Notifications
Clear all

Initiation in the Æon of the Child - J. Daniel Gunther  

Page 2 / 2
  RSS

IAO131
(@iao131)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 461
09/04/2009 8:16 am  
"tai" wrote:
In a footnote, Gunther writes:
"The scythe combines the crescent and the cross, the emblem of Saturn [Saturn symbol], hence the Great Mother." (p.25)

Perhaps it evaded Gunther's attention that Saturn was a male god... It is not immediately obvious why Saturn should immediately lead symbolically to "the Great Mother" (do not all symbols above the abyss contain their own opposites including the opposites of gender anyways?) This kind of brief Qabalistic explanation permeates this book and leaves more questions than answers, I think.

Crowley mapped Saturn onto Binah and therefore the scythe symbolizes the Great Mother. Whether this is true or not is another question, but JDG’s footnote is fairly clear.

Also Chokmah is a masculine principle and Binah is a feminine principle. So I do not think Crowley’s notion of “above the abyss” is meant to deny gender.

I'm aware: I'm speaking from the standpoint of someone not familiar with all of these symbols and Qabalistic correspondences (think of all of the humans on this earth who have never even heard of 'kabbalah' in any form... but couldn't they all benefit from the ideas in Thelema without explaining in that jargon?). He jumps from Saturn to Great Mother with no apparent reason, although the reason is already known by most people (and therefore doesnt even need to be mentioned in the first place for those people). Im not saying its inaccurate Im saying its poor communication that leaves more questions than answers (although I should clarify that its for people unfamiliar with the New Aeon shindig, although it seems to be irrelevant or repetitive for people who already know these things as A.C. does talk about these ideas extensively for the most part).

Also- Im willing to change my views on certain parts of the review. At certain times I felt that I must've been missing something because of apparent jumping-to-conclusions and self-contradictions... I'd actually really appreciate it if people who have already read the Gunther book responded in that sense, though others would probably get a lot from reading it.

P.S. I have no hate or anything towards Gunther - I don't even know who he is really (I'd never heard of him before this book was publicized). I don't even want to curtail the sales of his book; in fact, chances are that this review will increase sales if anything (I've already spoken to at least three people personally who said they'd never heard of the book before I reviewed it and will now go get it to decide for themselves - which is what its all about in the end). Its mostly a reaction to all of the high praise from high places that I've heard about it (it is being included in the OTO & AA curricula apparently... that is high praise if anything). Im glad people are publishing books about Thelema - I think more people should start doing it as the standards for a work deserving "high praise" would inevitably go up.

IAO131


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
09/04/2009 4:54 pm  
"IAO131" wrote:
I'm speaking from the standpoint of someone not familiar with all of these symbols and Qabalistic correspondences (think of all of the humans on this earth who have never even heard of 'kabbalah' in any form... but couldn't they all benefit from the ideas in Thelema without explaining in that jargon?).

Yes, that vast majority would greatly benefit from the ideas in Thelema, but that presentation would be from another book or books. I believe that this book of Gunther's attempts to address the subject from its own admittedly narrower (if loftier) perspective, that of the Initiate, in the formal sense. No?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
09/04/2009 6:31 pm  
"IAO131" wrote:
P.S. I have no hate or anything towards Gunther - I don't even know who he is really (I'd never heard of him before this book was publicized).

PS back at you: Just a suggestion, but some research into who an author is seems like a good idea before reviewing a book. That way, you can better appreciate his perspective and the intended focus the book. Probably just a matter of limited length of experience with the 'Thelemic scene,' but that can be compensated for by some research. Also, I would advise doing the research elsewhere and not in open forum, so as to avoid a shitstorm of distraction and controversy. Otherwise, you make some potentially interesting points in your review, it seems. I will know better when I've read the book myself.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
10/04/2009 4:22 am  

Gunther was originally a student of Marcelo Motta, he was David Bersson's first superior in the A.'.A.'. actually (which I guess makes us brothers... LOL) who had... surprise... a falling out with Motta (I think like 5 people didn't have a falling out with Motta). He was the highest ranked member of the A.'.A.'. under Motta, either a 4=7 or D.L. if I rightly recall (Kjetil?).

I think that maybe IAO has (no offense brother) missed that Gunther is writing a book on the system of the A.'.A.'. as the possible senior initiate of that brotherhood currently. The A.'.A.'. as laid out by Crowley that is. The Book of the Law does not say that the symbolism of the old Aeon is wrong etc. and many of them are eternal, not just restricted to the Osirian paradigm. The prophet purged them in theory as instructed for the system that Brother Gunther is laying out in his book, and some elements maintain a similar symbolism, with slight variance. Death is still a vital aspect of the new Aeon, it just has a different meaning. The Neophyte must learn to leave Osiris behind and that is what the Neophyte ritual represents in some ways, overcoming the old way of thinking and leaving it in the grave after you are ressurected.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
10/04/2009 7:56 am  
"uranus" wrote:
I think that maybe IAO has (no offense brother) missed that Gunther is writing a book on the system of the A.'.A.'. as the possible senior initiate of that brotherhood currently. The A.'.A.'. as laid out by Crowley that is.

Thank you uranus, for missing the shitstorm trigger by maybe just a hair, hopefully. 😉

Yes, with all due respect to brother IAO' (nice bright guy), there are a number of young and apparently intelligent and well educated people these days self-publishing in the Internet on the subject of Thelema with an air of authority and an obvious and pronounced lack of either, a) knowledge and experience with the post-Crowley background and history of the subject or, much worse, b) a lack of protracted in-depth experience with the internal processes inherent to the subject. (Superficial knowledge in this latter case probably being much worse than none at all.)

This was brought to my attention yet again recently while looking into why lashtal.com might have been blown off by the Wiki-geniuses, while they continue to make reference to the Internet publications or musings of brother IAO' and brother Erwin, as examples of categories a) and b) below, respectively.

In the case of category a), well, that is easily solved these days. One merely has to get out there and meet with some Thelemites of the various persuasions, elders preferred, and one can even do this without leaving the comfort of one's own laptop, although I don't recommend it for reliable observation or interaction. Four eyes together in one place are better than two pairs divided by the Internet. And if post-Crowley history is not relevant, then neither are our own contributions to it. The 'state of Thelema' today is required understanding for those who would add anything of value to it. In other words, if one doesn't know who the hell Gunther is, ask someone who does before reviewing his book.

In the case of category b), this requires real work and a conviction for discovering the truth, no matter how that might unsettle one's own preconceived notions or cause one to compromise one's own premature 'authoritative' posture. One can easily justify any conclusion on Thelema by extrapolation from Crowley, as with any other subject, by carefully selected reference to recognized authority and total disregard for even the most blatant contradictions to one's own initial postulate. What really matters, though, is whether or not the self-styled 'authority' in question has really been there, and has not just analyzed the various records left by those who have, producing a fanciful 'my favorite highlights' account of the real journey of others. How are we do know if someone has really been there? Only by going there ourselves, certainly. It takes one to know one.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5278
10/04/2009 1:54 pm  
"Camlion" wrote:
In other words, if one doesn't know who the hell Gunther is, ask someone who does before reviewing his book.

You make an in important point here, Camlion. There's an astonishing desire to publish reviews that are in effect being written while the reviewer is actually reading the book! I find this extraordinary. It presumes that the responses to the book by the reviewer are more important even than the contents of the book in the opinion of the reviewer. Hence IAO131's desire already to revise comments he made at the start of the review.

Now, I've been criticised in the past for the time it takes me to publish reviews here: Outside The Circles Of Time and Secret Agent 666 being perhaps the most delayed. But that's because these are serious works, worthy of background research and multiple re-reads before takng upon myself the frankly rather arrogant presumption of being qualified to comment with a view to influencing purchase. I'm on my second read of Gunther's book, for example, and am very pleased that I didn't express a package of opinions while reading the thing the first time!

And don't get me started on a discussion about what self-pronounced Wikipedia gatekeepers consider appropriate as "authoritative third-party references" especially as the basis on which LAShTAL.COM was blacklisted was that there are Forums here and that registration is required before accessing the Galleries. And that appears to make this a "spamming site"!

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
IAO131
(@iao131)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 461
10/04/2009 4:31 pm  
"Camlion" wrote:
"IAO131" wrote:
I'm speaking from the standpoint of someone not familiar with all of these symbols and Qabalistic correspondences (think of all of the humans on this earth who have never even heard of 'kabbalah' in any form... but couldn't they all benefit from the ideas in Thelema without explaining in that jargon?).

Yes, that vast majority would greatly benefit from the ideas in Thelema, but that presentation would be from another book or books. I believe that this book of Gunther's attempts to address the subject from its own admittedly narrower (if loftier) perspective, that of the Initiate, in the formal sense. No?

Perhaps, but I quote Hymenaeus Beta as claiming this book is good for beginners, and it never says anywhere in the book that "this is only for people who are already really familiar with Crowley" or "only for people already in the A.'.A>'. for a long time"... so no. I dont think he intended to "address the subject from its own admittedly narrower (if loftier) perspective." I could be wrong, but then H.B.'s claim is wrong (along with some mentions by Wasserman and such in the preface).

"Camlion" wrote:
"IAO131" wrote:
P.S. I have no hate or anything towards Gunther - I don't even know who he is really (I'd never heard of him before this book was publicized).

PS back at you: Just a suggestion, but some research into who an author is seems like a good idea before reviewing a book.

I cant imagine a less important point to focus on... Honestly, I know who he is now. I didnt know who he was before the book was published but Im well aware now that he is part of OTO and A A and such.

That way, you can better appreciate his perspective and the intended focus the book.

It says right in the book a few times too... Its not really a problem either - Im not sure why you perceive it as such.

Probably just a matter of limited length of experience with the 'Thelemic scene,' but that can be compensated for by some research. Also, I would advise doing the research elsewhere and not in open forum, so as to avoid a shitstorm of distraction and controversy.

First of all, I never asked for your strange advice. Second of all, you dont know what youre talking about. Third of all, Im not doing research in an open forum. Im posting a review to an open forum. Is this thread that unclear to you?

Otherwise, you make some potentially interesting points in your review, it seems. I will know better when I've read the book myself.

Otherwise than the fact I claimed to not know who Gunther was before his book was posted online? I dont even really understand your objections (if that is what they are) but oh well!

IAO131

"lashtal" wrote:
"Camlion" wrote:
In other words, if one doesn't know who the hell Gunther is, ask someone who does before reviewing his book.

You make an in important point here, Camlion. There's an astonishing desire to publish reviews that are in effect being written while the reviewer is actually reading the book!

Im not sure whos doing that but its not me. Im not sure why youd make that silly assumption either...?

I find this extraordinary. It presumes that the responses to the book by the reviewer are more important even than the contents of the book in the opinion of the reviewer.

Suppose someone WAS reviewing a book as they read it: how does that imply that their opinions are more important than the contents in any way, even in the view of the reviewer? I dont follow your logic in the least.

Hence IAO131's desire already to revise comments he made at the start of the review.

Revise what? Is it possible that I would revise something because I wrote it wrong, didnt understand it, thought I read something when I read another thing, new information came to light, etc.? Or am I supposd to be ultra-dogmatic and never change my opinion (after all, it would make me look quite confident!) Im not sure I understand the criticism, especially because its One. Big. Straw Man.

Now, I've been criticised in the past for the time it takes me to publish reviews here: Outside The Circles Of Time and Secret Agent 666 being perhaps the most delayed. But that's because these are serious works, worthy of background research and multiple re-reads before takng upon myself the frankly rather arrogant presumption of being qualified to comment with a view to influencing purchase.

Whoever criticized you for that needs to get a life.

I'm on my second read of Gunther's book, for example, and am very pleased that I didn't express a package of opinions while reading the thing the first time!

COngratulations! Ive read it twice, and in reviewing it Im essentially reading it three times. Are you even speaking abotu me in this review? If you are, you dont know what you are talking about, frankly and Im not sure why you bothered to write a whole post about how good it is to delay your opinion until reading a book all the way through and thats waht Ive done... twice.

And don't get me started on a discussion about what self-pronounced Wikipedia gatekeepers consider appropriate as "authoritative third-party references" especially as the basis on which LAShTAL.COM was blacklisted was that there are Forums here and that registration is required before accessing the Galleries. And that appears to make this a "spamming site"!

I wont, as I have no interest in that tangential subject...

As for 'authority' etc. to write reviews, I laugh heartily.

IAO131


ReplyQuote
IAO131
(@iao131)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 461
10/04/2009 4:37 pm  
"Camlion" wrote:
"uranus" wrote:
I think that maybe IAO has (no offense brother) missed that Gunther is writing a book on the system of the A.'.A.'. as the possible senior initiate of that brotherhood currently. The A.'.A.'. as laid out by Crowley that is.

Thank you uranus, for missing the shitstorm trigger by maybe just a hair, hopefully. 😉

Yes, with all due respect to brother IAO' (nice bright guy), there are a number of young and apparently intelligent and well educated people these days self-publishing in the Internet on the subject of Thelema with an air of authority and an obvious and pronounced lack of either, a) knowledge and experience with the post-Crowley background and history of the subject or, much worse, b) a lack of protracted in-depth experience with the internal processes inherent to the subject. (Superficial knowledge in this latter case probably being much worse than none at all.)

This was brought to my attention yet again recently while looking into why lashtal.com might have been blown off by the Wiki-geniuses, while they continue to make reference to the Internet publications or musings of brother IAO' and brother Erwin, as examples of categories a) and b) below, respectively.

In the case of category a), well, that is easily solved these days. One merely has to get out there and meet with some Thelemites of the various persuasions, elders preferred, and one can even do this without leaving the comfort of one's own laptop, although I don't recommend it for reliable observation or interaction. Four eyes together in one place are better than two pairs divided by the Internet. And if post-Crowley history is not relevant, then neither are our own contributions to it. The 'state of Thelema' today is required understanding for those who would add anything of value to it. In other words, if one doesn't know who the hell Gunther is, ask someone who does before reviewing his book.

In the case of category b), this requires real work and a conviction for discovering the truth, no matter how that might unsettle one's own preconceived notions or cause one to compromise one's own premature 'authoritative' posture. One can easily justify any conclusion on Thelema by extrapolation from Crowley, as with any other subject, by carefully selected reference to recognized authority and total disregard for even the most blatant contradictions to one's own initial postulate. What really matters, though, is whether or not the self-styled 'authority' in question has really been there, and has not just analyzed the various records left by those who have, producing a fanciful 'my favorite highlights' account of the real journey of others. How are we do know if someone has really been there? Only by going there ourselves, certainly. It takes one to know one.

You dont know me or Erwin (and you seem to have had a vendetta against the latter at certain points), and as far as I can tell you write nothing of your own beyond these posts. Your contributions to the internet and the Thelemic corpus consist in complaining about others on internet forums and telling others they should do X and Y if they want to be wiser, better, or more authoritative (am I wrong? how are my assumptions any different from your own about me?). Im sorry all of our writings do not pass the authority of your Highness but I know many people enjoy my writings, and I know many people enjoy Erwins (however much we may fight as brothers or as normal enemies). I know many people have benefitted from them, and many have benefitted from even taking the time to criticize them in an intelligent and honest fashion (instead of making stupid assumptions like we have no idea about 'post-Crowley' or about actual experiences, both of which are flat out wrong). If knowing who Gunther is is a prerequisite to writing about Thelema, then count me out of that deranged world.

It requires 'real work' you say but you sit and complain on an internet forum. Ive read a book at least 2 times, created a Journal from the mud of the earth, writing books myself, and doing other work for 'normal' life. What the heck do think this all is? Fake work?

IAO131


ReplyQuote
IAO131
(@iao131)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 461
10/04/2009 4:42 pm  

93,

Hence IAO131's desire already to revise comments he made at the start of the review.

]

If you are referring to the part where I wrote "Also- Im willing to change my views on certain parts of the review. At certain times I felt that I must've been missing something because of apparent jumping-to-conclusions and self-contradictions... I'd actually really appreciate it if people who have already read the Gunther book responded in that sense, though others would probably get a lot from reading it. "

Last time I checked thats called a shred of humility, i.e. "I could possibly be wrong or misunderstood." Perhaps a bit more of the attitude would help on these forums?

Im glad when people actually address certain points in the Review - thats quite helpful and productive - even if they disagree with my assessment as people already have. Its not productive when people start attacking the messenger, claiming the message has no authority, claiming the messenger is inexperienced, etc. How about looking at the content of the message instead of ad hominem about myself and people's silly assumptions about me? (lack of knowledge of who tis Gunther guy is = lack of knowledge of Thelema?? That is absolutely ridiculous. How does me not knowing who Gunther was affect the fact that he contradicts himself in his own book?)

Id even be willing to write a summary-review in 2 months if you think Im being 'hasty' or something, and I assure you none of my views will change (Ive read over everything at least 3x before I posted it in a review).

IAO131


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5278
10/04/2009 4:46 pm  
"IAO131" wrote:
As for 'authority' etc. to write reviews, I laugh heartily.

Er, good for you. But who was talking about "authority to write reviews"? I was talking about responsibilities and presumptuousness.

"IAO131" wrote:
Ive created a Journal from the mud of the earth

Splutter!

Talking of which, please remove the advertisement from your signature and writing three posts in a row as you dream your responses up is considered bad form. By me, that is.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
IAO131
(@iao131)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 461
10/04/2009 5:17 pm  
"lashtal" wrote:
"IAO131" wrote:
As for 'authority' etc. to write reviews, I laugh heartily.

Er, good for you. But who was talking about "authority to write reviews"? I was talking about responsibilities and presumptuousness.

That was me jumping back to Camlion for some reason - sorry about that confusing remark.

"lashtal" wrote:
"IAO131" wrote:
Ive created a Journal from the mud of the earth

Splutter! Talking of which, please remove the advertisement from your signature and writing three posts in a row as you dream your responses up is considered bad form. By me, that is.

Honestly, I thought combining those posts into a gigantic post would be unwieldy (I already combined 3 posts in one of them, I think), but if you insist Ill scrunch them together more. Am I breaking some guideline by including my websites in my signature?

IAO131


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5278
10/04/2009 6:46 pm  
"IAO131" wrote:
Am I breaking some guideline by including my websites in my signature?

I wouldn't have drawn attention to your signature if you weren't.

The cjb.net link is fine. The link to your site asking people to pay $25 for a 64 page pamphlet isn't. And, yes, I'm aware that alternative purchase plans are available.

And while I'm at it: any chance you could see a whole thread through without accusing others of "ad hominem" attacks and with complaining that others have introduced "straw men"? I think we've all read enough to realise that you're a wannabe Erwin in this regard.

He's still much better at it than you, by the way.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 2195
10/04/2009 8:28 pm  

93

Look, Thelemites are fighting -- it must be the third day of the writing. Or just any Friday afternoon. : )

I'm rather confused at the implication that knowledge of the "Thelemic scene" or "experience" is necessary to review a book.

In the first place, a book is a collection of ideas that stand or fall on their own, not the identity of the author. I would think that the fairest review would be one in which the reviewer knew absolutely nothing about the author so that the ideas of the book are reviewed on their own merit, rather than preconceived notions.

In the second place, the charge of "lack of experience" is only relevant when the reviewer uses his experience as the basis of critique. If you wrote a book about car repair, and I challenged it explicitly on the grounds that my experience of cars has led me to different conclusions, then my experience would be relevant. But if I just pointed out that you're not being consistent from chapter to chapter or not explaining your reasoning completely (or at odds with this other authority on car repair, without completely explaining the discrepancy), then my level of experience with cars would be irrelevant. Whether I'm a great mechanic or some shmoe off the street, the problem that I'm pointing to would still be entirely within the text.

Anyway, it seems like some of the points raised in IAO131's review would make good fodder for some serious discussion around here.

For example, the point about "death" in the New Aeon is, I think, really vital. The difference between the Old and New Aeons on this point, as I understand it, is that the New Aeon no longer conceives of death as a calamity to be overcome or set "right." Death is just another event, another experience in the continual growth of the child.

So symbols of death can still be used in the New Aeon -- it's just that the *conception* of them is radically different.

I'm reminded of one of Nietzsche's more pleasant aphorisms: "One should leave life as Odysseus left Nausicaa -- with a blessing, but not in love."

Have a good day, everyone.

93, 93/93


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
10/04/2009 9:04 pm  
"IAO131" wrote:
You dont know me or Erwin

Look kid, you went off half-cocked with your book review and I called you on it. (Your own lovers will be just as irritated with such immaturity in bed, so do take care.) I probably should not have included you with Hessle in the same set of remarks, but I was following the prevailing Wiki-wisdom and making the association based on that. However, in no way was I accusing you of being a potentially dangerous sociopath, I assure you.

Greetings on the third day of the writing, all!


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5278
10/04/2009 9:14 pm  
"Camlion" wrote:
Look kid, you went off half-cocked with your book review and I called you on it. (Your own lovers will be just as irritated with such immaturity in bed, so do take care.)

Any further remarks like that, Camlion, and it's your account that I'll be closing.

An apology to IAO131 would be appropriate...

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
10/04/2009 9:41 pm  
"lashtal" wrote:
"Camlion" wrote:
Look kid, you went off half-cocked with your book review and I called you on it. (Your own lovers will be just as irritated with such immaturity in bed, so do take care.)

Any further remarks like that, Camlion, and it's your account that I'll be closing.

An apology to IAO131 would be appropriate...

Of course, Paul, all due apologies offered to IAO'. I must endeavor in the coming new year to extend the limits of my own patience with regard to Internet intercourse, and I so resolve. Thanks for the reminder.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
10/04/2009 10:50 pm  
"Los" wrote:
93

Look, Thelemites are fighting -- it must be the third day of the writing. Or just any Friday afternoon. : )

I'm rather confused at the implication that knowledge of the "Thelemic scene" or "experience" is necessary to review a book.

In the first place, a book is a collection of ideas that stand or fall on their own, not the identity of the author. I would think that the fairest review would be one in which the reviewer knew absolutely nothing about the author so that the ideas of the book are reviewed on their own merit, rather than preconceived notions.

In the second place, the charge of "lack of experience" is only relevant when the reviewer uses his experience as the basis of critique. If you wrote a book about car repair, and I challenged it explicitly on the grounds that my experience of cars has led me to different conclusions, then my experience would be relevant. But if I just pointed out that you're not being consistent from chapter to chapter or not explaining your reasoning completely (or at odds with this other authority on car repair, without completely explaining the discrepancy), then my level of experience with cars would be irrelevant. Whether I'm a great mechanic or some shmoe off the street, the problem that I'm pointing to would still be entirely within the text.

Anyway, it seems like some of the points raised in IAO131's review would make good fodder for some serious discussion around here.

For example, the point about "death" in the New Aeon is, I think, really vital. The difference between the Old and New Aeons on this point, as I understand it, is that the New Aeon no longer conceives of death as a calamity to be overcome or set "right." Death is just another event, another experience in the continual growth of the child.

So symbols of death can still be used in the New Aeon -- it's just that the *conception* of them is radically different.

I'm reminded of one of Nietzsche's more pleasant aphorisms: "One should leave life as Odysseus left Nausicaa -- with a blessing, but not in love."

Have a good day, everyone.

93, 93/93

93 Los! Good to read you again, I've missed your valuable contributions to these forums recently. I respectfully disagree with your opinions as expressed above. One can often judge the review of a restaurant critic by the overwhelming impression that he couldn't boil an egg by himself if his life depended on it, or the sense that he has never actually dined at the restaurant in question.

To illustrate the contrast, I've decided to review for this forum your 'Thelemic atheism' piece published in IAO131's journal, at the kind suggestion of another. I have not yet read it, but will soon, at least twice - I promise. I do have a reasonable familiarly with the subject matter and have openly inquired of you in these forums about your own religious background, so as to have some idea of where you are coming from.

93 93/93
Cam


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
10/04/2009 11:29 pm  
"Los" wrote:
In the first place, a book is a collection of ideas that stand or fall on their own, not the identity of the author. I would think that the fairest review would be one in which the reviewer knew absolutely nothing about the author so that the ideas of the book are reviewed on their own merit, rather than preconceived notions

As Uranus noted Gunther is a senior initiate in the A.A. system which is based on the QBLH and Tree of Life (as opposed to, say, the OTO which is more Masonic/Germanic and based on alchemical triads.) This would explain why the book contains so much Hebrew and QBLH. IAO131 would have probably benefited from knowing the background before criticizing the book for this very fact (see comments under Table of Contents section).

The second death is found in all major religions so it would be interesting to hear the grounds for Gunther’s denial of it.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
10/04/2009 11:38 pm  

I could EASILY see how someone wouldn't know Daniel Gunther from Adam. He hasn't been a prolific author or even much of a contributor outside of a few pieces here and there. My own awareness of him is from David Bersson and Marcelo Motta's work, and even Motta didn't so much write about him as throw him in a pit with a man eating lion and hoped it was hungry. LOL

I got the book today and so far I have been enjoying the book, it isn't the fireworks that Kjetil has implied but then again, I am not done with it yet. Flipping through it though I am very much looking forward to reading the rest of the book and then reading it again. I do like that it isn't just rehashing what Crowley has written before, though it covers some ground covered before, but different aspects of it. It has really made me rethink some things and shown me things that should have been downright obvious as well. An excellent work so far. I prefer to (no offense) judge a work as a whole though and when I am done with it, I will post a review of my own.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 2195
11/04/2009 1:22 am  

93

Hi, Camlion. Thanks for the warm welcome back -- I've been busy lately.

"Camlion" wrote:
I respectfully disagree with your opinions as expressed above. One can often judge the review of a restaurant critic by the overwhelming impression that he couldn't boil an egg by himself if his life depended on it

I don't agree that a restaurant critic needs to be a cook himself, just as I don't agree that a film critic needs to have directed a film himself.

When we're talking about evaluating writing (i.e. the ways that ideas are presented), we're dealing with something far more objective than the way food tastes or the entertainment value of a film. The only experience that is absolutely necessary for such a review is the experience of reading the book (and, of course, the experience of thinking about it).

To illustrate the contrast, I've decided to review for this forum your 'Thelemic atheism' piece published in IAO131's journal [...] have openly inquired of you in these forums about your own religious background, so as to have some idea of where you are coming from.

I'd be delighted to hear your thoughts on my article, but I'd caution against trying to psychoanalyze me too much in it. I just don't want the review to read, "Well, of course he thinks such-and-such because he believed in Catholicism when he was five years old...There's that rebellion against Catholicism again!" Those familiar with Roland Barthes' "Death of the Author" will be aware of the drawbacks of relying on a writer's biography in reviewing his output. I'd be much more interested in an evaluation of my ideas, which must stand or fall on their own merits, apart from me.

"tai" wrote:
IAO131 would have probably benefited from knowing the background before criticizing the book for this very fact (see comments under Table of Contents section).

As I understand it, IAO131's criticism was not that the book contains Qabalah, but that its heavy reliance on Qabalah undermines its claim to be geared towards beginners.

It doesn't matter who the author is -- if someone (anyone) claims X and then writes with Y (let Y be something that you feel undermines X), then you may legitimately point that out (whether or not you have any idea who the author is). Now, we can then have a debate about whether Y actually does undermine X, but that's a different question....

Note: knowing the "Thelemic scene" may indeed help one in contributing something of value to Thelema, but the point I'm trying to establish is that such knowledge is not necessary (and definitely not necessary to comment on the presentation of ideas in someone's book). Criticizing IAO131 for not knowing this "Thelemic scene" is just silly. It would be better to engage his ideas. Like the idea about the "second death," for example....

The second death is found in all major religions so it would be interesting to hear the grounds for Gunther’s denial of it.

The "second death" (for Christians, at least) is being separated from the Christian god in some fasion. For many denominations, it refers to being tossed into the Lake of Fire, i.e. Hell. In some interpretations, it is not actually literal torture, but the annihilation of the soul. I'm not sure how the term is used in any other religions.

Assuming that Gunther is using the "second death" in this Christian way, I would say that denying it is self-evident, as it is superstitious nonsense unsupported by any evidence. (Those tabloid articles about miners drilling down to hell notwithstanding)

IAO131 suggests that the "second death" is not "repudiated," but "extended into a continual death" -- I think he might not be using "second death" in the same way as Gunther and/or the Christians. But indeed, if we take "the second death" to mean "the annihilation of the ego," and "Hell" to mean "the true self," we see that we can re-interpret those same symbols in a positive way.

I think it was George Carlin who said, "Those are just symbols, and I leave symbols to the symbol-minded."

It's interesting to note that in Thelema, the closest equivalent to the "second death" is becoming a Black Brother, one of the "eaters of dung in the Day of Be-With-Us." The notion of "restricting" oneself might also qualify as a kind of "second [or spiritual] death" -- except that instead of cutting you off from an imaginary divine being, it cuts you off from the glory of your own will. Recall the cloaked figures in Aethyr 7 who refuse to unveil themselves and partake in the beauty surrounding them.

Thelema doesn't have a concept of eternal perdition: it has a concept of screwing up and confusing your ego for your will, which is precisely what superstitious people tend to do.

93, 93/93


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
12/04/2009 5:47 pm  

Easter Greetings, Los. 😈

I can't help but think that you have inadvertently substantiated my own points, but I'm not sufficiently in the 'spirit of RHK' right now to feel compelled to rub it in. Suffice it to say that it is probably bad form not to know anything about an author's background before publishing a review of his book, and that at least a good familiarity with the 'language' in which a book is written should probably be a prerequisite. Opinions are like, well, you know, but a reasonably well informed opinion is expected of the book reviewer -at least by me. This is not to say that IAO' did not make a few seemingly interesting points, as I said earlier, I will know better when I have read the book myself.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
13/04/2009 1:58 am  
"Los" wrote:
As I understand it, IAO131's criticism was not that the book contains Qabalah, but that its heavy reliance on Qabalah undermines its claim to be geared towards beginners.

No doubt the book is “good for beginners”. But only those who make an effort may appreciate the irony.

To criticize Gunther’s book because QBLH comes from the Judeo-Christian tradition and therefore Old Aeon is reactionary and misses the whole point - the New Aeon does not negate the Old Aeon, but recovers the core gnosis and therefore the old rituals are abrogate and superseded. Horus vindicates the memory of Osiris. Take another look at the hexagram at the beginning of the book containing the Hebrew words for "Messiah" (MShICh) and the Serpent in Eden (NChSh).

On the other hand, IAO131’s objection touches on fundamental areas that require a more precise understanding of 1) the Aeon of Osiris and 2) the nature of the Tree of Life vis-à-vis aeonic succession. Crowley claims every new aeon requires a new classification of the universe and hints at a new configuration of the Tree in the Aeon of Horus (Book of Thoth, p. 95). I doubt anyone has the answers to these questions. What we do know is Crowley links the Aeon of Horus with the Last Judgement that indicates a aeonic shift more radical than the previous change from an agricultural matriarchal order to a sacrificial patriarchal order.

Crowley describes Atu XX, The Aeon, as follows:

The old card was called The Angel: or, The Last Judgement. It represented an Angel or Messenger blowing a trumpet, attached to which was a flag, bearing the symbol of the Aeon of Osiris. Below him the graves were opening, the dead rising up. (p. 115)

Nostradamus sees a similar image in Century X, quatrain 74:

The year of the great seventh number accomplished
It will appear at the times of the games of slaughter
Not far from the age of the great millennium
When the dead will come out of their graves

The end of the Aeon of Osiris sees the dead rising up or coming out of their graves. Recall Osiris is the archetypal mummy on whom all the Egyptian funerary rites were based, allowing everyone the possibility of entry into the afterlife, and therefore a Saviour-archetype. The Egyptians took extreme care to preserve information into the future, and allows us to reconstruct an ancient event thousands of years later. We know Set killed and dismembered Osiris - the question is why? A good guess is Osiris slept with Nephthys, the twin sister of Isis and wife of the sterile Set. If so, the real buried question that opens the path into the afterlife and sheds light on Egyptian funerary rites is - did Osiris know what he was doing when sleeping with his wife’s twin sister? Set’s action is understandable, the real mystery is Osiris.

Out of the union of Osiris and Nephthys is born Anubis, the god in charge of embalming, mummification and psychopompos of the dead. Anubis is in charge of preserving his father’s body, all earthly evidence, presiding over the opening of the mouth, that will later link with the question of ma kheru, whether the dead is “true of voice”, and the weighing of the heart to ascertain innocence.

The above allows a better understanding of the role of the New Aeon as vindicator of the Old Aeon. Osiris and Jesus are identical Saviour-archetypes and any distinction between them (“triumphant in spite of his suffering” vs. “became a god through his suffering”) sounds odd considering the Kerygma was one of non-sacrifice, gnosis and self-divinity (e.g. Matt 9:13, Luke 17:20, John 10:34).


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
21/05/2009 12:31 pm  

Yeah, I read this book over the course of a day(yesterday).
keep in mind this book is from the AA side of things and not the OTO side.
A lot of the book repeats the three Aeons (M,F and child) and the dying God Mythos.formulas over and over in a myrid of ways, when a few pages would have sufficed., and which would have left room for more material.
Lots of Qabalah in there and pseudo christian/gnostic influences on Thelema and such, a few goodies here and there-but over all, hmm....good enough to borrow,not to buy.


ReplyQuote
Tiger
(@tiger)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 1427
21/05/2009 1:10 pm  

As a beginner and one not knowing the "Thelemic scene"

It had an old Aeonic feel to it and lacked Creative Genius which can be found in Grant.

I was disappointed.

To blame Motta for being an alcoholic. seems like a weak excuse.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
21/05/2009 5:15 pm  
"Tiger" wrote:
As a beginner and one not knowing the "Thelemic scene"

It had an old Aeonic feel to it and lacked Creative Genius which can be found in Grant.

I was disappointed.

To blame Motta for being an alcoholic. seems like a weak excuse.

That is an interesting observation coming from your perspective as "a beginner and one not knowing the Thelemic scene," Tiger. The comparison of Gunther's writings to Grant's, I mean. Are you familiar with the doctrinal divergence represented by their differing perspectives, as they relate to Thelemic aeonics and such?

On the completely unrelated point concerning Motta's use of alcohol, or any other person's use of any other chemical, for that matter, do you not see this as potentially effecting their mental processes or their behavior?


ReplyQuote
Tiger
(@tiger)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 1427
21/05/2009 8:17 pm  

Hi Camlion,

No I haven't figured out the differences yet.

It seems Grant is more creative and not limited to the Aeon of Horus.

Yes I think substance ab(use) does effect the mental processes but truly I believe that I am responsible for my experience and could care less about being expelled or validated.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
21/05/2009 8:31 pm  
"Tiger" wrote:
No I haven't figured out the differences yet.

It seems Grant is more creative and not limited to the Aeon of Horus.

Well, it seems to me that you are well on your way to figuring it out. 🙂

I am a 'first things first' sort of person, myself, but I do not begrudge others their indulgence of the foreshadowings of things yet to come when more of the human race has evolved to the stage of apprehending and assimilating them.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
21/05/2009 11:42 pm  
"Tiger" wrote:
To blame Motta for being an alcoholic. seems like a weak excuse.

They aren't blaming him being an alcoholic! You can see where they are coming from if you look over Motta's work. The question is whether you accept their view or not...


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
22/05/2009 1:06 am  
"uranus" wrote:
"Tiger" wrote:
To blame Motta for being an alcoholic. seems like a weak excuse.

They aren't blaming him being an alcoholic! You can see where they are coming from if you look over Motta's work. The question is whether you accept their view or not...

I'm not entirely sure who's been drinking, but to misspell your Instructor's name [see page 16] after at lest three ex-students proofed the book is very telling.


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1814
22/05/2009 2:14 am  

It seems Grant is more creative and not limited to the Aeon of Horus

It seems to me that Mr. Grant isn't limited to the constraints of a CONCEPT. There is a remarkable organic flexibility in his writings and if one allows an idea (or the symbol-set which conveys that idea) to ossify, Grant appears to trangress cherished dogma. In reality, his embrace of the "Aeon of Horus" is quite profound and sidesteps the tendencies to read this in terms of typical religious psychology.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
22/05/2009 10:22 am  

I'm on my second read through of the book at the moment. I think it's quite good although there's a lot in it that I should have figured out for myself if the brain wasn't clouded by the smog of the West.

I think the book is for beginners in the sense of A.'.A.'. Probationers or people who are starting to approach that system, not beginners in the sense of just starting to read basic books on Magick or neo-paganism.

The proofreading does seem to have been done by a blind donkey tho.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
22/05/2009 2:58 pm  

It seems Grant is more creative and not limited to the Aeon of Horus

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
Grant appears to trangress cherished dogma.

Or to prematurely transcend essential doctrine and the formulae necessary to it, perhaps?

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
In reality, his embrace of the "Aeon of Horus" is quite profound and sidesteps the tendencies to read this in terms of typical religious psychology.

Sidestepping, certainly, but how does Grant "embrace" the Aeon of Horus?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
22/05/2009 3:23 pm  
"nashimiron" wrote:
I think the book is for beginners in the sense of A.'.A.'. Probationers or people who are starting to approach that system, not beginners in the sense of just starting to read basic books on Magick or neo-paganism.

I would agree with this to a certain extent, which is why I made a fuss earlier in this thread about it being important to know the background of Mr. Gunther in relation to approaching his book.


ReplyQuote
Tiger
(@tiger)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 1427
22/05/2009 3:53 pm  

how does Grant "embrace" the Aeon of Horus?

To me he opens the play ground.


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1814
22/05/2009 4:01 pm  

Or to prematurely transcend essential doctrine and the formulae necessary to it

LOL! This seems to be a running critique in several of your posts, Cam. Can you provide any evidence, citations or background for why you tend towards this view? Just because KG's work comprises a very detailed and elaborate exploration of themes described in Trans-Aeonic terms does not at all imply a shirking of the

essential doctrine

As to your question

how does Grant "embrace" the Aeon of Horus?

I will need to get back to you later on today with some specific citations as I'm not by my bookshelf...however, we will find the Law of Thelema openly proclaimed and regarded as the essential foundation for KG's Typhonian Traffick. Does this imply that such studies and practices are to be everyone's cup of proverbial tea? Of course not. But for those who find the specialized areas of Typhonian Magick to be relevant to their individual Questings, we shall find it well rooted in the basics of Thelema (similar to how Grant's work with the "Nightside" and the "Tree of Death" is explicitly connected to a solid grounding the "Magick of the Light" and the "Tree of Life." See the very clear and concise Intro to Nightside of Eden for his perspective on this...)

But perhaps this topic belongs to a new thread so as not to detract from the Gunther book being discussed.

93,

Kyle


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
22/05/2009 5:37 pm  
"kidneyhawk" wrote:

Or to prematurely transcend essential doctrine and the formulae necessary to it

LOL! This seems to be a running critique in several of your posts, Cam. Can you provide any evidence, citations or background for why you tend towards this view? Just because KG's work comprises a very detailed and elaborate exploration of themes described in Trans-Aeonic terms does not at all imply a shirking of the

essential doctrine

As to your question

how does Grant "embrace" the Aeon of Horus?

I will need to get back to you later on today with some specific citations as I'm not by my bookshelf...however, we will find the Law of Thelema openly proclaimed and regarded as the essential foundation for KG's Typhonian Traffick. Does this imply that such studies and practices are to be everyone's cup of proverbial tea? Of course not. But for those who find the specialized areas of Typhonian Magick to be relevant to their individual Questings, we shall find it well rooted in the basics of Thelema (similar to how Grant's work with the "Nightside" and the "Tree of Death" is explicitly connected to a solid grounding the "Magick of the Light" and the "Tree of Life." See the very clear and concise Intro to Nightside of Eden for his perspective on this...)

But perhaps this topic belongs to a new thread so as not to detract from the Gunther book being discussed.

93,

Kyle

I do appreciate your input, Kyle, and your sense of humor, as always. Also, I do not think that a comparison of Gunther's perspective to that of Grant is necessarily off-topic at all, as they are strictly 'aeon-oriented,' and 'aeon-disoriented,' respectively, and the comparison is quite enlightening, I think.

For purposes of my expressing what you refer to as my own "running critique," I think that resorting to another discussion the "Nightside" and the "Tree of Death" vis-a-vis the "Magick of the Light" and the "Tree of Life" would be more of a hindrance than a help.

I am mostly a pragmatist of sorts when it comes to aeonics. While my head may be 'Elsewhere' at times, I try to keep my feet firmly on the ground at the same time, like a good Adept of Horus should. 😉 Balance is everything. As I see it, the Aeon of Horus will approach fulfillment when Do what thou wilt is the whole of the Law, at least to the extent that it is a dominant worldview for a significant percentage of the world's population, something approaching what old aeon monotheism is now or what older aeon polytheism was before it. This will, in effect, merge monotheism with polytheism in the deification of each and every individual, each Star.

An ambitious project and a lengthy process? Yes. This is why am rather loathe to see it distracted from or diminished by "Trans-Aeonics" and the like, and this only because some of these things tend to be misrepresented at times as being somehow foundational to the Aeon of Horus, which I fail to see being the case. I am hoping that you can enlighten me when you get to your bookshelves.


ReplyQuote
Palamedes
(@palamedes)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 450
22/05/2009 5:58 pm  

Just to step in for a moment, I think that the Aeonic progression is not polytheism > monotheism > Horus > Ma'at, but rather Mother > Father > Child > Woman Satisfied (or, Double-Wanded One, or Harmony or ...). Patriarchy is / was dominant in both monotheism (Xtianity, Islam, Judaism, Sikhism) and polytheism (ancient Greece, Rome, India, China...). Aside from that, I am in no position to spell a judgment value with respect to the issue. Crowley took Aeons as historical facts and he obviously meant that the Reign of the Crowned and Conquering Child is a social event or program or ideal, as you will. Grant seems to take Aeons more as psychological / spiritual states, somewhat comparable to what Jung occasionally wrote on the similar subject. I understand Grant to be more inner-oriented, with no social program involved, and while this (inner exploration) is admirable in itself, I think that the times need a stronger medicine against our ills than that.


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1814
22/05/2009 6:39 pm  

Camlion-

I think Iskandar hits the nail on the head quite nicely when he states

Crowley took Aeons as historical facts and he obviously meant that the Reign of the Crowned and Conquering Child is a social event or program or ideal, as you will. Grant seems to take Aeons more as psychological / spiritual states

It is an approach to symbols. I would add, however, that KG is also very Ontological in his treatment of Aeonics. His concern with Being, Non-Being and so on address mystical states of awareness which place the

social event or program or ideal

in context of a Cosmic process.

I will slightly disagree with Iskandar where he writes

I think that the times need a stronger medicine against our ills than that

only to the extent that such a statement indicates a disconnection between one's "inner" work and one's participation in the "outer" world of human relationships, society, politics and so on. We bring what we are to the table, so to speak. And "Do What Thou Wilt" is very relevant to how we cultivate and liberate what we are.

I think your description of

'aeon-oriented,' and 'aeon-disoriented,' respectively

is a bit slanted, with unfavorable implications pre-loaded. I could retort with "aeon restricted" vs. "aeon-unrestricted." But this type of pitting one perspective against another isn't useful at all. I'm far more interested in those lines of communication which link the differing ideas under the same symbols.

"Trans-Aeonics" has been a very wonderful and personally liberating approach to the Mysteries for myself. It has nothing to do with forcing the "Aeon of Maat" prematurely into the "Aeon of Horus" or getting all discombobulated in a mish-mash of confused categories. It is, quite simply, a methodology for map-making, which has been very useful and very practical for my purposes.

Balance is everything

I find no contention between this statement and Grant's approach whatsoever.

As I see it, the Aeon of Horus will approach fulfillment when Do what thou wilt is the whole of the Law, at least to the extent that it is a dominant worldview for a significant percentage of the world's population

Which may or may not happen...even Crowley indicates that this scenario is up to us to fly with or flub up. But the

Do what thou wilt is the whole of the Law

CAN be realized and made manifest in our individual lives, through an infinitude of channels, whereby we radiate that same influence and direction into our outward world in "pragmatic" ways.

Still away from the books, Cam, but I simply wished to do Grant the justice of directly citing his work with regards to the Law of Thelema. Again, for those whose personal path is inclined towards the magick and mysticism of Typhonia, I do not at all see how it "diminishes" the core message of Liber AL. For myself, it has only enhanced it.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
22/05/2009 9:07 pm  
"Iskandar" wrote:
Just to step in for a moment, I think that the Aeonic progression is not polytheism > monotheism > Horus > Ma'at, but rather Mother > Father > Child > Woman Satisfied (or, Double-Wanded One, or Harmony or ...). Patriarchy is / was dominant in both monotheism (Xtianity, Islam, Judaism, Sikhism) and polytheism (ancient Greece, Rome, India, China...). Aside from that, I am in no position to spell a judgment value with respect to the issue. Crowley took Aeons as historical facts and he obviously meant that the Reign of the Crowned and Conquering Child is a social event or program or ideal, as you will. Grant seems to take Aeons more as psychological / spiritual states, somewhat comparable to what Jung occasionally wrote on the similar subject. I understand Grant to be more inner-oriented, with no social program involved, and while this (inner exploration) is admirable in itself, I think that the times need a stronger medicine against our ills than that.

Hey, Iskandar,

I happen to agree regarding that "stronger medicine" and with action over inaction, by and for those who Will, but the fact remains that for the Law of Thelema to 'work' the onus is on the individual either way, one by one. By whatever means the Will is known and/or done by each individual does not really concern me, and if Grant's work helps with that for some folks, more power to it. I do also agree with Michael Staley, for example, when he says that there is value for some in demonstrating Thelema by quieter personal example alone, although I am rather impatient with any suggestion of apparent complacency, in general.

I personally prefer the "polytheism/monotheism/merger of those into self-deification/whatever comes next" model to the "mommy/daddy/me/whatever comes next" model with regard to illustrating Thelemic aeonics. This is mostly due to the fact that I find it to be clearer and that many of the people that I discuss Thelema with can better relate to it this way. I move in some circles where esoteric initiatory formulae are less than familiar, so I am happy to leave that to Mr. Gunther & Co. I prefer that Thelema seek a broader scope in both audience and application, in any case.

Obviously, I agree with Crowley that aeons are factual historical phases of human evolution (initiatory/spiritual/magical/religious or what have you), but not that they can be measured in as neat and tidy a bundle one would hope, unfortunately. They overlap, skip about, scatter, splatter and mingle in a very messy fashion over time, place and people.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
22/05/2009 9:23 pm  
"kidneyhawk" wrote:
I think your description of

'aeon-oriented,' and 'aeon-disoriented,' respectively

is a bit slanted, with unfavorable implications pre-loaded. I could retort with "aeon restricted" vs. "aeon-unrestricted." But this type of pitting one perspective against another isn't useful at all. I'm far more interested in those lines of communication which link the differing ideas under the same symbols.

I think this has been a very nice and productive little discussion of aeonics from a couple of different perspectives, Kyle, as inspired by the subject of Mr. Gunther's book. No offense intended by my comment above, either, and I am perfectly happy with the concept of being "aeon restricted," for that matter. I am also happy with the concept of being "true Will restricted," as those are the facts.

Please do let me know if anything interesting jumps out of the bookshelves at you later. 🙂


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
26/05/2009 1:26 pm  

Having just read the book over the weekend, i am not going to give any review on it.

But i have some questions.

What was Gunther's writing trying to impress on the reader? And was his writing successful in that task?

Was Gunther's excessive use of the Christian Bible's Old and New Testament to make points on Thelema justified? His use of the Christian Bible to explain his points confused me somewhat. At moments it felt like Gunther was arguing for the benefits Christian theology to the detriment of his case for accepting Thelema.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
26/05/2009 3:57 pm  

What Gunther seems to me to be trying to express is the outer order initiatory elements of the A.'.A.'. and the symbolism therein. I think he was very successful but this is also a book meant to be studied and applied through years of magickal practice and initiations. Each chapter is attributed to a Hebrew letter and therefore a path on the TOL. Read the book again in that perspective & you will unlock even more "secrets" in the book and even more understanding. As to the use of the Bible in the book, much of Thelema is based on Biblical visions and the Book of the Law & the other Class A texts are a continuation of those traditions, along with Islam etc. If you re-examine Gunther's book you will find much of it focuses on Revelations, which is the whole basis of Crowley's work. Other quotes are from Old testament prophets and not the later Christian gospels.

Revelations is so important because it lays the foundations of the New Aeon, revealing the symbolism that will be used by Crowley & the roles he would embrace as the Prophet. In order to understand that role & that vision you have to understand Revelations & its initiated interpretation. Gunther is unveiling that interpretation. Thelemites have come to knee jerk with the Bible, which is something Gunther examines in the chapter that discusses Osiris as a Black God. He isn't overt about it, it is a between the line thing. Many Thelemites assume that the Osirian symbol system is simply black, evil & corrupt but Thelemites are quick to judge the symbols without looking into the symbol itself. Like looking at a Swastika and forgetting that it was a symbol of peace & Tibetan Buddhism before Hitler corrupted it in the eyes of the modern person. Iao131's review makes a similar knee jerk reaction to the symbol of the Rosycross on the cover, he didn't see the changes in the symbol and made a judgement call without looking deeper into what he was looking at!


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1814
26/05/2009 4:24 pm  

Uranus-

Nice post...and its good to see the "knee jerk" being called for what it is. If we are to apply the "method of science" to the "aim of religion," we certainly need to rise above the rather fundamentalist tendency to pit religious symbol sets against each other. I'm not saying that Thelema asks for a warm and fuzzy embrace of all things in some egalitarian inclusiveness, but there are levels and depths in the entirety of the human religious expression and experience which tend to get trundled over as we find a comfort zone in an exclusive preference for a given set. This may not only be indicative of a surface dismissal of those texts and symbols we don't "like" but of a surface embrace of those things which we emphatically extol (Liber AL etc).

This aspect of the dialogue has certainly aroused my interest in Gunther's book, which I am now quite interested in reading!

93,

Kyle


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
26/05/2009 8:04 pm  

Hi Uranus.

I am not taking issue with your stance.

In my opinion Gunther's style of writing and philosophy has more in common with a Golden Dawn style of Hermetic Chrisitanity than anything that could be described has an "original Thelemic text". If anything i thought the book was a lovely tribute to the old school writing of Israel Regardie.

I just find it curious that Gunther used an extensive amount of Christian material (not just the Book of Revelation) to argue his point on supposed Thelemic points. To me it was a bit "hit and miss".


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
26/05/2009 8:04 pm  

In the heat of the moment, while we busy ourselves with rejecting the despised and obscene elements of the aeon just passed, it is very easy to lose balanced perspective of the aeonic progression as a whole. There is a perfect continuity to it, however. When reading Mr. Gunther's book, which is not flawless by any means, IMO, I would advise that one step back and invoke balanced historical perspective as best as one can.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
27/05/2009 12:14 am  

I see no contradiction between "Do What Thou Wilt" and Jesus' statement of "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil". The mandate for gnosis behind the Old Aeon and New Aeon remains the same.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
27/05/2009 12:48 am  
"hawthornrussell" wrote:
Hi Uranus.

I am not taking issue with your stance.

In my opinion Gunther's style of writing and philosophy has more in common with a Golden Dawn style of Hermetic Chrisitanity than anything that could be described has an "original Thelemic text". If anything i thought the book was a lovely tribute to the old school writing of Israel Regardie.

I just find it curious that Gunther used an extensive amount of Christian material (not just the Book of Revelation) to argue his point on supposed Thelemic points. To me it was a bit "hit and miss".

Well, like I said, it is about the A.'.A.'. system of initiation, which has as it's basis the Golden Dawn system. Outside of how the grade work is laid out, the system is not all that different. Completion of the outer order work of the old GD for example is completed in the 2=9 degree which is roughly equivalent to the Neophyte Adeptus Minor of the old Order. Much of the symbolism is going to be the same. Also the book doesn't claim to be an original Thelemic text, it is a guide to the symbolism of the Orthodox A.'.A.'. system... in whiter words, Crowley's vision of the Order and here for the first time we are being given a bit of insight into the unwritten and/or unpublished aspects of Crowley's teachings. Gunther is trying to help bring the A.'.A.'. back to the vision of Crowley after that vision was lost with his death in 1947, similar to how the OTO is trying to implement the OTO as laid out in the Blue Equinox. You are free to disagree with Gunther. There are parts of the book where at this stage in my development I do not think I agree with but like I said it is a book meant for the student to study over the years and develop different levels of understanding based on their experiences, similar to Grant's work. This isn't a book like Lon Duquette's work which are meant to be read & possibly set aside upon first ingestion. Not to say that Lon is a bad writer or any such thing, just that this is a different type of work than the sort that Lon creates, magnificent works that are meant for the new student to read and begin the work with. Initiation in the Aeon of the Child is meant to be a part of your for years to come!

Secondly, he wasn't using Christianity to hammer home points about Thelema, it was to illustrate certain symbolism of the A.'.A.'. and how it is still relevant to the New Aeon. I am starting to sound like a broken record though, as I said, you can disagree with Gunther infinitely, nothing wrong with that at all.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
25/07/2010 6:53 pm  

93,

"666TSAEB" wrote:
"uranus" wrote:
"Tiger" wrote:
To blame Motta for being an alcoholic. seems like a weak excuse.

They aren't blaming him being an alcoholic! You can see where they are coming from if you look over Motta's work. The question is whether you accept their view or not...

I'm not entirely sure who's been drinking, but to misspell your Instructor's name [see page 16] after at lest three ex-students proofed the book is very telling.

Oh, the extra L .... Is it possible that an "English iteration" of his name would contain two L's? I know in Spanish the presence of two L's side-by-side indicate a "short y" sound. But in English (at least American English), the two L's have a similar sound as one L.

I would be pissed of someone misspelled my name though.

The book does have a few typos, but when putting down the lens of a grammar nazi, I have really enjoyed this book so far.

Thread necromancy.

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
Page 2 / 2
Share: