BOTL demands obedie...
 
Notifications
Clear all

BOTL demands obedience to its Prophet  

Page 1 / 3
  RSS

 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
19/10/2010 11:36 am  
"Azidonis" wrote:
Liber AL 1:32 "Obey my prophet! follow out the ordeals of my knowledge! seek me only! Then the joys of my love will redeem ye from all pain. This is so: I swear it by the vault of my body; by my sacred heart and tongue; by all I can give, by all I desire of ye all." It would seem, in context, that the speaker, Aiwass, on behalf of Nuit, is appealing to "Nuit's knowledge", or "knowledge of Nuit".

----

"Obey my prophet! follow out the ordeals of my knowledge! seek me only! Then the joys of my love will redeem ye from all pain. This is so: I swear it by the vault of my body; by my sacred heart and tongue; by all I can give, by all I desire of ye all." Source: The Book of the Law, chapter 1, verse 32.

----

Aleister Crowley, presumed that he received The Book of the Law, from some source of origin, superior to us all.

----

In relation to us all, the message contained witin The Book of the Law, demands obedience to authority, by demanding obedience to its Prophet, and promise that there will be a consequence very beneficiant to us all, if we are in this way obedient. Is The Book of the Law's authoritarian demand for obedience to Aleister Crowley as prophet of Thelema, an expression of his own authoritarian mentality, or an expression of the mentality of The Book of the Law's 'actual' author?

----

In general, demanding obedience to authority distorts and, as a result, inhibits critical responsibility.

Normative responsiblity, is critical resposibility, due to being premised upon the ability of persons to decide how they will undertake it. The responsible person is expected by means of rational deliberation, to decide to what extent he is duty-bound to act in a certain way or to follow a certain cource of action. Similarly, he is expected to act with care and to avoid untoward consequences.


Quote
christibrany
(@christibrany)
Yuggothian
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 2380
19/10/2010 3:58 pm  

With all due respect wellred
Whether I like you or not, the whole point of polls seems to be to wait until you get some feedback and takers and then to discuss the results.
Your constant spamming of new poll after new poll is getting sort of wearisome. It would be one thing if you waited a few weeks so everyone could actually take the poll. And another thing altogether if you noticed hardly anyone seems to be interested in them due to their near incomprehensible nature and lack of connection to Crowley as most here study him. But instead I think you are going too fast...and your claims at Sudden Gnosis aren't doing your ego any favours. but most academicians don't realise the necessity and usefulness of cleansing your ego in spiritual Work since they don't actually do Any..
good luck..


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
19/10/2010 4:17 pm  

Work with the aspect of a hierarchy,simply what you believe in.
It will more than help in your work


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
19/10/2010 5:49 pm  

No, it is due to AC's 'Oedipus Complex', an insurmountable post Freudian contagion of the masses i.e. the herd. Who, unconsciously cannot help themselves, but need a projection, the fetish/father figure. This false eidolon is not the food of the Gods, but the food which powers ANY religious cult or organisation.

A sensible way out, or an antidote to this patriarchal idiocy i.e. the 'need of grasping', would be through a thorough study and reflection upon the work of Delueze and Guattari, 'Anti-Oedipus, Capitalism and Schizophrenia'.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
19/10/2010 6:18 pm  

93,

Liber AL 1:26
"Then saith the prophet and slave of the beauteous one: Who am I, and what shall be the sign? So she answered him, bendingdown, a lambent flame of blue, all-touching, all penetrant, her lovely hands upon the black earth, & her lithe body arched for love, and her soft feet not hurting the little flowers: Thou knowest! And the sign shall be my ecstasy, the consciousness of the continuity of existence, the omnipresence of my body."

This is the first mention of the word "prophet" in the Book. Thus, it is a valid starting point for such inquiries.

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
19/10/2010 7:15 pm  

Adherence to each and every utterance that "the Prophet decreed," including mere flights of fancy that are cumulatively self-contradictory, yet were dutifully recorded with diligence for posterity, is the self-defeating curse of Thelema. That is why most Thelemites will just take the bits they like and ignore the rest. A cogent analysis of principles and applications remains lacking to date. Cheers.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
19/10/2010 9:58 pm  

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law,

Well...,
Thanks for the poll. Interesting to contemplate.

love is the law, love under will.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3951
19/10/2010 11:27 pm  
"Fo-Hi" wrote:
A sensible way out, or an antidote to this patriarchal idiocy i.e. the 'need of grasping', would be through a thorough study and reflection upon the work of Delueze and Guattari, 'Anti-Oedipus, Capitalism and Schizophrenia'.

I read that last year, twice as it happens. I was less than impressed. Not exactly 'Echoes of Silence', I thought.

Best wishes,

Michael.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
20/10/2010 11:57 am  

I read that last year, twice as it happens. I was less than impressed. Not exactly 'Echoes of Silence', I thought. 

Sure you did. Patriarchy and territorialisation i.e. cults, magical orders etc., are threatened from such post Marxist, post western analytical thought structures. Indeed, the need for neurotic patriarchal tendencies anaesthetise the individual from anything that runs contrary to their paradigm. The reflex to such ideas overpower their free thinking strategies. Anything that threatens this Oedipal drive would not be of any interest to those swamped by the illusory glamour of running a cult. Also, how could you be impressed by de-territorialisation? Accelerationist thinking? It would go against your nature of supporting territorialisation? What is perverse, and is highlighted in this thesis, is that the very structures that become overpowered i.e. the T.O.T.O., still support the territorialised structures that destroyed them? Bizarre, but this is what makes this thesis so very interesting. I am not surprised that you read it twice. 

Indeed, Deleuze and Guattari do not give a complete antidote to what I was referring to, far from it. How could any literature give anything complete? However, the general flavour of the 'idea' is what is relevant to this post. Just to say that one is not impressed with such a work is a bit myopic and defensive to say the least. The idea they put forward is very poignant, in the sense that it is fluid and not dogmatic. Power corrupts, we both know this very well, hence the requirement to go beyond, to evolve and polish our approach to the mysteries. Any matured occultist would value more of an anthropocentric focus above the power structure of any Cult. In regard to any mystery tradition, the fundamentals are that it is the initiate that is important. In this sense, the soul of being is the focus, not the territorialised power structure of a ruling elite. Hence, this literature is interesting for those individuals that are not territorialised, not affiliated, that are antinomian, that do not require a father figure, that are not herds, that are solitary occultists and can think for themselves i.e. outside the box.

Now, when such individuals contribute individually to the collective, being their anthropocentric duty, then shall we see a far more interesting flowering of occultism with deeper insights into the mysteries.

I suggest you read the book again, before you see those colours (kalas), the by product of those tidal echoes within the silence... 71 


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
20/10/2010 4:45 pm  

93,

"Fo-Hi" wrote:
I read that last year, twice as it happens. I was less than impressed. Not exactly 'Echoes of Silence', I thought. 

Sure you did. Patriarchy and territorialisation i.e. cults, magical orders etc., are threatened from such post Marxist, post western analytical thought structures. Indeed, the need for neurotic patriarchal tendencies anaesthetise the individual from anything that runs contrary to their paradigm. The reflex to such ideas overpower their free thinking strategies. Anything that threatens this Oedipal drive would not be of any interest to those swamped by the illusory glamour of running a cult. Also, how could you be impressed by de-territorialisation? Accelerationist thinking? It would go against your nature of supporting territorialisation? What is perverse, and is highlighted in this thesis, is that the very structures that become overpowered i.e. the T.O.T.O., still support the territorialised structures that destroyed them? Bizarre, but this is what makes this thesis so very interesting. I am not surprised that you read it twice. 

Indeed, Deleuze and Guattari do not give a complete antidote to what I was referring to, far from it. How could any literature give anything complete? However, the general flavour of the 'idea' is what is relevant to this post. Just to say that one is not impressed with such a work is a bit myopic and defensive to say the least. The idea they put forward is very poignant, in the sense that it is fluid and not dogmatic. Power corrupts, we both know this very well, hence the requirement to go beyond, to evolve and polish our approach to the mysteries. Any matured occultist would value more of an anthropocentric focus above the power structure of any Cult. In regard to any mystery tradition, the fundamentals are that it is the initiate that is important. In this sense, the soul of being is the focus, not the territorialised power structure of a ruling elite. Hence, this literature is interesting for those individuals that are not territorialised, not affiliated, that are antinomian, that do not require a father figure, that are not herds, that are solitary occultists and can think for themselves i.e. outside the box.

Now, when such individuals contribute individually to the collective, being their anthropocentric duty, then shall we see a far more interesting flowering of occultism with deeper insights into the mysteries.

I suggest you read the book again, before you see those colours (kalas), the by product of those tidal echoes within the silence... 71 

From the sound of this I doubt I'd want to read that book.

When people... scientists, philosophers, psychologists, psychiatrists, etc. grab onto one single paradigm and run with it, they can turn out some beautiful truths from within that paradigm. However, when they fail to see that the paradigm they are using is but one of many, and become en-wrapped into their own hermeneutic lens, is where the line should be drawn.

Thelema is not about Aleister Crowley. In fact, Aleister Crowley was really just a by-product of the Great Work occurring within a particular human framework. It has happened before, will happen again, and while it may not happen every day for some, it happens every moment for others. For anyone to cling onto Crowley's curtails and enjoin him in his form of rapture, or to engage in all of the various nuances you pointed out (same thing), is merely a tool of identification that is often misused. In fact, too often. People get caught up with all their ritual trappings and what-not, and maybe even somewhere along the lines carry on this fantasy of Crowley, their likeness to the Beast, or their admiration of him, or their [insert fallible human sentimental construct here].

The point is that this was recognized even by Crowley in the past. So if you really want to dig into what Thelema is, you should read up on the "Demon Crowley", and understand that for a true Thelemite, that demon has been tamed. Too often people take the term Thelemite to mean anyone who accepts The Book of the Law as the law of the new aeon -- Nuit, Hadit, and Ra Hoor Khuit, Matter, Motion, [insert third thing name here... humonculous if you want, sure], Aiwass/Adonai/Holy Guardian Angel, Ankh af na khonsu/Priest of the Princes/Frater Perdurabo/Prophet of the aeon, Aleister Crowley/mountaneer/prolific writer/sometimes a complete douchebag, etc. -- that someone who accepts all of this is fine and dandy. But that does not make one a Thelemite. That one accepts the things that occurred as offering a new paradigm means they must offer a new paradigm. The paradigm of Thelema in general is, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." This implies a separate paradigm for every man and every woman, to be agreed upon in dissolution. Until the aspirant attains to the phase where that paradigm becomes clear and is usable on a daily basis, the aspirant is not a Thelemite.

Thus, the people you refer to who are constantly clinging onto the "ghost of Crowleys past" are not Thelemites. They are either 1) earnest aspirants who are working to get over such 'boyish things', or 2) the "teenie-boppers of Thelema", the Crowley fan club. For anyone claiming to be a scientist to take that one subset of a population and use it to determine the entire gene flow of a population is not only faulty science, it is absurd.

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
20/10/2010 6:12 pm  

I agree with what you say Azidonis.

However, if it is o.k. for classical economic theory to use physics as a guideline for it's neoclassical theory of economics, using it's formulas, and if it is o.k. for KG to use the fiction of H.P.Lovecraft within his magical work, then surely, as the Buddhists say, if there is an interdependency inherent within this glamour of reality in which we participate, then it is only natural to look further into other types of philosophical thought and see parallels, and god forbid! Insight!

Indeed, there is a flavour of absurdity when commenting upon a piece of work without ever reading it.

I suggest you read my post again. Don't make the same mistake as Michael. Hubris gets everyone nowhere very quickly.


ReplyQuote
christibrany
(@christibrany)
Yuggothian
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 2380
20/10/2010 7:04 pm  

Well I have only known Mr Michael Staley through the internet but I have to say he has not once expressed himself in a way I would judge as having 'hubris' as you say...
I think if he doesn't like a work of art even if it purposes to be nonfiction that is his business and Will.
Whatever happened to not interfereing with anothers will?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
20/10/2010 7:30 pm  

Yes Christibrany, We are all too human these days, and even Michael is prone to hubris, like yourself or myself. So putting aside this pathological Oedipus drive, this longing for fitting in, this longing to please the father, this tendency to fixate upon the idol. What I have introduced, if you read it and stop to think about it, 'might' be of interest, you never know, there might be a part of 'your' mind that is yet not fully hypnotised by what others are feeding you? Also, maybe you can reach beyond the herd mentality, and question things, instead of defending somebody you don't know or have never met. Read my post again, it's focus is upon 'power structures' and for such structures to be deterritorialised, for the individuals sake! This is not blasphemy! It is common sense. A healthy mind will assess this thesis in a wider context and then see how it's proposal is relevant to the initiate and how cults are structured.

Interferring with someones will? Well, ain't we all interdependent? eh? Or, do we have to prostrate or brown nose ourselves to others?

The hidden god is within. Wake up.


ReplyQuote
christibrany
(@christibrany)
Yuggothian
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 2380
20/10/2010 7:37 pm  

for someone who has only been here a month you sure do know everyone perfectly...
In terms of Will I figured since you joined this group you admire Crowley and his teachings. In which case I am suprised you seem to be enjoying disregarding this gem:
"Man has the right to think as he will...
Man has the right to kill those who would thwart these rights.
Or to put it another way noninterference in another's Orbit is not just showing power it is acting respectfully.
""thou hast no right but to do thy will. Do that, and no other shall say nay." —AL. I. 42–3"
So essentially you are accusing someone of a negative quality due to them expressing their WIll to have an opinion.
Is this not naysaying and is it not interference? You are the one advocating finding inner divinity but you seem to be only allowing it's application to yourself.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
20/10/2010 7:40 pm  

Surely all this is an indication that it might be better not to study this particular book if one has various complexes to begin with.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
20/10/2010 7:43 pm  

No worries dude. For your information, I was using this site a long time before you were posting here. I had another name, and that name was ....thelittleman of Dr. Wilhelm Reich 😆


ReplyQuote
christibrany
(@christibrany)
Yuggothian
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 2380
20/10/2010 7:48 pm  

ok 'dude' I just find it bad form to insult others and then brush it off as if it were nothing when they are merely expressing their opinion.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
20/10/2010 8:44 pm  

93,

"Fo-Hi" wrote:
I agree with what you say Azidonis.

However, if it is o.k. for classical economic theory to use physics as a guideline for it's neoclassical theory of economics, using it's formulas, and if it is o.k. for KG to use the fiction of H.P.Lovecraft within his magical work, then surely, as the Buddhists say, if there is an interdependency inherent within this glamour of reality in which we participate, then it is only natural to look further into other types of philosophical thought and see parallels, and god forbid! Insight!

Insight is fine and dandy, but in many cases you cannot take a sample of a population and use it to speak for the entire population, as you have.

You appear to be referring Thelemites as little more than people with a variation of the Oedipus Complex, which is...

"The Oedipus complex, in psychoanalytic theory, is a group of largely unconscious (dynamically repressed) ideas and feelings which concentrate on the desire to possess the parent of the opposite sex and eliminate the parent of the same sex.[1][2] According to classical psychoanalytic theory, the complex appears during the so-called "oedipal phase" of libidinal and ego development; i.e. between the ages of three and five years, though oedipal manifestation may be detected earlier."

This could be construed as...

"a group of largely unconscious (dynamically repressed) ideas and feeling which concentrate on the desire [for women, and some men] to possess the parent of [Aleister Crowley] and [for men, and some women to] eliminate [Aleister Crowley]."

To which, I have stated, if it occurs at all, occurs very early on in the overall process, and is not to be mis-construed with the entire process.

Again...

"According to classical psychoanalytic theory, the complex appears during the so-called "oedipal phase" of libidinal and ego development; i.e. between the ages of three and five years, though oedipal manifestation may be detected earlier."

Which could read...

"According to classical psychoanalytic theory, the complex appears during the so-called ["pre-initiation phase"] of [kundalini] and ego [deprogramming]; i.e. between the [grades] of [insert order here], though oedipal manifestation may be detected earlier."

Indeed, there is a flavour of absurdity when commenting upon a piece of work without ever reading it.

Indeed, a flavor of absurdity exists when one takes one very small and often impertinent part of any one thing and uses it to judge the whole.

I suggest you read my post again. Don't make the same mistake as Michael. Hubris gets everyone nowhere very quickly.

Your post assumes that everyone who has undertaken the Great Work has done so due to this Oedipus Complex, which is not necessarily true in all cases. I'm sure there is some kid somewhere that has this grand idea to "eliminate [Aleister Crowley]", and thus pursues the Great Work out of that idea.

However, enlightenment itself should beat that out of him.

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
20/10/2010 9:31 pm  

First of all, it is not "interfering with another's will" to question another person's judgment, to disagree with that person, or even to insult that person. Some people have this warped idea of Thelema whereby "doing my will" means "no one can ever express any criticism whatsoever," which is a self-evidently stupid position.

Second of all, Fo-Hi's comments appear to be directed at all cults -- all orders with "heads" and "masters" -- which, according to this thesis, tend to attract people who have an unresolved Oedipal need to prove to their daddy figure that they are good little sons and daughters. [Or, alternatively, people who have a need to play daddy and be the oh-so-wise guru that these foolish chelas must come before to obtain advice]

In other words, he's proposing that inherent in the idea of obedience to a religious teacher or "master" or organization is the unconscious desire -- i.e. a desire that we are unaware of consciously -- to please the father and "conform" to someone else's idea of what attainment is. These ideas are so deeply ingrained in most of us that the majority of us can't see them unless we specifically try to look for them.

From what I can tell, it does appear that more of these types are attracted to Thelema than some of us would like to think. It stands to reason that the majority of people who are attracted to "occult orders" of all kinds are people who suffer from the delusion that there are "masters" with "secrets" who can impart this wisdom.

I guess the relevant question, to salvage this thread from the depths of dumb internet flame wars, is whether or not Liber AL depicts Thelema as such an Oedipal cult. On the surface, it might not look very good -- "obey my prophet" and all that.

But, of course, "obey my prophet" hardly means "do every last thing Crowley ever said." It might, for example, refer to obeying a specific injunction of the prophet (The central message of the Book of the Law: "Do what thou wilt"), which would ironically make this verse a commandment against having spiritual "masters."

The Book, let's remember, tells us that "There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt," which would certainly trump any commands of any masters or prophets or secret chiefs or whatnot that would dare to command anything.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
20/10/2010 9:39 pm  

No, Azidonis.

Again, you are not really reading my posts. My posts refer to the themes mentioned within a thesis by Deleuze, and how the thesis relates to cults in general i.e. power structures, their tendency for territorialisation and their non anthropocentric models which are imposed upon the individual. The very antithesis of the mysteries if you consider yourself an aspiring adept. If you still cannot get that from what I introduced as an 'idea', then you just don't get it. Or better still, read the book and come back to discuss. It is heavy going mind you. Call it a socio-political analysis, a questioning of cults and their non anthropocentric methods by which they are perversely maintained and supported by a society that cannot see the wood for the trees. I just recommended Deleuze and Guattari's thesis called 'Anti Oedipus, Capitalism and Schizophrenia' as it focuses upon the individual, and sees that our current state of affairs are more orientated on feeding the power structure/organisation/cult.
  
If you care to read my posts, without the Staley bias, then you will see how this French philosopher has ideas which do have relevance, not only in understanding Cults, but also in understanding our perverse reflexive support of them. Savvy?  

Please learn to read between the lines like any other good occultist. The aim of the thesis is against institution (territorialisation), and it's focus is for polishing up the individual, hence the ideas within this thesis are fluid (deterritorialism), and these Oedipal drives I mentioned are just a tiny fraction of a whole plethora of other psychoanalytical theorems that have been extended upon the sociopolitical arena, and used as a reference to gauge the norm of human behaviour.

So, before you comment, I suggest you read some Deleuze, and maybe you may see that this recommended book is not such a bad idea after all. Food for thought. 


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
20/10/2010 9:52 pm  
"Los" wrote:
Second of all, Fo-Hi's comments appear to be directed at all cults -- all orders with "heads" and "masters" -- which, according to this thesis, tend to attract people who have an unresolved Oedipal need to prove to their daddy figure that they are good little sons and daughters. [Or, alternatively, people who have a need to play daddy and be the oh-so-wise guru that these foolish chelas must come before to obtain advice]

In other words, he's proposing that inherent in the idea of obedience to a religious teacher or "master" or organization is the unconscious desire -- i.e. a desire that we are unaware of consciously -- to please the father and "conform" to someone else's idea of what attainment is. These ideas are so deeply ingrained in most of us that the majority of us can't see them unless we specifically try to look for them.

The problem I perceive in such 'psychoanalytical' theories as these is the problem of how one can actually refute them. I.e how can one disprove these assertions?

When is the cigar a cigar and not a revelation of some hidden and occult motive that can only be decoded and made appearant through some peculiar psychoanalytical interpretation?


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
20/10/2010 10:11 pm  
"Taxidermist" wrote:
The problem I perceive in such 'psychoanalytical' theories as these is the problem of how one can actually refute them. I.e how can one disprove these assertions?

When is the cigar a cigar and not a revelation of some hidden and occult motive that can only be decoded and made appearant through some peculiar psychoanalytical interpretation?

Well, a psychoanalytical theory isn't a scientific theory -- it's not falsifiable, and it's not expressing fact.

A psychoanalytical theory or cultural theory is a lens through which to read phenomena that provides a useful model for thinking about experience. For example, we know that people often act in ways puzzling to themselves -- the theory that there is an unconscious mind provides a model for understanding this behavior by proposing that there are motivating parts of the mind that people are unaware of, which people can train themselves to become more aware of over time.

If you accept that this is true, then it can provide some potentially interesting explanations of behavior that we observe. For example, why is it that so many people seem to have a conformist mentality, even when they proclaim themselves to be individuals? (There's an old joke about people buying certain brands of clothing just to demonstrate how non-conformist they are)

A compelling explanation provided by some branches of psychology is that individuals internalize (early on in their development) a need to please parental figures and to take on the role of one or more of the parents, usually supplanting the other in the process. It's very complicated, bound up in sexuality, and it obviously is going to differ greatly from individual to individual, so even detailed descriptions of this model can be at best only a rough outline.

But this need translates into a need to conform to society's expectations, to be a "good person" for society. And, for those people of a religious inclination, it translates into a need to be a good person, to "obey" daddy -- whether that daddy be an imaginary god, ideals derived from society, one's "superior" in the order, or the words of the Great Guru who honors his chela with his enlightened discourse.

All of this is really just a form of willing slavery, the desire for which having its roots in the needs of a child crying out for a parental figure to tell it what to do and how to "behave."

Needless to say, Thelema is against the kind of "herd instinct" that these unconscious desires prompt in people. One of the early stages of "enlightenment," for lack of a better term, is the realization that there are no masters to be obeyed or secrets to be learned. There are no aliens or Secret Chiefs who are going to give you orders so that you can obey like a good soldier. That guy who accepts your money and your devotion isn't an "Old Soul" who has returned to give you guidance.

One of the central revelations of Thelema is that there is nothing to attain. The Khabs is in the Khu: you are already THAT. You don't need to add anything to what you already are, become anything that you are already not, act in any particular way, or obey any particular injunctions.

Thelema renders these kinds of obedience absurd.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
20/10/2010 10:15 pm  
"Los" wrote:
From what I can tell, it does appear that more of these types are attracted to Thelema than some of us would like to think. It stands to reason that the majority of people who are attracted to "occult orders" of all kinds are people who suffer from the delusion that there are "masters" with "secrets" who can impart this wisdom.

On the other hand, some people transition to independence more slowly than others, some benefit from acquaintance with like-minded individuals, some Will to learn and others Will to teach, etc, etc, etc.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
20/10/2010 10:25 pm  
"Camlion" wrote:
On the other hand, some people transition to independence more slowly than others, some benefit from acquaintance with like-minded individuals, some Will to learn and others Will to teach, etc, etc, etc.

Well, of course. I think all people "benefit from aquaintance with like-minded individuals."

But I'm not talking about hanging out with people who share similar interests. I'm talking about mistaken ideas of obedience, masters, and secrets.


ReplyQuote
sonofthestar
(@sonofthestar)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 375
20/10/2010 10:41 pm  

93!

Though analogies can be made, concerning all kinds of temporal hierarchies,
empowered so far as to actively govern nations and peoples,
we must not be so bound or blinded by any ideology (political or otherwise) and it's resultant theories,
as to utterly confuse the hierarchal governing structures of mundane political systems and their like, with those
hierarchal governing structures as demonstrated by such Magical Orders,
as the A.'.A.'. for instance.
To lump the two together to serve any preconceived ideological agenda
would be the height of folly;
serving no grand purpose other than demonstrating
that one is ignorant of the operational methods and purposes of such Magical Orders, on both Supernal and Temporal levels...
as compared to those mundane political and religious systems,
likewise governed by Hierarchie--but of an altogether different mode of operation.

If one does not understand and comprehend this difference,
one will get things so ass backwards, as to not "know" that:
It is not the Magickal Orders having their paradigm threatened, but rather
the many proponents of certain supposedly highly evolved ideological thought structures,
and the various political regimes they prop up,
as well the pseudo religious clap-trap made manifest as theocratic tyranny.
These butchers of men--of the political bent,
feeling and fearing "their" paradigm threatened to such an extent,
that the officiating officers of our magickal orders, and those of others,
are sent to the work camps; Stalag or Gulag, take your pick.
Those--of the fanatical religious persuasion, going for outright torture,
and execution.

93! 93! 93!


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
20/10/2010 11:34 pm  

I think you are being a bit optimistic sonofthestar.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
21/10/2010 3:37 am  
"Fo-Hi" wrote:
My posts refer to the themes mentioned within a thesis by Deleuze, and how the thesis relates to cults in general i.e. power structures, their tendency for territorialisation and their non anthropocentric models which are imposed upon the individual. The very antithesis of the mysteries if you consider yourself an aspiring adept.

Is Los's interpretation of The Book of the Law, quoted below, a worthwhile approach to countering the 'power structural' tendency for territorialisation and non anthropocentric models being imposed upon the individual, 'Fo-Hi'?

"Los" wrote:
I guess the relevant question, to salvage this thread from the depths of dumb internet flame wars, is whether or not Liber AL depicts Thelema as such an Oedipal cult. On the surface, it might not look very good -- "obey my prophet" and all that.
"Los" wrote:
But, of course, "obey my prophet" hardly means "do every last thing Crowley ever said." It might, for example, refer to obeying a specific injunction of the prophet (The central message of the Book of the Law: "Do what thou wilt"), which would ironically make this verse a commandment against having spiritual "masters."
"Los" wrote:
The Book, let's remember, tells us that "There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt," which would certainly trump any commands of any masters or prophets or secret chiefs or whatnot that would dare to command anything.

ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
21/10/2010 5:51 am  

93,

"Fo-Hi" wrote:
No, Azidonis.

Again, you are not really reading my posts. My posts refer to the themes mentioned within a thesis by Deleuze, and how the thesis relates to cults in general i.e. power structures, their tendency for territorialisation and their non anthropocentric models which are imposed upon the individual. The very antithesis of the mysteries if you consider yourself an aspiring adept. If you still cannot get that from what I introduced as an 'idea', then you just don't get it. Or better still, read the book and come back to discuss. It is heavy going mind you. Call it a socio-political analysis, a questioning of cults and their non anthropocentric methods by which they are perversely maintained and supported by a society that cannot see the wood for the trees. I just recommended Deleuze and Guattari's thesis called 'Anti Oedipus, Capitalism and Schizophrenia' as it focuses upon the individual, and sees that our current state of affairs are more orientated on feeding the power structure/organisation/cult.
  
If you care to read my posts, without the Staley bias, then you will see how this French philosopher has ideas which do have relevance, not only in understanding Cults, but also in understanding our perverse reflexive support of them. Savvy?  

Please learn to read between the lines like any other good occultist. The aim of the thesis is against institution (territorialisation), and it's focus is for polishing up the individual, hence the ideas within this thesis are fluid (deterritorialism), and these Oedipal drives I mentioned are just a tiny fraction of a whole plethora of other psychoanalytical theorems that have been extended upon the sociopolitical arena, and used as a reference to gauge the norm of human behaviour.

So, before you comment, I suggest you read some Deleuze, and maybe you may see that this recommended book is not such a bad idea after all. Food for thought. 

All I'm saying, and have said, without any lens other than my own, is that while you can make such statements, they do not necessarily apply to all of the people that you include in that statement. It is, in fact, a generalization. Now, if you are speaking about a specific group of people, and not making a generalization, then your argument is indeed valid.

I think we can both agree that a Thelemite in the proper sense of the word is past this entire notion. Further, it doesn't require one to run out and read a book that someone else wrote in order to see that. What's more, is a post that is ranting about the cult and slave mentality then following it up with "you should read this book".

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
21/10/2010 10:20 am  
"Azidonis" wrote:
All I'm saying, and have said, without any lens other than my own, is that while you can make such statements, they do not necessarily apply to all of the people that you include in that statement. It is, in fact, a generalization.

It seems like Fo-Hi's critical statements necessarily apply to the actual core document of Thelema itself, The Book of the Law. If that is the case, one should when dealing with The Book of the Law, be critical of any possible expression contained within it, of 'territorialisation' and 'non anthropocentric models.'

"Azidonis" wrote:
Now, if you are speaking about a specific group of people, and not making a generalization, then your argument is indeed valid.

Again, Fo-Hi, might also be speaking about a specific document, namely The Book of the Law.

"Azidonis" wrote:
I think we can both agree that a Thelemite in the proper sense of the word is past this entire notion.

Or maybe not, if my impression of Fo-Hi's criticism of The Book of the Law, as being as a criticism of aspects contained within the very core of Thelema, is correct.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
21/10/2010 2:21 pm  

Not to be sarcastic, but I had enough of dissecting "scripture" when I was in church. Take care people.


ReplyQuote
SatansAdvocaat
(@satansadvocaat)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 351
21/10/2010 2:41 pm  

When Liber AL.I.32 opens with the statement "Obey my prophet !", it is the Queen of Space, Nuit, speaking directly to her prophet AC, demanding his obedience in taking down and following the instructions that are being dictated to him. His unspoken reservations about the experience he is undergoing have been identified already, in AL.I.26: "Then saith the prophet and slave of the beauteous one: Who am I and what shall be the sign ?..."

"Obey my prophet !" is not an instruction to the reader to OBEY AC, or any other prophet.

wellredwellbred appears to aspire to some self-appointed role of testing Thelema and Thelemites with these ill-conceived, casuistical irritations.
As for polls, not being particularly impressed with democratic herd mentality and it's endless potential for opportunistic manipulation, I don't do them.

Love is the law, love under will.

Satan's Advocaat.


ReplyQuote
alysa
(@alysa)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 655
21/10/2010 2:49 pm  

Satan'sAdvocaat wrote "Wellredwellbred appears to aspire to some self-appointend role of testing Thelema and Thelemites". That's exactly what I also most of the times was thinking regarding Wellredwellbred's posts here on Lashtal, they bore me to a lot, is it because his native language is not English or is it something else I wish to know. . .


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
21/10/2010 4:45 pm  

Satan's Advocaat,

I tend to read that passage this way too. I think it should have had a comma inserted so it would read:

"Obey, my prophet!"

Crowley suggests in his comments that it is telling us to obey him, and obviously some folks like to stick to his suggestions. But now that he's not around to issue commands, we can't obey him anyway, although we can get some guidance from his writings.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
21/10/2010 5:34 pm  

93,

"wellredwellbred" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
All I'm saying, and have said, without any lens other than my own, is that while you can make such statements, they do not necessarily apply to all of the people that you include in that statement. It is, in fact, a generalization.

It seems like Fo-Hi's critical statements necessarily apply to the actual core document of Thelema itself, The Book of the Law. If that is the case, one should when dealing with The Book of the Law, be critical of any possible expression contained within it, of 'territorialisation' and 'non anthropocentric models.'

"Azidonis" wrote:
Now, if you are speaking about a specific group of people, and not making a generalization, then your argument is indeed valid.

Again, Fo-Hi, might also be speaking about a specific document, namely The Book of the Law.

"Azidonis" wrote:
I think we can both agree that a Thelemite in the proper sense of the word is past this entire notion.

Or maybe not, if my impression of Fo-Hi's criticism of The Book of the Law, as being as a criticism of aspects contained within the very core of Thelema, is correct.

Again, he might also be speaking of his interpretation of Liber AL, which in this case, he is speaking of one interpretation of an entire book, and looking for evidence in a group of people that at times largely mis-represents what the book is about.

All I'm saying, and have said is, check the science. But a whole page of forum posts later, and either a) no one has seen this, b) is too inflated themselves to agree the science is faulty, or c) doesn't care.

Either option doesn't hurt me a bit.

Here...

"The Book of the Apple says that all human are like apples. Apples are red. Therefore all humans are red!"

"Um, there are green apples, you know..."

"You just misunderstood me. You have to read this other book to help you understand my view of the first book."

...

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
21/10/2010 8:33 pm  

It does not seem to have been the intention of Aleister Crowley, in relation to Thelema, that those availing themselves of it, should belittle eachother's equal, identical and absolute perfection:

"Each being is, exactly as you are, the sole centre of a Universe in no wise identical with, or even assimilable to, your own." [...] "The distress of another may be relieved; but always with the positive and noble idea of making manifest the perfection of the Universe." Source: http://lib.oto-usa.org/crowley/essays/duty.html

"42. [...] with thy all; thou hast no right but to do thy will. 43. Do that, and no other shall say nay. 44. For pure will, unassuaged of purpose, delivered from the lust of result, is every way perfect. 45. The Perfect and the Perfect are one Perfect and not two; nay, are none!" Source: The Book of the Law, chapter 1. http://www.sacred-texts.com/oto/engccxx.htm

The perfection, purity or truth of what The Book of the Law calls one's 'pure will', or many Thelemites call one's 'true will' - as Aleister Crowley did - is not absolute in this world, in which each one of us live, as it is here dependant on manifesting itself trough each one of us individually, and its perfection, purity or truth, is thus in this world, relative to how we are, each single one of us, manifesting it. This is the premise on which i define Thelema as an example of moral relativism, a very pleasingly and fascinatingly designed example of moral relativism, in my opinion.

But that also leaves me with no other option, than to leave the interpretation of the subject matter of this thread, to the individual Thelemite.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
21/10/2010 9:51 pm  

Focus less on "Obey my prophet!" and pay more attention to the subsequent command: “follow out the ordeals of my knowledge.” It will cure any issues with authority-figures.

"Fo-Hi" wrote:
Again, you are not really reading my posts. My posts refer to the themes mentioned within a thesis by Deleuze, and how the thesis relates to cults in general i.e. power structures, their tendency for territorialisation and their non anthropocentric models which are imposed upon the individual.

Fo-Hi, you’re confusing the concepts laid out by Deleuze and Guattari – your understanding of anthropocentric versus non-anthropocentric needs to be reversed.

Arborescent thinking imposes an anthropological essence or identity (stratification, sedimentation) onto people in a top>down manner. This is the “Judgment of God” that Artaud talks about, and from whom Deleuze and Guattari appropriate the Body without Organs. The territorialization of hierarchical-authoritarian thinking can be opposed by horizontal lines of flight (like a herd of buffalos scattering across the African plains), by reterritorializations, by shedding socially-imposed identities, by slowly liberating the Body without Organs, by becoming-animal, by taking on non-anthropocentric identities. What they describe sounds rather shamanic..


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
21/10/2010 11:24 pm  

@Tai,

That is a very interesting and valid post.

My interpretation was coloured by the Landian pro-Marxist approach to Deleuze's thesis. Most specifically to Landian accelerationism, its use and its application to creating alternative models that are geared towards the individual, where power structures are considered to be absurd, chaotic and obsolete. Also, amplifying this questioning to cults or magical orders in general, as their models too are non-anthropogenic, having a tendency to suppress the reproduction of new ideas and devaluing human beings.

Thank you.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
23/10/2010 3:25 am  

The demand for obedience to Aleister Crowley as prophet, contained within The Book of the Law:

"Fo-Hi" wrote:
... is due to AC's 'Oedipus Complex', an insurmountable post Freudian contagion of the masses i.e. the herd. Who, unconsciously cannot help themselves, but need a projection, the fetish/father figure. This false eidolon is not the food of the Gods, but the food which powers ANY religious cult or organisation.
"Fo-Hi" wrote:
My posts refer to the themes mentioned within a thesis by Deleuze, and how the thesis relates to cults in general i.e. power structures, their tendency for territorialisation and their non anthropocentric models which are imposed upon the individual. The very antithesis of the mysteries if you consider yourself an aspiring adept.
"Fo-Hi" wrote:
Patriarchy and territorialisation i.e. cults, magical orders etc., are threatened from such post Marxist, post western analytical thought structures.
"Fo-Hi" wrote:
Hence, this literature is interesting for those individuals that are not territorialised, not affiliated, that are antinomian, that do not require a father figure, that are not herds, that are solitary occultists and can think for themselves i.e. outside the box.
"Fo-Hi" wrote:
Any matured occultist would value more of an anthropocentric focus above the power structure of any Cult.

The critical remarks from 'Fo-Hi' quoted above - concerning what 'Tai' later calls "The territorialization of hierarchical-authoritarian thinking [that] can be opposed by horizontal lines of flight" - also have relevance for the power structures of authority, and the non anthropocentric model, to be imposed upon the individual, which Aleister Crowley created for the A.'.A.'., and described by the latter below:

"Very glad I am, since at one time I was obliged to be starkly stern about impertinent curiosity, to note that your wish to be informed about the Secret Chiefs of the A.'.A.'. is justified; it is most certainly of the first importance that you and I should be quite clear in our minds about Those under whose jurisdiction and tutelage we both work." [...] "The first condition of membership of the A.'.A.'. is that one is sworn to identify one's own Great Work with that of raising mankind to higher levels, spiritually, and in every other way." [...] "Our business is solely to obey orders: our responsibility ends when we have satisfied ourselves that they emanate from a source which has the right to command." Quoted from " Chapter IX[9]: The Secret Chiefs", in Magick Without Tears. Source: http://hermetic.com/crowley/magick-without-tears/mwt_09.html

"[...] Surely you have had sufficient example in these letters, where in moments of despair one suddenly awakes to the fact the despite all appearances one has been watched and guarded from a higher plane. I might say, in fact, that one such experience of the secret guardianship of the Chiefs of the Order is worth a thousand apparently sufficient witnesses to the facts." Quoted from " Chapter LXI[61]: Power and Authority", in Magick Without Tears. Source: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/crowley/mwt/mwt_61.htm

Here it might be argued that Crowley's A.'.A.'.-system is based on the ruins of the earlier Golden Dawn-system, and that his O.T.O.-system is based on an earlier pseudo-Masonic-system, systems which existed before the new age/new aeon introduced by the reception of The Book og The Law in 1904, according to Crowley. And that any possible authoritarian aspects within, or of, Crowley's A.'.A.'.-system and O.T.O.-system, are due to 'contamination' from the earlier systems influencing their design, and not neccesarily due to an inherent quality of - The Book of the Law in particular, or - Thelema in general.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
23/10/2010 4:30 am  

Read the "Cat In The Hat" backwards. It too demands obedience to the prophet Ra-Hoor-Seuss. "All who hear me shall tremble and despair"


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
23/10/2010 5:14 am  

93,

"ApeOfTheApeOfThot" wrote:
Read the "Cat In The Hat" backwards. It too demands obedience to the prophet Ra-Hoor-Seuss. "All who hear me shall tremble and despair"

This post actually makes more sense than most of this thread...

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
sonofthestar
(@sonofthestar)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 375
23/10/2010 6:10 am  

93!

And less we forget, Azidonis...

that we are to make no difference between Thing 1 and Thing 2.

93! 93! 93!


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
23/10/2010 3:24 pm  

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

If you are reffering to the authority of V.V.V.V.V. as prophet or even masiah of the New Aeon then of course it is option 2, that it is an expression of the book. If you are refferring to the man Aleister Crowley, then it is option 4, the question is faulty. If you are refferring to the Beast 666 even it is option 4 as Liber AL clearly states that the Beast is ignorant of ithe book's meaning.
So you see here we are again going round in circles. There seems to be a Saint Paul element in comparison to Xtianity, of trying to deify Aleister Crowley and detract from the actual meaning into navel gazing nonsense and apologetic difusion of the book's more extreme but clear statements. Aleister I'm sure was a very nice chap but a flawed genius at best. All this is what is called confusing the planes.

Love is the law, love under will.

Alex


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
23/10/2010 6:08 pm  

93,

"Alex_Bennett" wrote:
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

If you are reffering to the authority of V.V.V.V.V. as prophet or even masiah of the New Aeon then of course it is option 2, that it is an expression of the book. If you are refferring to the man Aleister Crowley, then it is option 4, the question is faulty. If you are refferring to the Beast 666 even it is option 4 as Liber AL clearly states that the Beast is ignorant of ithe book's meaning.
So you see here we are again going round in circles. There seems to be a Saint Paul element in comparison to Xtianity, of trying to deify Aleister Crowley and detract from the actual meaning into navel gazing nonsense and apologetic difusion of the book's more extreme but clear statements. Aleister I'm sure was a very nice chap but a flawed genius at best. All this is what is called confusing the planes.

Love is the law, love under will.

Alex

Well put.

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
Aleisterion
(@aleisterion)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 319
24/10/2010 11:27 am  

Obedience to the prophet of Thelema is no abdication of one's own sovereignty as the one supreme commandment he has to give is to Do what thou wilt. No prophet or institution takes precedence over one's own Holy Supernal Will.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
24/10/2010 11:45 am  
"Aleisterion" wrote:
Obedience to the prophet of Thelema is no abdication of one's own sovereignty as the one supreme commandment he has to give is to Do what thou wilt. No prophet or institution takes precedence over one's own Holy Supernal Will.

Indeed Aleisterion. Who needs an institution run by Reich's, 'Little Man'?. A problem we see far too often these days, the decline or clouding over of the power that is sovereign to the individual via religious cults and their leaders.

Keep polishing up that vajrabolt, seeing things as they really are.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
24/10/2010 3:07 pm  
"nashimiron" wrote:
Crowley suggests in his comments that it is telling us to obey him, and obviously some folks like to stick to his suggestions. But now that he's not around to issue commands, we can't obey him anyway,
although we can get some guidance from his writings.

"ApeOfTheApeOfThot" wrote:
Read the "Cat In The Hat" backwards. It too demands obedience to the prophet Ra-Hoor-Seuss. "All who hear me shall tremble and despair"

"Azidonis" wrote:
This post actually makes more sense than most of this thread...

I do realize that bringing up the matter of the A.'.A.'. (or the O.T.O. for that matter), might not make much sense in relation to the verse in The Book of the Law, that starts with a demand for obedience to the Prophet, but as the quote from 'nashimiron' at the start of this posting indicates, Crowley's interpretation in his comments, on this verse, is "that it is telling us to obey him." In Aleister Crowley's 'The New Comment' to this verse, we find the following:

"It is proper to obey The Beast, because His Law is pure Freedom, and He will give no command which is other than a Right Interpretation of this Freedom. But it is necessary for the development of Freedom itself to have an organization; and every organization must have a highly-centralized control. This is especially necessary in time of war,[...] Now this age is pre-eminently a 'time of war', most of all now, when it is our Work to overthrow the slave-gods.[...]"

Now, Aleister Crowley's unique and individual interpretation of The Book of the Law, in 'The New Comment', as authorizing him with meeting a presumed necessity for organizations presumed to require "a highly-centralized control", in a presumed collective war "to overthrow the slave-gods", might not correspond with the unique and individual interpretation of The Book of the Law, of someone else finding something of use or advantage within Thelema. And of someone else sympathetic of Thelema, but opposed to interfering with those sympathetic of so called "slave-gods", as long as the latter do not interfere with oneself.

It seems obvious to me that Aleister Crowley was intensely puzzled by The Book of the Law, and spent much of his life trying to understand it...., and that also many of you seem to be intensely puzzled by The Book of the Law.

But the above problematic and issue concerning Aleister Crowley's 'New Comment', including absolutely all other relevant possible problematics and issues, all seem to be solved by what according to Crowley was "the one inspired comment", namely The Tunis Comment, also called The Short Comment or, simply, The Comment, written in Tunis in 1925.

This comment opens with "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law", and closes with "There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt." This puts anyone's interpretation of The Book of the Law and its Comment, within and under the scope of each one's individual will. Taking into account the first and last lines of the Comment, we are therefore *not* obligated to only "appeal to" Aleister Crowley's writings, as this Comment tells us to do, when deciding upon questions concerning the Law of Thelema, that is, The Book of the Law.

In conclusion: If it is your Will to decide upon questions concerning the Law of Thelema, that is, The Book of the Law, without "appeal to" Aleister Crowley's writings, — so be it. *This fits perfectly, of course, with what I have stated earlier on this forum, where I describe and define Thelema as a version of moral relativism*


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
24/10/2010 5:41 pm  

93,

"wellredwellbred" wrote:
"It is proper to obey The Beast, because His Law is pure Freedom, and He will give no command which is other than a Right Interpretation of this Freedom. But it is necessary for the development of Freedom itself to have an organization; and every organization must have a highly-centralized control. This is especially necessary in time of war,[...] Now this age is pre-eminently a 'time of war', most of all now, when it is our Work to overthrow the slave-gods.[...]"

"It is proper to obey [Chokmah], because [Chokmah] Law is pure Freedom [see B vel Magi], and [Chokmah] will give no command which is other than a [Yang (in its active sense, ie the Word)] Interpretation of this [Chaos]. But it is necessary for the development of [Chaos] itself to have an organization; and every organization must have a highly-centralized control. This is especially necessary in [the Great Work],[...] Now this age is pre-eminently a 'time [for the Great Work]', most of all now, when it is our Work to [tell the world how to cross the Abyss].[...]"

Like how I did that thar? We could play a game with Crowley quotes, and see how many words we can put into key spots that make some sort of sense, such as Beast and Chokmah, and come up with a whole slew of stuff that "we think Crowley might be talking about".

After a while it just seems to become irrelevant.

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
SatansAdvocaat
(@satansadvocaat)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 351
25/10/2010 2:49 pm  

What's Chokmah got to do with it !!

"What's Hokmah got to do with it, do with it, do with it....
what's Hokmah but a second-hand emotion...?"

I can still hear the raucous, delicious tones of Tina Turner a-ringing in my little Thelemic ears.

Most people who write about 'Chokmah' or any other thing, have no real knowledge of that which they speak. Not any particular reflection on you, by the way, Azidonis; I will not make the mistake of confusing the message with it's messenger...

My pc is saying "Diagnose Connection Problems" - with which I hopefully submit.

93, 93/93.

S.A.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
25/10/2010 4:22 pm  

93,

"Satan'sAdvocaat" wrote:
What's Chokmah got to do with it !!

The quote had the word "Beast"... you know, the Logos of the Aeon, Chaos the Lawful Lord of Babalon... Chokmah.

Anyway, you could try doing that with any Sephirah or set of correspondences. It's part of the fun, and you can get some real crazy interpretations of the text that way.

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
SatansAdvocaat
(@satansadvocaat)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 351
25/10/2010 4:50 pm  

Hi Azidonis,

Regarding crazy interpretations: 666 + 156 = 822, which is Chaos (Hebrew ThHV, check out the first verses of Genisis) doubled.

411 x 2, don't you know ! 🙂

S.A.


ReplyQuote
Page 1 / 3
Share: