Notifications
Clear all

My youtube vids....  

  RSS

 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
15/05/2009 7:01 am  

I'm basically a newborn when it comes to Thelema, but Thelema came to me rather then me to it. I've made some youtube videos that (to me) relate to Thelema, but don't expect everyone to agree with me to any extent or represent me as the majority of Thelemites.

I just wanted to 'throw it out there'

My very Atheistic philosophy of Magick, Time, and Thelema:

"Confessions of a Thelemic Time Mage"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKTEx90e94g&feature=related


Quote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
15/05/2009 4:37 pm  

93

By watching your videos I would have to suggest reading Book 4 by crowley and his commentaries (Old and New) upon Liber AL vel Legis


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 2195
16/05/2009 10:17 pm  

Hi Necrorat,

93

I actually did watch all of those videos. You have some interesting ideas, and you're on the right track in some ways, but I think you're in danger of falling into the trap of mistaking your map for the territory.

A few comments:

1) Origins -- you are precisely correct in locating Nothing (rather than "something") as the origin of all things. All systems that posit a "something" as "first cause" end up with the problem of having to explain where that something came from.

Strictly speaking, however, all that we know for sure is that there was a singularity that began to expand about 13 billion years ago (the "Big Bang"). At our present level of knowledge, we cannot know what happened (if anything) before this event. It's possible, for example, that the universe always existed in some form. In this case, "Nothing" may in fact be a convenient metaphor for the non-dual universe that gives rise to our consciousness (and perceptions of duality). In this metaphorical sense, "creation" occurs every moment.

You should read letter V in Crowley's Magick Without Tears for more information on the 0=2 formula. Also, consult Liber AL I: 28-30, and I:52.

2) Time -- since time is a measure of motion, it doesn't really make sense to talk about "infinite time" before there was a universe at all. It's quite possible that time didn't exist before the Big Bang (thus making the phrase "before the Big Bang" as meaningless as "north of the North Pole"). Time (what we call time) probably began when the universe began.

You also have this tendency to talk about time as if it were a "tangible thing" -- I don't know what you mean by that. You say that when beings became conscious of time it created a "paradox" -- I have no idea what that means. You also say that time had to "adapt" to the sense of choice that arose in those beings -- I have no idea what that means.

Time doesn't "adapt" or "change" (at least it doesn't change in the same frame of reference, which is what we're talking about). What might change is the model we use to describe time. When you talk about the branching tree of time, that's just a conceptual model you've created to discuss time. Nothing happened to time as a result of you thinking about it. It itself didn't "adapt" or "change" or become "tangible."

If it helps, Crowley, in his commentaries to Liber AL, says that Nuit is a metaphor for matter and that Hadit is a metaphor for motion. They're two sides of the same coin, and their interaction gives rise to the universe (and, thus, the passage of time).

3) Choices -- here's where Thelema comes in. I think it's fine to describe magick as a process of making some "branches" on the tree of time more likely than others (and the best, most reliable way to do this is, as you note, actually getting out in the world and using the laws of physics to cause that change).

But -- and this is vital -- Crowley's definition of magick is "The Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will." The "conformity with Will" part is of utmost importance because it's the essence of Thelema.

To use your model, Thelema is about navigating the tree of time by following the branches that your will drives you to follow.

Notice how I removed agency from "you" in the last sentence. In Thelema, you don't get to choose your will...the will is simply the course of action most natural for you, given your nature and nurture. It's your job to let your will happen as best it can, which, for me anyway, means removing as much "lust for result" from the equation as possible.

Essentially, this means that you ultimately have to stop yourself from becoming attached to one "branch" over another -- no branch is inherently "better," and each is equally "plays of Nuit." To paraphrase Crowley, you can't know which path is right until you know that "wrong" is equally "right."

See Liber AL I: 44. Also, consult the Tao Teh Ching (Crowley's translation if possible)

4) And finally, some of your ideas are just wrong. You try to cram every paranormal belief possible into this worldview. But just because you can fit these phenomena into your system doesn't mean that the phenomena are true.

The tree you've created is a conceptual model. It doesn't demonstrate that thoughts are "tangible" or that there's "energy" to tap into or that the "gaps between the branches" are real things or that any of the phenomena you can fit into it are real. It's just a map.

Is it possible that there are ghosts or psychic powers? Sure. In the same way that it's possible that Bigfoot exists or that purple invisible pixies wake me up every morning. Just because things are possible doesn't mean that they are likely in any way. You need evidence before you can start saying that these things are real.

I hope my comments were helpful, and I'd be interested to hear your thoughts as you read and study more.

93, 93/93


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
16/05/2009 11:07 pm  
"Los" wrote:
Crowley, in his commentaries to Liber AL, says that Nuit is a metaphor for matter

Can you give a page number for that? I always regarded Nuit was space, which is not quite the same as matter.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 2195
16/05/2009 11:49 pm  
"tai" wrote:
Can you give a page number for that? I always regarded Nuit was space, which is not quite the same as matter.

I don't have a physical copy of the book with me, but the Old and New Comments can be accessed online here: http://www.hermetic.com/220/crowley-comments.html

The "New Comment" to I:1 begins, "The theogony of our Law is entirely scientific, Nuit is Matter, Hadit is Motion, in their full physical sense [...] They are the Tao and Teh of Chinese Philosophy; or, to put it very simply, the Noun and Verb in grammar. Our central Truth -- beyond other philosophies -- is that these two infinities cannot exist apart."

One way to think about it is that Nuit is a word for the totality of existence and experience (and all possibilities thereof), and Hadit is a word for any individual part of that totality in its going/becoming.


ReplyQuote
Tiger
(@tiger)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 1426
17/05/2009 2:19 am  

Strictly speaking, however, all that we know for sure is that there was a singularity that began to expand about 13 billion years ago (the "Big Bang"). At our present level of knowledge, we cannot know what happened (if anything) before this event. It's possible, for example, that the universe always existed in some form. In this case, "Nothing" may in fact be a convenient metaphor for the non-dual universe that gives rise to our consciousness (and perceptions of duality). In this metaphorical sense, "creation" occurs every moment.

1 sees a multiverse of particles following all paths simultaneously and can extract a so-called cosmological principle of “homogeneity” and “isotropy” of the Universe.

Nice critique Los.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
17/05/2009 4:32 am  

93
I have to agree with Tiger, and you, Los. Well said.
I commented on your video as 'Jasperdrak' on youtube, necrorat, in quite a light-hearted way. This wasn't to mock you, but to bring some joy and leaping laughter to the proceedings. Try and let the jagged, mountainscape of words/concepts in your head crumble, fall back into the murmur. Contemplate and then step into, over, the constitutive lack at the core of Being/subjectivity, and don't confuse knowing with gnosis. An ego grappling with that which is beyond itself can be very beautiful to watch, for a time, or it can be like a dog chasing its tail (also joyous!). This is, of course, an integral aspect of what it is to be human (to reflect on existence and our perception of reality and Reality), but, luckily, it also seems that we possess the abilty to transcend this, to be 'more than human' (in the magickal sense).
93 93/93
Love in Extension...
Frater FR


ReplyQuote
michaelclarke18
(@michaelclarke18)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1264
17/05/2009 10:17 am  

Nuit is Matter, Hadit is Motion

Yes, I agree this differs slightly from what I have read elewhere:-

''Infinite space is called the goddess NUIT, while the infinitely small and atomic yet omnipresent point is called HADIT''
BOOK FOUR: MAGICK IN THEORY AND PRACTICE - Chapter 0

Anyone care to elaborate?


ReplyQuote
ozzzz666
(@ozzzz666)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 155
17/05/2009 2:09 pm  

"Since I am Infinite Space, and the Infinite Stars thereof, do ye also thus." Al 1:22


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
17/05/2009 4:21 pm  
"Los" wrote:
"tai" wrote:
Can you give a page number for that? I always regarded Nuit was space, which is not quite the same as matter.

I don't have a physical copy of the book with me, but the Old and New Comments can be accessed online here: http://www.hermetic.com/220/crowley-comments.html

The "New Comment" to I:1 begins, "The theogony of our Law is entirely scientific, Nuit is Matter, Hadit is Motion, in their full physical sense [...] They are the Tao and Teh of Chinese Philosophy; or, to put it very simply, the Noun and Verb in grammar. Our central Truth -- beyond other philosophies -- is that these two infinities cannot exist apart."

One way to think about it is that Nuit is a word for the totality of existence and experience (and all possibilities thereof), and Hadit is a word for any individual part of that totality in its going/becoming.

Thank you for (sort of) correcting your original statement in the earlier post, Los. Crowley did not say that Nuit was a metaphor for Matter. By his use of the phrase "in their full physical sense," it is clear that he meant that Nuit is as Matter to Hadit's being as Motion. This is made perfectly clear by his adding that "They are the Tao and Teh of Chinese Philosophy." Thus, Nuit is not merely a metaphor for Matter, except in relation to the metaphor of Hadit being Motion.

The same is true of the following metaphorical application: "Infinite space is called the goddess NUIT, while the infinitely small and atomic yet omnipresent point is called HADIT.'' Nuit is "infinite space" to Hadit's "infinitely small and atomic yet omnipresent point" Or, Nuit is "infinite expansion" to Hadit's "infinite contraction." Yet neither Hadit nor Nuit is merely a metaphor and neither is merely a concept. Moreover, and quite importantly, neither is merely an ancient Egyptian deity.

To my mind, the best and most productive way to relate to these is not to conceptualize them alone, but to directly relate to them on a personal level, as well. Hadit is the Self ("be thou Hadit") to Nuit being the Not-Self (" 'Come unto me' is a foolish word: for it is I that go.") Since these two are inseparable, each individual himself (or herself) is composed of Hadit in conjunction with Nuit, of singular Self in conjunction with multiplex Not-self; this conjunction results in human existence in its direct experiential composition.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3877
17/05/2009 5:32 pm  

I'm in agreement with my young friend Camlion here.

As to the various definitions of Nuit, there's no anomaly. Nuit is referred to as Matter as compared to Motion, or as infinite space as compared to the infinitesimal point. As Crowley makes clear, these are not things in themselves, but polarities. Matter and motion; infinite and infinitesimal; shakti and shakta; Self and Ego; Tao and Teh - these are approximations, not definitions. Signifying something beyond duality, these can only be hints and allusions speaking to the intuition. "The Tao that can be named is not the Tao".

Best wishes,

Michael.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
17/05/2009 7:15 pm  

Quite so, young friend. Also, we would hate to see selective extrapolation from Liber AL or its commentaries used to present any very limited definitions of such personally fundamental and all-encompassing principles as these. Nor is protracted debate on the subject very productive. It is ultimately only by individual apprehension that real progress is made here, which is part and parcel of self-realization, true initiation and attainment; although suggestive observations from others can certainly be enlightening at times.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3877
17/05/2009 8:11 pm  

In my last post I of course meant "Shakti and Shiva".

God, it's downhill all the way from now on, I expect . . .


ReplyQuote
Proteus
(@proteus)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 243
17/05/2009 8:39 pm  

God, it's downhill all the way from now on, I expect . . .

You'll scare our young friend Camlion saying such things. He's at a very impressionable age, you know.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 2195
17/05/2009 9:11 pm  

Nuit could certainly be used to signify the entire 0=2 equation, from the Nothing that underlies the universe to all of the apparent duality it contains ("Infinite Space and the Infinite Stars thereof," as Frater Oz wisely reminds us above). See point 1 in my first post in this thread.

But recall that I was addressing the OP's remarks about time -- which relies on motion. In that context, the passage of time is indeed the result of the interplay of matter and motion, which can be symbolically figured as Nuit and Hadit.

Not to get sidetracked, but Nuit and Hadit are indeed metaphors. All of language is metaphorical -- it points away from itself and towards reality (for most people, anyway). And that reality -- if we're going to think about it, talk about it, or use it in any way at all -- has to be conceptualized and symbolized.

So in order to think about reality, we come up with models like the Tree of Life or Necrorat's "tree of time" or the Egyptian pantheon or the Tao/Teh. But -- and this is the point I was making to Necrorat -- the mere process of conceptualizing reality doesn't change what reality is. It might change how we conceive of it, but it still is what it is.

So time itself doesn't "adapt" or change (at least within the same frame of reference, which is what we're talking about). Our conceptions of time, however, can and do change.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 2195
17/05/2009 9:17 pm  
"Los" wrote:
All of language is metaphorical -- it points away from itself and towards reality (for most people, anyway).

Instead of "for most people, anyway," I would have that parenthetical note read, "at least we attempt."

The challenge is, of course, to come up with a model that adequately represents reality. We're not always successful at coming up with one; hence the need to revise constantly our thoughts about the universe.


ReplyQuote
IAO131
(@iao131)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 461
19/05/2009 8:26 pm  
"Los" wrote:
"Los" wrote:
All of language is metaphorical -- it points away from itself and towards reality (for most people, anyway).

Instead of "for most people, anyway," I would have that parenthetical note read, "at least we attempt."

The challenge is, of course, to come up with a model that adequately represents reality. We're not always successful at coming up with one; hence the need to revise constantly our thoughts about the universe.

Or perhaps its the cosmic irony that the map can never completely and/or truthfully represent the territory and therefore the map actually leads us beyond maps, the Image beyond all Images, etc. and yet we constantly produce newer/more "accurate" maps in accordance with our better understanding.

All symbols select and emphasize. All words split and differentiate. Perhaps we might recognize Truth or Reality is beyond symbol and word, that Nothing must always be expressed in forms of Two, Silence in terms of Vibration, etc.? But "Exceed! exceed!" (AL); "Beyond! Beyond!" (LXV)

IAO131


ReplyQuote
Share: