Notifications
Clear all

Typhonian Order: 2 questions  

Page 2 / 5
  RSS

Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3948
06/02/2010 9:53 am  
"Patriarch156" wrote:
So I maintain, unless someone actually quotes Crowley as having stated that one can be a Thelemite without accepting the Book of the Law it remains very uncharacteristically of Crowley to make such a claim and consequently unless someone points me to the source it seems more like an urban myth tha reflects many modern Thelemites take on the subject matter rather than Crowley being on record as having stated it.

I will find such quotes. In the meantime, a remark of Crowley's - that 'do what thou wilt' is to bid stars to shine, vines to bear fruit, water to seek its own level - clearly predicates Thelema as a law of nature. Awareness of this and acceptance of it is surely not restricted to those who have come across the term (or as some would have it, the religion) 'Thelema', or accepted the Book of the Law.

Given that Thelema is a natural law, how can it possibly be restricted to Crowley's vision, or to those who have 'accepted' the Book of the Law?

Best wishes,

Michael.


ReplyQuote
Aleisterion
(@aleisterion)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 319
06/02/2010 12:39 pm  

Patriarch156 wrote: "Aleisterion, are you really suggesting that one can not attain the various attainments along the Tree of Life and aspire towards the third eternal Order without being a Thelemite? If so, I think you are not only coming at it from an entirely different point of view than Crowley who scrupulously (and unscrupulously) defended his position as far as the Law of Thelema went but maintained the perennial aspect of the third Order (as expressed also in An Account of the A.'.A.'.), but also doing a great deal of disservice to all those who does aspire and work towards attainment who would want nothing to do with Thelema under any of its myriad forms."

With all respect, what part of the quote is unclear? I'm not drawing any conclusion from this statement that isn't obvious. He says that many people may go through the Grades by alternative means...why is this absurd? The A.'.A.'. was not some terrestrial organization started by Crowley, it was a particular manifestation of an eternal Supernal Order, just one of many such possible. Let us not forget that Crowley referred to Blavatsky as a Master of the Temple of the A.'.A.'., even though her Attainment of that Grade preceded the formation of that particular version of the Great White Brotherhood. He also recognized Eliphas Levi as an Adeptus Exemptus of the Order. Buddha, Moses and Mohammed are just a few more examples of emissaries sent by the Order in the distant past, in Crowley's opinion.

Let's not forget that Thelema simply means "Will". The aim of the Great Order is to achieve the Supernal Will, i.e. to manifest one's Genius, whatever it may be. The manifestation of real Genius is to my mind evidence of some measure of Attainment.


ReplyQuote
Patriarch156
(@patriarch156)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 486
06/02/2010 1:27 pm  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
Given that Thelema is a natural law, how can it possibly be restricted to Crowley's vision, or to those who have 'accepted' the Book of the Law?

I certainly agree that if Thelemites were those who accepted Thelema as a true natural Law would make such an limitaton impossible. Despite Crowley's insistence of "scientific religion" his conception of the Law was however neither naturalistic (making it a true natural law) nor removed from an extremely strong personality focus (making it even less so).

However my point has really not been what you, or I or anybody else interpret Thelema as. I readily recognize that modern Thelemites seem a lot more ecumenical as far as Thelema goes than Crowley were, which was why I were interested in that particular quote. Seeing as how uncharacteristically it were it would be interesting to read it and place it in its proper context, just as I have done with the various other attempts at centralizing it in the Book of the Law and his personality.


ReplyQuote
Patriarch156
(@patriarch156)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 486
06/02/2010 1:34 pm  
"Aleisterion" wrote:
Patriarch156 wrote: "Aleisterion, are you really suggesting that one can not attain the various attainments along the Tree of Life and aspire towards the third eternal Order without being a Thelemite? If so, I think you are not only coming at it from an entirely different point of view than Crowley who scrupulously (and unscrupulously) defended his position as far as the Law of Thelema went but maintained the perennial aspect of the third Order (as expressed also in An Account of the A.'.A.'.), but also doing a great deal of disservice to all those who does aspire and work towards attainment who would want nothing to do with Thelema under any of its myriad forms."

With all respect, what part of the quote is unclear? I'm not drawing any conclusion from this statement that isn't obvious. He says that many people may go through the Grades by alternative means...why is this absurd? The A.'.A.'. was not some terrestrial organization started by Crowley, it was a particular manifestation of an eternal Supernal Order, just one of many such possible. Let us not forget that Crowley referred to Blavatsky as a Master of the Temple of the A.'.A.'., even though her Attainment of that Grade preceded the formation of that particular version of the Great White Brotherhood. He also recognized Eliphas Levi as an Adeptus Exemptus of the Order. Buddha, Moses and Mohammed are just a few more examples of emissaries sent by the Order in the distant past, in Crowley's opinion.

Let's not forget that Thelema simply means "Will". The aim of the Great Order is to achieve the Supernal Will, i.e. to manifest one's Genius, whatever it may be. The manifestation of real Genius is to my mind evidence of some measure of Attainment.

You misunderstand me. My point was simply that one does not have to be a Thelemite to either attain the various attainments in the A.'.A.'. (as an expression of the third Order along the two outer Orders) nor even aspire to this third Order.

A.C. iwas however adamant that to be a member of the A.'.A.'. in the outer that you have to accept the Law of Thelema (cf. One Star in Sight) and in a circular letter to members around the time of writing Confessions, stressed both the fact that authority as such were constituted in him Aleister Crowley as To Mega Therion and that this would remain so until the prophecies of AL had been fulfilled.

Your own conception of Thelema has never been at stake here, I was merely interested in Crowley's supposed and uncharacteristic ecumenical poition on Thelema. He remained consistent (in the sense that I have so far seen no direct assertions or even behavior to the contrary) on that just as he remained consistent (in the same sense) on the perennialism of the third Order of the A.'.A.'. and it ecumenicalism.


ReplyQuote
Patriarch156
(@patriarch156)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 486
06/02/2010 2:58 pm  
"zardoz" wrote:
Of course Crowley had one single character and it was very consistent and uniform. πŸ™„

I am not sure where you think I have expressed such a statement. What I meant by consistent was that I have yet to see him either express or even act in such a way that hinted at such ecumenical ideas in him. This makes it uncharacteristic which is why I am eager to find the actual quote which I have asked around a lot by now and which people either deny exists or can not remember where it is. I sincerely hope that MS finds it as it is always fun to dsicover new facets of Crowley's thoughts.

And the fact that he makes the exact same claim regarding the A A in his Confessions, a public record, not in some letter to someone, is just a coincidence. πŸ˜•

As much as I like watching you roll your eyes and remain a questionmark I would like to point out that I already pointed out that the perennialism of the third Order of the A.'.A.'. has never been at stake nor its attainments. In fact I explicitely argued that one do not have to be a Thelemite to attain or even aspire to the third Order.

As far as the quote that you wished to have it goes: "I am the scribe + prophet of the Book of the Law; the sole condition of complete adherence [to the Law of Thelema] is merely the accetance of that Book."-June 21st, 1944 e.v.

He would in a way that further emphasize the centrality of the Book of the Law a year later on june 9th write again about this new religion of his before ebaorating how Thelema meets these criterias that "Any "new religion" must have (1) a Sacred Book (2) a slogan (3) a definite, intelligible, + practical programme!."


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
06/02/2010 4:18 pm  
"Patriarch156" wrote:
"zardoz" wrote:
Of course Crowley had one single character and it was very consistent and uniform. πŸ™„

I am not sure where you think I have expressed such a statement. What I meant by consistent was that I have yet to see him either express or even act in such a way that hinted at such ecumenical ideas in him. This makes it uncharacteristic which is why I am eager to find the actual quote which I have asked around a lot by now and which people either deny exists or can not remember where it is. I sincerely hope that MS finds it as it is always fun to dsicover new facets of Crowley's thoughts.

And the fact that he makes the exact same claim regarding the A A in his Confessions, a public record, not in some letter to someone, is just a coincidence. πŸ˜•

As much as I like watching you roll your eyes and remain a questionmark I would like to point out that I already pointed out that the perennialism of the third Order of the A.'.A.'. has never been at stake nor its attainments. In fact I explicitely argued that one do not have to be a Thelemite to attain or even aspire to the third Order.

As far as the quote that you wished to have it goes: "I am the scribe + prophet of the Book of the Law; the sole condition of complete adherence [to the Law of Thelema] is merely the accetance of that Book."-June 21st, 1944 e.v.

He would in a way that further emphasize the centrality of the Book of the Law a year later on june 9th write again about this new religion of his before ebaorating how Thelema meets these criterias that "Any "new religion" must have (1) a Sacred Book (2) a slogan (3) a definite, intelligible, + practical programme!."

Yay for propaganda!!! LOL


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
06/02/2010 7:38 pm  

Michael,

Might these references support your position somewhat?

Far more important is the Word of Rabelais, Fais ce que veulx[2]. The sublime Doctor does indeed intend, so far as he goes, to set forth in essence the Law of Thelema, very much as it is understood by the Master Therion himself.
[2] French, "Do what thou wilt" ....
Aleister Crowley, 1926, The Antecedents of Thelema. Published in The Revival of Magick, edited by Hymenaeus Beta & R. Kaczynski, 1998, page 163.

We may then conclude that the masterpiece of Rabelais contains in singular perfection a clear forecast of the Book which was to be revealed by Aiwass to Ankh-f-n-khonsu 370 years later.
The Antecedents of Thelema, Published in The Revival of Magick, page 165.

Although Aleister Crowley doesn't specifically say that Rabelais is a Thelemite in these passages, he certainly implies that he is, to at least a certain degree. This would support the idea that one can be a Thelemite without having accepted the Book of the Law or having heard of the term "Thelema".

Additionally, and from relatively recent times:

According to Lon Milo Duquette, a Thelemite is anyone who bases their actions on striving to discover and accomplish their true will, [51]
Duquette, Lon Milo, Angels, demons & gods of the new millennium, Weiser, 1997, ISBN 157863010X, p.3
http://wapedia.mobi/en/Thelema


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
06/02/2010 7:41 pm  

I'm more interested in the concept of true Will surviving the evolution of Thelema than I am of prophets or sacred books surviving it. I'm also very interested in a "definite, intelligible, + practical programme" evolving around that concept, one that remains relevant and valuable to as many people as possible for as long as possible, since "the law is for all."

With regard to 'Typhonian Thelema,' it sometimes seems to me that the concept of true Will gets lost in the concept that is called the "Thelemic Current." With all due respect, I'd like to ask about the relationship between these two concepts. Also, can anyone tell me the true origin of the term "Thelemic Current"?


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1825
06/02/2010 8:30 pm  

Camlion-

As I see it, the "Thelemic Current" is the sweeping influence of that evolutionary impulse evocative of the verity and consciousness of Will in the Human Being. It's manifestions are manifold and any "exclusivity"' on the part of Crowley (or Crowleyans) hampers the energetic potential of this force. "Typhonian Thelema" has its unique characteristics: thematic focus points such as Zos Kia, Lovecraftian language, ET contact and so on, the codified vision of Crowley extending into new arenas. A big difference between the "Crowleyan" and the "Typhonian," as I see it, is that the former would restrict all "matters of the Law" within an appeal to the Prophet's authority. Furthermore, the Typhonian pulse is not limited to sticking in the parameters of Grant's writing (even Grant welcomes and incorporates much new material as his books unfold, treating of what was then the very recent discoveries and work of Nema, M. Bertiaux, Robert Anton Wilson, members of his own Order etc).

I agree with you and admire your stance of being

more interested in the concept of true Will surviving the evolution of Thelema than I am of prophets or sacred books surviving it. I'm also very interested in a "definite, intelligible, + practical programme" evolving around that concept, one that remains relevant and valuable to as many people as possible for as long as possible, since "the law is for all."

Ritual, initiations, tantric magick, fraternal pursuits, esoteric research and so on will not be everyone's cup of tea. Nor everyone's Will. But Will IS the foundation from which we approach any of these (or seemingly unrelated) endeavors.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
06/02/2010 8:36 pm  
"Patriarch156" wrote:
What I meant by consistent was that I have yet to see him either express or even act in such a way that hinted at such ecumenical ideas in him. This makes it uncharacteristic which is why I am eager to find the actual quote which I have asked around a lot by now and which people either deny exists or can not remember where it is. I sincerely hope that MS finds it as it is always fun to dsicover new facets of Crowley's thoughts.

Crowley appears very ecumenical.

Ecumenical defintion: .

1. Of worldwide scope or applicability; universal.

from http://www.answers.com/topic/ecumenical

Starting on p.848 in the Confessions, Crowley writes at length of the worldwide scope and applicability regarding the future acceptance of the Law of Thelema.

"Patriarch156" wrote:
As far as the quote that you wished to have it goes: "I am the scribe + prophet of the Book of the Law; the sole condition of complete adherence [to the Law of Thelema] is merely the accetance of that Book."-June 21st, 1944 e.v.

He would in a way that further emphasize the centrality of the Book of the Law a year later on june 9th write again about this new religion of his before ebaorating how Thelema meets these criterias that "Any "new religion" must have (1) a Sacred Book (2) a slogan (3) a definite, intelligible, + practical programme!."

These quotes appear to be from private letters which means Crowley's intention with this communication was for a very limited audience, ie the recipients of those letters. He said what he said to make a specific point to those people. To my knowledge, he did not go on public record stating that acceptance of the Book of the Law was a requirement to be a Thelemite. Why not, if this is so important??? He could have easily mentioned this in the Confessions, or the Book of Thoth, or even slipped it into Liber OZ - 'Man has the right to call himself a Thelemite as long as he knows about and accepts the Book of the Law,' or something like that. But he did not.

However, from p. 853-854 in the Confessions:

"Of course (in practice) many people, perhaps the majority, will not accept
the Law of Thelema. We found that life in the abbey with its absolute freedom was too severe a strain on those who were accustomed to depend on others. The responsibility of being truly themselves was too much for them; ..."

Here, in this public record, it's clear that the sole criteria for accepting the Law of Thelema is to truly be yourself.
No mention of the dogmatic requirement to accept the Book of the Law. This whole chapter, 87, from the Confessions deals with the acceptance of the Law of Thelema. The Book of the Law is mentioned frequently to illustrate points but nowhere does it even hint that a person must know about it and accept it in order to put the Law of Thelema into practice.

By this definition, Kenneth Grant is clearly and undeniably a Thelemite.

According to Lon Milo Duquette, a Thelemite is anyone who bases their actions on striving to discover and accomplish their true will, [51]
Duquette, Lon Milo, Angels, demons & gods of the new millennium, Weiser, 1997, ISBN 157863010X, p.3

Not surprising that Duquette's definition of a Thelemite agrees with Crowleys. Duquette has a deep understanding of Thelema.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
06/02/2010 9:20 pm  
"zardoz" wrote:

Here, in this public record, it's clear that the sole criteria for accepting the Law of Thelema is to truly be yourself.

Not quite. Because the understanding of "self" changes. That's the Law of Thelema in action.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
06/02/2010 10:44 pm  
"tai" wrote:
"zardoz" wrote:

Here, in this public record, it's clear that the sole criteria for accepting the Law of Thelema is to truly be yourself.

Not quite. Because the understanding of "self" changes. That's the Law of Thelema in action.

Yes, thank-you for the clarification, tai. Who you are is not static; the Law of Thelema is dynamic. We are here to go...


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
07/02/2010 12:29 am  

Yes, To Go is The Way of Thelema. I think this is why A.C. emphasized the import of the Tao.


ReplyQuote
Patriarch156
(@patriarch156)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 486
07/02/2010 12:37 am  

here is a very curious way of argumenting presented in these points, including one about the attainments of the A.'.A.'. which I have not denied was very ecumenical.

The other quotes are not direct statements from Crowley concerning this and bringing up Duquette in this argument is about as relevant as bringing up your own. have never denied that modern Thelemites in general are very ecumenical when it comes to Thelema.

That being said, I welcome any quotation (as opposed to interpretation) where Crowley directly wrote on record that one can be a Thelemite without ever hearing about the Book of the Law which were what the assertion was.

This is also veering off topic and I apologize for derailing the discussion. I merely wanted to source the statement because of a personal interest. Be well.


ReplyQuote
Walterfive
(@walterfive)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 856
08/02/2010 3:56 pm  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
I think that your words "Crowley and Thelema", and your later use of "Crowleyan", suggest to me that to some extent you conflate Crowley and Thelema. Crowley himself is on record, somewhere or other, as having said that one could be unaware of the term "Thelema" and yet be a Thelemite. My own conception of Thelema is close to, if not identical with, the Tao; I get a similar feeling from, for example, Liber Aleph or The Book of Lies.

Personally, I think that Grant's works propogate the Word of the Law admirably.

No, actually, I am quite aware of various of the Thelemic antecedents to Crowley, some of them more than others, (such as The Hellfire Club and the writings of Dr. P. B. Randolph). Many papers have been written over the last two decades to this end by my friends and peers, it's actually been one of the brighter points of Thelemic scholarship lately, IMHO. However, as the Book of the Law describes Crowley as a "Prophet" and as Magus of the Aeon, I think a certain conflation between To Mega Therion and Thelema is inevitable, and perhaps even popular opinion in some of the Thelemic circles I run in. Without Him, most of us probably wouldn't be here discussing these lofty matters.

However, do not think that I mistake Crowley and To Mega Therion as being the same person, although Crowley himself appearantly did from time to time. I would actually cite certain passages of Liber Aleph as being anti-Thelemic and rife with Crowley's personal misogyny. As a result, I find Liber Aleph to be one of The Master Therion's more flawed works-- just as a diamond may have its flaws, and still retain value and worth.

I don't see how Grant's works can do much to 'propogate the Word of the Law" when (as I understand it) Grant doesn't believe that Crowley uttered the Word that made him the Magus of the New Aeon.

And of course *you* would think "that Grant's works propogate the Word of the Law admirably," Mr. Staley, with all due respect. You wouldn't be working nearly as hard on reprinting them in such marvelous new editions as you are if you didn't. I believe that you believe in what you do, and that's one of the qualities I see in you that cause me to hold you in such esteem.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3948
08/02/2010 5:01 pm  

Walter,

Thank you for your appreciative remarks. There is a point I would like to pick up, though.

"Walterfive" wrote:
I don't see how Grant's works can do much to 'propogate the Word of the Law" when (as I understand it) Grant doesn't believe that Crowley uttered the Word that made him the Magus of the New Aeon.

Grant is here exploring a contention of Achad's in his correspondence of 1948 with Gerald Yorke. Achad maintained (taking his cue from Crowley's description of the grade) that upon attaining to the grade of Magus, the adept would utter his Word. This can be taken to imply that the Word is uttered upon attainment of the Grade, or shortly afterwards. There is some evidence that this is what Crowley expected at the time.

However, Crowley subsequently maintained that his Word as Magus was Thelema, which had of course been communicated to him several years before his attainment of the grade, and that his task as Magus was the propagation of this Word. This is something that Achad and Yorke argued about - Yorke taking Crowley's side in this - and a point which I believe Achad never accepted. Personally I think it's a very abstruse matter, and I'm not sure it's that important anyway.

Best wishes,

Michael.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
08/02/2010 8:51 pm  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
"Walterfive" wrote:
I don't see how Grant's works can do much to 'propogate the Word of the Law" when (as I understand it) Grant doesn't believe that Crowley uttered the Word that made him the Magus of the New Aeon.

However, Crowley subsequently maintained that his Word as Magus was Thelema, which had of course been communicated to him several years before his attainment of the grade.

Sorry to jump in here, but I thought Thelema was the word of the Law, not of the Aeon?


ReplyQuote
Walterfive
(@walterfive)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 856
08/02/2010 9:57 pm  
"DNA" wrote:
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
"Walterfive" wrote:
I don't see how Grant's works can do much to 'propogate the Word of the Law" when (as I understand it) Grant doesn't believe that Crowley uttered the Word that made him the Magus of the New Aeon.

However, Crowley subsequently maintained that his Word as Magus was Thelema, which had of course been communicated to him several years before his attainment of the grade.

Sorry to jump in here, but I thought Thelema was the word of the Law, not of the Aeon?

That is a point of contention and confusion. The Word of the Aeon is Abrahadabra. The Word of the Law is Thelema.

Thank you for illuminating that point, Mr. Staley. I had forgotten it was originally Achad's point of contention. I agree, it's a *very* abstruse matter.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3948
09/02/2010 1:03 am  
"DNA" wrote:
Sorry to jump in here, but I thought Thelema was the word of the Law, not of the Aeon?

Irrespecive of its origins as the word of the Law, Crowley subsequently made it his Word as Magus.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
09/02/2010 3:32 am  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
Irrespecive of its origins as the word of the Law, Crowley subsequently made it his Word as Magus.

I am currently reading Outside the Circles of Time and I have come across this theme. I have a question I'd like to post that bears relation to this.

1. What precisely is a Word. What is meant by The Word of an Aeon, The Word of the Law, The Wordless Aeon? In Liber Aleph Crowley analyzes a few of the other words such TAO, THELEMA, ALLAH, ect, but he never (as far as I have studied) gives a thesis on what is exactly meant by this. Another word is given to him in The Vision and the Voice, Andahadna recived IPSOS ( her word as a Magus???) and Frater WIT utters FUTIQUE in his book.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
09/02/2010 4:57 am  
"Patriarch156" wrote:
here is a very curious way of argumenting presented in these points, including one about the attainments of the A.'.A.'. which I have not denied was very ecumenical.

The point with the A.'.A.'. comment is that if someone can undergo its ordeals without consciously knowing about the A.'.A.'. then it logically follows [ to some] that one can also be aligned, and have essentially accepted the Law of Thelema without ever having heard of it or of Crowley.

"Patriarch156" wrote:
and bringing up Duquette in this argument is about as relevant as bringing up your own.

No, it's not. In a court of law, bringing up Duquette, as someone else here did, is calling in an expert witness. Duquette is an expert, I am not. You're welcome to call in your own expert witnesses for rebuttal, but I don't think you have any because there is no definition of Thelemite that says you have to be familiar or even know of Crowley and his system in order to truly be oneself... to be, for all practical purposes, a Thelemite in everything but name. And a rose by any other name ...
I'm welcome to be shown a public quote that proves this wrong.

"Patriarch156" wrote:
That being said, I welcome any quotation (as opposed to interpretation) where Crowley directly wrote on record that one can be a Thelemite without ever hearing about the Book of the Law which were what the assertion was.

Maybe it's so incredibly obvious given everything else he and Liber Al said about Thelema that it didn't need to be said? Where does he ever say that only those who have heard of Liber Al can be Thelemites?

By definition, laws operate whether you've heard of them or not. That doesn't mean they're always followed, though.


ReplyQuote
Aleisterion
(@aleisterion)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 319
09/02/2010 6:24 pm  

The two words Thelema and Abrahadabra, 93 and 418 respectively, share common ground in Aiwass, 93 being the value of that name in Hebrew and 418 being its numeration by Greek Gematria: i.e., they are simply two facets of the same Magical Word. The formula of the Aeon is after all double, Heru-ra-ha being "the Lord of the Double Wand of Power".


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
09/02/2010 7:17 pm  
"zardoz" wrote:
"Patriarch156" wrote:
That being said, I welcome any quotation (as opposed to interpretation) where Crowley directly wrote on record that one can be a Thelemite without ever hearing about the Book of the Law which were what the assertion was.

Maybe it's so incredibly obvious given everything else he and Liber Al said about Thelema that it didn't need to be said? Where does he ever say that only those who have heard of Liber Al can be Thelemites?

By definition, laws operate whether you've heard of them or not. That doesn't mean they're always followed, though.

This is obviously true in practice, Z. For instance, I taught my children Thelema without their having heard of Crowley or Liber AL yet, and they soon set about discerning and doing true Will regardless.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
09/02/2010 8:15 pm  

Thanks for the excellent practical example, Camlion.


ReplyQuote
Patriarch156
(@patriarch156)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 486
09/02/2010 8:25 pm  
"Camlion" wrote:
This is obviously true in practice, Z. For instance, I taught my children Thelema without their having heard of Crowley or Liber AL yet, and they soon set about discerning and doing true Will regardless.

And I would like to point out that I have never claimed that one cannot set about discerning, knowing or doing ones True Will without ever having heard about Crowley or Liber AL and have repeatedly noted this.

In any case to summarize, whatever people's logical extrapolations from Crowley's work as far as their own ideas goes about what constitutes Thelema, I was more interested in an actual quote from Crowley that noted this and that was all I asked Michael Staley for. Again, I apologize for the derailing of the thread and had perhaps naively not expected that with the exception of MS among those who engaged me would not understand what I was asking about. No doubt the fault lies entirely with me. My apologies.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
09/02/2010 8:46 pm  
"Patriarch156" wrote:
And I would like to point out that I have never claimed that one cannot set about discerning, knowing or doing ones True Will without ever having heard about Crowley or Liber AL and have repeatedly noted this.

So that means you agree that one can function as a Thelemite without literally knowing about Thelema?

"Patriarch156" wrote:
I was more interested in an actual quote from Crowley that noted this and that was all I asked Michael Staley for.

Crowley's quote from the Confessions that I brought up does note this pretty clearly by inference.

Does this mean you need to have Crowley say it more literally and more directly for it to ring true to you?

"Patriarch156" wrote:
Again, I apologize for the derailing of the thread and had perhaps naively not expected that with the exception of MS people would not understand what I was asking about.

You're asking for a quote from Crowley regarding this point. What's to understand? This being an open forum and all, I didn't realize that you were only asking Mr. Staley. Why didn't you just send him a pm if you were only asking him?

Is it the fact that the point is proven without evidence Crowley said exactly what you're looking for cause for what you think is misunderstanding?


ReplyQuote
Patriarch156
(@patriarch156)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 486
09/02/2010 9:11 pm  
"zardoz" wrote:
So that means you agree that one can function as a Thelemite without literally knowing about Thelema?

Seeing as we were talking about Crowley here my own views are irrelevant. But no I do not think that Crowley would believe that one could function as a Thelemite without literally knowing about Thelema, since I do not think that he defined it as someone who seeks and pursues ones True Will.

As far as what I think about since you seem to be largely concerned about that: I think that it is possible to seek out, know and do ones True Will while hearing about Crowley and Thelema, be extremely knowledgeable about both and knowing a great deal about the Holy Books of Thelema and still be extremely hostile towards all three subjects. In short I believe that one can find and do ones True Will without being a Thelemite. I understand that you do not feel that this is the case and am perfectly fine with that.

"Patriarch156" wrote:
Crowley's quote from the Confessions that I brought up does note this pretty clearly by inference.

Does this mean you need to have Crowley say it more literally and more directly for it to ring true to you?

This shows what I was talking about as far as misunderstanding me goes. Again I was interested in it from a historical point of view. That is what Crowley wrote and actually thought about the subject matter. I would also like to point out yet another time that I have never denied Crowley's perennialism as far as the various Grades. Clearly we are not communicating very well and I suppose it is my own fault: I do not understand why you have such a hard time understanding what I am asking about and perhaps part of our communication problem lies there.

In relation to my question the quote from Confessions is irrelevant as it does not really address what I was asking about. The same goes for the quote from Lon Milo Duquette. I was neither asking for whether one could do ones True Will, nor attain various Grades mapped along the Tree of Life or what modern Thelemites like Duquette, you, me or anybody else defines Thelema as. I was asking for the quote and the source for Crowley's supposed statement that one could be a Thelemite without hearing about the Book of the Law.

You're asking for a quote from Crowley regarding this point. What's to understand? This being an open forum and all, I didn't realize that you were only asking Mr. Staley. Why didn't you just send him a pm if you were only asking him?

As I noted to MS in a PM I probably should have taken it through PM, but as I noted I was naive. If you or anybody else could have provided that actual quote and source it that would indeed have answered my question. Since noone has but MS has promise me he will search for it, it remains unanswered but awaiting hopeful resolution. Which leads us to your final missive:

Is it the fact that the point is proven without evidence Crowley said exactly what you're looking for cause for what you think is misunderstanding?

The misunderstanding is that you do not seem to understand what I am actually asking for. As far as I am aware noone so far in this thread have given any evidence that Crowley regarded that one could be a Thelemite without having heard about the Book of the Law. In fact the only quote where he defines what constitutes a Thelemite in its basic sense comes from me where he in a letter to W.B. Crow on how to organize and spread the Law of Thelema declares that one has to accept the Book of the Law.

He makes many other similar claims, centralizing how the questions of the Law are to be decided in his own person (first the Tunis Comment which by his own admission was inspired by his attempt to stop Norman Mudd from coming with his relentless criticism of the way Crowley used and interpreted the Book of the Law and secondly in the Equinox of the Gods). He acted in a similar vein in all his dealings that I know about as far as his and the Book of the Law's centrality when it came to Thelema.

This is not to say that there exists no such quote which is why I asked for it instead of dismissing it. Like Crowley's attempts at centralizing Thelema in his person has been interesting in sourcing and understanding the context of, if he actually said the opposite it would be equally interesting in sourcing and understanding the context of.

In any case this grows extremely insular and focusing on me rather than the thread. Feel free to continue in PMs if you have any further questions about what my actual point was.

I regret that we seem to be unable to communicate very well with each other and I hope, perhaps naively, that you understand better where I am coming from now. If not, as I noted, feel free to PM if you are actually interested in understanding what I was trying to say.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
09/02/2010 9:27 pm  

It's very clear what you're asking for and I stated it in my last post, so I don't know why you continue to disingenuously state that I don't understand. I acknowledge that I haven't provided the exact quote you're looking for. I maintain that the point can be proven without Crowley directly stating it, if this quote can't be found or doesn't exist.

But no I do not think that Crowley would believe that one could function as a Thelemite without literally knowing about Thelema, since I do not think that he defined it as someone who seeks and pursues ones True Will.

How did AC define Thelemite? I can't find a definition from him.


ReplyQuote
Patriarch156
(@patriarch156)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 486
09/02/2010 9:39 pm  
"zardoz" wrote:
It's very clear what you're asking for and I stated it in my last post, so I don't know why you continue to disingenuously state that I don't understand. I acknowledge that I haven't provided the exact quote you're looking for. I maintain that the point can be proven without Crowley directly stating it, if this quote can't be found or doesn't exist.

You remain extremely hostile towards me and no I am not being disingenious when I write that you misunderstand me. When you continue to give me modern interpretations and write as if I deny that one can know and do ones True Will or attain various grades mapped along the Tree of Life without hearing about the Book of the Law, then naturally you are misunderstanding me.

I was not interested in your own particular own extrapolation from Your various questions is further proof that you were misunderstanding me. If you did not you willfully ignored what I was trying to get at in order to score rhetorical points with your questions to me, but I prefer to accept that people are in general not disingenious when I deal with them.

No doubt one can make any number of arguments as to what constitutes a Thelemite, with or without extrapolation from principles set down in Crowley's writings. But that was not really what I was interested in.

How did AC define Thelemite? I can't find a definition from him.

I have already given you the quote and you dismissed it as being relevant to W.B. Crow only (obviously unaware of that he wrote this as advice when it came for how to organize the promulgation of the Law of Thelema). As I have pointed out he defined it at its very basic as someone who have accepted the Book of the Law. I have also noted how this central aspect of both the Book and him as its Prophet and in time sole arbitritor (Equinox of the Gods) of all questions concerning the Law as well as him trying to root out heresiarchs who questioned his supremacy in both position and interpretation as far as Thelema goes (the Tunis comment), is nothing new and remained pretty consistent (as in I have yet to see anything contraindicative from him as far as clear speech and actions goes).

This was why I were interested in this quote. I did not deny that it existed, since I indeed feel that it would be interesting to source and determine the context of such a quote just as his attempts to root out heresiarchs, making himself and the Book of the Law central to Thelema is interesting to source and determine its context.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
09/02/2010 10:02 pm  

Well, Patriarch156, this is an example of Crowley being short-sighted and unrealistic. Today we have a bigger picture and certain realities to deal with regarding the actual promulgation of the Law. He is dead and his writings are not expansive enough to appeal to reliably concerning many matters of modern application.


ReplyQuote
Patriarch156
(@patriarch156)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 486
09/02/2010 10:12 pm  
"Camlion" wrote:
Well, Patriarch156, this is an example of Crowley being short-sighted and unrealistic. Today we have a bigger picture and certain realities to deal with regarding the actual promulgation of the Law. He is dead and his writings are not expansive enough to appeal to reliably concerning many matters of modern application.

Again, how many times do I need to point out that I do not begrudge anyone at all their various takes on the Law of Thelema, be they in alignment with that of Crowley, partly in alignment with him or even completely opposing him. I would be a fool not to, considering how much I disagree with Crowley (if on other aspects of his ideas than yourself) myself.

In fact, to a certain extent, the more the merrier. I was only wondering about the source and context of a statement supposedly made by Crowley concerning the Law of Thelema.

In a sense your ecumenicalism is both admirable and exciting Camlion, even if I do not happen to agree with it myself. The more points of views that are shared the better in my book, particularly if they are not in agreement with each other.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
09/02/2010 10:24 pm  
"Patriarch156" wrote:
I was only wondering about the source and context of a statement suppodedly made by Crowley concerning the Law of Thelema.

Understood, Patriarch156, thanks.


ReplyQuote
thiebes
(@thiebes)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 164
09/02/2010 10:35 pm  

Perhaps we should start declaring our favorite willful people to be Thelemites posthumously. Einstein was a Thelemite, right? So was Carl Sagan. And Bucky Fuller! It's amazing how large our tradition becomes when you take off the blinders of "self-identifying"!


ReplyQuote
stevensteven
(@stevensteven)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 9
09/02/2010 10:38 pm  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
I'm sick to death of the identity of Thelema and Crowleyanity.

"I am Thelema"
- Aleister Crowley Oct 22, 1920


ReplyQuote
thiebes
(@thiebes)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 164
09/02/2010 10:39 pm  

P156 wrote: "I was only wondering about the source and context of a statement supposedly made by Crowley concerning the Law of Thelema."

Why would you demand this? I mean, Crowley was obviously in support of Thelema, and if we decide what Thelema means, can't we just pretend that he was in support of that? Why would you need an actual quotation? I mean, if we are going to say that everyone we like is a Thelemite, why not say that the people we like agree with everything we think? That's just logic!


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
09/02/2010 10:48 pm  
"Patriarch156" wrote:
You remain extremely hostile towards me and no I am not being disingenious when I write that you misunderstand me. When you continue to give me modern interpretations and write as if I deny that one can know and do ones True Will or attain various grades mapped along the Tree of Life without hearing about the Book of the Law, then naturally you are misunderstanding me.

I'm not hostile, I just disagree on this point. How does disagreement turn into misunderstanding? I'm fully aware that I haven't provided the quote you're looking for. I maintain that the point can be proven without the quote, another area of disagreement, not misunderstanding.

I repeated one modern interpretation - Duquette's, gave an inference based on AC's own words in the Confessions, and provided a logical argument based on a definition of the word law. I am not continuing to give you modern interpretations.

I did not write or imply that you deny knowledge of True Will or of various grades unless hearing of Liber Al. I'm not sure where you get that. It did seem like you interpreted the quote you provided to mean that knowledge of Liber Al is prerequisite to being a Thelemite.

"Patriarch156" wrote:
I was not interested in your own particular own extrapolation from Your various questions is further proof that you were misunderstanding me. If you did not you willfully ignored what I was trying to get at in order to score rhetorical points with your questions to me

I wasn't willfully ignoring what you were trying to get at - a particular quote - I looked for such a quote and couldn't find it, and I have acknowledged that I haven't given it. I could care less about rhetorical points, whatever they may be. Unable to provide the quote, I challenged the premise behind the request for it. Because that quote cannot be found, at the moment, it doesn't disprove the idea that one can be a Thelemite in all but name without knowing of Thelema. I'm sorry you took offense and went the ad hominem route.

How did AC define Thelemite? I can't find a definition from him.

"Patriarch156" wrote:
I have already given you the quote and you dismissed it as being relevant to W.B. Crow only (obviously unaware of that he wrote this as advice when it came for how to organize the promulgation of the Law of Thelema).

The quote you gave described complete adherence to the Law of Thelema which may or may not be a definition of Thelemite depending on one's interpretation.

"Patriarch156" wrote:
I have also noted how this central aspect of both the Book and him as its Prophet and in time sole arbitritor (Equinox of the Gods) of all questions concerning the Law as well as him trying to root out heresiarchs who questioned his supremacy in both position and interpretation as far as Thelema goes (the Tunis comment), is nothing new and remained pretty consistent (as in I have yet to see anything contraindicative from him as far as clear speech and actions goes).

True as these may be they do not define what a Thelemite is unless one chooses to make that interpretation.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
09/02/2010 10:55 pm  
"thiebes" wrote:
Perhaps we should start declaring our favorite willful people to be Thelemites posthumously. Einstein was a Thelemite, right? So was Carl Sagan. And Bucky Fuller! It's amazing how large our tradition becomes when you take off the blinders of "self-identifying"!

Exactly what Crowley did with the A .'. A .'.

"thiebes" wrote:
I mean, if we are going to say that everyone we like is a Thelemite, why not say that the people we like agree with everything we think? That's just logic!

No one said or implied that at all.


ReplyQuote
Patriarch156
(@patriarch156)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 486
09/02/2010 10:57 pm  

*sigh* Zardoz believe what you would like to belive about my points. As noted the miscommunication which still seems rampant is no doubt my own failt. For me this discussion is ended as far as it relates to you.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
09/02/2010 11:00 pm  

Sure, dismiss my points without actually addressing them. Discredit the witness if you can't discredit the testimony.


ReplyQuote
thiebes
(@thiebes)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 164
09/02/2010 11:08 pm  

"We who accept this Law may rightly be called Thelemites" -- AC in Djeridensis working under the heading "Thelemites defined."

Let me guess, next we'll define "acceptance of the Law" to include any apparently willful accomplishment.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3948
09/02/2010 11:41 pm  
"stevensteven" wrote:
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
I'm sick to death of the identity of Thelema and Crowleyanity.

"I am Thelema"
- Aleister Crowley Oct 22, 1920

Hilarious. Keep 'em coming.

πŸ™„


ReplyQuote
ptoner
(@ptoner)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2077
09/02/2010 11:46 pm  

This thread has went completely off skew now from the original request.
Bordering on the inane in my opinion.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
10/02/2010 12:00 am  
"thiebes" wrote:
"We who accept this Law may rightly be called Thelemites" -- AC in Djeridensis working under the heading "Thelemites defined."

You left out the rest of the quote ending it right before the word "if."

"We who accept this Law may rightly be called Thelemites, if this word be
defined in terms of its secret values, as in the case of the word Thelema itself."

Next paragraph from the Djeridensis comment under the heading:

The Law stated and explained.

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law – That is: the Law of a man’s Nature is to fulfill the purpose for which he is truly fitted."

One doesn't have to know of AC or of Thelema to accept this Law as it's stated and explained.


ReplyQuote
thiebes
(@thiebes)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 164
10/02/2010 12:12 am  
"zardoz" wrote:
You left out the rest of the quote ending it right before the word "if."

Only for the sake of brevity. No intention to change the sense of what Crowley wrote.

"zardoz" wrote:
One doesn't have to know of AC or of Thelema to accept this Law as it's stated and explained.

Of course one does. How would one accept this statement and/or its explanation without first having heard it?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
10/02/2010 12:16 am  
"thiebes" wrote:
Let me guess, next we'll define "acceptance of the Law" to include any apparently willful accomplishment.

No, that would be mistaking 'want' for true Will, "do as you please" for "do what thou wilt," a clear misunderstanding of Thelema. πŸ™‚


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
10/02/2010 12:24 am  
"thiebes" wrote:
"zardoz" wrote:
One doesn't have to know of AC or of Thelema to accept this Law as it's stated and explained.

Of course one does. How would one accept this statement and/or its explanation without first having heard it?

Well, one could certainly come to understand and accept the concept of true Will without being exposed to the words "Aleister Crowley" or "Thelema" (or "Liber AL"). In other words, the message alone without the messenger or his means. Entirely possible, yet perhaps less than ideal.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
10/02/2010 12:24 am  
"thiebes" wrote:
"zardoz" wrote:
You left out the rest of the quote ending it right before the word "if."

Only for the sake of brevity. No intention to change the sense of what Crowley wrote.

The rest of the quote makes it appear more ambiguous than the brief version.

"thiebes" wrote:
"zardoz" wrote:
One doesn't have to know of AC or of Thelema to accept this Law as it's stated and explained.

Of course one does. How would one accept this statement and/or its explanation without first having heard it?

One doesn't have to know this statement or explanation to align with the Law of Thelema, to fulfill the purpose for which one is truly fitted.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
10/02/2010 12:36 am  

With all due respect, could it simply be that some Thelemites are oath-bound to a 'stricter observance' in certain matters than other Thelemites?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
10/02/2010 1:56 am  
"thiebes" wrote:
"zardoz" wrote:
You left out the rest of the quote ending it right before the word "if."

Only for the sake of brevity. No intention to change the sense of what Crowley wrote.

"zardoz" wrote:
One doesn't have to know of AC or of Thelema to accept this Law as it's stated and explained.

Of course one does. How would one accept this statement and/or its explanation without first having heard it?

Are you proposing that in the history of all mankind, nobody has ever thought in this way, or decided to live by a similar creed, except for Crowley and his followers?


ReplyQuote
thiebes
(@thiebes)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 164
10/02/2010 5:20 am  
"AEternitas" wrote:
Are you proposing that in the history of all mankind, nobody has ever thought in this way, or decided to live by a similar creed, except for Crowley and his followers?

I don't see where Crowley has indicated acceptance of "some loosely similar ideas that some people think are Thelemic in some inferred way." Rather he has indicated acceptance of the Law, which is not just some loosely defined concept but the Word of Truth written in the Threefold Book.

"I comment on this Book, lest there be folly; for many are the Secret Sayings and obscure in the text thereof. It would be easy for the clever and the crafty to distort the true meaning of Aiwass so as to suit their own conceits, as hath been seen of old time in the cases of the Words of the Masters, the Q’uran, and the so-called Scriptures of the Christians."


ReplyQuote
Page 2 / 5
Share: