I have recently been inspired to write a small piece on the Rose and the Cross. unfortunately my intended recipient did not want to read it.
I am wondering if any of you people
would like to read this and tell me what you think?
Thanks
Fr789
would like to read this and tell me what you think?
Hi Q789,
I read your article and have a few notes if it will help!
- One, there are quite a few typos in the document, which can be distracting so I do recommend cleaning that up a bit and reposting.
- I was not sure of the intention of the article exactly, but it appears you are collecting various historical references as notes on your journey through various systems or authors on the meaning of the Rose and the Cross, but it was unclear why exactly.
- It might be a good idea to create a "summary" or "top line" of the point you want to make so we can understand the context. For example, are you proposing a new idea? A "thesis"? Put that at the top, and then let the body of your work explore the thought through.
- Usually in papers, it is a good idea to follow this simple formula. A.) explain to the reader what you are about to tell them, then tell them, and then tell them what you just explained, so three different ways to explain the view you are putting forth.
I do agree that it does seem like Alchemy came from Persia and then leaked into the west up until the Knights Templar, but after they were exterminated, it is very challenging to see a continual alchemical lineage in the west blossom, and my own recent research is showing that the "alchemical tradition" (magick, tantra included) had to escape both Europe and India during the expansion of the Muslim empire, so the core traditions took the "art" to Tibet, where it was preserved and evolved for 1000 years.
Hope this helps!
Best
"If you have come to help me, then you are wasting your time, but if you are here because your liberation is bound together with mine, then let us work together." Lilla Watson
Thanks for that constructive criticism. I have not written many essays since High School, except for a dew during limited University attempts.
The original was for a podcast narrator called Gregory Novak. He did not want to read it. However, since I am writing a book on AC I thought I would start by getting some viewpoints from here.
The critical point is that AC has changed the Metaphysical formula from the Cross to the Unicursal Hexagram. One of sacrifice to union with the infinite. The Rose represents an espiological argument which says that a posteriori knowledge leads to universal connection. Such as the poems of Rumi.
I shall re write this soon and put it back up.
Thanks again.
Fr789
Sangwuckchuck and fellow Thelemites.
Here is an updated version of Aleister Crowleys Unicursal Hexagram in pdf format and it is only a fraction of the size it should be. Several other philosophical perspectives have to be covered and of course they are all connected. For example Metaphysics and morals are intimately connected.
I am having terrible trouble with Scriviner. This book, I estimate, will take 5 to 10 years to write. Fortunately, I recently retired so time is on my side.
Some constructive criticism please.
Fr 789
Sangwuckchuck and fellow Thelemites.
I think you will find Chuck has departed. I think he did a boil-over and didn't like the restriction of the evil Guidelines and common sense.
I recently retired so time is on my side.
After I retired, I set up 44 websites with 418 webpages, and wrote/published 25 books. Plus several videos, two of which are full-length (~2 hrs long). These numbers are fairly accurate and are not excessive self-promotion ... may they inspire you to get at least one book finished and out there before the great incineration ... which will be in about 9 years.
I perused your essay. It seems something like a Master's degree thesis (with which I am familiar). Before submitting it to your Advisor or Thesis Committee, you will want to run the spell checker (overall), adjust the margins and spacing and margins (in one or two places), and remove the duplications that surely more than double the size of the work ("Wild Rose" seems to be printed 7 times) ... or do the duplicates offer an alternative version of text? It's late and I have not made the comparisons.
Your main theme seems to be that the Unicursal 6-point is a symbol for the New Aeon. I can accept that. As far as these Greek and German guys, that's out of my league, so I'll not get into the philosophy stuff.
That's an improvement on the first iteration.
You cover a lot of ground in a short space, which gives the sense of subject hopping. Any one of the topics you cover could use a thorough treatment when it comes to turning it into a book, which is your intention.
As somebody who has done a bit of academic writing, I would say that it's always safe to assume your audience doesn't know much about the topics you introduce. For example, even though I've been 'on the scene' as it were for about 25 years I know little of Shiraz as shams al-Din.
Crowley wrote somewhere about his biggest problem being his assumption that everybody was as well read as he in the classics. Don't fall into that trap.
Apart from editing, I would only offer two points to take away. 1) give a really full background to each part of your argument (thesis), this is the 'Solve' aspect of thesis writing, then, once all the parts are set out clarified and explained, then each summarised in a paragraph. 2) Bring all of your arguments together into a point. This is the 'Coagula', aspect, and by the end of it you should again summarise your conclusion in a way that is self evident.
I'm going to give it a more thorough reading tonight, but on the whole I think it's looking good.
@shiva "great incineration"? Please explain this.
Pertinax. Yes your point in noted. My style or maybe composition is very rough. I have to get my ground on this issue and I have not found it as yet. There is so so much information I need to put down. Do I need to summarize all these philosophers? or can I presume the reader knows the works of them?
The subject matter is, imo, very important. The works of Crowley are a culmination of 3000 years of philosophy but philosophers of today, the intellectuals, do not see his works in the proper light. The subject of the Rose Cross is just a small sample of a much larger body of work.
I am 57 years old and been practising for amost 40 years. It was only 3.5 years ago I picked up 'Thus Spoke Zarathustra' - and my world was shaken with delight- at last I could understand it. Uncle Fred as Aleister called him is 'da man'. At last I found somebody who thought the same way as myself. It started me on a serious study of philosophy and the history of philosophy as well. Before long I realized the Crowley answered many of the philosophical problems we have not answered in 3000 years. And today, nobody in the philosophical community understands this. In fact Crowley finished off what Uncle Fred started. I note Fred died only 4 years before the Cairo workings.....hhhmmmm.
I will go over the essay again and come back in 16 hours.
While philosophy isn't my area, I can possibly help out with composition and refining the topic. I agree, it is a huge area, and I don't see any point in trying to cover a) ground already covered (that's what references are for), and b) every conceivable angle. Simply stick with what's important, although of course that's a little subjective.
A few academics have approached Crowley, but few have made it beyond their niche of academia and a small occult following. I doubt that's going to change any time soon, academia being essentially conservative, intellectually speaking. I don't know how much academic training you have had but writing is a fine art, I'm only just getting past the point of pointless verbiage myself.
If I were to advise (which I suppose I am, but feel free to ignore if it's a little too in depth), I would say you need to organise your ideas into separate areas (chapters) and perhaps sections within chapters. For example:
1) introduction (general overview, what you want to discuss, how you will do it, and why it is important).
2) Present your thesis/argument. What are you trying to say, what hypothesis/hypotheses do you present.
3) chapters or sections, in logical order (perhaps historical timeline, perhaps something else, for example you mention Islamic, Christian, Masonic, Classical Greek, the more recent philosophers, which is actually a pretty good little section), this is your step by step analysis (Solve). You might write a section on the cross in a section of Christian symbols, and then later refer back to it when you talk of the cross in relation to Hegels use of the Rose Cross.
4) Summarise your findings in 3, lay out the key points to remember. Bullet points are nice, but a single paragraph could do it.
5) Present your synthesis: what do you deduce from the previous chapters (Coagula). This is where you bring something new to the table.
6) suggest future work. This based on what you were not able to cover.
"great incineration"? Please explain this.
The End of the World. The tipping point, the fulcrum, that lies in the middle of the transition period between two Aeons. I see I made the mistake, cited by Pertinax, of assuming my audience is as well-read in these forums as myself. This concept has been discussed over and over and again in these threads in the past couple of years.
2) Present your thesis/argument.
Usually, in academic and scientific and medical papers, the whole binding starts with an ABSTRACT. An Abstract is a summary of the entire work, usually about one page (or maybe only two paragraphs) in length, and the basic argument and (hypo)thesis/synthesis (conclusion) are clearly stated, up front.
Usually, in academic and scientific and medical papers, the whole binding starts with an ABSTRACT.
True, I didn't mention the abstract, which in my experience is actually the last thing you write, which is then put up front as a 'preview of coming attractions'.
the last thing you write, which is then put up front as a 'preview of coming attractions'.
Exactly.
Crowley wrote somewhere about his biggest problem being his assumption that everybody was as well read as he in the classics. Don't fall into that trap.
OK. Got that thanks. I can personally vouch for that too. Once studying philosophy Crowley takes on a whole new meaning. He could have pressed the point more. So I will change my approach to this book.
1/ Follow your suggestion and make a quick structure format of the book.
2/ Include my own interpretation of historical philosophy including each individual philosopher. This was one of Crowley's mistakes. I personally can vouch for this. It seems he could have emphasized this more. If I start with a brief history then I can work off that- say per branch. Which, BTW all unite with Crowley.
Do a complete story of philosophical history from the discovery of fire to a decentralized currency.
3/ Included philosophical subject matters such as Epistemology, Causality, freewill, infinity, Morality, metaphysics and Phenomenology.
4/ Towards the end I will start writing prefaces, an abstract and the like.
But for now I need to write a historical philosophical timeline of the 'thin in itself' or as Crowley might say 'the beast'.
Thanks
Fr 789