Notifications
Clear all

"Crying" and "relatives".

Page 2 / 2

ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 3548
 

We know that the "Love" AL speaks of is at least "agape" (that it also comprises "eros" is, i assume, not under dispute), because AC provides a qabalistic proof: both "thelema" and "agape" equal 93. Both words are used extensively in the New Testament and Christian theology generally.

It seems possible that Nuit, or Aiwass, was familiar with the following Christian homily on 1 John: 4-12 by St Augustine:

" Homily VII:8" wrote:
This we have said in the case where the things done are similar. In the case where they are diverse, we find a man by charity made fierce; and by iniquity made winningly gentle. A father beats a boy, and a boy-stealer caresses. If thou name the two things, blows and caresses, who would not choose the caresses, and decline the blows? If thou mark the persons, it is charity that beats, iniquity that caresses. See what we are insisting upon; that the deeds of men are only discerned by the root of charity. For many things may be done that have a good appearance, and yet proceed not from the root of charity. For thorns also have flowers: some actions truly seem rough, seem savage; howbeit they are done for discipline at the bidding of charity. Once for all, then, a short precept is given thee: Love, and do what thou wilt: whether thou hold thy peace, through love hold thy peace; whether thou cry out, through love cry out; whether thou correct, through love correct; whether thou spare, through love do thou spare: let the root of love be within, of this root can nothing spring but what is good. [emphasis added]

Serpents rise up from earth, doves fly down from the skies: as always, it is useful to avoid confusing the planes.


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

Igant did you see Reply #49 ?


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 3548
 

Why, yes, I did, david, and posted reply #50 in response, though you hadn't added the last sentence yet.

You are certainly correct that some interpret Thelema as justifying their failure to mature emotionally, and as divine authority for acting like a jerk.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Being a newbie, I think I'll tip toe quietly away from this corner of the web. I'll come back later when it's quieter. If it's any help to the debate there's nothing wrong with a good cry from time to time. Darn, now I've done it...


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5803
 
"ContraLumen1350" wrote:
I'll come back later when it's quieter.

Haha.  😀  Each thread that goes on for a while (say, more than 10 posts, usually) never gets "quieter." This is a sophisticated form of the Octagon. It often boils down to two major contenders, with (sometimes) a support staff and an occasional calm voice of reason. There are certain personas who evoke conflict time and time again, and there are certain contenders who take the bait and then the battle is on. Like UFC (The "Ultimate Fighting Championship"), there are few rules. But one is supposed to remain courteous and on-topic. Threads often get locked when somebody gets rude, crude, or way off-topic, and once it heats up, it rarely get's quieter.

[/align:1oc4xwo2]


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 3548
 

As to both Shiva's sadly mostly correct comments (though acts of scholarship have been committed from time to time), and also perhaps david's recent queries as to what might be meant by "love" in AL:

"AC, The Book of Lies, 80: BLACKTHORN" wrote:
The price of existence is eternal warfare.
Speaking as an Irishman, I prefer to say: The price of eternal warfare is existence.
And melancholy as existence is, the price is well worth paying.
Is there is a Government?  Then I'm agin it!  To Hell with the bloody English!
"O FRATER PERDURABO, how unworthy are these sentiments!"
"D'ye want a clip on the jaw?"

ReplyQuote
gurugeorge
(@gurugeorge)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 456
 
"Shiva" wrote:
"ContraLumen1350" wrote:
I'll come back later when it's quieter.

This is a sophisticated form of the Octagon.

Great summary, but ... wouldn't WWE be the more appropriate comparison? 😀


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

Getting back OT here,  Now a curse upon Because and his kin!
May Because be accursed for ever!
If Will stops and cries Why, invoking Because, then Will stops & does nought.

(II:28-30)

Wouldn't you say this gives credence to scepticism about the existence spiritual entities in Thelema?.  Here we have Al reducing the strange mystic act of invocation to a mere mental process such as any other.  We are told that we "invoke because" in the same way we "invoke" any other mental process.  "Because" is not an entity or a god.  Fuse this with what Crowley said about invocation; "mind is the great enemy; so, by invoking enthusiastically a person whom we know not to exist, we are rebuking that mind" and we have two instances of Crowley's overt rigorousness.

In effect then, the gods don't exist.....but in a way they do.....but they don't .......so on...ad infinitum. 


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
 
"david" wrote:
Wouldn't you say this gives credence to scepticism about the existence spiritual entities in Thelema?

There's nothing in those specific lines about "spiritual entities."

Here we have Al reducing the strange mystic act of invocation to a mere mental process such as any other.

Well, "invoke" doesn't just refer to magical operations. It simply means "to call upon." For example, the word is used when describing how conservative politicians invoke the name of Ronald Reagan to lend credence to whatever stupid ideas they're proposing today.

Fuse this with what Crowley said about invocation; "mind is the great enemy; so, by invoking enthusiastically a person whom we know not to exist, we are rebuking that mind"

This is a statement in an entirely different context about a kind of magical operation.

I mean, I obviously agree with your conclusion -- that there aren't any gods or spiritual entities (or rather, to be super technical, that it does not appear that there is any good reason to think that such entities do exist) -- but your road to arriving at this conclusion seems strained at best.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 
"Los" wrote:
Well, "invoke" doesn't just refer to magical operations. It simply means "to call upon." For example, the word is used when describing how conservative politicians invoke the name of Ronald Reagan to lend credence to whatever stupid ideas they're proposing today.

This is a statement in an entirely different context about a kind of magical operation.

I mean, I obviously agree with your conclusion -- that there aren't any gods or spiritual entities (or rather, to be super technical, that it does not appear that there is any good reason to think that such entities do exist) -- but your road to arriving at this conclusion seems strained at best.

Strained?  Invocation does have two meanings like a lot of English words do, yes but we're not talking about it within the context of articles in The New York Times or Outdoor Life here.  We are reading about invocation as spoken to us by a goddess in a book written/received by a magician which is essentially about magic(k).

As an aside, it's contradictory, completely.  A goddess telling us to be sceptical about invocation, but that's what invocation is, it rebukes rational thinking.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
 
"david" wrote:
[...] In effect then, the gods don't exist.....but in a way they do.....but they don't .......so on...ad infinitum.

“Choose ye well”, then.  Or don’t choose.  Though you choose if you want to… but then again, the lady’s not for choosing… and so on ad infinitum…

Chew(s)ing it all over,
Norma N Joy Conquest


ReplyQuote
gurugeorge
(@gurugeorge)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 456
 
"david" wrote:
Getting back OT here,  Now a curse upon Because and his kin!
May Because be accursed for ever!
If Will stops and cries Why, invoking Because, then Will stops & does nought.

(II:28-30)

Wouldn't you say this gives credence to scepticism about the existence spiritual entities in Thelema?.  Here we have Al reducing the strange mystic act of invocation to a mere mental process such as any other.  We are told that we "invoke because" in the same way we "invoke" any other mental process.  "Because" is not an entity or a god.  Fuse this with what Crowley said about invocation; "mind is the great enemy; so, by invoking enthusiastically a person whom we know not to exist, we are rebuking that mind" and we have two instances of Crowley's overt rigorousness.

In effect then, the gods don't exist.....but in a way they do.....but they don't .......so on...ad infinitum. 

You could also look at it this way though: invoking Because is not a "proper" invocation, because Because isn't a "proper" god, it's a false god.  IOW you're jamming your magical gears (so to speak) by interposing the invocation of a thing that isn't a god, when you should be invoking a god.

On the broader question, the watchword is "maybe".  "Maybe" doesn't mean "definitely not", so while Los is correct to say there's no good reason to believe in them as independent entities, that's actually only true in the sense of rational argument (i.e. if you're trying to convince other people - i.e. give them good reasons to believe - that they exist as independent entities.  There are no good reasons of that kind.) 

IOW, there's no evidence and reasoning you can give that would be scientific in a third-person sense.  But there is personal experience, in which it can really seem like they exist as independent entities; and that could still have relevance in the long run.  IOW we don't yet know enough about the Universe to be so terribly all-fired sure that they don't exist (Bayesian reasoning - the hypothesis is a possibility which on present (third person/rational-argument/scientific) evidence has very low probability, but because of the multiple anecdotal personal attestations, which certainly could be bollocks, but some of which might betoken something objectively real, it still has some probability, however tiny.) Which is why the question must remain open - i.e. maybe

The important thing is not to get too het up about it either way, because something is "working" when you do Magick, whether you have the belief that they're independently existing entities or not - i.e. something is working, in the sense that there is a long-term effect on your psyche.  (I personally take the Jungian sort of position, as I outlined elsewhere here a few days ago.  You pays your money ... )


ReplyQuote
Page 2 / 2
Share: