Notifications
Clear all

Dialectics


 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
Topic starter  

Greetings!

"mika" wrote:
"Hecate" wrote:
I only wish

"if wishes and buts were raisins and nuts, we'd all have a bowl of granola" Wishing is futile. All we can do is accept reality as it is, then decide what to do with it.

Indeed… so I thought to open this thread. How is the art of dialectics to be performed regarding the concept of Thelema? Would you find it interesting to discuss not merely about the method of discussion itself but also about the way two different points of view can by integrated to a third one on a higher level?

"mika" wrote:
"Hecate" wrote:
people were not so offensive to each other, calling each other’s point of view “bullshit” or “nonsense”.

Right there is the problem many on this forum are having: confusing calling bullshit on a point of view with some kind of personal offense. You are not what you think or what you feel or what you believe. Why take criticism of your ideas personally?

Well, at first place, I did not even feel that Erwin addressed to me personally when he called new age ideas “bullshit”. Actually, I have to admit that I have been treated rather gently in the forums until now, so it’s not something personal.
One could answer though: “Ok, I’m not what I think. From another perspective, I’m not my material body either. So then one could start slapping everyone else around at will, since their body is not their true essence.”
I’m not sure if I’m making the point I wish to make here… There is this inner “law of harmlessness” which can be proved to be so valuable in everyday life.

"mika" wrote:
"Hecate" wrote:
Why shouldn’t we honor the tiny piece of truth which exists in the core being of every form of life?

It's possible to honor that truth and still tear that life form's ridiculous claims to shreds. Because there's a difference between the sacred essence of a person's being, and the ideas that come out of a person's mouth. In fact, I'd argue that pointing out inconsistent, irrational, mistaken statements about reality honors that "tiny piece of truth" far more than silently sitting back while someone slips deeper and deeper into delusional fantasyland.

It sure does, especially when one aims to direct his energy towards the creation of a certain form; then one needs certain points of reference to define a certain frame of work and also needs to keep out everything one feels that is irrelevant to one’s aim.

On the other hand, I think that every kind of manifestation (on material, astral or mind plane) comes as the (more or less) crystallized form of an archetype. It seems as if we experience the continuous becoming of the Creative Mind on every level of existence. Then, ‘every tiny idea’ could be said to be a symbol of those archetypes on the mind field, a small piece of the big puzzle, and one could gain a profound insight about the set up of those archetypal currents in one’s life, if could only take some time to look for the symbolism and the energy behind things that one would previously immediately reject.
It seems to me that this, latest point of view, is complementary to the first one, giving us access to deeper spiritual resources in order to accomplish the creative work on earth.

Regards
Hecate


Quote
mika
 mika
(@mika)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 360
 
"Hecate" wrote:
"mika" wrote:
"Hecate" wrote:
I only wish

"if wishes and buts were raisins and nuts, we'd all have a bowl of granola" Wishing is futile. All we can do is accept reality as it is, then decide what to do with it.

Indeed… so I thought to open this thread. How is the art of dialectics to be performed regarding the concept of Thelema?

Well, the same way it is applied to any other subject. But it requires that the people involved are able to separate their opinions from their ego or self-definition. As it is here, any critique of a deeply held belief, or even a loosely held idea, is apparently considered to be a personal attack. The art of dialectics is far too advanced for people who take such criticism personally - basic rational discourse would be a good start.

"Hecate" wrote:
Would you find it interesting to discuss not merely about the method of discussion itself but also about the way two different points of view can by integrated to a third one on a higher level?

I do not agree that two different points of view can universally be "integrated to a third one on a higher level". (I'm curious what you mean by "higher level", but doubt your explanation would change my mind). Some points of view reflect actual reality, and some are fantasy, wishful thinking. Different perspectives can be reconciled with some kind of dialectic inquiry if they accurately represent reality. But if a perspective is purely a result of the imagination, not only can it not be reconciled with actual reality, why would you even want to try?

"Hecate" wrote:
"mika" wrote:
Right there is the problem many on this forum are having: confusing calling bullshit on a point of view with some kind of personal offense. You are not what you think or what you feel or what you believe. Why take criticism of your ideas personally?

...
One could answer though: “Ok, I’m not what I think. From another perspective, I’m not my material body either.

Yes, that's exactly what one could answer, and it would be accurate.

"Hecate" wrote:
So then one could start slapping everyone else around at will, since their body is not their true essence.”

People could start slapping everyone else around at will, for no reason whatsoever. People can do whatever they want for whatever reason they want. The only thing people have to do is act and accept the consequences of their actions.

"Hecate" wrote:
I’m not sure if I’m making the point I wish to make here… There is this inner “law of harmlessness” which can be proved to be so valuable in everyday life.

I get your point. The problem is, the existence of that "inner law of harmlessness" (or however you want to describe it) is something you believe to be true, but it's not an objective, demonstrable aspect of reality (like the existence of gravity, or hunger, or apples, etc). So you are perfectly free to live according to your own perspective of what you think is "so valuable in everyday life", but you're fooling yourself if you think 1. everyone should or does agree with that belief, and 2. everyone should live according to that belief.

Seems to me that you want people to be nice to eachother because you think it's the right thing to do, and it makes you feel better about the world. That's no different from someone saying they want people to be abstinent until marriage because it's the right thing to do and it makes them feel better. That attitude is the polar opposite of the philosophy and practice of Thelema. Everyone is free to live according to their own nature, and that may include acting in a way that you find disturbing. You are free to choose to stop interacting with people who bother you. Wishing that people will change isn't going to get you anywhere.

"Hecate" wrote:
It seems as if we experience the continuous becoming of the Creative Mind on every level of existence. Then, ‘every tiny idea’ could be said to be a symbol of those archetypes on the mind field, a small piece of the big puzzle, and one could gain a profound insight about the set up of those archetypal currents in one’s life, if could only take some time to look for the symbolism and the energy behind things that one would previously immediately reject.
It seems to me that this, latest point of view, is complementary to the first one, giving us access to deeper spiritual resources in order to accomplish the creative work on earth.

That's all very good and deep and poetic, but only makes sense if those "every tiny ideas" are accurate reflections of reality. If they are purely imaginary with no real foundation then any profound insights gained are not actually "profound insights", they're just further tunnelling into delusional fantasyland. Yes, definitely explore those things that one would previously immediately reject, that is a necessary part of magical work. But that doesn't mean everything must be accepted.

Have you considered "tak[ing] some time to look for the symbolism and energy behind" the idea that there *doesn't* exist an "inner law of harmlessness" in the world? Maybe it is in your nature to interact with the world *as if that were true*, but what about considering the possibility that maybe this is a belief that is preventing you from "access[ing] deeper spiritual resources in order to accomplish [your] creative work on earth".


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
Topic starter  

Greetings!

"mika" wrote:
Well, the same way it is applied to any other subject. But it requires that the people involved are able to separate their opinions from their ego or self-definition.

Indeed!

"mika" wrote:
As it is here, any critique of a deeply held belief, or even a loosely held idea, is apparently considered to be a personal attack. The art of dialectics is far too advanced for people who take such criticism personally - basic rational discourse would be a good start.

By talking about “respect for other people’s points of views” I certainly do not imply that anyone should accept someone else’s idea as his/her own truth. What I have in mind is more something like “honoring the wonderful diversity of Life”.
It is one thing to criticize someone’s opinion and it’s another thing to be prejudiced against it. It is one thing to keep our own position and it is another thing to be on the offensive towards another’s position. I guess the second cases would merely indicate that we carry a certain burden of energy that needs to be released somehow…

"mika" wrote:
I do not agree that two different points of view can universally be "integrated to a third one on a higher level". (I'm curious what you mean by "higher level", but doubt your explanation would change my mind).

But I don’t think you (or anyone else) have to change your mind; not only you are fine as you are but, being who you are, helps me realize who I am (and the same goes for everyone).
Yet, can’t we just relax a bit and take ourselves less seriously and enjoy this game of discussion?

About dialectics: as I see it, it’s not merely a way of discussion; it’s a way of being, much close to the process of evolution itself. It certainly can be applied to everything suffice one wishes to use it. This is the way of Synthesis as in the “father – mother – child” pattern. That’s why I thought it interesting to see it in the context of Thelema.

"mika" wrote:
I get your point. The problem is, the existence of that "inner law of harmlessness" (or however you want to describe it) is something you believe to be true, but it's not an objective, demonstrable aspect of reality (like the existence of gravity, or hunger, or apples, etc). So you are perfectly free to live according to your own perspective of what you think is "so valuable in everyday life", but you're fooling yourself if you think 1. everyone should or does agree with that belief, and 2. everyone should live according to that belief.

Seems to me that you want people to be nice to eachother because you think it's the right thing to do, and it makes you feel better about the world.

Yes, sure. It would probably make me feel better for a couple of hours… but then I’d feel lousy knowing that someone else feels oppressed. No, not my way… yet 😉

"mika" wrote:
Everyone is free to live according to their own nature, and that may include acting in a way that you find disturbing. You are free to choose to stop interacting with people who bother you. Wishing that people will change isn't going to get you anywhere.

…or I can simply discuss about it with no expectations?

Why should I get myself in the dilemma “stay or leave?” Why not look for a third option? I don’t wish to remain in the same frame and I don’t wish to leave; I choose to discuss it and to stay open to any kind of change.

In the end of the interaction, I will probably find myself (and the others) enriched from the shared opinions, so that I won’t be in the original ‘frame’ and I won’t have to leave either. (In other terms, I’ll have become “the child”) At the same time, this interaction will help each one of us to see our own shadows and work with them. (And that could also work as another example for experiencing the dialectic).

"mika" wrote:
That's all very good and deep and poetic, but only makes sense if those "every tiny ideas" are accurate reflections of reality.

I’d rather think that ‘reality’ is the reflection of the archetypal ideas; therefore those more ‘personal’ fragments would have more or less the role of the image of the elephant as it is perceived from a blind person touching its tail…

"mika" wrote:
Have you considered "tak[ing] some time to look for the symbolism and energy behind" the idea that there *doesn't* exist an "inner law of harmlessness" in the world? Maybe it is in your nature to interact with the world *as if that were true*

I wasn’t born believing in this ‘law’, just tried to apply it once and it worked as I never thought it would. I could say it is a magical law. Let me explain: I admit that, when I first heard about it, I wished to comply with it in order to be “with the good guys” (too much duality then). I declared my intention to apply it, without knowing that I could have any specific result. However, I found that this intention “to do everything according to the law of harmlessness” worked like a key to the other side of the veil. It took me some time to understand what happened… Finally I realized that it goes much deeper than the story of ‘good’ and ‘evil’; I was told it is something like “washing one’s hands” (and this makes me think it’s about staying detached).
Yes, I know, the fact it worked for me should not make me think it would work for others too –but it did.

"mika" wrote:
… but what about considering the possibility that maybe this is a belief that is preventing you from "access[ing] deeper spiritual resources in order to accomplish [your] creative work on earth".

Of course; this thought should be always present if we wish to avoid being dogmatic, isn’t it?

Regards
Hecate


ReplyQuote
michaelclarke18
(@michaelclarke18)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 1265
 

I think the Scientology concept of ''fair game'' sums up Dialectics petty well.

You can keep it.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
Topic starter  

Greetings Michaelclarke18

I am not aware of that concept and I don’t know much about scientology either. Could you please explain this concept of "fair game" to me in a few words?

Since there were no answers until now, this morning I thought to google the words Thelema and Dialectics together. Apparently several people can recognize the dialectics in Thelema and I think it is a vast plane for study.

Regards
Hecate


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 4256
 

It may be that Michael is punning on the closeness between the words Dialectics and Dianetics.

Best wishes,

Michael.


ReplyQuote
Walterfive
(@walterfive)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 856
 
"Hecate" wrote:
It is one thing to criticize someone’s opinion and it’s another thing to be prejudiced against it. It is one thing to keep our own position and it is another thing to be on the offensive towards another’s position. I guess the second cases would merely indicate that we carry a certain burden of energy that needs to be released somehow…

Well, you've got to realize that we're Thelemites here. Many have forgotten how to, or perhaps just don't care to fight fair. The Book of the Law says "strike hard and low and to Hell with them, Oh Master!" Many of us figure that if we can sway you or intimidate you with harsh opinions your own Will must be weak, and can therefore be dismissed-- if you're *really* doing your own Will, nothing we can say or do will hold you down, or hold you back for long, and (as a Satanist friend of mine says) "That which does not kill us makes us quote Nietzsche." Did you ever read "Thus Spake Zarathrustra"? He says "My brethren, wherefore is there need of the lion in the spirit? Why sufficeth not the beast of burden, which renounceth and is reverent? To create new values - that, even the lion cannot yet accomplish: but to create itself freedom for new creating - that can the might of the lion do. To create itself freedom, and give a holy Nay even unto duty: for that my brethren, there is need of the lion. To assume the right to new values - that is the most formidable assumption for a load-bearing and reverent spirit. Verily, unto such a spirit it is preying, and the work of a beast of prey. As its holiest, it once loved "Thou-shalt": now is it forced to find illusion and arbitrariness even in the holiest things, that it may capture freedom from its love: the lion is needed for this capture..."

It is because of this "Lion in the Spirit" that many of us fall rather more towards the Pillar of Severity than to the Pillar of Mercy, which is, in my observation, the wont of the majority of those who identify with "The New Age" movement. Myself, I'll admit that I had gotten a certain sense of superiority over most of the the "New Agers" weak Wills and fuzzy thinking and once would have been quick to point out that there was a hidden Qabbalist reason there was only one letter's worth of difference between New Age and Sewage.

However, as I grow older, and I come to meet tolerant and well-informed Adepts who are aware, for example, of the connections between Dion Fortune and Crowley, AMORC and Dr. Reuss, Crowley's own works on Qabbala, Astrology and Tarot, the OTO's connection with Papus and Gnosticism, I come to recognize that many of these people are our own brothers and sisters, Adepts themselves, who have also rent the Veil of Paroketh, and who, in their own way, and in their own Houses, come to view many of the same Mysteries and forces we hold most Sacred. After all, the New Age of Aquarius and the New Aeon of the Crowned and Conquering Child are themselves just different terms to recognize the same Precession of the Equinoxes. They take very seriously many of the same trainings and disciplines of the A.'.A.'., such as Yoga, and Astral Projection, and the O.T.O., in Sacred Sexuality and Sex Magick, and I find that we can often approach each other with same sort of "Truth Tolerance and Respect" that I give my own Bretheren in the Rose Croix, and see the Illumination that each other have recieved in our respective Gnosis. They too "See the Light" that our respective Masters have told us that we must seek, and they even see it in the same framework, and as coming from the same source as our own Grand Master Baphomet. Certainly there are differences that will remain irreconciliable beneath the Abyss, but above it, in the City of Pyramids? In the embrace of Our Lady, Babalon? Who can deny that the 'Two are One, Yeah, are None?'

But I digress...


ReplyQuote
Palamedes
(@palamedes)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 450
 

Great post Walter.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
Topic starter  

Greetings!

Indeed, great post Walter!

"Walterfive" wrote:
It is because of this "Lion in the Spirit" that many of us fall rather more towards the Pillar of Severity than to the Pillar of Mercy, which is, in my observation, the wont of the majority of those who identify with "The New Age" movement. Myself, I'll admit that I had gotten a certain sense of superiority over most of the "New Agers" weak Wills and fuzzy thinking…

Yes, I know what you mean. I too believe that New Agers need to realize the need of balance. When I made contact with my guide, the first think he asked me to do was to accept being both light and darkness at the same time. Well, at first I was scared and tried to evade it but he kept bringing the subject until I was ready for it. Now I can say that “there is no greater Love than the one between Light and Darkness”, but it is a difficult task to make some New Agers to see that.

I do believe it’s very important for New Agers to realize that New Age ideas are not new at all and that, realizing and honoring the lineage of those ideas and the ones who worked in earlier times, can be extremely helpful for their grounding work since it connects us better with the “Here and Now”.

And the dialectic of the Infinitive goes on….

Regards
Hecate


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 4256
 

"Let's split, man", as one Infinitive said to the other.

I don't think it's simply a question of harsh versus non-harsh. There are some people on this website - no names, no pack-drill - who seem to regard debate as like a boxing match, the objective being to bludgeon your opponent into submission with a point of view, reiterated as many times as it takes. Though not averse to the odd bout of fisticuffs myself, it generates a great deal of sound and fury for a while but not much else.

There are some on this site who have admirable debating skills, such that they could successfully argue the corner for almost any proposition. The adversarial approach means that the debate is "won"; it might be because the idea advanced is more correct; on the other hand, it might be down to a greater articularcy.

On the whole I'd prefer discussion to be conducted in a more civil fashion than is sometimes the case here. Less instances of a primary school playground at the lunch-break would be nice.

Best wishes,

Michael.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
Topic starter  

(<<<<< whispers to MichaelStaley)

psssss Michael...but we could still pretend fighting now and then to make Mr LAShTAL come out of his hiding place, couldn't we?

😀 😀


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 1126
 
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
I don't think it's simply a question of harsh versus non-harsh. There are some people on this website - no names, no pack-drill - who seem to regard debate as like a boxing match, the objective being to bludgeon your opponent into submission with a point of view, reiterated as many times as it takes. Though not averse to the odd bout of fisticuffs myself, it generates a great deal of sound and fury for a while but not much else.

I agree with this: I've seen that often enough, and it's just irritating when someone comes back with "but look at my previous post!". Then again, very frequently (almost always, in some cases) people seem unwilling to engage, to discuss, at all.

"MichaelStaley" wrote:
There are some on this site who have admirable debating skills, such that they could successfully argue the corner for almost any proposition. The adversarial approach means that the debate is "won"; it might be because the idea advanced is more correct; on the other hand, it might be down to a greater articularcy [sic].

The essence of debate lies not just in the ability to present a convincing case, but in the ability of the person to see beyond the issue and expand upon it. Frequently, it seems, some people tend to "expand" into the realm of "personal experience" or other areas, seeking (it seems) to reach beyond any rational criticism rather than engage with it.

"MichaelStaley" wrote:
On the whole I'd prefer discussion to be conducted in a more civil fashion than is sometimes the case here. Less instances of a primary school playground at the lunch-break would be nice.

For my part, having been thoroughly vicious myself recently in debate, because it's been necessary to shift a thoroughly oppressive kind of parochialism that has developed here of late, what I'd like to see is more honesty in discussion (truth is not a mode of attack, but the defence is). The mark of a true gentleman is to be able to admit when wrong, not simply to be polite (or silent) for the sake of it.


ReplyQuote
mika
 mika
(@mika)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 360
 
"ianrons" wrote:
what I'd like to see is more honesty in discussion (truth is not a mode of attack, but the defence is).

Sounds good so far...

"ianrons" wrote:
The mark of a true gentleman is to be able to admit when wrong, not simply to be polite (or silent) for the sake of it.

Why are you assuming the only participants in the forum here are men? Or is it just that you believe only men have to "be able to admit when wrong, not simply to be polite (or silent) for the sake of it"? Please help me understand why what constitutes "the mark of a true gentleman" is relevant to this conversation.


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 1126
 

🙄


ReplyQuote
mika
 mika
(@mika)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 360
 
"ianrons" wrote:
🙄

'

You asked for more honesty and respond with an eyeroll? Seems to me that a "true gentleman" would be able to admit when wrong. Or so I heard.

Apparently, you don't think assuming your audience consists entirely of men is an error worthy of owning up to. Or maybe you don't consider yourself a true gentleman. Or maybe you do, but slipped into a moment of hypocricy. Hard to tell when all I have to go on is an eyeroll.


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 1126
 
"mika" wrote:
Why are you assuming the only participants in the forum here are men? Or is it just that you believe only men have to "be able to admit when wrong, not simply to be polite (or silent) for the sake of it"? Please help me understand why what constitutes "the mark of a true gentleman" is relevant to this conversation.

If you take offence at the term "gentleman" then you may as well give up.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
Topic starter  

Greetings

"ianrons" wrote:
So I really don't see your point...

Could it be your punishment for not celebrating women's day?
LOL 😀

((((((((Ian)))))))))))

Love and Light
Hecate


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 1126
 
"Hecate" wrote:
Could it be your punishment for not celebrating women's day?

Aha, so you carry a whip, do you? I thought wimmin were supposed to throw off their chains, whips, etc...


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 4256
 

Well, no-one will see your point, Ian, because having posted it you removed it just after Hecate quoted from it it in her response.

Had a hard day?


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 1126
 

I typed a response and then edited it... with the Edit button. Oh noes!!!

But I'd be happy to hear *any* response to my previous comments (on that other thread) about the whole Cthulhu stuff... which of course you have never been involved with 😉

And in particular I seem to remember calling you out on the pub talk thing. Which is why I bolded the word honesty. You obviously "spun" the matter of our pub chat, which I find utterly disgraceful. Own up.

C'mon, the English language is wonderful. You can surely express your own opinion other than by seeking to point out that somebody has edited a post?


ReplyQuote
mika
 mika
(@mika)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 360
 
"ianrons" wrote:
"mika" wrote:
Why are you assuming the only participants in the forum here are men? Or is it just that you believe only men have to "be able to admit when wrong, not simply to be polite (or silent) for the sake of it"? Please help me understand why what constitutes "the mark of a true gentleman" is relevant to this conversation.

If you take offence at the term "gentleman" then you may as well give up.

I don't take offense at the term "gentlemen". I'm not offended by anything you wrote, and wonder why you'd jump to that conclusion. I simply pointed out your error in assuming that the only participants in this forum are men. It's a common mistake that is easily corrected, all it takes is acknowledging the oversight.

The question now is, can you admit you were wrong, or not?


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 1126
 

The fact that I used the term "gentleman" does not, in any way, imply that I assume that all of the people reading that post are "gentlemen", or even men. You are on a losing wicket here, and if *you* were a gentleman you'd see that. You cannot possibly expect me to say that, because I used the term "gentleman", I was implying a male readership. C'mon, that's crazy.

What I was talking about was people who refuse to admit the truth of the alternate proposition, and I hope you will not be a case in point.


ReplyQuote
mika
 mika
(@mika)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 360
 
"ianrons" wrote:
You cannot possibly expect me to say that, because I used the term "gentleman", I was implying a male readership.

Hilarious! You expressed a desire for more gentleman-like behavior in the discussions on this forum but were not implying a male readership? Wow.

To be honest, I didn't expect you to say anything, but I hoped you would own up to your error. Or at least engage in thoughtful, honest discussion about what potentially was a simple misunderstanding or poor choice of words. As it is, you're not practicing what you preach, which makes it very difficult to continue to take your commentary here seriously. Which is very sad, since you seemed to have your head on straight up until now.


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 1126
 

I am deeply offended at the way you suggest that, by using the term "gentleman", I am somehow in "error", or that I am being less than "honest", or have made a "poor choice of words", or that I am (in some way) not "practicing what preach". This is all disgusting. How horrible.

What, do you suppose, is the big problem with the term "gentleman"?

What I said was:

"ianrons" wrote:
The mark of a true gentleman is to be able to admit when wrong, not simply to be polite (or silent) for the sake of it.

Now, what is wrong with that?


ReplyQuote
mika
 mika
(@mika)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 360
 
"ianrons" wrote:
What, do you suppose, is the big problem with the term "gentleman"?

You continue to misunderstand my point. The error, or problem, was not with the term gentlemen. The error was the implied assumption that everyone who participates in the discussions here are men. Here, let's go back to what you wrote - in context- with the previous sentence included:

"what I'd like to see is more honesty in discussion (truth is not a mode of attack, but the defence is). The mark of a true gentleman is to be able to admit when wrong, not simply to be polite (or silent) for the sake of it."

Now, if you had said "the mark of a considerate person" or "the mark of a true gentleman or lady" or some other inclusive descriptor, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But you only referred to gentlemen, implying that you think the only people participating in these discussions in which you'd like to see more honesty (ie, participating in this forum) are men.

It's comparable to sending out a business letter that begins with "Dear Gentlemen". The word itself is not a problem. The assumption that only men will be reading the letter is the problem.

If you used that term because in your mind you were having a "private" 1-on-1 conversation with Michael and it was in reference to yourself and him and maybe the men here who have *not* been acting in such a way lately, that's a perfectly valid explanation. But it's up to you to explain what you meant - all I have to go on is what was implied by what you wrote.

My comments about you "not practicing what you preach" etc were not in reference to your use of the word gentlemen, but in reference to you seeming to be unwilling to honestly discuss my critique. Assuming that I was offended didn't help your case either, since how I feel has absolutely no relevance to investigating the validity (or not) of what I wrote. "Oh, you're just angry" is generally the last refuge for people who have no rational argument to make, and isn't that part of the problem that sparked this conversation in the first place?

I hope that clears this up. I'd rather not waste time on a seemingly off topic issue (though from my perspective this is one of the most on-topic conversations I've seen here lately...) so if you still don't get my point feel free to email me.


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 1126
 
"mika" wrote:
The error was the implied assumption

No, mate. Do you know what the difference between an "implication" and an "inference" is? If I imply something, it means that I enwrap it in my statements; whereas, if you infer something, it means that you confer meaning upon my statements independently. In this case, clearly you are conferring meaning upon the term "gentleman" that I never intended, such as that I assume that all of my readers are men(!); whereas in fact I was addressing one male reader in particular. But you are turning it into an argument over seven (count them!) paragraphs. I will never admit something that isn't true, as I've already said; though you seem to want me to confess to some evil... ouch! ouch! no! no! ohmigod... no, ow! ofuck ofuck no, i didn't do it... no ... ofuck omigod... no! no! no! *ouch!* oooh.. no, ohno please don't, ooh... no wait, that's quite nice actually.... no... ono... ooh! owww! mmm! not the comfy chair! no!!! not.... the comfy chair!!! mmmm! omigod! I thought they were all men! oh! oh! oh! aaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh............

I feel quite nice now. Do you want a cuddle?


ReplyQuote
mika
 mika
(@mika)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 360
 
"ianrons" wrote:
In this case, clearly you are conferring meaning upon the term "gentleman" that I never intended, such as that I assume that all of my readers are men(!); whereas in fact I was addressing one male reader in particular.

OK, I misunderstood you, as I anticipated might be the case. Now how about you acknowledging your incorrect inferrence? You wrote:

"ianrons" wrote:
though you seem to want me to confess to some evil... ouch! ouch! no! no! ohmigod... no, ow! ofuck ofuck no, i didn't do it... no ... ofuck omigod... no! no! no! *ouch!* oooh.. no, ohno please don't, ooh.

Clearly you are conferring meaning upon my comments to you that I never intended, as supported by my statement:
"If you used that term because in your mind you were having a "private" 1-on-1 conversation with Michael and it was in reference to yourself and him and maybe the men here who have *not* been acting in such a way lately, that's a perfectly valid explanation. But it's up to you to explain what you meant"

You did confirm this, eventually, which I acknowledged above. But I really don't see how you could have possibly interpreted my posts as me wanting you to "confess to some evil". Good thing you used the word "seem". It would be nice if you could support that interpretation with direct quotes, but just admitting that you were mistaken would demonstrate your actions are consistent with your words. If not to me, than at least to yourself.


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 1126
 

Thank you for accepting that you misunderstood me. The "evil" you wanted me to confess was that of making some kind of sexist remark, which I resent, and I'm certainly not going to apologise to you for reasonably inferring that from your remarks.


ReplyQuote
mika
 mika
(@mika)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 360
 
"ianrons" wrote:
The "evil" you wanted me to confess was that of making some kind of sexist remark, which I resent

You resent a figment of your imagination. If you're interested in paying attention to actual reality, you would go back and re-read what I wrote, and you'd see that I never called you "sexist" or called your remarks "sexist". I questioned your assumptions and the intended meaning of your comments. You then declared I was offended, that I wanted you to confess to some evil, and now, that I want you to confess to making a sexist remark. None of these beliefs are supported by anything I actually wrote.

So what's it gonna be? Hold on to your imagined insults, or consider that reality may be different from what you first assumed?


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 1126
 
"mika" wrote:
Why are you assuming the only participants in the forum here are men?
"mika" wrote:
Seems to me that a "true gentleman" would be able to admit when wrong.
"mika" wrote:
Apparently, you don't think assuming your audience consists entirely of men is an error worthy of owning up to.
"mika" wrote:
Or maybe you do, but slipped into a moment of hypocricy [sic].
"mika" wrote:
I simply pointed out your error in assuming that the only participants in this forum are men.
"mika" wrote:
The question now is, can you admit you were wrong, or not?
"mika" wrote:
I hoped you would own up to your error
"mika" wrote:
you're not practicing what you preach [...] [w]hich is very sad
"mika" wrote:
OK, I misunderstood you

I know you want to feel better, but stop trying to "score" off of me. You were making a point to do with sexual politics, and wanted me to confess to that, and it's totally disingenuous -- not to say very ungentlemanly -- to try to continue this ridiculous argument.


ReplyQuote
mika
 mika
(@mika)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 360
 
"ianrons" wrote:
You were making a point to do with sexual politics,

Yes, I was. That's not the same as "wanting you to confess to some evil" or "wanting you to confess to being a sexist" or some such thing. You know, it is possible, for some people anyway, to discuss sexual politics without taking offense or being defensive. You chose to interpret my questioning as an attack, you chose to be defensive, you chose to resent my statements, and you continue to avoid owning up to your own assumptions about my meaning or my intentions.

"ianrons" wrote:
it's totally disingenuous -- not to say very ungentlemanly -- to try to continue this ridiculous argument.

Then why do you keep responding to me? Feel free to stop at any time.

As for me, I'm not concerned with being "ungentlemanly". I'm not even concerned with being "unladylike".


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
Topic starter  

Greetings!

Please allow me to give a couple of links to articles with references to Aleister Crowley and the dialectics in Thelema :
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Dialectical_monis m"> http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Dialectical_monism
http://www.thefirewithin.dk/library/crowleys.ht m"> http://www.thefirewithin.dk/library/crowleys.htm

Regards
Hecate


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 1126
 
"mika" wrote:
Then why do you keep responding to me? Feel free to stop at any time.

I'm glad you've dropped your demands; so let the discussion continue.


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 19 years ago
Posts: 2130
 
"ianrons" wrote:
The mark of a true gentleman is to be able to admit when wrong, not simply to be polite (or silent) for the sake of it.

Mika, 93!

I would say the above simply means (maybe incorrectly, mabe not) that someone who is "able to admit when wrong, not simply to be polite (or silent) for the sake of it" bears the mark of a "true gentleman". I am really astonished that someone who advocates female "Beasts" and male "Scarlet Women" can have any problem with that.

And, moreover, even if Ian is addressing only men (which is not implied in my opinion), he nowhere states that Lashtal readers are primarily male. The main part of his words are about politeness and the ability to admit certain things, and not about "gentlemen".

Really, this is silly. Especially since you obviously bear a good deal of the "marks of a true gentleman" yourself.

"mika" wrote:
Again, don't assume references to masculine and feminine or to male and female god-forms are equivalent to references to men and women. We all are both masculine and feminine in different degrees and different forms of manifestation. I am just as much Osiris Risen as a man is Isis in Mourning, I am as much the Emperor as a man is the Empress, etc. The belief that only men are "Beasts" and only women are "Scarlet Women" etc is completely mistaken.

But gentleman-like behaviour is adressed to men only? Ridiculous. You should see me playing the " clucking hen" or the "bitch" when it comes to my children...

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 

I wonder who'll "win" this one, and how.
(watches raptly)


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 19 years ago
Posts: 2130
 
"Noctifer" wrote:
I wonder who'll "win" this one, and how.
(watches raptly)

Despite of what I just wrote, me too!

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
"Noctifer" wrote:
I wonder who'll "win" this one, and how.
(watches raptly)

Despite of what I just wrote, me too!

Love=Law
Lutz

Let's throw socks at them! Then decide by thier respective reactions! 😉


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 1126
 

Well, I didn't realise it was a spectator sport. Harrumph!


ReplyQuote
mika
 mika
(@mika)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 360
 
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
"Noctifer" wrote:
I wonder who'll "win" this one, and how.
(watches raptly)

Despite of what I just wrote, me too!

Glad you put "win" in quotes. I don't have conversations with people to feed my ego. When I want to engage in alpha-dog pissing contests, I play sports, where "winning" or "losing" actually means something.

Oh, and _simon_, this stopped being about use of the word "gentleman" as soon as Ianrons responded to my post with an eyeroll. Pity he did not take the opportunity to demonstrate the behavior he would like to see in others.


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 19 years ago
Posts: 2130
 
"mika" wrote:
Oh, and _simon_, this stopped being about use of the word "gentleman" as soon as Ianrons responded to my post with an eyeroll.

I know, mika, because you wrote:

"mika" wrote:
The error, or problem, was not with the term gentlemen. The error was the implied assumption that everyone who participates in the discussions here are men.

And that was all I was replying to. Because I think there was no implied assumption of that kind in Ian's words. I understand the "mark of a true gentleman" is gender-neutral nowadays.

LoveLaw
Lutz

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
Topic starter  

Greetings!

Today, while reading Book 4 (Chapter VII), I found a very clear reference to the essence of the dialectics. There it is (the emphasis is mine):

……………..
“Very many people go about nowadays who are exceedingly "well-informed," but who have not the slightest idea of the meaning of the facts they know. They have not developed the necessary higher part of the brain. Induction is impossible to them.

This capacity for storing away facts is compatible with actual imbecility. Some imbeciles have been able to store their memories with more knowledge than perhaps any sane man could hope to acquire.

This is the great fault of modern education -- a child is stuffed with facts, and no attempt is made to explain their connection and bearing. The result is that even the facts themselves are soon forgotten.

Any first-rate mind is insulted and irritated by such treatment, and any first-rate memory is in danger of being spoilt by it.

No two ideas have any real meaning until they are harmonized in a third, and the operation is only perfect when these ideas are contradictory. This is the essence of the Hegelian logic.

The Magick Cup, as was shown above, is also the flower. It is the lotus which opens to the sun, and which collects the dew.

This Lotus is in the hand of Isis the great Mother. It is a symbol similar to the Cup in the hand of OUR LADY BABALON.”
……………..

Since he showed a profound understanding of symbols and archetypes, I think it would be interesting to watch the process he used to “marry” the opposite ideas into one, in his multidimensional universe.
I wonder if there is any essay on that.

Regards
Hecate


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"Hecate" wrote:
Greetings!

Today, while reading Book 4 (Chapter VII), I found a very clear reference to the essence of the dialectics. There it is (the emphasis is mine):

……………..
“Very many people go about nowadays who are exceedingly "well-informed," but who have not the slightest idea of the meaning of the facts they know. They have not developed the necessary higher part of the brain. Induction is impossible to them.

This capacity for storing away facts is compatible with actual imbecility. Some imbeciles have been able to store their memories with more knowledge than perhaps any sane man could hope to acquire.

This is the great fault of modern education -- a child is stuffed with facts, and no attempt is made to explain their connection and bearing. The result is that even the facts themselves are soon forgotten.

Any first-rate mind is insulted and irritated by such treatment, and any first-rate memory is in danger of being spoilt by it.

No two ideas have any real meaning until they are harmonized in a third, and the operation is only perfect when these ideas are contradictory. This is the essence of the Hegelian logic.

The Magick Cup, as was shown above, is also the flower. It is the lotus which opens to the sun, and which collects the dew.

This Lotus is in the hand of Isis the great Mother. It is a symbol similar to the Cup in the hand of OUR LADY BABALON.”
……………..

Since he showed a profound understanding of symbols and archetypes, I think it would be interesting to watch the process he used to “marry” the opposite ideas into one, in his multidimensional universe.
I wonder if there is any essay on that.

Regards
Hecate

There is this bit on the LAShTAL formula from AC's Liber V vel Reguli, Hecate:

The World LAShTAL includes all this.
LA—Naught.
AL—Two.

L is "Justice," the Kteis fulfilled by the Phallus, "Naught and Two" because the plus and the minus have united in "love under will."

A is "The Fool," Naught in Thought (Parzival), Word (Harpocrates), and Action (Bacchus). He is the boundless air, and the wandering Ghost, but with "possibilities." He is the Naught that the Two have made by "love under will."

LA thus represents the Ecstasy of Nuit and Hadit conjoined, lost in love, and making themselves Naught thereby. Their child is begotten and conceived, but is in the phase of Naught also, as yet. LA is thus the Universe in that phase, with its potentialities of manifestation.

AL, on the contrary, though it is essentially identical with LA, shows "The Fool" manifested through the Equilibrium of Contraries. The wieght is still nothing, but it is expressed as it were two equal weights in opposite scales. The indicator still points to zero.

ShT is equally 31 with LA and AL, but it expresses the secret nature which operates the Magick or the transmutations.

ShT is the formula of this particular Æon; another æon might have another way of saying 31.

Sh is Fire as T is Force; conjoined they express Ra-Hoor-Khuit.

"The Angel"3 represents the Stèle 666, showing the Gods of the Æon, while "Strength" is a picture of Babalon and the Beast, the earthly emissaries of those Gods.

ShT is the dynamic equivalent of LA and AL. Sh shows the Word of the Law, being triple, as 93 is thrice 31. T shows the formula of Magic declared in that Word; the Lion, the Serpent, the Sun, Courage and Sexual Love are all indicated by the card.

In LA note that Saturn or Satan is exalted in the House of Venus or Astarté and it is an airy sign. Thus L is Father-Mother, Two and Naught, and the Spirit (Holy Ghost) of their Love is also Naught. Love is AHBH, 13, which is AChD. Unity, 1, aleph. who is "The Fool" who is Naught, but none the less an individual One, who (as such) is not another, yet unconscious of himself until his Oneness expresses itself as a duality.

Any impression or idea is unknowable in itself. It can mean nothing until brought into relation with other things. The first step is to distinguish one thought from another; this is the condition of recognizing it. To define it, we must perceive its orientation to all our other ideas. The extent of our knowledge of any one thing varies therefore with the number of ideas with which we can compare it. Every new fact not only adds itself to our universe, but increases the value of what we already possess.

In AL this "The" or "God" arranges for "Countenance to behold countenance,"4 by establishing itself as an equilibrium, A the One-Naught conceived as L the Two-Naught. This L is the Son-Daughter Horus-Harpocrates just as the other L was the Father-Mother Set-Isis. Here then is Tetragrammaton once more, but expressed in identical equations in which every term is perfect in itself as a mode of Naught.

ShT supplies the last element; making the Word of either five or six letters, according as we regard ShT as one letter or two. Thus the Word affirms the Great Work accomplished: 5°=6°.

ShT is moreover a necessary resolution of the apparent opposition of LA and AL; for one could hardly pass to the other without the catalytic action of a third identical expression whose function should be to transmute them. Such a term must be in itself a mode of Naught, and its nature cannot encroach on the perfections of Not-Being, LA, or of Being, AL. It must be purely Nothing-Motion as they are purely Nothing-Matter, so as to create a Matter-in-Motion which is a function of "Something."

Thus ShT is Motion in its double phase, an inertia compose of two opposite current, and each current is also thus polarized. Sh is Heaven and Earth, T Male and Female; ShT is Spirit and Matter; one is the word of Liberty and Love flashing its Light to restore Life to Earth, the other is the act by which Life claims that Love is Light and Liberty. And these are Two-in-One, the divine letter of Silence-in-Speech whose symbol is the Sun in the Arms of the Moon.5

But Sh and T are alike formulæ of force in action as opposed to entities; they are not states of existence, but modes of motion. They are verbs, not nouns.

Sh is the Holy Spirit as a "tongue of fire" manifest in triplicity, and is the child of Set-Isis as their logos or Word uttered by their "Angel." The card is XX, and 20 is the value of yod (the secret seed of all things, the Virgin, "The Hermit," Mercury, the Angel or Herald) expressed in full as IVD. Sh is the spiritual congress of Heaven and Earth.

But T is the Holy Spirit in action as a "roaring Lion" or as "the old Serpent" instead of an "Angel of Light." The twins of Set-Isis, harlot and beast, are busy with that sodomitic and incestuous lust which is the traditional formula for producing demi-gods, as in the cases of Mary and the Dove, Leda and the Swan, etc. The card is XI, the number of Magick AVD: aleph "The Fool" impregnating the woman according to the Word of yod, the Angel of the Lord! His sister has seduced her brother Beast, shaming the Sun with her sin; she has mastered the Lion, and enchanted the Serpent. Nature is outraged by Magick; man is bestialized and woman defiled. The conjunction produces a monster; it affirms regression of types. Instead of a man-God conceived of the Spirit of God by a virgin in innocence, we are asked to adore the bastard of a whore and a brute, begotten in shamefullest sin and born in most blasphemous bliss.

This is in fact the formula of our Magick; we insist that all acts must be equal; that existence asserts the right to exist; that unless evil is a mere term expressing some relation of haphazard hostility between forces equally self-justified, the universe is as inexplicable and impossible as uncompensated action; that the orgies of Bacchus and Pan are no less sacramental than the Masses of Jesus; that the scars of syphilis are sacred and worthy of honour as much as the wounds of the martyrs of Mary.

It should be unnecessary to insist that the above ideas apply only to the Absolute. Toothache is still painful, and deceit degrading, to a man, relatively to his situation in the world of illusion; he does his Will by avoiding them. But the existence of "Evil" is fatal to philosophy so long as it is supposed to be independent of conditions; and to accustom the mind to "make no difference" between any two ideas6 as such is to emancipate it from the thralldom of terror.

We affirm on our altars our faith in ourself and our wills, our love of all aspects of the Absolute All.

And we make the Spirit shin combine with the Flesh teth int a single letter, whose value is 31 even as those of LA the Naught, and AL the All, to complete their Not-Being and Being with its Becoming, to mediate between identical extremes as their mean—the secret that sunders and seals them.

It declares that all somethings are equally shadows of Nothing, and justifies Nothing in its futile folly of pretending that something is stable, by making us aware of a method of Magick through the practice of which we may partake in the pleasure of the process.

The Magician should devise for himself a definite technique for destroying "evil." The essence of such a practice will consist in training the mind and the body to confront things which case fear, pain, disgust,* shame and the like. He must learn to endure them, then to become indifferent to them, then to become indifferent to them, then to analyze them until they give pleasure and instruction, and finally to appreciate them for their own sake, as aspects of Truth. When this has been done, he should abandon them, if they are really harmful in relation to health and comfort. Also, our selction of "evils" is limited to those that cannot damage us irreparably. E.g., one ought to practice smelling assafoetida until one likes it; but not arsine or hydrocyanic acid. Again, one might have a liaison with an ugly old woman until one beheld and loved the star which she is; it would be too dangerous to overcome the distaste for dishonesty by forcing oneself to pick pockets. Acts which are essentially dishonourable must not be done; they should be justified only by calm contemplation of their correctness in abstract cases.

Love is a virtue; it grows stronger and purer and less selfish by applying it to what it loathes; but theft is a vice involving the slave-idea that one's neighbour is superior to oneself. It is admirable only for its power to develop certain moral and mental qualities in primitive types, to prevent the atrophy of such faculties as our own vigilance, and for the interest which it adds to the "tragedy, Man."

Crime, folly, sickness and all such phenomena must be contemplated with complete freedom from fear, aversion, or shame. Otherwise we shall fail to see accurately, and interpret intelligently; in which case we shall be unable to outwit and outfight them. Anatomists and physiologists, grappling in the dark with death, have won hygeine, surgery, prophylaxis and the rest for mankind. Anthropologists, archæologists, physicists and other men of science, risking thumbscrws, stake, infamy and ostracism, have torn the spider-snare of superstition to shreds and broken in pieces the monstrous idol of Morality, the murderous Moloch which has made mankind its meat throughout history. Each fragment of that coprolite it manifest as an image of some brute lust, some torpid dullness, some ignorant instinct, or some furtive fear shapen in his own savage mind.

Man is indeed not wholly freed, even now. He is still trampled under the hoofs of the stampeding mules that nightmare bore to his wild ass, his creative forces that he had not mastered, the sterile ghosts that he called gods. Their mystery cows men still; they fear, they flinch, they dare not face the phantoms. Still, too, the fallen fetich seems awful; it is frightful to them that there is no longer an idol to adore with anthems, and to appease with the flesh of their firstborn. Each scrambles in the bloody mire of the floor to snatch some scrap for a relic, that he may bow down to it and serve it.

So, even today, a mass of maggots swarm heaving over the carrion earth, a brotherhood bound by blind greed for rottenness. Science still hesitates to raise the Temple of Rimmon, though every year finds more of her sons impatient of Naaman's prudence. The Privy Council of the Kingdom of Mansoul sits in permenant scret session; it dares not declare what must follow its deed in shattering the monarch Morality into scraps of crumbling conglomerate of of climatic, tribal, and person prejudices, corrupted yet more by the action of crafy ambition, insane impulse, ignorant arrogance, superstitious hysteria, fear fashioning falsehoods on the stone that it sets on the grave of Truth whom it has murdered and buried in the black earth Oblivion. Moral philosophy, psychology, sociology, anthropology, mental pathology, physiology, and many another of the children of Wisdom, of whom she is justified, well know that the laws of Ethics are a chaos of confused conventions, based at best on customs convenient in certain conditions, more often on the craft or caprice of the biggest, the most savage, heartless, cunning and blood-thirsty brutes of the pack, to secure their power or pander to their pleasure in cruelty. There is no principle, even a false one, to give coherence to the clamour of ethical propositions. Yet the very men that have smashed Moloch, and strewn the earth with shapeless rubble, grow pale when they so much as whisper among themselves: "While Moloch ruled all men were bound by one law, and by the oracles of them that, knowing the fraud, feared not, but were his priests and wardens of his mystery. What now? How can any of us, though wise and strong as never was known, prevail on men to act in concert, now that each prays to his own chip of God, and yet knows every other chip to be a worthless ort, dream-dust, ape-dung, tradition-bone, or—what not else?"

So Science begins to see that the Initiates were maybe not merely silly and selfish in making their rule of silence, and in protecting Philosophy from the profane. Yet still she hopes that the mischief may not prove mortal, and begs that things may go on much as usual until that secret session decide on some plan of action.

It has always been fatal when somebody finds out too much too suddenly. If John Huss had cackled more like a hen, he might have survived Michaelmas, and been esteemed for his eggs. The last fifty years have laid the axe of analysis to the root of every axiom; they are triflers who content themselves with lopping the blossoming twigs of our beliefs, or the boughs of our intellectual instruments. We can no longer assert any single proposition, unless we guard ourselves by enumerating countelss conditions which must be assumed.

This digression has outstayed its welcome; it was only invited by Wisdom that it might warn Rashness of the dangers that encompass even Sincerity, Energy and Intelligence when they happen not to contribute to Fitness-in-their-environment.

The Magician must be wary in his use of his powers; he must may every act not only accord with his Will, but with the properties of his position at the time. It might be my Will to reach the foot of a cliff; but the easiest way—also the speediest, most direct least obstructed, the way of minimum effort—would be simply to jump. I should have destroyed my Will in the act of fulfilling it, or what I mistook for it; for the True Will has no goal; its nature being To Go. Similarly, a parabola is bound by one law which fixes its relations with two straight lines at every point; yet it has no end short of infinity, and it continually changes its direction. The Initiate who is aware Who he is can always check is conduct by reference to the determinants of his curve, and calculate his past, his future, his bearings, and his proper course at any assigned moment; he can even comprehend himself as a simple idea. He may attain to measure fellow-parabolas, ellipses that cross his path, hyperbolas that span all space with their twin wings. Perhaps he may come at long last, leaping beyond the limits of his own law, to conceive that sublimely stupendous outrage to Reason, the Cone! Utterly inscrutable to him, he is yet well aware that he exists in the nature thereof, that he is necessary thereto, that he is ordered thereby, and that therefrom he is sprung, from the loins of so fearful a Father! His own infinity becomes zero in relation to that of the least fragment of the solid. He hardly exists at all. Trillions multiplies by trillions of trillions of such as he could not cross the frontier even of breadth, the idea which he came to guess at only becuase he felt himself bound by some mysterious power. Yet breadth is equally a nothing in the presence of the Cone. His first conception must evidently be a frantic spasm, formless, insane, not to be classed as an articulate thought. Yet, if he develops the faculties of his mind, the more he knows of it the more he sees that its nature is identical with his own whenever comparision is possible.

The True Will is thus both determined by its equations, and free because those equation are simply its own name, spelt out fully. His sense of being under bondage comes from his inability to read it; his sense that evil exists to thwart him arises when he begins to learn to read, reads wrong, and is obstinate that his error is an improvement.

We know one thing only. Absolute existence, absolute motion, absolute direction, absolute simultaneity, absolute truth, all such ideas: they have not, and never can have, any real meaning. If a man in delirium tremens fell into the Hudson River, he might remember the proverb and clutch at an imaginary straw. Words such as "truth" are like that straw. Confusion of thought is concealed, and its impotence denied, by the invention. This paragraph opened with "We know": yet, quesitoned, "we" make haste to deny the possibility of possessing, or even of defining, knowledge. What could be more certain to a parabola-philosopher that he could be approached in two ways, and two only? It would be indeed little less that the whole body of his knowledge, implied in the theory of his definition of himself, and confirmed by every single experience. He could receive impressions only be meeting A, or being caught up by B. Yet he would be wrong in an infinite number of ways. There are therefore Aleph-Zero7 possibilities that at any moment a man may find himself totally transformed. And it may be that our present dazzled bewilderment is due to our recognition of the existence of a new dimension of thought, which seems so "inscrutably infinite" and "absurd" and "immoral," etc.—because we have not studied it long enough to appreciate that its laws are identical with our own, though extended to new conceptions. The discovery of radioactivity created a momentary chaos in chemistry and physics; but it soon led to a fuller interpretation of the old ideas. It dispersed many difficulties, harmonized many discords, and—yea, more! It shewed the substance of Universe as a simplicity of Light and Life, manners to compose atoms, themselves capable of deeper self-realization through fresh complexities and organizations, each with its own peculiar powers and pleasures, each pursuing its path through the world where all things are possible. It revealed the omnipresence of Hadit, identical with Himself, yet fulfilling Himself by dividing His interplay with Nuit into episodes, each form of his energy isolated with each aspect of Her receptivity, delight developing delight continuous from complex to complex. It was the voice of Nature awakening at the dawn of the Æon, as Aiwaz uttered the Word of the Law of Thelema.

So also shall he who invoketh often behold the Formless Fire, with trembling and bewilderment; but if he prolong his meditation, he shall resolve it into coherent and intelligibile symbols, and he shall hear the articulate utterance of that Fire, interpret the thunder thereof as a still small voice in his heart. And the Fire shall reveal to his eyes his own image in its own true glory; and it shall speak in his ears the mystery that is his own right Name.

This then in the virtue of the Magick of The Beast 666, and the canon of its proper useage; to destroy the tendency to discriminate between any two things in theory, and in practice to pierce the veils of every sanctuary, pressing forward to embrace every image; for there is none that is not very Isis. The Inmost is one with the Inmost; yet the form of the One is not the form of the other; intimacy exacts fitness. He therefore who liveth by air, let him not be bold to breathe water. But mastery cometh by measure: to him who with labour, courage, and caution giveth his life to understand all that doth encompass him, and to prevail against it, shall be increase. "The word of Sin is Restriction": seek therefore Righteousness, enquiring into Iniquity, and fortify thyself to overcome it.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
Topic starter  

Greetings!

Well, thank you Camilion, I guess this answer can keep me busy for the rest of my life… 😯
I owe you one! 😉
LOL

Regards
Hecate


ReplyQuote
Share: