Notifications
Clear all

Clarification re Liber AL I:3 and “The Law Is For All”  

Page 2 / 3
  RSS

jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
25/02/2015 6:03 pm  

"Methinks the man in question is a behaving like a bit of an asshole!"

N Joy


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4954
25/02/2015 6:21 pm  

Abusive language: "asshole" - we all know I'm right about JB "hating" OTO and "repeatedly" voicing it on forums. Please report to the Grand Tribunal for verbal abuse and having a bad memory of your rants.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
25/02/2015 8:35 pm  

You must lead a very sheltered life if you think “asshole” is particularly abusive language – why, I even heard it on the “proper” BBC the other day in prime-time viewing (i.e., when the kiddywinks are still up).  Besides which, if you bothered to read carefully - paying close attention - you would have realised I said it was your behaviour which was “a bit like” that of [somebody being] an asshole – i.e., I was not explicitly saying you were the said [sad?] asshole (but if the cap fits…)

I asked for your examples of [my] allegedly “hating” the “O.T.O.” and “repeatedly voicing” it, regarding which you signally failed to be able to put together some representative examples from the hundreds that must lie in store.  Instead, you appear to rely on this “we all know” gambit – as if you’re trying to corral semi-public opinion on the Lash over to your ‘side’.  I’m sure that “we” are all perfectly capable of making up our own minds independently on the evidence presented – with most right-minded people probably thinking that we’re now behaving both like a couple of assholes anyway.  And they’d probably be right, but whatever floats your boat…  One thing I think will be plain to them whatever though is that you are somewhat po-faced and singularly lacking without much of a sense of humour – unless a somewhat sour one -and an inability to laugh at yourself.

Oh, and like me you like to have the last word sometimes.  So, go ahead and fill your boots... I'll say nothing more

[tonight at any rate!... ;D]

N Joy


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5323
25/02/2015 9:09 pm  

Moderator's Note

Please take your squabbling away from the Forums.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
christibrany
(@christibrany)
Yuggothian
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 2582
26/02/2015 12:15 am  
"Michael Staley" wrote:
I'm not sure, wellreadwellbred, that your words ever impart much in the way of clarity to anything. In this particular instance, however, anyone sufficiently interested can access Los's posts, rather than rely on you playing St. Paul to said Jesus.

You have the gift of the Word, Sir Mick.  I always find it is better to speak volumes in one or two sentences, than endlessly paragraph and quote ad nauseaum; thus I applaud your conciseness. Plus you made me laugh.

Bread from a Well, I can play too:

"Aleister Crowley" wrote:
Got any money?

"game on, Wayne?"
"game on, Garth!" 


ReplyQuote
threefold31
(@threefold31)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 429
26/02/2015 3:45 am  
"herupakraath" wrote:
"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
Crowley's mentioned compelling "opposition to the Bible itself", is likely to have inspired him to put the anti Biblical claim that "Every man and every woman is a star.", near the very beginning of the book that he used as the main Holy Book of his religion Thelema.

WRWB: you are clearly ignorant of the elements of ancient Egyptian culture that are woven into the Book of the Law... The adoration and worship of the stars portrayed in the Book of the Law has absolutely nothing to do with the Bible.

Dwtw

HPK, I absolutely agree with all of your points. Unfortunately they are wasted on feeding a creature that lives under a bridge.
Or let's just get all biblical and say they are relevant to Matthew 7:6, which in turn is paraphrased in AL II:19.

Litlluw
RLG


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1014
26/02/2015 5:50 pm  
"herupakraath" wrote:
"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
Crowley's mentioned compelling "opposition to the Bible itself", is likely to have inspired him to put the anti Biblical claim that "Every man and every woman is a star.", near the very beginning of the book that he used as the main Holy Book of his religion Thelema.

WRWB: you are clearly ignorant of the elements of ancient Egyptian culture that are woven into the Book of the Law. The objective of the Kings of Egypt was to become one of the 'imperishable' stars in the heavens after dying. The imagery of Nuit was painted on the coffins of the deceased, and in the case of the step pyramid of Unas at Saqqara, there are hundreds of five-pointed stars (yeah, the symbol Nuit) engraved on the ceilings of the hallways and burial chambers so that the King could find his way to the abode of the stars after his physical demise. The adoration and worship of the stars portrayed in the Book of the Law has absolutely nothing to do with the Bible.

The topic of this thread is "Clarification re Liber AL I:3 [= "Every man and every woman is a star." ] and “The Law Is For All”[.] In the OP of this thread it is written that Crowley in “The Law is for All” (New Falcon Publications, 1996) under the Commentary for I:3, states "... that each human being is an Element of the Cosmos, self-determined and supreme, co-equal with all other Gods. From this the Law “Do what thou wilt” follows logically.  One star influences another by attraction, of course; but these are incidents of pre-destined orbits. ..."

My point is to clarify that what Crowley meant by writing "Every man and every woman is a star." in verse 3 of The Book of the Law, namely "... that each human being is [...] co-equal with all other Gods.", is in direct opposition to The New Testamen in the Bible, where no other human being is co-equal with Jesus Christ, where only Jesus Christ is described as being a star (2 Peter 1: 19), and where only Jesus Christ describes himself as being a star (Revelation 22: 16). And my point is that the Law "Do what thou wilt" which Crowley describes as following logically from what he wrote in The Book of the Law I: 3, is in direct opposition to The New Testamen in the Bible, which teaches that one shall do the will of God (Mark 3: 35, John 7: 17, and so forth).


ReplyQuote
OKontrair
(@okontrair)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 501
26/02/2015 6:38 pm  

Hebrews. 13:8  Jesus Christ! The same yesterday, today and forever.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4954
26/02/2015 7:50 pm  
"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
My point is to clarify that what Crowley meant by writing "Every man and every woman is a star." in verse 3 of The Book of the Law, namely "... that each human being is [...] co-equal with all other Gods.", is in direct opposition to The New Testamen in the Bible...

To "clarify" means "to make clear." I (we?) understand that you are "making clear" that (you find) that the "Star concept" of AL is in opposition to what the Bible seays. OK, I (we?) understand that. But so what? Horus is opposed to Jesus. Crowley is opposed to Christianity. AL is opposed to the Bible. I (we?) know that AL is filled with things that are opposed to, or "supercede" things in the Bible. Is there a reason we are getting a Bible lesson?


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1014
26/02/2015 10:53 pm  
"Shiva" wrote:
Is there a reason we are getting a Bible lesson?
"Crowley" wrote:
Confessions, chapter 6: "I was trying to take the view that the Christianity of hypocrisy and cruelty was not true Christianity. I did not hate God or Christ, but merely the God and Christ of the people whom I hated. It was only when the development of my logical faculties supplied the demonstration that I was compelled to set myself in opposition to the Bible itself. It does not matter that the literature is sometimes magnificent and that in isolated passages the philosophy and ethics are admirable. The sum of the matter is that Judaism is a savage, and Christianity a fiendish, superstition." Source: http://hermetic.com/crowley/confessions/chapter6.html - The Confessions of Aleister Crowley, page 73.

Crowley's compelling "opposition to the Bible itself" - quoted above in this posting - and its influence on how The Book of the Law is written, is something I have written about in the thread http://www.lashtal.com/forum/http://www.lashtal.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=77572#p77572 - "Correspondences between Crowley´s pre-1904 works and Liber AL", and in the thread http://www.lashtal.com/forum/index.php?topic=6399.150 - "Liber L. vel Bogus - The real confession of Aleister Crowley".

My reason for giving what you describe as a "Bible lesson", is that the development of Crowley's logical faculties which supplied the demonstration that compelled him to set himself  in "... opposition to the Bible itself." (and in opposition to Judaism and Christianity, both of which he refers to as superstition), is something that happened long before he wrote The Book of the Law. And my point is that what Crowley describes as the development of his logical faculties compelling him to set himself  in "opposition to the Bible itself.", is something that is reflected in how Crowley has written The Book of Law, and that this is something that is reflected in how Crowley has explained The Book of Law.

In this thread, I demonstrate in detail how Crowley's logical faculties and his compelling "... opposition to the Bible itself.", is reflected by how he already in the third verse of The Book of the Law ( - a book obviously deriving various figures and elements from The Book of Revelation in the Bible - ) has written that "Every man and every woman is a star." And this is further reflected by Crowley explaining that this verse means "... that each human being is [...] co-equal with all other Gods.", a teaching that is in direct and extreme opposition to the teaching of The New Testament in the Bible. Also, Crowley's said logical faculties, and compelling "opposition to the Bible itself.", is in his said explanation for the same verse, even further reflected by him stating that from the meaning of this verse the Law "Do what thou wilt" (The Book of the Law: I: 40 and III: 60 (and The Comment.)) follows logically, and the latter is another teaching that is in direct and extreme opposition to the teaching of The New Testament in the Bible.


ReplyQuote
William Thirteen
(@williamthirteen)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1090
26/02/2015 11:02 pm  

and for an encore you can marshall a dozen vaguely related quotes together to indicate that water is wet...


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4021
26/02/2015 11:17 pm  
"WilliamThirteen" wrote:
and for an encore you can marshall a dozen vaguely related quotes together to indicate that water is wet...

Best not to issue challenges, William, that you would rather were not taken up . . .


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4954
26/02/2015 11:24 pm  
"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
My reason for giving what you describe as a "Bible lesson", is that the development of Crowley's logical faculties ... compelled him to set himself in "... opposition to the Bible itself." ... is something that happened long before he wrote The Book of the Law. And ... that this is something that is reflected in how Crowley has explained The Book of Law.

But most of us (am I speaking for many of us?) already know this. We have read Confessions and know that the little "Beast" was "pushed" into anti-Christianity by his teachers. We know that he was influenced by events long before he got around to Liber AL. We have mentioned over and over how one's previous knowledge and experiences are the vehicles for "channeled" writings.

This almost seems to be common knowledge. And, yes, Pre-AL Crowley, Cairo-04-Crowley, and Liber AL are all anti-Christian. We know this. So, again, what is your point?


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1014
26/02/2015 11:42 pm  
"Shiva" wrote:
... , yes, Pre-AL Crowley, Cairo-04-Crowley, and Liber AL are all anti-Christian. We know this. So, again, what is your point?

That paying attention to Crowley's compelling "... opposition to the Bible itself." (Confessions, chapter 6), and his opposition to Judaism and Christianity, both of which he referred to as superstition (Confessions, chapter 6), is a more fruitful and evidence-based approach to understanding The Book of the Law, than paying attention to Crowley's eventually developed superstitious story about how The Book of the Law was dictated to him by a 'praeter- human intelligence' named Aiwass.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4954
26/02/2015 11:59 pm  
"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
That focusing on Crowley's compelling "... opposition to the Bible itself." ... is a more fruitful approach to understanding The Book of the Law, than focusing on Crowley's ... story about how The Book of the Law was dictated to him by a 'praeter-human intelligence' named Aiwass.

Oh!  Okay.  I don't know if it's "more fruitful," especially since the Aiwass legend is questionable in many people's minds. And most of those same people know about his childhood Christian tortures.

But, anyway, why not both? If Aiwass wanted to get out an anti-Judeo-Christian book, why not pick a scribe who was already "poisoned" against the Bible?

Thanks for putting your point in plainer language.


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1014
27/02/2015 12:26 am  
"Shiva" wrote:
Thanks for putting your point in plainer language.

You're Welcome, and I hope that I make my position more clear for you, by stating that I agree with Los, in that Thelema should be practiced in an as skeptical way as possible, because my judgement is that this is the most intelligent way to practice it.

"Shiva" wrote:
Oh!  Okay.  I don't know if it's "more fruitful," especially since the Aiwass legend is questionable in many people's minds. And most of those same people know about his childhood Christian tortures.

But, anyway, why not both? If Aiwass wanted to get out an anti-Judeo-Christian book, why not pick a scribe who was already "poisoned" against the Bible?

Because paying attention to Crowley's eventually developed superstitious legend about Aiwass being a 'praeter-human intelligence', is less fruitful in the sense of not being an evidence-based approach to understanding The Book of the Law


ReplyQuote
arthuremerson
(@arthuremerson)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 157
27/02/2015 1:21 am  

We're referring to hermeneutics as "evidence-based" now? Mon dieu...


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4954
27/02/2015 2:07 am  
"arthuremerson" wrote:
We're referring to hermeneutics as "evidence-based" now?

hermeneutics: "the branch of knowledge that deals with interpretation, especially of the Bible or literary texts."

Hmm ???  Six of one, half-dozen of the other. Sold to the man in the black robe!


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1014
27/02/2015 9:10 am  
"Shiva" wrote:
... Sold to the man in the black robe!

This made me think that a term like "black robed sibling", would be a term that is both more clear about that the said color black refers to something acquired as opposed to given, and also more gender-neutral than the term used by Crowley; "black brother". But I don't know if there is any gender-neutral word like "sibling" in Latin, and just to make this clear, Shiva, the above is just med playing around with language, and does not imply me suspecting you of hinting at that someone like me, or Los for that matter, fits what Crowley referred to as a "black brother".   


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
27/02/2015 9:12 am  

93!

"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
Aiwass being a 'praeter-human intelligence', is less fruitful in the sense of not being an evidence-based

Well, AC presented his evidence and why he was convinced. He was confident that the the evidence was enough for everyone to agree and he numerously said so. If you believe him that the surroundings of the reception were roughly like he told them, you could very much be convinced, because any super-skeptical person to whom these things would happen, would probably have no other explanation. If you don't believe him, then of course you don't.

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1014
27/02/2015 9:49 am  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
93!

"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
Aiwass being a 'praeter-human intelligence', is less fruitful in the sense of not being an evidence-based

Well, AC presented his evidence and why he was convinced. He was confident that the the evidence was enough for everyone to agree and he numerously said so. If you believe him that the surroundings of the reception were roughly like he told them, you could very much be convinced, because any super-skeptical person to whom these things would happen, would probably have no other explanation. ...

The documentation available concerning Crowley's understanding of the nature of the The Book of the Law, contains evidence of that Crowley initially considered this book to be an example of automatic writing, and not as a document dictated to him by a 'praeter-human intelligence'. Concerning Crowley's understanding of the nature of the The Book of the Law, I agree with the position of the Crowley scholar Marco Pasi, mentioned in the quote below from Patriarch156. Namely that Crowley's eventual development of the story that Aiwass was a 'praeter-human intelligence' who dictated The Book of the Law to him, was necessitated by Crowley's gradual emergence as an religious authority, whose authority rested on the notion that The Book of the Law proved the existence of praeterhuman intelligence. 

"Patriarch156" wrote:
Personally I think Marco Pasi hits closest to the mark with his "varieties of magical experience," where the fact that Crowley emerged as an religious authority which rested on the notion that the Book of the Law proved the existence of praeterhuman intelligence, necessitated him viewing Aiwaz as something external to himself.

ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4954
27/02/2015 3:04 pm  
"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
... the above is just med playing around with language, and does not imply ... a "black brother".

Which medicine was involved the language play?
No "black brother" status implied.

Aiwass or the Bible?
[/align:9b9w7hop]


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
27/02/2015 11:35 pm  

93!

"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
The documentation available concerning Crowley's understanding of the nature of the The Book of the Law, contains evidence of that Crowley initially considered this book to be an example of automatic writing, and not as a document dictated to him by a 'praeter-human intelligence'.

No, the said documentation available only shows that AC pondered exactly twice that the book is an example of automatic writing, and he never brought this pondering to the public. All other published and unpublished material indicates that his beliefs were different. In fact the "automatic writing" idea was evidently written after July 1906 (on the Liber L cover page and its aborted printing in 1907), while his invokings of Aiwass as an external entity with Mr. Simpson were much earlier in that year. Why for a short period later that year or the year after he used the said term "automatic writing" is unclear, but it just seems to be a sign of his insecurity of what to make of his said experience.

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
28/02/2015 12:39 am  

Hang on a minute.

Lutz said "pondered exactly twice" and "a short period later that year" Self delusion is like sooo not the way forward. Theres a note dated "Oct 09" on the scribbled appendix page. So he was still using the automatic writing version until at least then. Holy Books doesn't say one way or the other and its only in 1912 that he remembers it isnt automatic writing and then, just like magic, he remembers all that angel stuff. How do you explain the 'written by someone else' statement in the same paragraph? Is it all just another of them "signs of insecurity?" If we all didn't know better, Id be so much easier to admit that he made it all up!  😮


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1014
28/02/2015 1:48 am  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
... the said documentation available only shows that AC pondered exactly twice that the book is an example of automatic writing, and he never brought this pondering to the public. All other published and unpublished material indicates that his beliefs were different. In fact the "automatic writing" idea was evidently written after July 1906 (on the Liber L cover page and its aborted printing in 1907), ...

So the handwritten cover page to the original handwritten manuscript of The Book of the Law, where this book is described as an example of automatic writing, was never included in any facsimile of the said manuscript, as a part of any version of the said book published during Crowley's lifetime? Also, when did Crowley for the first time in unpublished and published material, mention the story that Aiwass was a 'praeter- human intelligence' who dictated The Book of the Law to him?

"Shiva" wrote:
Aiwass or the Bible?

In The New Testament in the Bible, the salvation needed by all human beings after the Fall from Paradise and the Garden of Eden, requires the return of Jesus Christ (Matthew 25: 31-46, Hebrews 9: 28, Revelation 1: 1 Revelation 1: 3, Revelation 22: 7, Revelation 22: 12). In Crowley's core Holy Book for his religion Thelema, The Book of the Law, supposedly dictated to him by Aiwass, the verses 1:29 and 1:30, represents "the nature of Eden" (source: The Cry of the 7th Aethyr in The Vision and the Voice, "only second in importance" after The Book of the Law according to Crowley in Confessions Chapter 66). The teaching that the verses 1:29 and 1:30 in The Book of the Law, "29. For I am divided for love's sake, for the chance of union. 30. This is the creation of the world, that the pain of division is as nothing, and the joy of dissolution all." represents "the nature of Eden", is in direct and extreme opposition to the teaching in The New Testament in the Bible, where the return of Jesus Christ is required to reestablish the Eden.

The very Bible literate Crowley was likely well aware of that the narrative about a worldwide flood in The Old Testament in the Bible, in The New Testament in the Bible, is described as a forerunner of a coming worldwide judgment by fire:

"5. [...] by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6. Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7. But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men." (Source: The Bible, King James Version, 2 Peter 3: 5-7.)

According to Crowley, "... the destruction of the world by Fire [...] was accomplished in the year of the vulgar era 1904, when the fiery god Horus took the place of the airy god Osiris in the East as Hierophant ..." Source: The Atu (Keys or Trumps) in The Book of Thoth, XX. THE AEON. And according to Crowley "... the world was destroyed by fire on 21st March, 1904 [...]." Source: THE TWENTY-TWO KEYS, ATU, OR TRUMPS OF THE TAROT in The Book of Thoth. This is in opposition to the teaching in The New Testament in the Bible, where it is by the word of God, the same God which caused a worldwide flood, that the present earth is reserved for fire.

But Crowley also wanted "... to restore Christianity to its real status as a solar–phallic religion." - "[44] Crowley an [an = to] William B. Crow, 11.11.1944." Source: http://www.parareligion.ch/sunrise/sperm_d.htm#_edn44 - Sperma–Gnosis  Carl Kellner Theodor Reuss Aleister Crowley [by] Peter-R. König [1]. Endnote number 44. -, so Crowley's Thelema can have been his way of restoring Christianity to its real status as a solar–phallic religion.

To paraphrase the title of this thread, Clarification re Liber AL I:3 and “The Law Is For All”, it is in The Book of the Law written that Every man and every woman is a star.", (I: 3), that "... the Law is for all.", (I: 34), and that "... Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.", (I: 40). 

In The New testament in the Bible, only Jesus Christ is described as being a star (2 Peter 1: 19), and only Jesus Christ describes himself as being a star (Revelation 22: 16). And in The New testament it is written that "23. [...] all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24. Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:", (King James Version, Romans 3: 23-24), and that "12. [...] there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. 13. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.", (King James Version, Romans 10: 12-13).


ReplyQuote
Horemakhet
(@horemakhet)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 526
28/02/2015 5:43 am  

Oh this is precious: wrwb is now lecturing us on his version of Christianity, complete with correlations between his version of AC & that. Oh, pull up my chair & let me listen to more of your bland expressionless quotation work for 1000+ pages, wrwb! Bless us with your cues, oh great one!


ReplyQuote
Horemakhet
(@horemakhet)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 526
28/02/2015 6:41 am  
"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
"Shiva" wrote:
... Sold to the man in the black robe!

This made me think that a term like "black robed sibling", would be a term that is both more clear about that the said color black refers to something acquired as opposed to given, and also more gender-neutral than the term used by Crowley; "black brother". But I don't know if there is any gender-neutral word like "sibling" in Latin, and just to make this clear, Shiva, the above is just med playing around with language, and does not imply me suspecting you of hinting at that someone like me, or Los for that matter, fits what Crowley referred to as a "black brother".   

Apparently you've now put your coins in with Los, as you've mentioned twice. Well, first we had Erwin Hessle here, then Los who echoed his ideas. I can see why you'd side with that because they obtained a certain amount of attention & basically bullied every student of AC. Much like you always wanted to do. But, I've got to tell you: AC had you all figured out. When you think you are being the clever one he, in fact, is. You're dealing with base level paradigms that he figured out before you, & to bring up the element of his "upbringing", he figured that out at a young age. You're just using his reputation & trying to use psycho-babble now to break the enthusiasm of his young students. It's standard bullying. Are you a Scientologist, wrwb?


ReplyQuote
William Thirteen
(@williamthirteen)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1090
28/02/2015 11:07 am  

The very Bible literate Crowley was likely well aware of that the narrative about a worldwide flood

...let me guess… and water is wet!


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
28/02/2015 12:00 pm  
"Horemakhet" wrote:
Apparently you've [wellreadwellbred] now put your coins in with Los, as you've mentioned twice. [...]

I’m sorry to read that … (All hope's lost, then? ;D)

"Horemakhet" wrote:
[...] Well, first we had Erwin Hessle here, then Los who echoed his ideas. I can see why you'd side with that because they obtained a certain amount of attention & basically bullied every student of AC.

Though speak for yourself there, Horemakhet - nobody bullies me!  In fact Los is obviously quite petrified to have any engagement with me to his disadvantage.

"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
[...] To paraphrase the title of this thread, Clarification re Liber AL I:3 and “The Law Is For All”, it is in The Book of the Law written that Every man and every woman is a star.", (I: 3), that "... the Law is for all.", (I: 34), and that "... Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.", (I: 40). [...]

I must say, well, that this thread has started to go down some strange byways that even I (as the OP and somewhat of a hopeless [occasional] inveterate post-diverter myself) could hardly have imagined.

If I was to say let someone else rebuke you and “Keep up the good work”, do you think you would detect an element of sarcasm involved?

With well wishes though,
N Joy


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
28/02/2015 12:10 pm  

93!

"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
So the handwritten cover page to the original handwritten manuscript of The Book of the Law, where this book is described as an example of automatic writing, was never included in any facsimile of the said manuscript, as a part of any version of the said book published during Crowley's lifetime?

Yep! The said cover page wasn't published.

"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
Also, when did Crowley for the first time in unpublished and published material, mention the story that Aiwass was a 'praeter- human intelligence' who dictated The Book of the Law to him?

Google it!

"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
In The New Testament in the Bible, ... blah, blah, blah ...

Frankly, all your bible stuff is just extremely stupid, sorry. I assume it is some sort of evidence to you, that AC had it all planned out to become the new Christ and that Liber L and its reception myth is nothing but a fake. Wait: the reception myth in the said Bible is also fake - so: you're right!

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4021
28/02/2015 5:17 pm  
"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
But given that Los is right about that the core matter of practicing Thelema, is about following your genuine 'preferences' in an as intelligent way as possible . . .

So just for clarity, wellreadwellbred, how are you distinguishing between your genuine preferences and your inauthentic ones? When a preference arises, on what basis do you decide whether or not it is authentic?


ReplyQuote
newneubergOuch2
(@newneubergouch2)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 287
28/02/2015 11:51 pm  

'Following your preferences' or wants as a summary of Thelema misses the boat completely.

See J.Cornelius's epistle on Thelomites and Thelemites.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
01/03/2015 12:37 pm  
"Horemakhet" wrote:
 
Apparently you've now put your coins in with Los, as you've mentioned twice. Well, first we had Erwin Hessle here, then Los who echoed his ideas. I can see why you'd side with that because they obtained a certain amount of attention & basically bullied every student of AC.

Bullying?  What?  You have a distorted view of the verb "to bully" imo. 


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
01/03/2015 12:39 pm  
"Michael Staley" wrote:
"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
But given that Los is right about that the core matter of practicing Thelema, is about following your genuine 'preferences' in an as intelligent way as possible . . .

So just for clarity, wellreadwellbred, how are you distinguishing between your genuine preferences and your inauthentic ones? When a preference arises, on what basis do you decide whether or not it is authentic?

Maybe he has had sufficient success in dharana and it's based on that.  What about you?  How do you do distinguish?


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4021
01/03/2015 1:52 pm  
"david" wrote:
"Michael Staley" wrote:
"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
But given that Los is right about that the core matter of practicing Thelema, is about following your genuine 'preferences' in an as intelligent way as possible . . .

So just for clarity, wellreadwellbred, how are you distinguishing between your genuine preferences and your inauthentic ones? When a preference arises, on what basis do you decide whether or not it is authentic?

Maybe he has had sufficient success in dharana and it's based on that.  What about you?  How do you do distinguish?

It's my impression that it's based not on dharana, but rather on pratyahara.

As it happens, I don't accept the theory about "authentic" and "inauthentic" preferences. I have little interest in "Sceptical Thelema" itself, but for some time I have been curious as to how its advocates distinguish between "authentic" and "inauthentic" preferences.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
01/03/2015 2:09 pm  

It seems that WRWB’s postings particularly with regard to “the Biblical stuff” are proving rather unpopular with the Lashtalian readership, but I don’t think we should make the mistake of necessarily ejecting everything to do with the baby of his not-quite-so-immaculate conception out with the contents of his bathwater:

"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
[...] But Crowley also wanted "... to restore Christianity to its real status as a solar–phallic religion." - "[44] Crowley an [an = to] William B. Crow, 11.11.1944." Source: http://www.parareligion.ch/sunrise/sperm_d.htm#_edn44 - Sperma–Gnosis  Carl Kellner Theodor Reuss Aleister Crowley [by] Peter-R. König [1]. Endnote number 44. -, so Crowley's Thelema can have been his way of restoring Christianity to its real status as a solar–phallic religion.

Even if that was the case – and being profoundly anti-Christian, this statement of A.C.’s was very much the exception with him especially at this late period of his life rather than the rule – it’s all a bit late in the day now to do that (= restore Xianity to its “real” status as a solar-phallic religion, together with all its neglected Sophia-ish aspects of the Goddess as well, one must not forget) since we are now over a century into a New Aeon of Force and Fire (not even to mention the very real possibility of a concurrent double Aeon of Thmaist/ Maat).

As I explored to a limited degree before in the recent Crowleyanity thread, prior to when Thelema and Scientific Illuminism held sway there (in “Crowleyanity” itself) there is a possibility (unproven so far one way or the other) that very early on – for a small window of time between April 1904 (the alleged date of the alleged reception) and July 1906 (when its reality came into his “possession”) at the latest – A.C. may have actually favoured this aspect of Esoteric Christianity.  The recognition of this (E.C.) was also shared by the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (which certainly never at any time entertained any idea of worship of Heru-Ra-Ha as a divinity instead of Jesus Christ) and the O.T.O. (where under Theodor Reuss it had been, before Crowley’s active involvement, concerned with similarly what it termed “Gnostic Neo-Christianity”).

There is scope for somebody to write a decent monograph or even a short book on the subject – I might even like to try to do it myself one day if I have the time and all of the necessary research materials and resources to hand and no one else has managed to do it in the meantime.  It could also bring in the fundamentals of Esoteric/Gnostic Neo-Christianity recently explored by Allegro et al in respect of it having been a mushroom (amanita muscaria) cult.  Perhaps you might care to find time to do that worthwhile project yourself there, wellread?

I am sure though, that given the chance A.C. would still have preferred to dismiss all the baggage of Xianity – including the worthwhile “solar-phallicism” – rather than it gaining acceptance worldwide at the expense instead of Thelema and Do what thou wilt as the alternative.  Christianity is after all now the Old Aeon, and perception even of its positive solar qualities belongs to that of the Dying and Resurrected/ Born Again (Sun) God there rather than the Eternal, Ever-Coming Sun of Horus/ Ra Hoor.

Returning to the OP and my 2nd reply, however, the Comment to Liber AL I:8 has some supplemental information relating to

Reply #2 by jamie barter on: February 17, 2015, 12:40:49 pm:

Just how original to A.C. is this last idea of stars incarnating in order to experience absence of omnipresence, etc., or does it stem from some other older religion or philosophy? […]Hubbard

Meanwhile, the phrase “In the stars they remember, in the planets they forget” comes from Mathers’ translation of the Kaballah, but where did that idea come from originally?  And what the fuck does it mean? (Someone remind me please – I’ve forgotten.)

I get a feeling that the answer relating to the ‘mystery of the planets’ lies somewhere within what is hinted at within these words from A.C. unless anyone can suggest anything less arcane or which might fit better in this regard.

 
as follows:

Why are we told that the Khabs is in the Khu, not the Khu in the Khabs?  Did we then suppose the converse?  I think that we are warned against the idea of a pleroma, a flame of which we are Sparks, and to which we return again when we “attain”.[sup:hlo43u7b]FN[/sup:hlo43u7b]  That would indeed be to make the whole curse of separate existence ridiculous, a senseless and inexcusable folly.  It would throw us back on the dilemma of Manichaeism.  The idea of incarnations “perfecting” a thing originally perfect by definition is imbecile.  The only sane solution is as given previously, to suppose that the perfect enjoys experience of (apparent) Imperfection.   (There are deeper resolutions of this problem appropriate to the highest grades of initiation, but the above should suffice the average intelligence.)

[sup:hlo43u7b]FN[/sup:hlo43u7b]  In Gnosticism, the “invisible spiritual fullness” that hypostases into progressive manifestation (aeons), and to which Gnostics seek to return through the Perfection of the Self.

(The Authorised and [deeply unpopular] Popular Commentary to The Book of the Law I:8, pp. 32-3)[/align:hlo43u7b]

Another of A.C.’s teasing conundrums!  It seems inevitable that these "deeper resolutions" are never specifically indicated by the Master Therion; indeed possibly the whole nature of this part of the paragraph is nothing but a teaser, which wouldn’t be for the first time.  In addition also, the implicit assumption that the higher the grade of initiation the higher the intelligence needed to be able to encompass and comprehend it. (cf. Liber AL I:50).

Sunny side up
N Joy


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1014
03/03/2015 12:21 am  

(All that is added by me to the original text, is underlined.)

"jamie barter" wrote:
Returning to the OP and my 2nd reply, however, the Comment to Liber AL I:8 has some supplemental information relating to

Reply #2 by jamie barter on: February 17, 2015, 12:40:49 pm: Just how original to A.C. is this last idea of stars incarnating in order to experience absence of omnipresence, etc., or does it stem from some other older religion or philosophy? ...

 

as follows:

... The only sane solution is as given previously, to suppose that the perfect enjoys experience of (apparent) Imperfection.   (There are deeper resolutions of this problem appropriate to the highest grades of initiation, but the above should suffice the average intelligence.) [...]

(The Authorised and [deeply unpopular] Popular Commentary to The Book of the Law I:8, pp. 32-3)[/align:3v153t21]

Another of A.C.’s teasing conundrums!  It seems inevitable that these "deeper resolutions" are never specifically indicated ...

This is Crowley's The Old Comment to AL I,8: "The Khabs is in the Khu, not the Khu in the Khabs.": "Here Begins the text. Khabs is the secret Light or L.V.X.; the Khu is the magical entity of a man. I find later (Sun in Scorpio, An. VII) that Khabs means star. In which case cf.v.3. ["Every man and every woman is a star."] The doctrine here taught is that that Light is innermost, essential man. Intra (not Extra) Nobis Regnum Dei."

Intra (not Extra) Nobis Regnum Dei, refers to "Intra Nobis Regnum deI," a version of the Christian INRI, which means 'Inside Ourselves [is] the Kingdom of God'. This is derived from various texts in The New Testament in the Bible. For example Luke 17: 20-21: "20. And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: 21. Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you." (The latter verse has some resemblance to verse 56. in the first chapter of The Book of the Law: "Expect him not from the East, nor from the West; for from no expected house cometh that child. ...")

In Crowley's  The New Comment to AL I,8, he explains that the Khabs (which according to Crowley's The Old Comment to AL I,8, is identical with what that Jesus in the Bible, for example Luke 17: 21, is described as calling the kingdom of God) means star, and "is the original, individual, eternal essence." This comment further explains that the Khu is a veil by use of which the Khabs or star can gain experience through self-consciousness. "... as explained in the note to verses 2 ["The unveiling of the company of heaven."] and 3 ["Every man and every woman is a star."]. This Khu is the first veil, far subtler than mind or body, and truer; for its symbolic shape depends on the nature of its Star."

"jamie barter" wrote:
I am sure though, that given the chance A.C. would still have preferred to dismiss all the baggage of Xianity – including the worthwhile “solar-phallicism” – rather than it gaining acceptance worldwide at the expense instead of Thelema and Do what thou wilt as the alternative.  Christianity is after all now the Old Aeon, and perception even of its positive solar qualities belongs to that of the Dying and Resurrected/ Born Again (Sun) God there rather than the Eternal, Ever-Coming Sun of Horus/ Ra Hoor.

Crowley grew up within the Plymouth Brethren movement, a conservative Christian evangelical movement that began in Ireland and England in the late 1820s in reaction to the established Church. The Plymouth Brethren developed unique ideas regarding the interpretation of Scripture while emphasizing prophecy and the second coming of Christ. When it comes to what you J. call "the Eternal, Ever-Coming Sun of Horus/ Ra Hoor.", the first chapter of The Book of Revelation - a book from which Crowley has derived various elements and characters for his The Book of the Law - clearly describes Jesus Christ as having a countenance "as the sun": "16. And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength." (Revelation 1: 16, King James Version). And also when it comes to what you describe as "the Eternal, Ever-Coming Sun of Horus/ Ra Hoor.", the last chapter of The Book of Revelation, clearly describes Jesus Christ forever replacing the sun after his second coming: "23. And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof. [...] 25. And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there." (Revelation  21: 23 and 25, King James Version).


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1014
03/03/2015 8:55 am  
"jamie barter" wrote:
Returning to the OP and my 2nd reply, however, the Comment to Liber AL I:8 has some supplemental information relating to

Reply #2 by jamie barter on: February 17, 2015, 12:40:49 pm: Just how original to A.C. is this last idea of stars incarnating in order to experience absence of omnipresence, etc., or does it stem from some other older religion or philosophy? ...

 

as follows:

... The only sane solution is as given previously, to suppose that the perfect enjoys experience of (apparent) Imperfection. [...]

(The Authorised and [deeply unpopular] Popular Commentary to The Book of the Law I:8, pp. 32-3)[/align:27vejuk1]

[...]

J., you ask about how original to Crowley is the idea of stars incarnating in order to experience absence of omnipresence, or if this idea stem from some other older religion or philosophy?

In my posting preceding this one in this thread, I point out that Crowley in his The Old Comment to I,8, ("The Khabs is in the Khu, not the Khu in the Khabs.") relates I,3 ("Every man and every woman is a star.") to I,8, because Khabs means star. In the said posting I also point out that Crowley in the same comment explains that the doctrine taught in this verse, is "that Light is innermost, essential man", and that he compares this doctrine to a doctrine ascribed to Jesus, concerning the latter supposedly teaching that "the kingdom of God is within you." (Luke 17: 20-21).

Crowley's The New Comment to I,8, about that the only sane solution to why we are told that the Khabs is in the Khu, not the Khu in the Khabs?, is the Perfect supposedly enjoying the experience of (apparent) Imperfection, is preceded by his The Old Comment to the same verse, where he compares the doctrine taught in this verse, to a doctrine ascribed to Jesus, concerning that "the kingdom of God is within you." (Luke 17: 20-21).

When it comes to your question[-s] J, about how original to Crowley is the idea of stars incarnating in order to experience absence of omnipresence, or if this idea stem from some other older religion or philosophy?, my impression derived from Crowley's Old and New Comment to I,8, is that Crowley understood "the kingdom of God is within you." (Luke 17: 20-21) doctrine ascribed to Jesus, as comparable to the verse I,8 in The Book of the Law, and its idea of stars incarnating in order to experience absence of omnipresence (cf. I,8 The New Comment). 


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
03/03/2015 12:39 pm  

Thank you for your reply there well. Your remarks do seem to fit inasmuch as the “kingdom” of God is said to be within as well - in the Bible’s Luke in addition to being inferred in Liber AL I:8 - and Kether (=equivalent to Khabs, “the star”, etc.) is held to be in Malkuth as Malkuth is in Kether (but after another fashion). 

In the absence of any further information, I am assuming this idea of incarnating as a way for Perfection and omniscience/omnipotence to experience Imperfection and lack of the same, despite some similarities to Oriental beliefs, appears to have been original to Crowley’s first expression of it in this form.

A friendly tip - it sometimes seems your answers manage to repeat the same sort of information over again in a slightly different form; also you tend to (unnecessarily in most cases) repeat the question over again, when it would already be known (this is particularly the case when you already have ”quoted” where the question has been asked).  You further compound such tautology by superfluously doubling up a bit here e.g. around the Luke 17: 20-1 quote and twice making reference to my question ‘how original to Crowley is the idea of stars incarnating in order to experience absence of omnipresence, or if this idea stem from some other older religion or philosophy’? 

All of the above is unnecessary practice, and always contributes towards making your answers far longer than they need to be, when as I have remarked before you should really be aiming at tightening up and “crispening” your style wherever possible to make it more accessible.  Please don‘t take my feedback as niggling criticism as I am trying to help your postings become more acceptable, since in their present form they seem to wind a lot of people up and I can see a lot of the main reason for that being what I have just pointed out.

By the way, are you a “reincarnation” of a previous poster with almost the same avatar name as yours who I noticed is down on the membership lists as “wellredwellbred” (missing the "a"), and whose communications seem to have curtailed at roughly the same time that your own started up?

N Joy


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
09/03/2015 12:24 pm  

Ah, wellreadwellbred!  It appears you have appeared amongst us again (although not on this particular thread)!  You may have missed it, or forgotten to respond possibly, but I was just wondering, could you say whether you are a “reincarnation” of a previous poster with almost the same avatar name as yours or not, as I enquired in Reply # 88 supra?

Waving "hello" at'cha!
N Joy


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4021
09/03/2015 12:37 pm  
"jamie barter" wrote:
Ah, wellreadwellbred!  It appears you have appeared amongst us again (although not on this particular thread)!  You may have missed it, or forgotten to respond possibly, but I was just wondering, could you say whether you are a “reincarnation” of a previous poster with almost the same avatar name as yours or not, as I enquired in Reply # 88 supra?

Waving "hello" at'cha!
N Joy

Do you imagine, Jamie, that people should answer whatever question you choose to throw their way, no matter how trivial?


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1014
09/03/2015 1:21 pm  
"jamie barter" wrote:
... are you a “reincarnation” of a previous poster with almost the same avatar name as yours who I noticed is down on the membership lists as “wellredwellbred” (missing the "a") ...

y


ReplyQuote
Falcon
(@falcon)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 361
10/03/2015 9:06 pm  

To add to the discussion of A.C.'s intention of "restoring Christianity to its real status as a solar-phallic religion", the early O.T.O.'s "Gnostic Neo-Christianity", "Esoteric Christianity" and the biblical reference to "the Kingdom of God is within you" etc:

"What is the name of the order to which you belong? I asked. "The A.'. A.'." Bennett replied...I preach that all men are gods. I got this from the bible which is the biggest book on magic. God said, "Ye are Gods." I believe there is a divine presence and that His all-seeing eye is ever upon us. I ALSO BELIEVE THAT I AM A GOD AS WELL AS THE DIVINITY. Men are Gods, no matter how wicked so-called Christians may consider them. A man from the race-course, be he the biggest gambler under the sun, is a god, a superman. Every man who has daring and courage is a superman, a man of god. Every strong man is a superman, a god...The trouble with us is that we have dismissed from our minds most of the things which have fettered us, but have retained one - fear. It is only fear that makes people go to church. They are afraid of the hereafter. We fear God, not realizing we are God ourselves...I myself can become anything I wish, simply by exercising the silent force of will." (Frank Bennett, Smith's Weekly, November 29th, 1924)

The bible references to which Frank Bennett refers are Psalm 82 and John 10:34. I noticed an advert entitled "YE ARE GODS" for the Liberal Catholic Church in a Theosophical Society magazine a few years ago which quoted Psalm 82:6 - "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High."


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
11/03/2015 12:49 pm  
"Falcon" wrote:
To add to the discussion of A.C.'s intention of "restoring Christianity to its real status as a solar-phallic religion", the early O.T.O.'s "Gnostic Neo-Christianity", "Esoteric Christianity" and the biblical reference to "the Kingdom of God is within you" etc:
[...]

Yes - I wonder what path A.C. would have taken in this respect had he not received the Cairo revelation or for some reason decided not to participate in it at all.  Quite plainly the New Aeon would have begun around 1904 without him anyway, as can be determined by world events in art, science, politics and the whole shebang.  It’s undoubtable that the character of his Christianity would have been a lot more slanted towards the Dionysian aspects of the Piscean Age, and this must have been what he was working towards whilst in the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn and the early Ordo Templi Orientis, both of whose religious beliefs slanted towards this more Gnostic and “Esoteric” rosicrucian view of Christianity instead of any other possible religious stance - is anyone aware of the fact that either of them might have been cognisant of the impending New Aeon and its ramifications?

"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
"jamie barter" wrote:
... are you a “reincarnation” of a previous poster with almost the same avatar name as yours who I noticed is down on the membership lists as “wellredwellbred” (missing the "a") ...

y

I take it that this “y” should be taken for yes (as opposed to “n” being taken for “no”), rather than “y” to be taken for “Why?” there, well?  “y” r u so uncharacteristically laconic here though!?

It seems no one wishes to discuss the long-term prospects for what happens to Nuit.  I expect there’s plenty of time to worry about that in due course – no rush, & all that sort of thing.  After all, we’ve got a few billion years to play with, unless there’s some strange sort of timequake in the offing. ..

And the ‘mystery of the planets’ remains that – mysterious.

I think I commented on all that needs saying re “The Law is for all” – that rather ridiculous and wanting excuse for a proper edition of A.C.’s Commentaries - for the present.  Like everyone else I’ll be continuing to look forward to & anticipate the eventual appearance of the “student-scholar/ practitioners’” edition.  It’s a shame we are all having to endure the delay for so long for it – some older people are probably dying in the meantime whilst waiting, you know!

The other thing I wanted to raise before leaving behind this thread of thought is to look once again at the phrase “Every man and every woman is a star”.  This ‘star’ business… a lot of people have made the not unreasonable mistake of thinking that all stars are equal, as in “all men [and women] are created equal”.  But, as Orwell demonstrated, “some people are more ‘equal’ than others”, and one star is very much not the same as another.  For instance, there are brown dwarfs, white dwarfs, red giants, neutron stars, pulsars, black-hole stars and so on.  Not only that, apparently (and this is astounding) there are more binary stars than singles – even our nearest neighbour is a double: Alpha and Proxima Centauri; there are also triple star systems which are not uncommon either, and even star-systems of up to 8 intertwining orbs have been classified.

The query here is, taking there to be a correspondence with human nature in terms of these stellar “irregularities”, what would the nature of that be?  The romantic idea of ‘soul mates’ might fit in with double stars, or people whose destinies are inextricably bound up with each other’s.  But for these bigger systems?  There are cabals – Feral House’s Apocalypse Culture (I think) suggests that the early Manhattan project physicists at Los Alomar were meant to be all reincarnated together from mystical ancient times – although there would be a limit on numbers, and I would have thought a group of 8 would definitely be the upper limit.  The gravitational fields there must be very extraordinary!

Also, stars have a lifetime.  They are not eternal in a cosmic sense – they are born from dust, and in a nova blast to dust they do return.  What would be the human correspondences of gravitational collapse or supernova explosion?  The nearest thing I can come up with would be a spontaneous human combustion.

‘иjoY


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1014
11/03/2015 3:54 pm  
"jamie barter" wrote:
Quite plainly the New Aeon would have begun around 1904 without him anyway, as can be determined by world events in art, science, politics and the whole shebang.

Quite plainly? Without the 'New Aeon' concept, the passage of time and history could not be related to the said concept, and also, I do not consider the said concept as a given, but as a (human) construct.

"jamie barter" wrote:
"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
"jamie barter" wrote:
... are you a “reincarnation” of a previous poster with almost the same avatar name as yours who I noticed is down on the membership lists as “wellredwellbred” (missing the "a") ...

y

I take it that this “y” should be taken for yes (as opposed to “n” being taken for “no”), rather than “y” to be taken for “Why?” there, well?  “y” r u so uncharacteristically laconic here though!?

Replying with only this 'y', was not intended to indicate me being laconic, but to the contrary intended to be my way of setting an all time record by writing the shortest possible answer ever, and this is something of which I am quite proud and jubilant.

"jamie barter" wrote:
And the ‘mystery of the planets’ remains that – mysterious.

The ‘mystery of the planets’ might not be so mysterious, when considered in the larger context of Crowley from The Book of the Law, constructing a Cabala and a Tarot involving various planetary attributions.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
11/03/2015 5:38 pm  
"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
Without the 'New Aeon' concept, the passage of time and history could not be related to the said concept, and also, I do not consider the said concept as a given, but as a (human) construct.

Well, well – evidently it is a (human) construct (- as opposed to one constructed by chimpanzees, perhaps?!), based upon observations relating to paradigm shifts, states of consciousness involved, etc.  At the moment, only four have been postulated – six if you count Kenneth Grant’s Nameless and Wordless Aeons coming in for an indeterminate period before and after those of Isis, Osiris, Horus and Maat - unless you count his “Aeon of Zayin” as well (which I think may be part of the Wordless Aeon but I’m not sure & would leave it to a Typhonian more versed in the matter to possibly describe it better.)

"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
Replying with only this 'y', was not intended to indicate me being laconic, but to the contrary intended to be my way of setting an all time record by writing the shortest possible answer ever, and this is something of which I am quite proud and jubilant.

Well, well - it certainly makes a change!  You appeared to have left your doppelgänger “wellredwellbred” behind a bit “under a cloud”, as the saying goes, with some bizarre altercation involving the cries of “Rhubarb” !?  It seems curious, given that I recall you mentioned your main language is Norwegian, that your English style generally seems a little better in some of those earlier posts of your preincarnation than in your later ones ?!

"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
The ‘mystery of the planets’ might not be so mysterious, when considered in the larger context of Crowley from The Book of the Law, constructing a Cabala and a Tarot involving various planetary attributions.

Maybe true, but I was going by A.C.’s description, from the passage which I initially quoted in the OP.

I find the solar system’s moons to be almost as mysterious, if not more so, as the planets themselves – there are scores of them, all of them apart from Luna and Mars’ two, orbiting around the outer gaseous giants – and all very different from each other with very individual characteristics, and thought to be more likely to support life than the actual planets (and particularly so Titan, one of Saturn’s moons).

Astronomically yours,
N Joy


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4954
12/03/2015 5:14 pm  

Human construct? Yes, we all agree that certain things are simply constructed by humans: Aeons, calendars in many colors, holidays, religions, latitude and longitude, time of day, etc.

Now a "year" is not a human construct, as the Earth revolving around the Sun is not [presently] controlled by humans, but the term "year" (the name of the phenomenon) is human. A "moonth" is likewise, if it's really measured by the moon's cycle, but when a month varies from 28 to 31 days, then we know the human mind is playing the fiddle again.


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1014
16/03/2015 12:42 pm  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
93!

"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
The documentation available concerning Crowley's understanding of the nature of the The Book of the Law, contains evidence of that Crowley initially considered this book to be an example of automatic writing, and not as a document dictated to him by a 'praeter-human intelligence'.

No, the said documentation available only shows that AC pondered exactly twice that the book is an example of automatic writing, and he never brought this pondering to the public. All other published and unpublished material indicates that his beliefs were different. In fact the "automatic writing" idea was evidently written after July 1906 (on the Liber L cover page and its aborted printing in 1907), ...

The handwritten sentence "MS. which came into my possession in July 1906.", on the cover page of the original handwritten manuscript of The book of the Law, is not a part of the following handwritten text written within brackets, and describing The book of the Law as automatic writing:

"[This is a highly interesting example of genuine automatic writing. Though I am in no way responsible for any of these documents, except the translations of the stele inscription (the words 'except the translations of the stele inscription' are clearly added as an afterthought in this handwritten text), I publish them among my works because I believe that their intelligent study may be interesting & helpful. AC.]"   

In chapter 11 of his Crowley biography, Aleister Crowley: The Biography, Tobias Churton points out that Crowley's interpolation about the original handwritten manuscript of The Book of the Law coming into his possession in July 1906, is a sentence that was added after he wrote the text where he describes The Book of the Law as automatic writing. In the same chapter Churton also points out that Crowley on the same cover page - with what Churton describes as 'an arrow' - points to the real meaning of his added interpolation about the original handwritten manuscript coming into his possession in July 1906, explained by Crowley in the following circled handwritten sentence: "i.e. I meant I could be its master from that date – A.C. Oct. ’09." Churton clarifies this further with the following sentence: "July 1906 was when Crowley achieved the Knowledge and Conversation of His Holy Guardian Angel."

So in short, it is not evident from what Crowley wrote on the cover page of the original manuscript of The book of the Law, that his description of the said book as an example of automatic writing, was written after July 1906, as the said description was written before the later addition of the sentence "MS. which came into my possession in July 1906."

Also, when Crowley's documented his consideration of The book of the Law as being an example of automatic writing, by even expressing it in his handwriting on the cover page of the original manuscript of the said book, it is likely that he considered the said book to be an example of automatic writing, well before the time of the said documented expression of the said consideration.

If anyone want to believe in "the praeter-human intelligence Aiwass, and not I, was, the one of actually authored The Book of the Law"-story, which Crowley developed later, after initially considering the said book to be an example of automatic writing, they can off course do so, in a way resembling other belief-systems than Thelema. Other belief-systems where the beliefs and ideas and expectations of the believers, are a necessary part of the whole operation, in contrast to how Crowley describes the Magick of Thelema in the Introduction to Magick in Theory and Practice: "The sincere student will discover, behind the symbolic technicalities of his book, a practical method of making himself a Magician. The processes described will enable him to discriminate between what he actually is, and what he has fondly imagined himself to be. [...] Magick will teach him that his mind is playing him traitor." Source: Magick in Theory and Practice, Introduction - http://www.sacred-texts.com/oto/aba/defs.htm

"Spiritual authority [...] depends not on miracles or mystical figures or discoveries of secret books, but merely on our willingness to believe, against evidence if need be, that those things were real. The virgin birth, the Buddha, Joseph Smith’s golden plates that became the Book of Mormon—to build spiritual tradition, it does not matter if the people were real or if the events happened. It matters that we keep assenting to the stories. ([Mark] Oppenheimer 2013)" Quoted on page 5 in Minority religions and fraud: in good faith, Van Eck Duymaer van Twist, Amanda, ed. (2014), Ashgate Publishing, London.

        The cover page of the original manuscript of The book of the Law:

           


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4021
16/03/2015 2:09 pm  
"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
If anyone wants to believe in "the praeter-human intelligence Aiwass, and not I, was, the one of actually authored The Book of the Law"-story . . . they can of course do so . . .

That's very magnaminous of you, wellreadwellbred; thank you.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5323
16/03/2015 7:56 pm  
"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
So in short, it is not evident from what Crowley wrote on the cover page of the original manuscript of The book of the Law, that his description of the said book as an example of automatic writing, was written after July 1906, as the said description was written before the later addition of the sentence "MS. which came into my possession in July 1906."

I've tried to make sense of this paragraph, honest I have, but I'm forced to admit failure.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
Page 2 / 3
Share: