But Shiva, if he is indeed shunning me, may also miss the delights of my complete deconstruction of Chaos Magic Theory Will & The Wisp [as detailed further under “Exempt Adept Thesis” Reply #16, q.v.] and my essay on “Thelema and Money” too!

I couldn’t agree more with Paul’s statement regarding the Beast’s handwriting in Reply #43, about always referring to the original handwritten holographic ms. otherwise known as Liber AL sub figura 31:  In terms of “getting to grips” with the Book of the Law this cannot be stressed enough (even though it is actually enjoined in the text); after a while, one gets used to the style of the handwriting and a gradually increasing familiarity with the contents of verses results in an ease of remembering & ‘deciphering’ of each one specifically.

Azidonis’ inclusion of ‘Finger Pointing at the Moon’.  Charming, educational, and with that all-important “ring of truth”.  I have a reasonably funny joke which I was going to append in relation to it but couldn’t and still can’t remember the detail sufficiently well enough to make it worth mentioning…  But I think it & also one of the questions the reference tangentially bring up boils down to whether it is quite cricket, kosher or simply basic martial arts etiquette to clock your opponent in the act, say, of bowing down to one another (pace Roger Moore as James Bond 007 in, I think it was, “The Man with the Golden Gun”)?

The slaves shall serve
N. Joy


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
20/12/2012 5:06 pm  

I’m not a pedant but I like things to be as clear as possible, don’t you? (And if people accuse me of pedantry, it turns out more often than not that I’m found to be right in the end.)  This last bit won’t be of interest to many, but just for the record I’d like to tidy up briefly before vacating the premises – so skip the next paragraph if necessary.  No obvious errors or mere typographical mistakes on their own are included – that would be ridiculous! – but I’d just like to clarify a few things in case of any possible future confusion or misinformation.

Errata:
Reply #55 – re. III.12 – line 12 should be “equitably” instead of equitable
# 57 – at end, should read: “Norma service”
# 57 – Para 6, should read: “and in its way as complete a compendium as Therion’s Book Four
# 57 – line 6, correct page references are: page 169-173 (not 167-173) & pp.171-3, not 173 on its own.
# 58 – lines 4-5 of discussion of cut & pasting sheets should read: “Are you sure whether you mean Neuberg or My-name-is-Mudd?” (It was Mudd, incidentally).
# 58 – last paragraph, H. M. Bateman
# 63 – III.33 line 4 should be “fight or flight” not “fly or flight”
# 63 – Should refer to III.37 not III.36

After this I may go through a Period Of Silence* for a little as I think that’s probably enough from me for the time being & I am quite content to just sit back & ‘watch the ripples’ or ‘the eggs hatch’ for a while (if I’m allowed to mix my metaphors), but will answer any outstanding matters on my return.
* otherwise less grandly known as spending the xmas/ new year break with the family, in a coastal backwater & where I am not likely to have access to suitable IT equipment until 2013.

I can’t help feeling there is a danger in that some people may not appreciate my own rather quirky sense of fun, which is unfortunate if so, as the universe seems to me to be that sort of a place!  Soror Kheph-Ra (like myself and many others, ex of the Caliphornian “OTO”) always appreciated this wherever it used to manifest itself & we even had a name for it: the hysterical undercurrent of humour (hello sis, if you’re out there!)

Wishing you a merry and joyous - er – break: (brace yourselves!)
Sayonara (for now),
N. Joy


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
15/11/2013 4:18 pm  

I thought to commemorate the anniversary of my first year and 666th post with Lashtal (a fine resource, forum and website, I have found) I’d do something different which no other Lashtalian appears to have done before (although I may be wrong), and re-activate my old Introduction just one last time.  (God, place could do with a dusting!)

I was going to upload my solution to Liber AL I.20, as referred to in Reply #73:

“For entertainment purposes only” as they say with some products, I have discovered a particular key to Liber AL I.20 [The Management accepts no responsibility for any “locks” which refuse to oblige & open sesame as a result of the application to them of any real or imaginary Key purported to etc zzz.]  It is, in a word, the word REVE-AL, or R.’. Hé Vau Hé AL, as in the Stele of Revealing, in which another ‘key’, AL, discovered by Fr. Achad, is prefixed by the Tetragrammaton formula of Father-Mother-Son-Daughter but with Resh substituted for Yod, for reasons space will not allow this brief summary to go into any further into here.  (This was to have appeared in the Skoob Esoterica Anthology Vol. 2, but as the proprietor unfortunately seemed to be beginning to get an attack of the heebie-jeebies about the unexpected directions & unforeseen dimensions in which his new Publishing creation now appeared to be entering, this never manifested.)

However my ’proof’ seems to have dematerialized from my ten ton of crap for the duration and although I can recall most of it, it would be a hassle to have to write it out all over again.  But most people with a modicum of basic cabbala should be able to work out at least some of it from Liber AL by their own deduction, e.g. re

‘thou shalt reveal it’ (II.54)
‘nor shalt thou know ever’ (II.58)
‘all is ever as it was ‘ (II.76)
‘it shall be your Kiblah for ever’ (III.10)
‘a reproduction of this ink and paper for ever’ (III.39), etc.

“What have I learned in my experience of one year on Lashtal?” - I can only repeat my advice to Sr NMA, “M”, at the half-way through point of six months ago (and who, like most of the other Introductees, have initially flared brightly like a firework and then gone ‘dark’.  I wonder why that is?  No matter and never mind….).  I’ve found the majority of this “advice” which I came up with to be all the more relevant “as time goes by”:

Reply #2 to Sr MNA on ‘Introductions’ board made on May 13, 2013, 04:28:16 pm: 
I have now been on Lashtal for 6 months & feel I have now gone through my probationary period, only having been shunned by the one seemingly respected & long-established venerable member & having 3 of the threads I was particularly involved in – 2 of which I started - locked in the interim (I wonder if this may be some sort of a record?) {Update – it now appears to be 4 (or is it in fact 5?  I’m losing count.) I was also sentenced to a period of purification involving a pregnant pause in the passive purgatory of proactive premoderation.}

There are 3 pieces of advice which I would pass on to any new(er) members so that they might possibly profit by the experience, though:

1)  It would be unwise to chide fellow members of Lashtal if they say they are ‘sorry’ for making a mistake, or ‘regret’ something, or are metaphorically ‘afraid’, or else express ‘pity’ or compassion for someone else’s misfortune, or ‘fail’ to make something as clear or precise as they otherwise might do; and then do something like quote Liber AL II. 46-48 at them.  That would be confusing the planes & mixing up magickal methodology with informally conversing in the common vernacular.  Similarly, you cannot always expect to find the exactitude of the principles of Korzybski’s General Semantics in general correspondence, however delightful on occasion that may turn out to be.

2)  If you are held to account for something, or someone tackles you on something you don’t want to go into & would wish to avoid discussing, don’t worry about it – just ignore it!  {I have never done this reprehensible misdemeanour on Lashtal myself, actually}.  After a few days the issue will be forgotten, and if it is not a busy active board it will literally sink beneath the waves of current active threads from the screen & everyone’s conscious awareness.  You may then breathe a sigh of relief!  Incidentally the reverse also applies, of course, if you’re trying to pin someone else down. (Unless I’m on your tail, that is, in which case all bets may be off as I have an elephantine recall for most things I’ll have you know …)

3)  The third piece of advice I would give, and the most important, I feel, is – er, hang about, I’ve forgotten it for the moment…

I still think the idea of “the centre of pestilence” discussion forum for all of the Holy Books (but beginning with Liber AL and the 3rd Chapter therefrom) is a sound one.  Maybe if it’s not for the Lash for whatever reason I could do the old proverbial”, I suppose (ditto with my material from TSROTOTO, see below *), and “take it to Heruraha.net” – the thelemic equivalent of St Jude, the last recourse for all lost causes and outrageous suggestions.  But I somehow get the feeling that possibly not many people might be very interested in it there, either.  I would also have liked to have discussed a few things a bit more fruitfully, like the concurrent current of Maat and the elasticity/plasticity of Time-lines & spatial tele-materialisation in general, etc., for instance.  Tant pis !  C’est la vie!

* Regarding the repercussions of TSROTOTO, COTO, etc., I only opened that particular thread because I was requested several times by Lashtalians who wanted me to do it, however Paul locked it & said that the matter “will not be discussed further” and urged me to read the Guidelines with which I am familiar already.  So I’m allowed to be criticised in the C.O.T.O. thread, but I’m not allowed the right of reply to answer in my own defence?  That doesn’t seem very fair or ‘impartial’ to me.  And re my response there: if one checks again one will see that Paul’s words did not come across as an instruction but as a recommendation.

I may just say that this question of bias/ partiality is all very much in the eye of the beholder – going by previous remarks on the website I might say you seem to be ‘biased’ towards the C.O.T.O. rather than the S.O.T.O., for example.  So when exactly does “no partiality” become/ morph into “no criticism” and effect “freedom of speech”?  There is a “debate” to be had – “But not [here and] now”, apparently – on exactly when having a strong or firm opinion about something shades across the dividing line into unacceptable ‘partiality’. (It’s always been a matter of curiosity to me how here on Lashtal some of the staunchest defenders of C.O.T.O. appear to be people who are not actually nor have ever been in it – irony of ironies.)  Please note that anyone is free to reproduce the entirety of its contents wherever they think might do the most good (for example, if someone wants to do a Blog themselves with it).  I am not interested in the copyrights “personally” and do not intend and of my own volition have sworn an oath not to make a penny profit out of it myself (any such net proceeds will go to ‘Children in Need’ or one of its equivalents, at the time).

I trust that I may at least be permitted to send this ‘au revoir' unrestricted. 

I will now retire, I don’t know how long for but at the least till this ‘boat’ sinks “beneath the waves” again “into the blue”, as it were.  And I think it is time I re-emulated the 4th Power of the Sphinx again for the “duration” anyway, and “withdraw” back into my customary obscurity and anonymity.  I have been open – perhaps more than open, perhaps too much so in the course of ‘revealing’?  But I do have a full life beyond Lashtal as it happens, strange as it may seem!

Thanks to Paul for putting up with me and hope I haven’t been too beastly; thank you also to Azidonis, actually, notwithstanding our little jousting, for being the first person to ‘befriend’ me on the site.  Thank you also everyone who sent PMs of support (discretion being the better part of valour anyhow, it seems!)  It’s all been rather ‘emotional’, as they say.

So: Do What Thou Wilt & Enjoy Your Selves,
Norma N. Joy Conquest, Jamie
RIP - ROAR!


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1013
11/07/2020 12:35 pm  

OP: "Yours in the cause of constructive blasphemy,
Love and all that,
Norma N.Joy Conquest (you can call me purely Joy for short if you like!) X"

 

Joy: "As brothers fight ye!”  (v.59)
Fighting in terms of actual survival, or for one’s beliefs, or for the sake of something else – the reasons are not stipulated, but the imperative is given simply.  There would appear to be no reason not to include ‘sisters’ for women as well, although it would be a talking point to ask if they should emulate masculine (brotherly) aggression.  Fighting could mean ‘friendly’ scrapping in the manner of siblings quarrelling, or joining together with kindred spirits as “brothers in arms” to fight a common foe, e.g. those opposed to the propagation of Thelema.  It probably well also relate to the people involved in the preceeding verse or verses 57 and 58."

 

My thread titled Was the HGA also the actual initiator in the Order in which AC started on his path as an initiate?, covers many spectacular feats by Aleister Crowley occuring in 1900, like for example:

"Fabricating an entirely new order of his own with a light radiating and automatically enlightening such minds as were ready to receive it, (by many years preceding the "93-current" and his Thelema), and devising a Ritual of Self-Initiation, (by many years preceding his The Book of the Law's I:53 "... Hoor in his secret name and splendour is the Lord initiating."), creating The Obligation "To be most solemnly accepted by him who would attain unto the knowledge and conversation of his Holy Genius." (by many years preceding his Thelema with the core concept of the knowledge and conversation of your Holy Gurdian Angel) ...". 

(Source: Was the HGA also the actual initiator in the Order in which AC started on his path as an initiate?, page 2 - - - https://www.lashtal.com/forums/thelema/was-the-hga-also-the-actual-initiator-in-the-order-in-which-ac-started-on-his-path-as-an-initiate/paged/2/  )

In a comment to BOTL III:59. "As brothers fight ye!", AC explains that this is "... a reference to the Ritual of which we find hints in the legend of Cain and Abel, Esau and Jacob, Set and Osiris, etc. The “Elder Brother” within us, the Silent Self, must slay the younger brother, the conscious self, and he must be raised again incorruptible."

AC does also in a comment to BOTL III:46. "I am the warrior Lord [...] I will I will bring you to victory & joy: I will be at your arms in battle & ye shall delight to slay. Success is your proof; courage is your armour; go on, go on, in my strength; & ye shall turn not back for any!", state that "... I am inclined to opine that there is a simpler and deeper sense in the text than I have so far disclosed."

From the two above just quoted AC comments to two verses in his BOTL, I draw the inference that the "... .a simpler and deeper sense in the text than I have so far disclosed.", mentioned by AC in a comment to BOTL III:46, implies that all those for whom the 'god' RHK mentioned in this book (therein self defined as "Now let it be first understood that I am a god of War and of Vengeance. I shall deal hardly with them.", "I am the warrior Lord", "... I am powerful to protect my servant.", and "I am in a secret fourfold word, the blasphemy against all gods of men."), is "(BOTL III:17.:) ... the strength, force, vigour, of your arms.", and all those whom this RHL is "(BOTL III.42.:)... powerful to protect [as] my servant." ,and who are comming to this RHK "(BOTL III:62.:) ... through tribulation of ordeal, which is bliss.", "shall delight to slay" the illusions of the conscious self, and "... shall turn not back for any!" of the illusions of the conscious self.

Also Joy, after his visit in Mexico in 1900, I have found AC to have had all he needed to author a book akin to The Book of the Law he supposedly received later in Egypt in 1904, and I have also concluded that AC's Thelema and his The Book of the Law at the core of it, requires absolutely nothing of all the "Ancient Egyptian Stuff" associated with them.


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1013
11/07/2020 12:56 pm  

I find the following stated in AC's The book of the Law at the core of his Thelema: "(BOTL III:39.:)... to each man and woman that thou meetest, were it but to dine or to drink at them, it is the Law to give. Then they shall chance to abide in this bliss or no; it is no odds. Do this quickly!" and "(BOTL III:42.) ... Success is thy proof: argue not; convert not; talk not over much! ..."., to be resembling the new order AC fabricated in Mexico in 1900, called L.I.L.: the "Lamp of the Invisible Light", with a light radiating and automatically enlightening such minds as were ready to receive it, (by many years preceding the "93-current" and his Thelema, the latter supposedly received by him in Cairo in Egypt in 1900.


ReplyQuote
Page 2 / 2
Share: