BOTL demands obedie...
 
Notifications
Clear all

BOTL demands obedience to its Prophet

Page 3 / 3

Hamal
(@hamal)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 547
 
"Azidonis" wrote:
I'm not sure I even remember what this thread is about.

Oh, there's a title and everything.

I knew we were missing something..... ah yes.... sarcasm!  😛

But yes, we have wondered off topic.

::)
93
Hamal


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
 
"david" wrote:
"Shiva" wrote:
OMG!  There's an ancient thread necromancer amongst us.

The other side of the coin is that the present threads are as stimulating as watching paint dry?  [...]

There is nothing wrong with being a necromancer – I have done it myself upon occasion!  Assuming that is, that the thread is in some way worth reviving, and equally that one has something which might add to the ongoing “xenochronic” (as F. Zappa would say) discussion.  I’m not sure that has particularly happened in this particular case.  Even though it has given some suggestions for further reading, however the justification for it seems slightly awry: if present threads are as stimulating as watching paint dry, one solution would be to create new ones which are so damned stimulating they might cause heart failure.  But are you up to that task, david?!?

(Ahem, back to topic, anyone?!)
Norma N Joy Conquest


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 

93

Obeying the prophet.  It interests me.  I have faith in the said, mystic prophet, except when he suggests I do dragon (i.e. vrajrasana) asana straight off.  Now I can't walk properly lol.  Maybe the prophet should've advised me to do some some limbering up or seek an osteopath?


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
 

Obeying the prophet.  Where do you stand on destroying the Book of the Sacred Law after your first reading, David?  Have you disobeyed its infallible Class A injunction? 

And how about your position on “just following orders”?  If the Prophet had told you to jump off a cliff, say, or turn what you understood to be Zyklon B showers on in a room full of people, would you then obey because it was the divinely-inspired Word and command of the Prophet (who is after all the Logos) and carry those instructions out?  Or is perhaps DISobedience to be seen as the prime ‘virtue’, as of Satan & to be emulated instead?

"To oBEy or not to oBEy", that is another question…
N Joy


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5703
 

The Prophet said, "The study of this Book is forbidden. It is wise to destroy this copy after the first reading. Whosoever disregards this does so at his own risk and peril. These are most dire."

and . . .

He also advised people to study the Book and adopt whatever passages they felt were applicable to themselves.

Hmmm? Decisions, decisions. How shall anyone ever decide?  ::)


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 
"jamie barter" wrote:
Obeying the prophet.  Where do you stand on destroying the Book of the Sacred Law after your first reading, David?  Have you disobeyed its infallible Class A injunction? 

And how about your position on “just following orders”?  If the Prophet had told you to jump off a cliff, say, or turn what you understood to be Zyklon B showers on in a room full of people, would you then obey because it was the divinely-inspired Word and command of the Prophet (who is after all the Logos) and carry those instructions out?  Or is perhaps DISobedience to be seen as the prime ‘virtue’, as of Satan & to be emulated instead?

"To oBEy or not to oBEy", that is another question…
N Joy

93
Wtf are you rambling on about? The prophet did not have any involvement in the miserable scum behind the National Socialist German Worker's Party and their pathetic scapegoating program.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
 
"david" wrote:
I have faith in the said, mystic prophet, except when he suggests I do dragon (i.e. vrajrasana) asana straight off.  Now I can't walk properly lol.

Doing something just 'cause some dude recommended it is pretty foolish.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
 
"Shiva" wrote:
The Prophet said, "The study of this Book is forbidden. It is wise to destroy this copy after the first reading. Whosoever disregards this does so at his own risk and peril. These are most dire."

and . . .

He also advised people to study the Book and adopt whatever passages they felt were applicable to themselves.

Hmmm? Decisions, decisions. How shall anyone ever decide?

"There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt."

According to the Book, that injunction trumps all else, including obedience to people calling themselves prophets.

However, as long as we're talking about what Crowley said, I should point out that there is no necessary contradiction between saying "It's wise to do X, but I recommend doing not-X."


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5703
 
"Los" wrote:
"There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt."

According to the Book, that injunction trumps all else, including obedience to people calling themselves prophets.

Yes, of course. He also recommended not following anyone - but, rather, doing various things (practices, etc) in order to find out what one personally discovers to be true.

I did not destroy my copy of AL after the first reading ... that came much later (20 years later), and even then I ended up with another copy (35 years after the first reading) that I sold (43 years after my first reading) - and today I even (still, 51 years after my first reading) have a copy in Gems from the Equinox and a digital copy on my computer.

It is wise to destroy your computer after the first reading?

Reurning to the theme of this thread:
AL does say, "Obey my prophet!" - AL I-32.
And vaious A.'.A.'. Papers of the Grades (Papers A & B, specifically) indicate that one should (must?) obey his superior. Example: "Beside all this, he shall perform any tasks that his Zelator in the name of the A.'. A.'. and by its authority may see fit to lay upon him." (< from Paper B)  But, we note, there is no Oath of Obedience in A.'.A.'., just the injunctions. And besides, how does a mere Zelator come to be endowed with "... in the name of the A.'. A.'. and by its authority"?
No, to get right down to Oaths of Obedience, one must look to OTO membership (starting with the old first degree - I don't know what the rules/oaths are in modern OTO), where disobedience involves daggers and cuttings and other upleasant retributions.

In the end, one is perhaps better off being not under another's thumb.

Oh heck, every society has its rules, so what's the difference? If one jaywalks, is caught, and resists arrest, it can cost one his/her life.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 
"Los" wrote:
"david" wrote:
I have faith in the said, mystic prophet, except when he suggests I do dragon (i.e. vrajrasana) asana straight off.  Now I can't walk properly lol.

Doing something just 'cause some dude recommended it is pretty foolish.

I agree but the Logos of the Aeon was not just, "some guy".  Chaos Magick forum is thataway


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 
"Shiva" wrote:
Reurning to the theme of this thread:
AL does say, "Obey my prophet!" - AL I-32.
And vaious A.'.A.'. Papers of the Grades (Papers A & B, specifically) indicate that one should (must?) obey his superior. Example: "Beside all this, he shall perform any tasks that his Zelator in the name of the A.'. A.'. and by its authority may see fit to lay upon him." (< from Paper B)  But, we note, there is no Oath of Obedience in A.'.A.'., just the injunctions. And besides, how does a mere Zelator come to be endowed with "... in the name of the A.'. A.'. and by its authority"?
No, to get right down to Oaths of Obedience, one must look to OTO membership (starting with the old first degree - I don't know what the rules/oaths are in modern OTO), where disobedience involves daggers and cuttings and other upleasant retributions.

In the end, one is perhaps better off being not under another's thumb.

Oh heck, every society has its rules, so what's the difference? If one jaywalks, is caught, and resists arrest, it can cost one his/her life.

Ever put your life in another man's hands and ask him to put his life in yours, son?


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
 
"david" wrote:
I agree but the Logos of the Aeon was not just, "some guy".

Oh, please. "Logos of the Aeon." Give me a break. Crowley was a talented and inspirational writer, but he was, at the end of the day, just some dude, the same as you or I or any other. Simply doing stuff that he recommends -- without bothering to figure out whether it's actually a good idea to being with -- is stupid.

Chaos Magick forum is thataway

It's not "Chaos Magick" to think it's ridiculous and kind of culty to call some dude the "Logos of the Aeon."


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
 
"david" wrote:
"jamie barter" wrote:
Obeying the prophet.  Where do you stand on destroying the Book of the Sacred Law after your first reading, David?  Have you disobeyed its infallible Class A injunction? 

And how about your position on “just following orders”?  If the Prophet had told you to jump off a cliff, say, or turn what you understood to be Zyklon B showers on in a room full of people, would you then obey because it was the divinely-inspired Word and command of the Prophet (who is after all the Logos) and carry those instructions out?  Or is perhaps DISobedience to be seen as the prime ‘virtue’, as of Satan & to be emulated instead?

"To oBEy or not to oBEy", that is another question…
N Joy

93
Wtf are you rambling on about? The prophet did not have any involvement in the miserable scum behind the National Socialist German Worker's Party and their pathetic scapegoating program.

I don’t think anybody has said he did, particularly!  The reference above was mainly to all those who might follow orders given by those in a command situation – be they Nazis, Jim Jones, Aleister Crowley, Jack Nicholson or whoever…. As I’m sure you very well know, you scamp.

I agree that the ultimate injunction and prime directive is: ‘There is no law beyond do what thou wilt.’  And that will ultimately override all other considerations.  (The question is, of what does this will consist.  Which is another conversation entirely.)

Incidentally, I am not sure about there not being “any involvement”.  A.C. was involved in Germany just before the Party took to power, and made certain connections there which are explored in more depth in Prof Pasi’s recent book on A.C. and the “Temptation” of Politics (q.v.)

I also seem to have ruffled someone’s feathers by my use of “Logos”, though!  Good-o!  Actually, looking again [see preceding post] the reference may have been to David’s use afterwards.  Over to you then, David…?!

For “In the Beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was with God, and the WORD was God…”
N Joy


ReplyQuote
abn53
(@abn53)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 66
 

Confessions, p. 618 in the Symonds/Grant edition

    “I admit that my visions can never mean to other men as much as they do to me.  I do not regret this.  All I ask is that my results should convince seekers after truth that there is beyond doubt something worth while seeking, attainable by methods more or less like mine.  I do not want to father a flock, to be the fetish of fools and fanatics, or the founder of a faith whose followers are content to echo my opinions.  I want each man to cut his own way through the jungle.” 


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 
"jamie barter" wrote:

Incidentally, I am not sure about there not being “any involvement”.  A.C. was involved in Germany just before the Party took to power, and made certain connections there which are explored in more depth in Prof Pasi’s recent book on A.C. and the “Temptation” of Politics (q.v.)

Crowley, like Heidegger, (and Jung, to a lesser extent) was a Nazi sympathiser? Ooh how titillating but alas I won't be wasting my money on such sensationalist wackoid drivel.  If you think there is solid evidence, haha for AC as a Nazi sympathiser and you possess the said book then why don't you spill the beans?


ReplyQuote
William Thirteen
(@williamthirteen)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1091
 

"sympathizer" no, interested observer would be more accurate.

"3 May 1930: ‘Rally of the Stahlhelm group. Good. Seldte their chief. X Niederlandische Hof.’"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Seldte

also, it is known that AC at least considered approaching the German regime in order to promote Thelema and also sought contacts in the Bolshevist regime of the time. Professor Pasi's book is a fascinating read, well researched and at the opposite end of the spectrum fom "sensationalist wackoid drivel".  That being said, it also makes clear that AC never supported the Nazi's - but for a brief moment he was was hoping they might supoort him 🙂


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 
"WilliamThirteen" wrote:
"sympathizer" no, interested observer would be more accurate.

"3 May 1930: ‘Rally of the Stahlhelm group. Good. Seldte their chief. X Niederlandische Hof.’"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Seldte

also, it is known that AC at least considered approaching the German regime in order to promote Thelema and also sought contacts in the Bolshevist regime of the time. Professor Pasi's book is a fascinating read, well researched and at the opposite end of the spectrum fom "sensationalist wackoid drivel".  That being said, it also makes clear that AC never supported the Nazi's - but for a brief moment he was was hoping they might supoort him 🙂

Thankyou for clarifying, so AC, " considered" asking the Nazis for help, at one point?.  As I suspected, the term, "involvement" would seem to be a misnomer then. 


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
 
"abn53" wrote:
Confessions, p. 618 in the Symonds/Grant edition
      “I admit that my visions can never mean to other men as much as they do to me.  I do not regret this.  All I ask is that my results should convince seekers after truth that there is beyond doubt something worth while seeking, attainable by methods more or less like mine.  I do not want to father a flock, to be the fetish of fools and fanatics, or the founder of a faith whose followers are content to echo my opinions.  I want each man to cut his own way through the jungle.” 

I for one wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments expressed in your quotation here, abn53.  Well spotted & pointed out!

Fascinating in that A.C. is quite absolute about stating that (sceptical) seekers after truth should be “beyond doubt” on this matter.  (Whether they should then also ‘obey’ his recommendation is yet another matter, of course...!)

"david" wrote:
Crowley, like Heidegger, (and Jung, to a lesser extent) was a Nazi sympathiser? Ooh how titillating but alas I won't be wasting my money on such sensationalist wackoid drivel.  If you think there is solid evidence, haha for AC as a Nazi sympathiser and you possess the said book then why don't you spill the beans?
"david" wrote:
Thankyou for clarifying, so AC, "considered" asking the Nazis for help, at one point?.  As I suspected, the term, "involvement" would seem to be a misnomer then.

Possibly “involvement” may have been a misnomer – I cannot at this second think of a synonym more appropriate, maybe somebody else can – but certainly not as much so as “sympathiser”, which you also incorrectly used (so really, both of the words you are quibbling with originated from yourself.  And NO, let’s not start on that “considered” for the hat-trick!)  If you’ll refresh your memory, my reference to A.C. and the Nazi party was really quite peripheral and en passant, really – and in fact, I didn’t name them as such at all and could have used any one of half a dozen other comparable examples instead.  But before we get even further off-track here, I agree with William Thirteen: you should really check out Pasi's book if you do actually have any interest in the historical matters there, as opposed to say, dismissing things which you haven't bothered to read as wackoid drivel & generally jumping to conclusions otherwise.

I’ve got a suggestion - why not pursue the “Logos” argument a bit more with Los, instead?  (He won’t deal with me; knows when he’s met his match, and all that… 😉 )

Further to my remark

"jamie barter" wrote:
I don’t think anybody has said he did, particularly!  The reference above was mainly to all those who might follow orders given by those in a command situation – be they Nazis, Jim Jones, Aleister Crowley, Jack Nicholson or whoever…. As I’m sure you very well know, you scamp.

and concerning Zyklon B changing rooms, one should bear in mind too the Behavioural experiments carried by the Tavistock Institute (I think it was; someone will correct me if it’s not, I’m sure), which involved the test subjects ‘following orders’ by torturing other complete strangers and being prepared to have them terminated with extreme prejudice.

Incidentally (having been reminded of them by the use of that last phrase), at their “Sea Org” unfortunate lemmings – I mean Scientologists – were (still are?) obliged to throw themselves voluntarily over - not a cliff, but board – upon being found guilty of some minor infringement of Elron’s many petty dictate whims & fiddlesome lofty executive commands.

“You Will Obey or else you will be Exterminated” – Davros  (joke)
N Joy


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 
"jamie barter" wrote:

I’ve got a suggestion - why not pursue the “Logos” argument a bit more with Los, instead?  (He won’t deal with me; knows when he’s met his match, and all that… 😉 )

"Los" wrote:
"david" wrote:
I agree but the Logos of the Aeon was not just, "some guy".

Oh, please. "Logos of the Aeon." Give me a break. Crowley was a talented and inspirational writer, but he was, at the end of the day, just some dude, the same as you or I or any other. Simply doing stuff that he recommends -- without bothering to figure out whether it's actually a good idea to being with -- is stupid.

Chaos Magick forum is thataway

It's not "Chaos Magick" to think it's ridiculous and kind of culty to call some dude the "Logos of the Aeon."

93

Whether I was using the term , "Logos" for AC as a mere metaphor for him (Him)  as a spokesperson of the roaring 20th century (unprecedented acceleration of techno-evolution and information)  zeitgeist or whether I used it as a form of unthinking religious dogma is my business. 

Using AC as Logos of the aeon is an act of free will.  Will.  Imagine that, a Logos who we have photos of, who was a bit of an a-hole to people frequently (like you and me are, especially you Los lol) , who wrote books which we can verify that he did actually write, was perverted and open about it, wrote and published diaries documenting events that we can generally verify and who was a father to  real children.  Amazing!  The first Logos we can verify actually existed and he was a Brit too!.  Boy, that makes me proud that God was British lol.  No wonder us Brits are insular and arrogant.

Anyway, who else would I use as spokesperson of the zeitgeist (Logos)? Wilhelm Reich?  No, too much of an anti-mystic.  Krsnamurti?  No, too square and sexless.  George Gurdjieff?  No, too much of a Christian.  Shame that.   

No, I want my Loguses (Logi?) coked up, spaced out, masters of chess, logic, maths, with a penchant for whoermongering and with a lot of attitude.  And another thing, they gotta be able to write awesome poetry


ReplyQuote
arthuremerson
(@arthuremerson)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 157
 

What are you on about, exactly?


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 
"arthuremerson" wrote:
What are you on about, exactly?

If you have a problem understanding English then I may be able to help.  Which bit didn't you get?  I don't know if your aware but what usually happens in forums is one person makes a point and then others may dispute that point.  It's called discussion but the system won't work if one person asks a vague question, as you are now doing.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 4119
 
"david" wrote:
"arthuremerson" wrote:
What are you on about, exactly?

If you have a problem understanding English then I may be able to help.  Which bit didn't you get?  I don't know if your aware but what usually happens in forums is one person makes a point and then others may dispute that point.  It's called discussion but the system won't work if one person asks a vague question, as you are now doing.

He wasn't asking a "vague question", david, but indicating that he couldn't follow what you were saying. Perhaps you didn't articulate it very well.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 

For him yes.  Not my problem, sorry.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 
"Michael Staley" wrote:
"david" wrote:
"arthuremerson" wrote:
What are you on about, exactly?

If you have a problem understanding English then I may be able to help.  Which bit didn't you get?  I don't know if your aware but what usually happens in forums is one person makes a point and then others may dispute that point.  It's called discussion but the system won't work if one person asks a vague question, as you are now doing.

He wasn't asking a "vague question", david, but indicating that he couldn't follow what you were saying. Perhaps you didn't articulate it very well.

Yes and I have already asked him to pinpoint what exactly he doesn't understand haven't I, silly?  I'm waiting for some sort of clarification from him. How can I elucidate if I don't get any clarification on what I'm supposed to be elucidating? 

Perhaps you shouldn't have intefered?


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
 

Is it just my perception, or has the general level of bolshiness & irritability among respondents on the Lash made a marked upswing in severity since I last signed on?  After tomorrow I shall be away again for a few more days and when I return I very much hope to see a marked improvement & restoration of a more normal & fraternal tone to postings

Or there’s going to be fakkin' trouble ( 😉 joke)
N Joy


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
 
"Los" wrote:

Chaos Magick forum is thataway

It's not "Chaos Magick" to think it's ridiculous and kind of culty to call some dude the "Logos of the Aeon."

I wasn't clear if Chaos magick itself is being dismissed by Los here or not.  “Perhaps we should be told!”  But then again, is anyone in need of sleeping tablets?!?!  Zzzzz.  Sorry, los.  Just joking there!  Could C.M. be the new ‘Heruraha.net’ – as in, “Take it to ……, thataway”?

"david" wrote:
Whether I was using the term , "Logos" for AC as a mere metaphor for him (Him)  as a spokesperson of the roaring 20th century (unprecedented acceleration of techno-evolution and information)  zeitgeist or whether I used it as a form of unthinking religious dogma is my business. 

Using AC as Logos of the aeon is an act of free will.  Will.  Imagine that, a Logos who we have photos of, who was a bit of an a-hole to people frequently (like you and me are, especially you Los lol) , who wrote books which we can verify that he did actually write, was perverted and open about it, wrote and published diaries documenting events that we can generally verify and who was a father to  real children.

This surely is the main point behind this LOGOS business – that he (or her) comes to utter a Word – and not just any word, the Word which will define in a word, the entire magickal formula for the Aeon.  (Let us leave aside for a moment a fascinating possible side-thread on the possibility, nay the probability, of the existence of concurrent aeons.  For the purposes of this discussion let’s also take it that although there are significant differences between them all, Word and Formula (and Name) represent, irrespective of upper or lower case, more or less the same subject of enquiry.)

A.C. goes into the matter fairly thoroughly and succinctly in The Heart of the Master (q.v.).  The transpersonal Logos is not just “some dude”, although paradoxically just some dude could well utter the word which becomes the Logos. 

(Interestingly as far as it goes, Kenneth Grant speculated that the Aeon following the double concurrent Horus-Maat current would be the Aeon of Zayin which would be “Wordless”.  I wonder if that would be because the Word would have become ‘exhausted’ by that time?  Again, the possibilities of fruitful discussion are manyfold and endless...)

"david" wrote:
[...] Amazing!  The first Logos we can verify actually existed and he was a Brit too!  Boy, that makes me proud that God was British lol.  No wonder us Brits are insular and arrogant.

Yeah!  Bring out the bunting!  Rool Brit-annia!  Rules the waves!  And don’choo ever forget it, rest of the world!  You’re just a satellite of the U.K.!  ‘ course God was British – stands to reason, doesn’t it.  Well, doesn’t it!?  As red, white and blue as they come, in my book.  I’m glad we’ve got all that settled and out of the way, then.

"david" wrote:
Anyway, who else would I use as spokesperson of the zeitgeist (Logos)? Wilhelm Reich?  No, too much of an anti-mystic.

Was Reich truly anti-mystic?  (Discuss.)  I would like to think he is more agnostic on the matter, myself.  Certainly a lot of people might be inclined to consider that a lot of his discoveries could be ‘categorised’ more on the mystic-supernaturalist side of the balance (as compared to the sceptic-rationalist).  In an idle moment I muse over what his Word might have been – “Orgone” is an obvious candidate. ‘Bion’ looks as if it might have unplumbed cabbalistic depths to it. 

I agree with the proposition in asmuch as I think that next to A.C., Reich was the ‘philosopher-writer’ who has done the most to ‘earth’ the fire of the incoming Aeon of the Crown and Conquering Child (to poeticise the zeitgeist for a moment).

"david" wrote:
No, I want my Loguses (Logi?) coked up, spaced out, masters of chess, logic, maths, with a penchant for whoermongering and with a lot of attitude.  And another thing, they gotta be able to write awesome poetry

That’s some ’person specification’.  (Please form an orderly queue at your nearest unemployment centre.)  You obviously favour the more bohemian, ‘bozo’, ‘gonzo’ approach – and why not?!  “Spaced out”?! Well, let’s party on, down, man!  Ah, c’mon now, don't be a downer - let’s leave it to some other schmuck to do all the organizing & the planning for the new aeon!  (Oh, what’s that you say – everyone’s partying?!)

A nice reply.  A nice reply that is in its own way, quite neat.  A nice, neat reply.  It would have been even nicer and neater if Los were to adequately answer back; but :'( I fear it is beginning to look as if he may not do so 😮 , and that you, david, have joined the ranks of his non-responderoonioes (a most excellent club of a high order.  The ‘Hemlock’ has nothing on it.)  If you’re lucky, Los may deign to offer a dismissive and/or sarcastic rejoinder by way of a proper informative response.  If you’re even more lucky, he may throw in an adequate and not too groaning Groening witticism.  If you’re really lucky, that might even be funny and apt.  And if you’re so lucky it’s out of sight of the known universe he may actually have originally written it himself!

Bearing bucket, spade & first aid box (being prepared).  Down, down, deeepr and down...
N Joy


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 
"jamie barter" wrote:
[

"david" wrote:
Anyway, who else would I use as spokesperson of the zeitgeist (Logos)? Wilhelm Reich?  No, too much of an anti-mystic.

Was Reich truly anti-mystic?  (Discuss.)  I would like to think he is more agnostic on the matter, myself.  Certainly a lot of people might be inclined to consider that a lot of his discoveries could be ‘categorised’ more on the mystic-supernaturalist side of the balance (as compared to the sceptic-rationalist).  In an idle moment I muse over what his Word might have been – “Orgone” is an obvious candidate. ‘Bion’ looks as if it might have unplumbed cabbalistic depths to it. 

I agree with the proposition in asmuch as I think that next to A.C., Reich was the ‘philosopher-writer’ who has done the most to ‘earth’ the fire of the incoming Aeon of the Crown and Conquering Child (to poeticise the zeitgeist for a moment).

93

Reich an anti-mystic?  Well, he split from Freud because the later began to use the term, "libido" for the psychical-sexual force and Reich was annoyed by the metaphysical implications therein.  Therefore he (Reich) set out , as a die-hard materialist to prove to measure (a la Lavoisier) the sex-life force Itself.    Interestingly enough the terms, "prana", "chi" and , "orgone" are interchangeable as are Reich's 7 physical zones of armouring in the body and the 7 mystic chakras........etc

Reich also saw the "mystical expression" that the Nazis were providing for the people as a substitute for True Orgasm.  Presumably such, "expression"  included all talk of racial blood purity and Viking-Pagan street parades and the like?

I am inclined to believe, though,  that maybe the mystical expression he was averse to was the black old aeon variety and he would've been a fan of Thelema although he would've been disgusted by Crowley's sexual -scatlological habits?


ReplyQuote
Page 3 / 3
Share: