Notifications
Clear all

Magickal UFOs  

Page 3 / 3
  RSS

 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
12/10/2011 3:16 am  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
It's my view that True Will is cosmic, not individual; akin to the Tao. I'm aware from numerous past posts that your view is otherwise, thank you all the same.

Michael, I do not agree with Los on this question, but he is out of his depth here and Kyle is handling him quite well.

I have a problem with either your meaning or your articulation above, however.

Firstly, if true Will is akin to the Dao, and we already had Daoism, what did we need Thelema for?

Secondly, cannot true Will be BOTH cosmic AND individual? You are having trouble with the ZERO EQUALS TWO equation again, it seems, insisting that ZERO DOES NOT EQUAL TWO.

Thirdly, in what we call 'Thelema,' the word for That to which you refer is "LASHTAL," not "THELEMA." "LASHTAL is akin to the Dao" would make more sense. THELEMA is the word of the Law. (See Liber 777, Column clxxxvii; Key 0; and Liber V, text following ritual.)

Please advise. Thanks.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
12/10/2011 3:30 am  
"Camlion" wrote:
Firstly, if true Will is akin to the Dao, and we already had Daoism, what did we need Thelema for?

I would put True Will, or the little cut-out piece of the yard stick, into a nice fit with the Dao, when both are represented by Kether. Maybe, one or more parties have problems with Will and Dao both being represented by Kether (?).

We needed Thelema because my Engrish not so good, and my Mandarin (or whatever language is used) is even worse. And of course, the West had really been lacking in the subject for oh, a few thousand years.

It's been studied quite abundantly in the East, though, which I'm sure you know.

Two pennies.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
12/10/2011 5:10 am  

EDIT (for clarification)

Thirdly, in what we call 'Thelema,' the word for That to which you refer is "LASHTAL," not "THELEMA" (true Will). "LASHTAL is akin to the Dao" would make more sense. THELEMA (true Will) is the word of the Law. (See Liber 777, Column clxxxvii; Key 0; and Liber V, text following ritual.)

Please advise. Thanks.


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1892
12/10/2011 6:05 am  

Cam-

You question:

"Firstly, if true Will is akin to the Dao, and we already had Daoism, what did we need Thelema for?"

This is-IMO-a very important inquiry. Taoism originated in the so-called "Aeon of Isis." The "Horusian" attitude tends to be one of knee-jerk rejection of anything "Osirian" (let alone what came before). Yet, Crowley has no issue with tipping his hat to the great masterminds of bygone eras. Liber Aleph is a prime example.

ALL of these great movements (inaugurated by their sundry Magi) retain relevance to the modern age. Again, Liber Aleph is clear on this. The twist, however, is that they require a new degree of integration with the progressive development of consciousness.

We have debated in other threads, for example, how Crowley was-or was not-unique as a religious/philosophical thinker. One thing is certain: even if we can trace AC's "sources" in so much that came before, he was a unique and poetic human creature who pushed the integration of these sources into both his individual human life and the modern era. He built his own system from the bricks he discovered and used it to exemplify a way to what we call "Attainment" (while walking that Way himself).

"Taoism," for the modern, will, of necessity, be very different from that of Lao Tzu (if only because of the "external" conditions we endeavor to realize it within). AC is a truly great proponent of this endeavor-but he is also an syncretic thinker who is showing how the previous paved paths may intersect, form a grand byway and lead us to whatever "next step" is required as human beings who are driven to push the envelope beyond what is "predestined."

I apologize to Shiva (who must be thinking "Good God! This thread is about Magical UFOs-!") but these considerations form the groundwork for a serious investigation of the phenomena.

Even Christianity is treated from the "enlightened" perspective of the "Master Therion." The baby should never be tossed out with the bathwater. It's all about cutting through the encrustations of temporal error to get at the kernel of eternal truth.

In this sense, I believe AC looked back upon and brought Taoism into the problems of the modern era as part of our spiritual heritage. He also extended that heritage beyond sectarian borders. This, I think, is very important. It not only helps our personal explorations into life but addresses the very difficult problems that assault us a species, divided as we are into "nations" and "sectarian" beliefs.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
12/10/2011 8:31 am  
"Shiva" wrote:
➡ I initiated this thread in order to bring attention to certain magickal artifacts and their general relation to an escape hatch known as the outer gateway. We can discus it 'til we're mauve in the face, but the establishment of dogma about who's responsible will result in unstable forumitis.

It appears to be time to take that exit.

Thanks for playing. Have fun in area 51. 🙂


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
12/10/2011 1:23 pm  
"kidneyhawk" wrote:
In this sense, I believe AC looked back upon and brought Taoism into the problems of the modern era as part of our spiritual heritage. He also extended that heritage beyond sectarian borders. This, I think, is very important. It not only helps our personal explorations into life but addresses the very difficult problems that assault us a species, divided as we are into "nations" and "sectarian" beliefs.

I'm not sure AC brought Daoism into the problems of the modern era as much as one might give him credit for.

Daoism and Confucianism went back and forth over for thousands of years being a central part of Chinese government, finally to be suppressed in 1950 with the beginning of the People's Republic of China, or communism.

Of course, in 1950 Crowley was dead, so his history books would have only showed the back and forth between Daosim and Confucianism, and not the communism we now know. How could he bring back something that, according to when he lived, had never left?


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 4094
12/10/2011 2:19 pm  
"Camlion" wrote:
Firstly, if true Will is akin to the Dao, and we already had Daoism, what did we need Thelema for?

In the first place, the parallels between Taoism and Thelema are not some eccentricity of mine, but were articulated by Crowley, particularly in Liber 157, his rearrangement of and commentary upon Legge's translation of the Tao Teh Ching which he completed during his retirement on Aesopus Island in 1918. Because there are parallels does not mean that they are identical; it does not mean that since we have Taoism, therefore we don't need Thelema.

Although it might seem a little off-topic here, I can draw an analogy with Spare in this respect. There are parallels between his philosophy of the Zos and the Kia on the one hand, and Taoism on the other. Spare was very interested in Taoism from an early age, and the Yin-Yang symbol occurs from time to time in his early drawings and paintings, some of which depict images upsurging from depths of consciousness into the artist's imagination, thence to incarnate. Rather than simply become a Taoist, Spare used it as one influence amongst several to synthesise what emerged in The Book of Pleasure as Zos Kia. Similarly, Crowley would have found parallels where he considered them useful, and disregarded the rest.

"Camlion" wrote:
Secondly, cannot true Will be BOTH cosmic AND individual? You are having trouble with the ZERO EQUALS TWO equation again, it seems, insisting that ZERO DOES NOT EQUAL TWO.

True Will is cosmic in the sense that it originates beyond the individual, and individual in the sense that it is refracted, elaborated, developed and expressed through and by the individual; we're not puppets on a string. When stating that True Will is cosmic rather than individual, I'm doing so to distance myself from the notion that True Will is something buried deep within the individual and thus solely an individual phenomena. I have never had trouble with the 0=2 equation, and neither am I having trouble here.

"Camlion" wrote:
Thirdly, in what we call 'Thelema,' the word for That to which you refer is "LASHTAL," not "THELEMA" (true Will). "LASHTAL is akin to the Dao" would make more sense. THELEMA (true Will) is the word of the Law. (See Liber 777, Column clxxxvii; Key 0; and Liber V, text following ritual.)

It may be that you are right on this; I haven't analysed it to the extent that you have. As far as Thelema being described in Liber AL as the word of the Law is concerned, after Crowley had attained to the grade of Magus, he decided that Thelema was the Word of the Aeon. However, I was using Thelema to describe the magical and mystical "system" or philosophy, not a word or Word per se. A bit slipshod of me, I expect.

Best wishes,

Michael.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
12/10/2011 4:55 pm  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
When stating that True Will is cosmic rather than individual, I'm doing so to distance myself from the notion that True Will is something buried deep within the individual and thus solely an individual phenomena.

Just to be clear, Crowley consistently presented the true will as something buried deep within the individual and thus solely an individual phenomenon. A few quotes, with emphasis added:

"But the 'Small Person' of Hindu mysticism, the Dwarf insane yet crafty of many legends in many lands, is also this same 'Holy Ghost', or Silent Self of a man, or his Holy Guardian Angel. He is almost the 'Unconscious' of Freud, unknown, unaccountable, the silent Spirit, blowing 'whither it listeth, but thou canst not tell which it cometh or whither it goeth'....So also our own Silent Self, helpless and witless, hidden within us, will spring forth, if we have craft to loose him to the Light, spring lustily forward with his cry of Battle, the Word of our True Wills. This is the Task of the Adept, to have the Knowledge and Conversation of His Holy Guardian Angel, to become aware of his nature and his purpose, fulfilling them." - New Comment to AL I, 7

"Our minds and bodies are veils of the Light within. The uninitiate is a 'dark star,' and the Great Work for him is to make his veils transparent by 'purifying' them. This 'purification' is really 'simplification'; it is not that the veil is dirty, but that the complexity of its folds make it opaque. The Great Work therefore consists principally in the solution of complexes." - New Comment to AL I, 8

"Now initiation is, by etymology, the journeying inwards; it is the Voyage of Discovery (oh Wonder-World!) of one's own Soul...Each of us, as he grows, learns Repression of himself and his true Will. 'It is a lie, this folly against self.': these Words are written in The Book of the Law. So therefore those Passions in ourselves which we understand to be Hindrances are not part of our True Will, but diseased Appetites, manifested in us through false early Training...Give Ear, give Ear attentively; the Will is not lost; though it be buried beneath a life-old midden of Repressions, for it persisteth vital within thee (is it not the true Motion of thine inmost Being?)...For that Will, being always present, albeit (it may be) latent, discovereth himself when no longer inhibited by that conscious Control which is determined by Environment, and therefore of times contrary to himself." - Liber Aleph

"It should go without saying that until the Magician has attained to the Knowledge and Conversation of his Holy Guardian Angel he is liable to endless deceptions. He does not know Himself; how can he explain his business to others?" - Magick in Theory and Practice [equating KC of the HGA with knowledge of the self]

"The sincere student will discover, behind the symbolic technicalities of this 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. He must behold his soul in all its awful nakedness, he must not fear to look on that appalling actuality. He must discard the gaudy garments with which his shame has screened him; he must accept the fact that nothing can make him anything by what he is. He may lie to himself, drug himself, hide himself; but he is always there. Magick will teach him that his mind is playing him traitor." - Magick in Theory and Practice

"This being so, the Adept will be free to concentrate his deepest self, that part of him which unconsciously orders his true Will, upon the realization of his Holy Guardian Angel. The absence of his bodily, mental and astral consciousness is indeed cardinal to success, for it is their usurpation of his attention which has made him deaf to his Soul, and his preoccupation with their affairs that has prevented him from perceiving that Soul." - Liber Samekh

"Genius - or Initiation, which implies the liberation and development of the genius latent in us all (is not one of the names of the "Holy Guardian Angel" the Genius?)" - Magick Without Tears
_______________________________________

The true will “originates from beyond the individual” in the sense that the things an individual wills are caused by other things which were caused by other things which, if we wanted to, we could trace back to the very beginning of time, but it’s nothing more than the inexorable motion of blind, purposeless natural forces.

But “True Will” – if it’s going to mean anything at all, and if it’s going to be the basis of a practical philosophy – has to refer to a specific thing in that cosmos of forces, and it does: it refers to the natural inclinations buried in an individual. Crowley couldn’t be any clearer in those quotes above: true will is something inside the individual, which the individual’s development masks with repression, and it’s the goal of the individual to discover (from the etymology to dis-cover, to remove the covering from) that will, to “purify the veils” that surround it, etc.

By definition, True Will is entirely individual, and its only connection to the “cosmos” is the fact that it – like everything else in existence – ultimately derives from (completely blind and purposeless) sources beyond itself.

People on this thread are getting *very* confused about the 0=2 equation, treating it as if it were more than just a cute metaphor, so I thought it might be useful to lay out the three major "attainments" of an individual and how they relate to the "cosmos."

The first attainment is what we might call 0=0, which begins in regular, everyday consciousness. One in this state is generally pushed and pulled by the emotions and ideas of “duty” generated by the mind. The “attainment” here is realizing that one wants to increase one’s self-awareness and escape the hold of the mind, which is causing dissatisfaction, so one aspires to that increased level of insight. Hence, one becomes an “aspirant.”

The second major attainment is what we might call 5=6, what some call “Discovering Your True Will” and what others call KC of the HGA. In truth, all of these terms mean slightly different things, but the essence of this attainment is that one is increasingly ceasing to identify with one’s usual, typical thoughts (and the confusion and misperception they cause) and increasingly begins to identify with the actual desires, the actual inclinations, and live from that depth.

Most people stop there, and then they go about the business of accomplishing that true will (living their life). In terms of practical attainments, this is all there is because this is the only “attainment” that’s going to change the way one lives one's life and lessen inner tension.

There’s a third major attainment, which we might call 8=3, and it involves the realization – the realizing on a regular, moment-by-moment basis – that what we call “self” is an illusion. As such, one ceases to identify with the self, even those natural inclinations of 5=6, and identifies with nothing at all.

One still identifies with a “self” at 5=6, it’s just a “purified” self that has largely learned to see through the tricks of the mind. At 8=3 one learns that even that “true self” that one has identified with is nothing more than an unstable part of those blind, purposeless forces of nature, one particular flux of a universe of change. As such, there is no stable “self,” there’s nothing one can point to and say, “This is mine, this is me.”

It’s fairly easy to grasp this attainment intellectually, but what we talk about when we talk about the attainment of 8=3 is the realization of it on a day-to-day, moment-to-moment basis. This attainment isn’t at all a trance or a vision or a mode of perception or a point of view or an identification or anything like that. It’s a…well, it’s an Understanding, appropriately enough.

Now, when one has achieved 8=3, one will no longer exist (since the “self,” the identity, the personality has been utterly annihilated) [more accurately, one will understand that the “self” never existed]. But what is it that no longer exists? If I take apart a chair, I haven’t “annihilated” any of its pieces, but what I have annihilated is its identity as a chair.

Something similar happens in “crossing the abyss.” None of the pieces that made up the individual cease to exist: but the “individual,” as a single, stable identity underlying those pieces ceases to exist.

So the pieces that once made up the individual – including what the individual called his “true will” – still exist and still go on their merry way. In other words, those inclinations we labeled “the aspirant’s true will” continue to exist and continue to do their thing. The 8=3 has no reason to interfere with their natural function.

The people talking about “cosmic consciousness” on this thread seem to be talking about some version of 8=3, except they’ve got it all backwards: the self doesn’t become “cosmic” in that attainment. The self goes away.

Consciousness is just a piece that once comprised the “self.” It still does its thing, but there’s not a “self” there.

Now, a person is more than capable of getting into a trance state that kind of feels like “there’s no self there.” But such a feeling has absolutely nothing to do with accomplishing the True Will, or even with crossing the abyss or attaining to 8=3. It’s just a feeling.

Further, a person is more than capable of performing an intellectual exercise that leads them to understand that there are no individual “selves” or “things,” but this idea has nothing to do with accomplishing the True Will or even with crossing the abyss or attaining to 8=3. It’s just an idea.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 4094
12/10/2011 4:59 pm  
"Los" wrote:
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
When stating that True Will is cosmic rather than individual, I'm doing so to distance myself from the notion that True Will is something buried deep within the individual and thus solely an individual phenomena.

Just to be clear, Crowley consistently presented the true will as something buried deep within the individual and thus solely an individual phenomenon. A few quotes, with emphasis added:

"But the 'Small Person' of Hindu mysticism, the Dwarf insane yet crafty of many legends in many lands, is also this same 'Holy Ghost', or Silent Self of a man, or his Holy Guardian Angel. He is almost the 'Unconscious' of Freud, unknown, unaccountable, the silent Spirit, blowing 'whither it listeth, but thou canst not tell which it cometh or whither it goeth'....So also our own Silent Self, helpless and witless, hidden within us, will spring forth, if we have craft to loose him to the Light, spring lustily forward with his cry of Battle, the Word of our True Wills. This is the Task of the Adept, to have the Knowledge and Conversation of His Holy Guardian Angel, to become aware of his nature and his purpose, fulfilling them." - New Comment to AL I, 7

"Our minds and bodies are veils of the Light within. The uninitiate is a 'dark star,' and the Great Work for him is to make his veils transparent by 'purifying' them. This 'purification' is really 'simplification'; it is not that the veil is dirty, but that the complexity of its folds make it opaque. The Great Work therefore consists principally in the solution of complexes." - New Comment to AL I, 8

"Now initiation is, by etymology, the journeying inwards; it is the Voyage of Discovery (oh Wonder-World!) of one's own Soul...Each of us, as he grows, learns Repression of himself and his true Will. 'It is a lie, this folly against self.': these Words are written in The Book of the Law. So therefore those Passions in ourselves which we understand to be Hindrances are not part of our True Will, but diseased Appetites, manifested in us through false early Training...Give Ear, give Ear attentively; the Will is not lost; though it be buried beneath a life-old midden of Repressions, for it persisteth vital within thee (is it not the true Motion of thine inmost Being?)...For that Will, being always present, albeit (it may be) latent, discovereth himself when no longer inhibited by that conscious Control which is determined by Environment, and therefore of times contrary to himself." - Liber Aleph

"It should go without saying that until the Magician has attained to the Knowledge and Conversation of his Holy Guardian Angel he is liable to endless deceptions. He does not know Himself; how can he explain his business to others?" - Magick in Theory and Practice [equating KC of the HGA with knowledge of the self]

"The sincere student will discover, behind the symbolic technicalities of this 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. He must behold his soul in all its awful nakedness, he must not fear to look on that appalling actuality. He must discard the gaudy garments with which his shame has screened him; he must accept the fact that nothing can make him anything by what he is. He may lie to himself, drug himself, hide himself; but he is always there. Magick will teach him that his mind is playing him traitor." - Magick in Theory and Practice

"This being so, the Adept will be free to concentrate his deepest self, that part of him which unconsciously orders his true Will, upon the realization of his Holy Guardian Angel. The absence of his bodily, mental and astral consciousness is indeed cardinal to success, for it is their usurpation of his attention which has made him deaf to his Soul, and his preoccupation with their affairs that has prevented him from perceiving that Soul." - Liber Samekh

"Genius - or Initiation, which implies the liberation and development of the genius latent in us all (is not one of the names of the "Holy Guardian Angel" the Genius?)" - Magick Without Tears
_______________________________________

The true will “originates from beyond the individual” in the sense that the things an individual wills are caused by other things which were caused by other things which, if we wanted to, we could trace back to the very beginning of time, but it’s nothing more than the inexorable motion of blind, purposeless natural forces.

But “True Will” – if it’s going to mean anything at all, and if it’s going to be the basis of a practical philosophy – has to refer to a specific thing in that cosmos of forces, and it does: it refers to the natural inclinations buried in an individual. Crowley couldn’t be any clearer in those quotes above: true will is something inside the individual, which the individual’s development masks with repression, and it’s the goal of the individual to discover (from the etymology to dis-cover, to remove the covering from) that will, to “purify the veils” that surround it, etc.

By definition, True Will is entirely individual, and its only connection to the “cosmos” is the fact that it – like everything else in existence – ultimately derives from (completely blind and purposeless) sources beyond itself.

People on this thread are getting *very* confused about the 0=2 equation, treating it as if it were more than just a cute metaphor, so I thought it might be useful to lay out the three major "attainments" of an individual and how they relate to the "cosmos."

The first attainment is what we might call 0=0, which begins in regular, everyday consciousness. One in this state is generally pushed and pulled by the emotions and ideas of “duty” generated by the mind. The “attainment” here is realizing that one wants to increase one’s self-awareness and escape the hold of the mind, which is causing dissatisfaction, so one aspires to that increased level of insight. Hence, one becomes an “aspirant.”

The second major attainment is what we might call 5=6, what some call “Discovering Your True Will” and what others call KC of the HGA. In truth, all of these terms mean slightly different things, but the essence of this attainment is that one is increasingly ceasing to identify with one’s usual, typical consciousness (and the confusion and misperception it causes) and increasingly begins to identify with the actual desires, the actual inclinations, and live from that depth.

Most people stop there, and then they go about the business of accomplishing that true will (living their life). In terms of practical attainments, this is all there is because this is the only “attainment” that’s going to change the way one lives one's life and lessen inner tension.

There’s a third major attainment, which we might call 8=3, and it involves the realization – the realizing on a regular, moment-by-moment basis – that what we call “self” is an illusion. As such, one ceases to identify with the self, even those natural inclinations of 5=6, and identifies with nothing at all.

One still identifies with a “self” at 5=6, it’s just a “purified” self that has largely learned to see through the tricks of the mind. At 8=3 one learns that even that “true self” that one has identified with is nothing more than an unstable part of those blind, purposeless forces of nature, one particular flux of a universe of change. As such, there is no stable “self,” there’s nothing one can point to and say, “This is mine, this is me.”

It’s fairly easy to grasp this attainment intellectually, but what we talk about when we talk about the attainment of 8=3 is the realization of it on a day-to-day, moment-to-moment basis. This attainment isn’t at all a trance or a vision or a mode of perception or a point of view or an identification or anything like that. It’s a…well, it’s an Understanding, appropriately enough.

Now, when one has achieved 8=3, one will no longer exist (since the “self,” the identity, the personality has been utterly annihilated) [more accurately, one will understand that the “self” never existed]. But what is it that no longer exists? If I take apart a chair, I haven’t “annihilated” any of its pieces, but what I have annihilated is its identity as a chair.

Something similar happens in “crossing the abyss.” None of the pieces that made up the individual cease to exist: but the “individual,” as a single, stable identity underlying those pieces ceases to exist.

So the pieces that once made up the individual – including what the individual called his “true will” – still exist and still go on their merry way. In other words, those inclinations we labeled “the aspirant’s true will” continue to exist and continue to do their thing. The 8=3 has no reason to interfere with their natural function.

The people talking about “cosmic consciousness” on this thread seem to be talking about some version of 8=3, except they’ve got it all backwards: the self doesn’t become “cosmic” in that attainment. The self goes away.

Consciousness is just a piece that once comprised the “self.” It still does its thing, but there’s not a “self” there.

Now, a person is more than capable of getting into a trance state that kind of feels like “there’s no self there.” But such a feeling has absolutely nothing to do with accomplishing the True Will, or even with crossing the abyss or attaining to 8=3. It’s just a feeling.

Further, a person is more than capable of performing an intellectual exercise that leads them to understand that there are no individual “selves” or “things,” but this idea has nothing to do with accomplishing the True Will or even with crossing the abyss or attaining to 8=3. It’s just an idea.

Many thanks for your opinions, which were of interest. I'll stick with mine, thanks all the same.

Best wishes,

Michael.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
13/10/2011 12:25 am  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
When stating that True Will is cosmic rather than individual, I'm doing so to distance myself from the notion that True Will is something buried deep within the individual and thus solely an individual phenomena.

Thanks for the reply, Michael.

The understanding that you speak of above is wholly experiential, which is not to say that it's wholly subjective. One cannot obtain to it by studying it, not really, except on faith in other people's experiences, which is not wise. One must put themselves in such a state, by whatever means, so as to really experience it for themselves. This is why not everyone will get it, which is fine, they will just lack one level of being able to speak with understanding and authority on these matters. In other words, I get what you're saying only because I've taken the trouble to go there.

These little skirmishes between the adherents to "reality" and the adherents to "imagination" are rather silly, because the actual facts pertain to both categories.

But I'm afraid we've interrupted the discussion of the "UFO" archetype, specifically, so I'll bow out.


ReplyQuote
Tiger
(@tiger)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1648
15/10/2011 4:46 pm  

Interesting thread
has lead me to "presume and approach this extraterrestrial phenomena"
Ufologicks&TheRiteofMithra

and this beautiful piece of art

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/d.mccambridge/Arunachala.html

hope 2 c more ufo art


ReplyQuote
Tiger
(@tiger)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1648

ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
20/10/2011 9:19 am  

By request...

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
Cam-

You question:

"Firstly, if true Will is akin to the Dao, and we already had Daoism, what did we need Thelema for?"

This is-IMO-a very important inquiry. Taoism originated in the so-called "Aeon of Isis." The "Horusian" attitude tends to be one of knee-jerk rejection of anything "Osirian" (let alone what came before). Yet, Crowley has no issue with tipping his hat to the great masterminds of bygone eras. Liber Aleph is a prime example.

ALL of these great movements (inaugurated by their sundry Magi) retain relevance to the modern age. Again, Liber Aleph is clear on this. The twist, however, is that they require a new degree of integration with the progressive development of consciousness.

We have debated in other threads, for example, how Crowley was-or was not-unique as a religious/philosophical thinker. One thing is certain: even if we can trace AC's "sources" in so much that came before, he was a unique and poetic human creature who pushed the integration of these sources into both his individual human life and the modern era. He built his own system from the bricks he discovered and used it to exemplify a way to what we call "Attainment" (while walking that Way himself).

This is something I've been thinking about since the "Originality" thread. Was thinking about it today, as well. One of my professors, during a course on Daoism last year, to "stay away from Crowley", as I planned on using some of his writings are reference points for a paper. The Originality thread was partly a way to surmise what exactly Crowley did that was original, as opposed to what he elaborated on. For example, Crowley did not invent Raja Yoga, but his writings on the subject have proven very useful to both the Aspirant and Adept alike.

In preparing for my undergraduate dissertation, I've been throwing many ideas around concerning what to write about. One of these ideas is "validating Crowley", which I would put in front of the same professor in order to show him that Crowley could indeed be used as a viable source.

As Los and I discussed during the thread mentioned, Crowley's emphasis on use of the scientific method was a staple of his work and teachings.

What does it have to do with Daoism, and with UFOs? Any religion, if it is to remain a mainstay (not necessarily mainstream) religion, has to adapt to the times. One major adaptation piece all religions have been faced with since the 20th century is the advancements of science.

Let's take the Big Bang Theory, for instance. (Feel free to correct my science here, as I'm going from memory.) It is believed that this universe was created out of nothing. Essentially, "all of a sudden" there was a point. That point was a very hot, very dense conglomeration pure energy. We know through science the movement of energy generates heat. Thus, the more active something is, the more heat it generates. This point was so active and so dense that it had to release its pressure. When the pressure was finally released, the result was a massive explosion that created our ever-expanding universe, about 13.7 billion years ago.

Well, even after the explosion, the energy was still pure energy. It wasn't until the energy began to slow down, and cool, that sub-atomic particles began to form, and the origin of gravity helped to bring these sub-atomic particles into cohesion, playing a massive part in forming what we now know as the atom. This, according to scientists, was the first matter, all the matter in the universe. Of course, antimatter was formed at this time as well.

The net result is that the universe we know today had, as its origins, seven major components: energy, motion, matter, antimatter, gravity, heat, and cold.

Let's say for a moment that heat is a by-product of energy, and that cold is a by-product of the release of heat, thereby setting those two aside for now.

What we are left with, is what Crowley called the Naples Arrangement. Printed in The Book of Thoth, and other places, here is the full Naples Arrangement, amended with ideas from above. Note that the Big Bang Theory term proper was coined by Fred Hoyle in a 1949 radio broadcast. Crowley's Naples Arrangement was first published in The Equinox Vol.3 No. 4 (The Book of Thoth), in 1944. While Crowley may have had knowledge of the scientific working of his time (would be interesting to see how much), it appears that The Naples Arrangement was based largely from his understanding of the Hebrew Qabalah.

(The Naples Arrangement can be found online, here. For those who like paper copies, free to find it in your own Book of Thoth, Chapter 3 Part 3 & 4, "The Theory of the Tarot and the Holy Qabalah" and "The Naples Arrangement" respectively).

"THE NEXT issue is the Holy Qabalah. This is a very simple subject, and presents no difficulties to the ordinary intelligent mind. There are ten numbers in the decimal system; and there is a genuine reason why there should be ten numbers, and only ten, in a numerical system which is not merely mathematical, but philosophical. It is necessary, at this point, to introduce the "Naples Arrangement". But first of all, one must understand the pictorial representation of the Universe given by the Holy Qabalah. (See diagram.)
This picture represents the Tree of Life, which is a map of the Universe. One must begin, as a mathematician would, with the idea of Zero, Absolute Zero, which turns out on examination to mean any quantity that one may choose, but not, as the layman may at first suppose, Nothing, in the "absence-of-anything" vulgar sense of the word. (See "Berashith", Paris, 1902)."

It is impossible to express the idea of Nothing. Any expression is an expression of some type, therefore something. One can try and imagine the idea of nothing (no-thing), but really what we end up with in our imaginations is the idea of space. The closest one can come to experiences of no-thing is Samadhi, and the various levels thereof. A note to the casual reader though, that knowledge of Samadhi is always past-tense, in that the thought that it may occur, and that it has occurred is the closest we can really get to the present tense of Samadhi. It simply has to be experienced, and cannot be explained accurately. Buddha explained Samadhi in the negative sense, by saying those things which it is not. For example, put your hand on a piece of paper, and trace your hand with a pen. Now remove your hand. Now, imagine that you are on the paper, or that your consciousness is on the paper. The only way you can possibly describe your hand is by the trace your made. In other words, you are trying to describe what was by making connections with what it has left behind, or with what you can know about it. The paper never really "knows" the hand, as the hand is completely outside of its experience, and it can only experience the hand when it is placed onto the paper, and even then the paper can only know anything about the hand by what actually interacts with the paper, which is not the hand itself, but the impression left by the hand. Anyway, the short version is, if you want to do more than simply intellectualize about no-thing, you have to do the Work and find out for yourself. Onward...

"The Qabalists expanded this idea of Nothing, and got a second kind of Nothing which they called "Ain Soph"-"Without Limit". (This idea seems not unlike that of Space.) They then decided that in order to interpret this mere absence of any means of definition, it was necessary to postulate the Ain Soph Aur-"Limitless Light"."

Please allow me to interrupt the Great Wild Beast yet again. Our minds, on even considering the idea of no-thing, instantly posits the idea of every-thing, of which no-thing is apart. It develops a seeming inconsistency of thought, a barrier that reason cannot do beyond. This, essentially, is the first division, the division between no-thing and every-thing. This every-thing could verily be that pure energy which the Big Bang Theory postulates. The only problem here is that the Big Bang Theory begins with a point, and points are limited. The Theory itself is also a limitation, in that it is but one of many possibilities, and thus the Big Bang Theory is definitely not the Ain Soph Aur, or Limitless Light of the Qabalists.

The Ain Soph ("Limitlessness"), and the Ain Soph Aur ("Limitless Light") thus fall into a similar category as Ain ("Nothing", or "No-Thing"), and are considered by the Qabalists as the "Three Veils of Negative Existence". Simply spoken, as they exist negatively, it is impossible to really explain them positively. One simply has to, again, do the Work, and realize these concepts as they pertain to one's own Center, and then to the Universe at large. At any rate, we haven't even gotten to the Big Bang yet.

"By this they seem to have meant very much what the late Victorian men of science meant, or thought that they meant, by the Luminiferous Ether. (The Space-Time Continuum?) All this is evidently without form and void; these are abstract conditions, not positive ideas."

One can see that even Crowley, great thinker that he was, struggles in presenting the concept, and dances around it quite eloquently. Said again, there are some things which quite simply have to be "experienced", and thus we continue onward...

"The next step must be the idea of Position. One must formulate this thesis: If there is anything except Nothing, it must exist within this Boundless Light; within this Space; within this inconceivable Nothingness, which cannot exist as Nothing-ness, but has to be conceived of as a Nothingness composed of the annihilation of two imaginary opposites. Thus appears The Point, which has "neither parts nor magnitude, but only position".

Interesting enough, the idea of space exists as "something". Whether or not space existed before the Big Bang is something we can never know. One could posit that there had to be space in order for the Big Bang to occur, but we learn from a quick Wikipedia (I know, it sucks using Wikipedia for these things), that "Outer space is the void that exists beyond any celestial body, including the Earth.[1] It is not completely empty, but consists of a hard vacuum containing a low density of particles: predominantly a plasma of hydrogen and helium, as well as electromagnetic radiation, magnetic fields, and neutrinos. Theoretically, it also contains dark matter and dark energy." Therefore, what we consider as "space" is not really empty space. Thus, it makes even more sense to posit that Outer Space also came as a result of the Big Bang.

With this hypothesis, that not even space existed prior to the Big Bang, the Three Veils of Negative Existence are wholly negative. In the case of the Boundless Light being "within this Space" as Crowley put it, we see that he was really trying to explain the negative by using a positive.

So let us say then, that the Three Veils of Negative Existence are just that, negative. The first thing we can know then, is the Point, the hot density of pure energy which resulted in the Big Bang. This Point, known by the Qabalists as Kether, is also the Dao. It's purpose is to Be. In its Becoming is when we can finally begin to see any manifestation at all.

"But position does not mean anything at all unless there is something else, some other position with which it can be compared. One has to describe it. The only way to do this is to have another Point, and that means that one must invent the number Two, making possible The Line."

The Becoming, the Big Bang itself, spread out all of its pure energy, and all of its density, creating the universe. From this we have all possible points, all possible lines, all possible connections, all possibilities of every kind. We now have energy (which is really just the potential to do anything at all), motion, matter, antimatter, and gravity.

Energy is potential. From that potential comes motion and matter, Nuit and Hadit, Yin and Yang. Crowley's Arrangement stays true to the Tree of Life though, and addresses one at a time. The first one, being other Points, is Matter, or Hadit/Yang.

Of course, Matter is only useful insomuch as it fulfills its potential, and it uses Motion to do so. Thus, the following:

"But this Line does not really mean very much, because there is yet no measure of length. The limit of knowledge at this stage is that there are two things, in order to be able to talk about them at all. But one cannot say that they are near each other, or that they are far apart; one can only say that they are distant. In order to discriminate between them at all, there must be a third thing. We must have another point. One must invent The Surface; one must invent The Triangle. In doing this, incidentally, appears the whole of Plane Geometry. One can now say, "A is nearer to B than A is to C"."

Matter and Motion together create this lovely web called space. This web contains all surfaces, all possibilities of surface, every surface that can ever exist. Motion/Yin is the means by which Matter may interact with itself. Matter is the culmination of Motion in that Matter ends up where Motion decides it ends up. The Mover and the Moved, where Motion is the Mover, and Matter is the Moved.

How do they know where to move? That brings us to our two final points, antimatter and gravity.

"But, so far, there is no substance in any of these ideas. In fact there are no ideas at all) except the idea of Distance and perhaps the idea of Between-ness, and of Angular Measurement; so that plane Geometry, which now exists in theory, is after all completely inchoate and incoherent.. There has been no approach at all to the conception of a really existing thing. No more has been done than to make definitions, all in a purely ideal and imaginary world."

Here is where Antimatter fits best. That is, Antimatter only exists through the interplay of Motion and Matter, and as a result thereof. Antimatter gives the ability for difference. For example, take a pack of regular notebook paper. Without looking, divide the sheets in some manner, and draw a line down one page. Put the sheets back together. Then flip through the sheets. Everywhere you see uniformity, and then all of a sudden the sheet with the line on it. The possibility for anomalies like these to occur in nature are thus due, theoretically (as in, within the scope of these ideas), to Antimatter.

For a clearer idea of this, scientists have hypothesized that after the Big Bang, Matter and Antimatter were each massive in their own rights. A collision between the two created the many perplexities we are aware of today.

One can also view Antimatter as having a certain power - the power to create change in the Matter/Motion paradigm. This could be related to the De (Teh) of Daoism, and possibly even RaHoorKhuit, in the sense that the magickian also seeks to create change within the realm of Motion and Matter.

Well, this is all fine. How does any of this even manifest at all? Gravity.

"Now then comes The Abyss. One cannot go any further into the ideal. The next step must be the Actual---at least, an approach to the Actual. There are three points, but there is no idea of where any one of them is. A fourth point is essential, and this formulates the idea of matter."

How, o Crowley, are you just now forming Matter? Just now he is introducing Gravity. Science has proven that gravity is what attracts subatomic particles together, into atoms, or Matter as we know it. We know that subatomic particles have Motion, and that when brought together by Gravity these particles become atoms, and atoms form Matter (even Dark Matter). We know that the interactions between Matter and Motion create Antimatter. It is all made possible by Gravity, just as the Abyss allows for all possibilities of any kind.

Very large, very dense, centers of Gravity are known as black holes. Black holes form a central role in the creation of galaxies, and thus human beings. Without them, it is possible I wouldn't be typing, and you wouldn't be reading this.

Gravity is a glue that makes things stick together. In the Abyss, Gravity is the Ego that is constantly wanting to bring every single thing under its influence. The Ego constantly want more and more. In an analogy, the Ego would be a very dense black hole that just sucks everything towards it that it can. Some things stick, and other things stick to it, etc. In a sense, within each human being is a galaxy. We call that galaxy a person's character. That is, the parts of manifestation that are bound by a particular black hole. This becomes its own web, and when we look inside, commonly we see the web, the "Treasure House of Images". When most things are taken away, we are left with a very basic structure. That very basic structure is what we call Karma. It is the very base form of one's character, the parts that have come closest to the black hole, and the foundation from which all other things are initially perceived.

If you wanted to stop a black hole from doing its thing, you would have to remove its gravity. To do that, one hypothesis says that you would need to stop the black hole from spinning. Once it stops spinning, it loses its force, and much like if the Earth stopped spinning, things are no longer bound within its pull.

In the Great Work, we first have to weed our way through all the Images. Once we do, we have to stop the Gravity of the Ego. We all read about "stilling the waves of the mind". That's exactly what I mean. When the waves subside, one can see to the bottom. When the Gravity stops, the fetters fall off of the Ego. Interestingly enough, black holes must exist in order for us to exist. In the same way, the Ego must spin in order for us to be able to experience anything at all. Note how, in Samadhi, when it stops spinning, and then spins again, it begins to spin within the region of the original object of meditation. Samadhi, in this light, is sort of a psychological worm hole.

The difference between the Aspirant and the Adept is the spinner.

"The Point, the Line, the Plane. The fourth point, unless it should happen to lie in the plane, gives The Solid. If one wants to know the position of any point, one must define it by the use of three co-ordinate axes. It is so many feet from the North wall, and so many feet from the East wall, and so many feet from the floor."

"Thus there has been developed from Nothingness a Something which can be said to exist. One has arrived at the idea of Matter. But this existence is exceedingly tenuous, for the only property of any given point is its position in relation to certain other points; no change is possible; nothing can happen. One is therefore compelled, in the analysis of known Reality, to postulate a fifth positive idea, which is that of Motion."

This is measurement. That's all it is. If Crowley is talking about Chesed here, the 5th Sephira, he is also talking about the weighing of one's Karma prior to its release. The Exempt Adept has seen the web (in Tiphareth) and learned how to make it spin (Geburah), but doesn't have complete control over all of its components. He has to stop the spinning. Thus, the measuring, the calculation of what it would take to stop this spinning.

From the top down, it is in Chesed that measurements begin to take place, now that all of the major factors are in play.

Note that Crowley is also talking about physical motion at this point, which is the taking of the measurements themselves.

"This implies the idea of Time, for only through Motion, and in Time, can any event happen. Without this change and sequence, nothing can be the object of sense. (It is to be noticed that this No.5 is the number of the letter He' in the Hebrew alphabet. This is the letter traditionally consecrated to the Great Mother. It is the womb in which the Great Father, who is represented by the letter Yod which is pictorially the representation of an ultimate Point, moves and begets active existence)."

This part above, the number 5, related to Geburah, who if one will recall One Star in Sight, it is said: [the Adeptus Major] "Obtains a general mastery of practical Magick, though without comprehension."

It is during this part of the process that the Adept learns how to unwrap and re-wrap the web. He may not quite understand its full use, but he begins to understand that unwrapping and re-wrapping can create some pretty cool effects. He also learns at this point that he must get rid of the web completely.

"There is now possible a concrete idea of the Point; and, at last it is a point which can be self-conscious, because it can have a Past, Present and Future. It is able to define itself in terms of the previous ideas. Here is the number Six, the centre of the system: self-conscious, capable of experience."

This is when one finally sees through the Images. In the cosmic scheme we have been creating, it is when the core develops around which all the images my converge. It's sort of a double standard here.

On the way through it, it is one finally reaching the center of the web, no longer being guided by the tiny light shining through the cracks. From the manifestation side, it's the beginning of the solidification of the web. Atoms form together creating the Sun.

From here, the rest of manifestation is created, and I'll leave you all with the rest of Crowley's speech...

"At this stage it is convenient to turn away for a moment from the strictly Qabalistic symbolism. The doctrine of the next three numbers (to some minds at least) is not very clearly expressed. One must look to the Vedanta system for a more lucid interpretation of the numbers 7, 8 and 9 although they correspond very closely with the Qabalistic ideas. In the Hindu analysis of existence the Rishis (sages) postulate three qualities: Sat, the Essence of Being itself; Chit, Thought, or Intellection; and Ananda (usually translated Bliss), the pleasure experienced by Being in the course of events. This ecstasy is evidently the exciting cause of the mobility of existence. It explains the assumption of imperfection on the part of Perfection. The Absolute would be Nothing, would remain in the condition of Nothingness; therefore, in order to be conscious of its possibilities and to enjoy them, it must explore these possibilities. One may here insert a parallel statement of this doctrine from the document called The Book of the Great Auk to enable the student to consider the position from the standpoint of two different minds.

"All elements must at one time have been separate.---That would be the case with great heat.---Now, when the atoms get to the Sun, we get that immense, extreme heat, and all the elements are themselves again. Imagine that each atom of each element possesses the memory of all his adventures in combination. By the way, that atom, fortified with memory, would not be the same atom; yet it is, because it has gained nothing from anywhere except this memory. Therefore, by the lapse of time and by virtue of memory, a thing could become something more than itself; thus, a real development is possible. One can then see a reason for any element deciding to go through this series of incarnations, because so, and only so, can he go; and he suffers the lapse of memory which he has during these incarnations, because he knows he will come through unchanged."

"Therefore you can have an infinite number of gods, individual and equal though diverse, each one supreme and utterly indestructible. This is also the only explanation of how a Being could create a world in which War, Evil, etc., exist. Evil is only an appearance, because (like "Good") it cannot affect the substance itself, but only multiply its combinations. This is something the same as Mystic Monotheism; but the objection to that theory is that God has to create things which are all parts of himself, so that their interplay is false. If we presuppose many elements, their interplay is natural."

These ideas of Being, Thought and Bliss constitute the minimum possible qualities which a Point must possess if it is to have a real sensible experience of itself. These correspond to the numbers 9, 8 and 7. The first idea of reality, as known by the mind, is therefore to conceive of the Point as built up of these previous nine successive developments from Zero. Here then at last is the number Ten.
In other words, to describe Reality in the form of Knowledge, one must postulate these ten successive ideas. In the Qabalah, they are called "Sephiroth", which means "Numbers". As will be seen later, each number has a significance of its own; each corresponds with all phenomena in such a way that their arrangement in the Tree of Life, as shown in the diagrams (pp.266, 268, 270), is a map of the Universe. These ten numbers are represented in the Tarot by the forty small cards."

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
"Taoism," for the modern, will, of necessity, be very different from that of Lao Tzu (if only because of the "external" conditions we endeavor to realize it within). AC is a truly great proponent of this endeavor-but he is also an syncretic thinker who is showing how the previous paved paths may intersect, form a grand byway and lead us to whatever "next step" is required as human beings who are driven to push the envelope beyond what is "predestined."

Agreed.

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
I apologize to Shiva (who must be thinking "Good God! This thread is about Magical UFOs-!") but these considerations form the groundwork for a serious investigation of the phenomena.

I apologize too. I was in an out of worm holes, it seems, and ended up on a sort of diatribe.

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
Even Christianity is treated from the "enlightened" perspective of the "Master Therion." The baby should never be tossed out with the bathwater. It's all about cutting through the encrustations of temporal error to get at the kernel of eternal truth.

In this sense, I believe AC looked back upon and brought Taoism into the problems of the modern era as part of our spiritual heritage. He also extended that heritage beyond sectarian borders. This, I think, is very important. It not only helps our personal explorations into life but addresses the very difficult problems that assault us a species, divided as we are into "nations" and "sectarian" beliefs.

Crowley, I think, was definitely a pioneer of true "spiritual science".


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
20/10/2011 9:23 am  

My wife said the above was very long. When I copied and pasted it into Microsoft Word, it came out to about 23 pages, double-spaced. Interesting, I only need about 24 for my undergrad dissertation. Too bad I can't use forum posts. 😛 Okay, condensed and formatted properly, it probably only spans 10 or 11.

At any rate, I forgot to mention... "energy, motion, matter, antimatter, gravity, heat, and cold. "

The topmost point on the Unicursal Hexagram - put energy there. On the top right, put matter, top left put motion, bottom right put cold, bottom left put heat, and in the center... you guessed it, gravity. Antimatter hrm, could fit with matter, but it seems more likely to be pervasive, perhaps the ascending arrow as a whole, where manifestation could be the descending arrow. I haven't thought much about Antimatter, to be honest. More on that to follow, perhaps...


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
20/10/2011 2:51 pm  

If I were feeling snarky, I might ask if you think that your exhaustive explanation of Crowley prevents seekers from finding “their own answers.” See here: http://www.lashtal.com/nuke/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=64910&highlight=#6491 0"> http://www.lashtal.com/nuke/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=64910&highlight=#64910 [/url]


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
20/10/2011 3:45 pm  

"There is now possible a concrete idea of the Point; and, at last it is a point which can be self-conscious, because it can have a Past, Present and Future. It is able to define itself in terms of the previous ideas. Here is the number Six, the centre of the system: self-conscious, capable of experience." -- Crowley

And here, by the way, in the number 6, we actually get the individual and, the dynamic part of the individual, which we call the True Will.

From the scheme of the Tree of Life, we can see that matter (4) and motion (5) give rise to the individual (6), one particular manifestation of the whole, who has his own unique matter and motion.

Although Crowley attributes "self-conscious, capable of experience" to the number 6, what most people describe as "consciousness" and "experience" doesn't appear until farther down on the Tree, where the point (6) has to cloak itself in emotion (7), thought ( 8 ), self-image (9), and a physical body/sense of the material world (10) in order to have experience.

As we can see, the Naples Arrangement is a satisfying metaphor for the emergence of the individual -- and the True Will, which is the dynamic aspect of the individual -- from the blind, mechanical, and purposeless forces of the universe.

An individual climbing back up the tree learns to identify with his True Self (6) and not with those qualities that he mistakes for his self (7,8,9,10).


ReplyQuote
Frater_HPK
(@frater_hpk)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 104
20/10/2011 4:30 pm  
"Shiva" wrote:
"christibrany" wrote:
PS Also if you go here ... Roswell And The Reich; The Nazi Connection you can hear the other possibility in regards to Roswell.

You are doing exactly what I asked posters not to do ... else I would "ignore or disparage" their message. You have used "I think" and "I believe" and you are now chain-posting other websites and theories.

This thread is about DIRECT EXPERIENCE (either Inner or Outer), but it's not about other people. It's about those of us here on lashtal that have DIRECT EXPERIENCE.

All the stuff about the Vimanas, the Nazis and the Thule Society and the War in the Antarctic are great reads. I recommend that everyone (who even cares about this stuff) read all of the wonderful accounts and theories. Be sure to check out "The Battle of Los Angeles" (google it). There are more UFO tales than there are Aleister Crowley stories.

This thread is opened in conjunction with "Magickal UFOs" as defined by Grant and myself - the products (or the effects)(or the side-effects) of magickal workings. I have just received info stating that Anger, Cameron, Smith and others of Agape Lodge had UFO experiences and that "some" of them were chemically-assisted.

So, who has some first hand information?

Soon, I will abduct the consciousness of this thread and you (those who can and will) can take a flight.

Concerning Jack and Cameron Parsons related to UFO there are a couple of information in Carter's Sex & Rockets

Page 133:

"UFO researcher Jacques Vallee says Parsons claimed to have met a Venusian in the
Mojave desert during the course of 1946. The Venusian apparently was the implied
source of Liber 49."

Page 135:

"In March 1946, the red-haired elemental Cameron returned from New York and moved in with
Parsons. She was to be an integral part of the Babalon Working,though did not know it at the time. She did feel like she was in the middle of something, so much so that she felt as if she were “spying.”
Parsons wrote that he knew not in whom Babalon was incarnate, but Cameron said he had been warned in the desert not to tell her it was she. To prove herself to him, Cameron would provide a sign, which she claimed was her sighting of a silver, cigar-shaped UFO. This incident was the only time the two ever discussed UFOs, she said. She actually derided his magick at the time, but later proved to
herself that it worked."

Page 189:

"While her auditory experiences were being inhumanly heightened,
Cameron saw a flying saucer. In a letter to Jane Wolfe dated January
22, 1953, Cameron speculated the UFO was the “war-engine” mentioned
in The Book of the Law III: 7-8"

But, I would like to suggest you that you pay attention to Nicholas Roerich. If I remember corectly he conected UFOs with Shambala, and direction of the flight of this UFO showed to him way to there.

“On August fifth [1929] - something remarkable! We were in our camp in the Kukunor district not far from the Humboldt Chain. In the morning about half-past nine some of our caravaneers noticed a remarkably big black eagle flying over us. Seven of us began to watch this unusual bird. At this same moment another of our caravaneers remarked, ‘There is something far above the bird’. And he shouted in his astonishment. We all saw, in a direction from north to south, something big and shiny reflecting the sun, like a huge oval moving at great speed. Crossing our camp the thing changed in its direction from south to southwest. And we saw how it disappeared in the intense blue sky. We even had time to take our field glasses and saw quite distinctly an oval form with shiny surface, one side of which was brilliant from the sun.”

Nicholas Roerich, Altai-Himalaya


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 4094
20/10/2011 4:36 pm  

Thanks for posting those, Frater_HPK. Very interesting. I certainly had not come across Roerich's account before.

Best wishes,

Michael.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
20/10/2011 5:02 pm  
"Los" wrote:
If I were feeling snarky, I might ask if you think that your exhaustive explanation of Crowley prevents seekers from finding “their own answers.” See here: http://www.lashtal.com/nuke/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=64910&highlight=#6491 0"> http://www.lashtal.com/nuke/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=64910&highlight=#64910 [/url]

Heh. I didn't fill my post with a bunch of "you" and "your" either.

I simply stated what I think. One has the right to disagree.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
20/10/2011 5:29 pm  
"Los" wrote:
"There is now possible a concrete idea of the Point; and, at last it is a point which can be self-conscious, because it can have a Past, Present and Future. It is able to define itself in terms of the previous ideas. Here is the number Six, the centre of the system: self-conscious, capable of experience." -- Crowley

And here, by the way, in the number 6, we actually get the individual and, the dynamic part of the individual, which we call the True Will.

The spat wasn't about True Will. But...

"This is when one finally sees through the Images. In the cosmic scheme we have been creating, it is when the core develops around which all the images my converge. It's sort of a double standard here.

On the way through it, it is one finally reaching the center of the web, no longer being guided by the tiny light shining through the cracks. From the manifestation side, it's the beginning of the solidification of the web. Atoms form together creating the Sun. "

The creative mind may glean as much from what was said, with a bit of critical thinking.

"Los" wrote:
From the scheme of the Tree of Life, we can see that matter (4) and motion (5) give rise to the individual (6), one particular manifestation of the whole, who has his own unique matter and motion.

Saying matter and motion are 4 and 5, in respect to the Tree of Life is fine from a "nothing begins to manifest until after the Abyss" standpoint, but it doesn't mean that matter and motion originate at 4 and 5. The interplay between matter and motion give rise to the multitude of possibilities that is the Abyss. All possibilities must exist before the individual can even Be, especially before an individual can be aware of them. 4 and 5 are in-between steps in which, when working with one's Angel, one may learn how to take it further.

I can see how you might say that nothing really exists beyond 4 and 5, as representations of the final parts of the individual, but existence goes beyond the individual. Otherwise, one death would destroy existence for everyone else.

"Los" wrote:
Although Crowley attributes "self-conscious, capable of experience" to the number 6, what most people describe as "consciousness" and "experience" doesn't appear until farther down on the Tree, where the point (6) has to cloak itself in emotion (7), thought ( 8 ), self-image (9), and a physical body/sense of the material world (10) in order to have experience.

I do not think that consciousness, nor experience originates this far down the Tree. If that were so, one would transcend consciousness and the ability to experience it, at much earlier stages of growth. As it is, consciousness isn't "transcended" until a much later point.

"Los" wrote:
As we can see, the Naples Arrangement is a satisfying metaphor for the emergence of the individual -- and the True Will, which is the dynamic aspect of the individual -- from the blind, mechanical, and purposeless forces of the universe.

The dynamic aspects of the individual are a part of the "blind, mechanical, and purposeless forces of the universe".

"Los" wrote:
An individual climbing back up the tree learns to identify with his True Self (6) and not with those qualities that he mistakes for his self (7,8,9,10).

Yes. And then the individual learns that what was initially thought as the True Self is no more than a reflection, a conglomeration of essentials combining to form an existing being, one which is mistakenly called "one's own being".


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
20/10/2011 6:59 pm  

As Los so eloquently pointed out, I would be amiss to posit my musing as the final word on the subject. In fact, I have done no such thing. Each of us has the ability to figure such things out for ourselves, and understand them in our own ways. Were it not so, we'd simply all be the same person. We are not.

Science says that there are three major "plateaus" of thought and experiment. These are the hypothesis, which is simply an idea, a "hunch", a theory, which is a tested hypothesis that holds true under the conditions of the experiment (at the least), and then the law, which is often more general than a theory, and is generally accepted as a stable rule on the subject.

The above, rather long anecdote, is a hypothesis. When tested, and compared with other hypotheses and other works, it may eventually become a theory, but not yet. It's just a simple hypothesis.

Crowley's Naples Arrangement is indeed a theory, in that it has been generally tested and accepted by the community which studies the same. There is another theory, called The New Naples Arrangement, worked out by Mr. R.L. Gillis. If one wants to delve deeper into the subject, one is encouraged to have a read at the theory.

Note that neither 3 writings are considered laws by any means. The idea of posting them here is to encourage thought on the subject, not discourage it.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
20/10/2011 7:55 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
As Los so eloquently pointed out, I would be amiss to posit my musing as the final word on the subject. In fact, I have done no such thing. Each of us has the ability to figure such things out for ourselves, and understand them in our own ways. Were it not so, we'd simply all be the same person. We are not.

It's almost self-evidently true that no two people will understand the same concept in *precisely, identically* the same ways, simply because those two different people -- with different experiences behind them -- understand the concept against a different context.

But that in no way means what your words imply here (even if you don't intend to imply it): that every "understanding" is just as good as every other. There *are* right answers and wrong answers, you know. If there weren't, then we wouldn't have a subject, and we couldn't have a discussion.

The above, rather long anecdote, is a hypothesis.

No, it's not. The Naples Arrangement is a metaphor, a symbolic representation of the universe and the individual's emergence from the universe: it's not fact, even if you can *attribute* real science to it.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
20/10/2011 8:03 pm  

Earlier, I wrote: "An individual climbing back up the tree learns to identify with his True Self (6) and not with those qualities that he mistakes for his self (7,8,9,10)."

And Azidonis responded:

Yes. And then the individual learns that what was initially thought as the True Self is no more than a reflection, a conglomeration of essentials combining to form an existing being, one which is mistakenly called "one's own being".

We are in agreement here. This is precisely the reason that I objected to the argument that "The True Will is Cosmic, not individual." We can see from the Naples Arrangement that the True Will first appears (as the True Will) at number 6, along with the individual. Before we get to number 6, we don't have a True Will, and we don't have an individual: we have the flux of the universe, doing its thing according to the blind and purposeless laws of the universe. Absolutely nothing about it resembles a "will" in any way, and it's not "conscious" (as Crowley points out by attributing consciousness to 6).

This is why the True Will is entirely an individual phenomenon: you can't have it without an individual.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
20/10/2011 8:59 pm  
"Los" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
As Los so eloquently pointed out, I would be amiss to posit my musing as the final word on the subject. In fact, I have done no such thing. Each of us has the ability to figure such things out for ourselves, and understand them in our own ways. Were it not so, we'd simply all be the same person. We are not.

It's almost self-evidently true that no two people will understand the same concept in *precisely, identically* the same ways, simply because those two different people -- with different experiences behind them -- understand the concept against a different context.

But of course...

"Los" wrote:
But that in no way means what your words imply here (even if you don't intend to imply it): that every "understanding" is just as good as every other. There *are* right answers and wrong answers, you know. If there weren't, then we wouldn't have a subject, and we couldn't have a discussion.

You are dead set on that sword of right and wrong, as evidenced by you telling Lutz, in this very same thread I believe, that, "You're doing it wrong."

A hypothesis is proven right or wrong through experiment.

There is a flashlight. It doesn't turn on. One goes about figuring out how to turn it on. "Replace the batteries" becomes a hypothesis, and it is then tested. If the flashlight comes on, the hypothesis was correct, the theory being that in this particular situation replacing the batteries turns the flashlight on.

Understanding is based on so many perceptions. The understanding of an ancient Egyptian may be that the sun is born and dies each day. The understanding of modern science is that the earth revolves around the sun. This has been scientifically proven. Thus, the understanding of the Egyptians, while valuable, is one of limited scientific experience within the realm of astrophysics.

Sure, one can just straight up say the Egyptians were "wrong", which they were, but with their limited technology and understanding, they were still able to make out many things in relation to how the sun worked, whether they believed it was born and died each day or not.

"Los" wrote:

The above, rather long anecdote, is a hypothesis.

No, it's not. The Naples Arrangement is a metaphor, a symbolic representation of the universe and the individual's emergence from the universe: it's not fact, even if you can *attribute* real science to it.

I am missing where hypothesis, in any case, is a fact?

"A hypothesis (from Greek ὑπόθεσις; plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. The term derives from the Greek, ὑποτιθέναι – hypotithenai meaning "to put under" or "to suppose"."


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
20/10/2011 9:01 pm  
"Los" wrote:
Earlier, I wrote: "An individual climbing back up the tree learns to identify with his True Self (6) and not with those qualities that he mistakes for his self (7,8,9,10)."

And Azidonis responded:

Yes. And then the individual learns that what was initially thought as the True Self is no more than a reflection, a conglomeration of essentials combining to form an existing being, one which is mistakenly called "one's own being".

We are in agreement here. This is precisely the reason that I objected to the argument that "The True Will is Cosmic, not individual." We can see from the Naples Arrangement that the True Will first appears (as the True Will) at number 6, along with the individual. Before we get to number 6, we don't have a True Will, and we don't have an individual: we have the flux of the universe, doing its thing according to the blind and purposeless laws of the universe. Absolutely nothing about it resembles a "will" in any way, and it's not "conscious" (as Crowley points out by attributing consciousness to 6).

This is why the True Will is entirely an individual phenomenon: you can't have it without an individual.

Yes. You talk as if it is the end-all-be-all though, which it isn't. That may be where some of the confusion comes in when others read your words.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
20/10/2011 9:23 pm  
"Los" wrote:
Earlier, I wrote: "An individual climbing back up the tree learns to identify with his True Self (6) and not with those qualities that he mistakes for his self (7,8,9,10)."

And Azidonis responded:

Yes. And then the individual learns that what was initially thought as the True Self is no more than a reflection, a conglomeration of essentials combining to form an existing being, one which is mistakenly called "one's own being".

We are in agreement here. This is precisely the reason that I objected to the argument that "The True Will is Cosmic, not individual." We can see from the Naples Arrangement that the True Will first appears (as the True Will) at number 6, along with the individual. Before we get to number 6, we don't have a True Will, and we don't have an individual: we have the flux of the universe, doing its thing according to the blind and purposeless laws of the universe. Absolutely nothing about it resembles a "will" in any way, and it's not "conscious" (as Crowley points out by attributing consciousness to 6).

This is why the True Will is entirely an individual phenomenon: you can't have it without an individual.

It is only by this process of 'individuation' that true Will can become manifest and realize (experience) its otherwise latent potential serially, as the interplay between 'Self and Not-self.' [2] "That's life, that's what all the people say." 🙂

In certain relatively rare instances, individuals may, by a myriad of means, intentional or not, experience the 'resolution' of the above complexity into its latent form(lessness), and live to tell about it. [0] This one gets a ;).

Some say that [0] is an 'illusion; and that [2] is 'reality.'

Some say that [2] is an 'illusion; and that [0] is 'reality.'

Others observe that 0=2, that each is relatively real and vitally necessary a full appreciation of our true overall composition and function.

Thank you for your kind attention.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
21/10/2011 6:18 pm  
"Camlion" wrote:
It is only by this process of 'individuation' that true Will can become manifest and realize (experience) its otherwise latent potential serially, as the interplay between 'Self and Not-self.'

No. The True Will isn't a latent potential -- identifiable with 0 in the 0=2 equation -- that is trying to "realize" itself through experience. There are words for what you're trying to say here, "Nuit" among them.

Again, Thelemic cosmology -- which is a metaphor, not literal truth -- states that Nuit (all potential) "creates" the illusion of beings separate from Herself so that they -- and by proxy, she -- can enjoy experience.

The True Will is the term we give to the actions of one particular individual when he or she has removed the restrictions of the mind. It's entirely individual.

Thank you for your kind attention.

Yeah, you can't get enough attention, can you.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
21/10/2011 6:28 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
You are dead set on that sword of right and wrong

says the guy who is constantly compelled to argue against me on these forums.

Either you think I'm "wrong" for insisting on a distinction between "right and wrong answers" -- in which case, you invalidate your own argument -- or you don't think I'm wrong, in which case, you're just posting for the sake of listening to yourself talk. What was all that stuff about ego and attachment that you're always on about?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
21/10/2011 7:12 pm  
"Los" wrote:
"Camlion" wrote:
It is only by this process of 'individuation' that true Will can become manifest and realize (experience) its otherwise latent potential serially, as the interplay between 'Self and Not-self.'

No. The True Will isn't a latent potential -- identifiable with 0 in the 0=2 equation -- that is trying to "realize" itself through experience. There are words for what you're trying to say here, "Nuit" among them.

Again, Thelemic cosmology -- which is a metaphor, not literal truth -- states that Nuit (all potential) "creates" the illusion of beings separate from Herself so that they -- and by proxy, she -- can enjoy experience.

The True Will is the term we give to the actions of one particular individual when he or she has removed the restrictions of the mind. It's entirely individual.

Thank you for your kind attention.

Yeah, you can't get enough attention, can you.

Poor boy, I'm sure that the nomenclature is confusing when you have no experiential points of reference beyond a certain level and you're stuck with trying to reason it all out between Words and Numbers over here and Gods and Goddesses over there. But listen, you're okay when it comes to getting past the veil of the mind and putting true Will into action, which is commendable in itself and is more than some Mystics can manage.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
21/10/2011 7:24 pm  
"Los" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
You are dead set on that sword of right and wrong

says the guy who is constantly compelled to argue against me on these forums.

Either you think I'm "wrong" for insisting on a distinction between "right and wrong answers" -- in which case, you invalidate your own argument -- or you don't think I'm wrong, in which case, you're just posting for the sake of listening to yourself talk. What was all that stuff about ego and attachment that you're always on about?

If you pay attention, we agree on many things. And my remark was an observation, especially centered around your idea that somehow, hypotheses are "facts".


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
21/10/2011 7:49 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
And my remark was an observation, especially centered around your idea that somehow, hypotheses are "facts".

Hypotheses propose factual explanations for phenomena, not metaphors. My point was that the Naples Arrangement is a metaphor, not a scientifice hypothesis.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
21/10/2011 10:38 pm  

I completely Don't believe in UFO at all, but there were some projects of vehicles like that, it's interesting subject to take care about but not so much important as well.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
22/10/2011 10:18 am  
"Los" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
And my remark was an observation, especially centered around your idea that somehow, hypotheses are "facts".

Hypotheses propose factual explanations for phenomena, not metaphors. My point was that the Naples Arrangement is a metaphor, not a scientifice hypothesis.

That's fine. I choose to view it as a hypothesis. Perhaps it is more abstract for you?

How many others have you known to make an attempt at synthesizing the Hebrew Qabalah, Golden Dawn Knowledge Lectures, Thelemic Cosmology, Mathematics, and Modern Science into one single map?

It's just a map, a "supposition" that things could verily work out that way. Crowley "puts under the microscope" the above ideas and examines them on their common grounds, while "supposing" that anyone should be able to do the same.

Maybe they are metaphors to you. That's fine. I don't see them as only metaphors, especially when they are details that I work with every day.

By the way, saying hypotheses only cover factual explanations shows a small lack of understanding of the scientific method on your part. Not making judgment, just saying.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
22/10/2011 10:27 am  

[Moderator's Note: Infantile troll post deleted.]


ReplyQuote
Page 3 / 3
Share: