Notifications
Clear all

Every verse


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

93

Did you ever learn the Book of the Law, verse by verse so that you could recite it all?  Are there any cynics (heathens?) here who think that that is unnecessary?

93  93/93


Quote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 4119
 

I've never learnt it verse by verse. I'm neithr a heathen nor a cynic, but have simply never felt the need.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 
"Michael Staley" wrote:
I've never learnt it verse by verse. I'm neithr a heathen nor a cynic, but have simply never felt the need.

93

so you failed to obey the prophet?


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 4119
 

Yes.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5330
 

Hi David,

"david" wrote:
so you failed to obey the prophet?

Just as a matter of interest, who do you understand to be 'the prophet'? Aleister Crowley, the man? AC writing as the scribe during the dictation? AC writing as 'Ankh-f-n-Khonsu'? Or someone/something else?

And, again just as a matter of interest, where in those writings do you believe there to be an instruction to learn the whole of Liber AL by rote (not 'just' one chapter at a time, as in Liber 185)?

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


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

Checking ont the word "prophet" in Liber AL makes it clear that Crowley is (necessarily) the prophet in every case.
There is something to be said that "Ankh-f-na-Khonsu" is stated as the prophet.
There is "the prince-priest the Beast" which can be assumed, more clearly, to refer to Crowley.
Crowley, at times, does assert himself as (reincarnation of) Ankh-f-na-Khonsu.
Ankh-f-na-Khonsu is the stated authority on a few subsequent publications.

Crowley also recognizes the way to recognize an "heir". Will that person be a "prophet" also?

Here are the references from Liber AL"

Obey my prophet (I:12) may not specifically refer to Crowley, as such. It should apply to all prophets.
o scribe and prophet (I: 53) seems more specific to Crowley
thou, o prophet, shall not behold (I:54) may also refer to Crowley
He, my prophet, hath chosen (I:57) likely does
my prophet shall reveal it to the wise (I: 57) may not be specific to Crowley
purged by the prophet (II: 5) could express Crowley's responsibility
O prophet! thou hast ill will (II:10) seems directed to Crowley
my prophet, & b drunk (II: 22) seems relevant to Crowley
night of the Prophet and is Bride (II: 37) definitely Crowley. A historical event.
child of the Prophet (II: 39) questionable
Fear not, o prophet (II: 53) seems to designate Crowley as a prophet
thine eyes,o prophet, a light (II: 61) seems to be Crowley, but could apply more generally
hail: prophet of Nu (II:64) as above
what meaneth this, o prophet (II: 76) seems addressed to scribe as prophet, i.e. Crowley
my prophet, thy stature (II: 78) could well be Crowley
to the prophet of the lovely star (II: 79) — only Crowley? Hard to say
convey with worship, o prophet (III: 11) likely Crowley
Another prophet shall arise (III: 34) definitely not Crowley
sad the prophet unto the God (added adorations follow) (III: 46) from Stele adaptation.
    Crowley, but only if one accepts the complete identify of Ankh-af-na-Khonsu as Crowley.
The same applies to III: 38.

I don't think we have a definitive answer.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 
"lashtal" wrote:
Hi David,

"david" wrote:
so you failed to obey the prophet?

Just as a matter of interest, who do you understand to be 'the prophet'? Aleister Crowley, the man? AC writing as the scribe during the dictation? AC writing as 'Ankh-f-n-Khonsu'? Or someone/something else?

And, again just as a matter of interest, where in those writings do you believe there to be an instruction to learn the whole of Liber AL by rote (not 'just' one chapter at a time, as in Liber 185)?

93
By, "prophet" I am talking about Crowley the author of works of magickal instruction.  Do I consider this to be "the prophet" as mentioned in Liber Legis? Cp 1 : 32 , yes I do.  By the way it appears I was wrong.  The instruction is to commit one chapter of  Liber LXV to memory... (Liber 185)  not Liber Legis, so, with that established , I ask the proper question.  Did you learn a chapter of Liber 185? 

93  93/93


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 
"abn53" wrote:
Checking ont the word "prophet" in Liber AL makes it clear that Crowley is (necessarily) the prophet in every case.

93

If you look at the context <For these fools of men and their woes care not thou at all! They feel little; what is, is balanced by weak joys; but ye are my chosen ones.

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

The chosen ones of Nuit  who are called to take on ,"the Hierophantic task" and Crowley is the prophet in the above passage in  Liber Legis.  How could you dispute that?  That was the whole point of his dharma , to instruct mankind as we shift away from the old Father aeon mysticism.

Anyway how about this learning a chapter of Liber 185?

93  93/93


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5330
 

David,

"david" wrote:
By, "prophet" I am talking about Crowley the author of works of magickal instruction.  Do I consider this to be "the prophet" as mentioned in Liber Legis? Cp 1 : 32 , yes I do.  By the way it appears I was wrong.  The instruction is to commit one chapter of  Liber LXV to memory... (Liber 185)  not Liber Legis, so, with that established , I ask the proper question.  Did you learn a chapter of Liber 185? 

Liber 185 does require 'commitment to memory' of a chapter of Liber CCXX, too; among the tasks for Zelator. Thanks for acknowledging your error, though.

"david" wrote:
How could you dispute that? That was the whole point...

I note that you are absolutely confident that Crowley 'is' the prophet. Also that you interpret 'Obey my prophet' as an instruction for the 'chosen ones' to obey Crowley, rather an instruction to Crowley (with a pause after 'obey'). Interesting.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5717
 
"david" wrote:
Anyway how about this learning a chapter of Liber 185?

No, it's Liber 185's injunction to "learn" (i.e., memorize) one chapter of Liber AL.

And, yes, I did it - as did all the (70+) members of Solar Lodge; it was required if one was to advance to the first degree. Also, Mr Motta was insistent on the various memorizations, and all his advancees undoubtedly "learned their lessons" as you refer to the ability to quote it, chapter and verse. I dunno about the McMurtry line (if they're required to memorize).

So, yes, I did it. And I think it was a waste of memory cells. Many of AC's practices are great, leading to a form of control over one's being; but some of them are similar to Sunday School tasks. For example, why bother to memorize Liber Trigrammaton, a book that is hotly debated from time to time here on lashtal, but still shows no universal practical application, and which AC himself even found "unsatisfactory?"


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 
"Shiva" wrote:
"david" wrote:
Anyway how about this learning a chapter of Liber 185?

No, it's Liber 185's injunction to "learn" (i.e., memorize) one chapter of Liber AL.

And, yes, I did it - as did all the (70+) members of Solar Lodge; it was required if one was to advance to the first degree. Also, Mr Motta was insistent on the various memorizations, and all his advancees undoubtedly "learned their lessons" as you refer to the ability to quote it, chapter and verse. I dunno about the McMurtry line (if they're required to memorize).

So, yes, I did it. And I think it was a waste of memory cells. Many of AC's practices are great, leading to a form of control over one's being; but some of them are similar to Sunday School tasks. For example, why bother to memorize Liber Trigrammaton, a book that is hotly debated from time to time here on lashtal, but still shows no universal practical application, and which AC himself even found "unsatisfactory?"

93

Yes I just saw it thankyou.  Hope everyone's now clear on that ie the Zelator is required to commit to memory a chapter of Liber CCXX ie Book of the Law. 

Anyway, a waste of memory cells?  Maybe if you would never have bothered learning your chapter you would not be here today?  I mean you may have fallen by the wayside. You don't know.  Maybe, subconsciously, that act of the art of memory pulled you through and truly attuned you to the Aeon?  Did it occur to you that maybe a builder may neglect certain essential aspects of the house's foundations and may delude that the structure will be just fine but then it falls apart.  Maybe learning a chapter of Liber Al is that important?   


ReplyQuote
newneubergOuch2
(@newneubergouch2)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 287
 

I was going to memorize it, but i only saw liber 185 after i burnt the book. Then i bought another Liber AL, it also told me to burn it after the first reading, 93 copies later and i have nearly memorized the first chapter, but it is expensive- like the 31st time when i downloaded Liber AL as a PDF to my Apple macbook...


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 4119
 

This thread is surreal. Surely it's absorbing the essence, the spirit of The Book of the Law which is important, rather than being able to parrot it word-for-word?


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5717
 
"david" wrote:
Maybe learning a chapter of Liber Al is that important?

Maybe that important? ... Yes; at very long odds.
Probably that important? ... No.
Certainlt that important? ... Oh please, give us a break!


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 
"Michael Staley" wrote:
This thread is surreal. Surely it's absorbing the essence, the spirit of The Book of the Law which is important, rather than being able to parrot it word-for-word?

93

Go tell Crowley


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 4119
 
"david" wrote:
"Michael Staley" wrote:
This thread is surreal. Surely it's absorbing the essence, the spirit of The Book of the Law which is important, rather than being able to parrot it word-for-word?

93

Go tell Crowley

How might I do that?


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 
"Michael Staley" wrote:
"david" wrote:
"Michael Staley" wrote:
This thread is surreal. Surely it's absorbing the essence, the spirit of The Book of the Law which is important, rather than being able to parrot it word-for-word?

93

Go tell Crowley

How might I do that?

93

Good point.  This is getting all very Judaistic.  "Tradition!  Tradition!"  The prophet, the prince-priest is dead so it's up to chaos magickians like me and you now to take the helm?.  BeLIEf is naught but a  tool, man.    Nothing is True, Everything is Permissible

You have to ask yourself, is that why it's called chaos magick?


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

You have to ask yourself, is that why it's called chaos magick?

Must I?


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
 
"Shiva" wrote:
No, it's Liber 185's injunction to "learn" (i.e., memorize) one chapter of Liber AL.

And, yes, I did it - as did all the (70+) members of Solar Lodge; it was required if one was to advance to the first degree. Also, Mr Motta was insistent on the various memorizations, and all his advancees undoubtedly "learned their lessons" as you refer to the ability to quote it, chapter and verse. I dunno about the McMurtry line (if they're required to memorize.[...])

As the first condition of “Liber MCLI”, an instructional paper composed by James Graeb, one of McMurtry’s "IX[sup:1gihtyxk]o[/sup:1gihtyxk]" lieutenants in the early days of the Caliphornian O.T.O., during the course of his or her “probation”, the Minerval (O[sup:1gihtyxk]o[/sup:1gihtyxk])  initiate therein had to:

1.  Study THE BOOK OF THE LAW. Memorization of the first Chapter is suggested. This may be done a verse a day, with review at intervals - that's often the easy way.

(This Liber has not been required reading or instruction in the C.O.T.O. since before the era of the present incumbent [i.e., Hymenæus Beta, 1985 E.V. - ].)

I too memorised Chapters 1 and 2 of The Book of the Law and intended (intend) to do the same some time with Chapter 3 and perhaps additionally Chapters out of Liber LXV which also contains some sublime poetry & therefore well worth it from that point of view alone.  I feel I need to be upfront & say that on the occasions where familiarity fails, my memory may not always be spot-on reliable with the recall; also curiously enough especially in ritual contexts, if one is also reading from the Book one might have a mental blank and tend to forget (parts of) the verse for the relevant period involved. 

(There is doubtless a name for it but if there is I have forgotten it.)

"Shiva" wrote:
So, yes, I did it. And I think it was a waste of memory cells. Many of AC's practices are great, leading to a form of control over one's being; but some of them are similar to Sunday School tasks. For example, why bother to memorize Liber Trigrammaton, a book that is hotly debated from time to time here on lashtal, but still shows no universal practical application, and which AC himself even found "unsatisfactory?"

“For why?”  It would depend upon what one wanted to achieve.  There’s nothing wrong in strengthening the “palace” of memory and/ or trying to become a master of mnemonics.  It might especially assist if one has a liking for amateur or professional dramatics - and if one can remember sequences of cards, the odds on successfully clearing out a casino may improve substantially.  Less venally, as A.C.‘s Berashith also shows, cultivating ordinary memory can simultaneously greatly assist in the cultivation of the magickal memory as well.

"WilliamThirteen" wrote:

You have to ask yourself, is that why it's called chaos magick?

Must I?

Chaos Magic also appears to have surfaced in another thread at the moment (The "Excrutiating" one [sic].)  In my opinion the phenomenon is grossly over-rated anyway, over there as well.  Several years ago I wrote a hard-to-find long essay/ short book called Will & The Wisp, demonstrating that it is just a sub-set of Thelema rather than the other way around, and that most of Carroll’s foundational ideas for its theory & practice owe an enormous debt to Crowley, followed closely by lesser luminaries such as Spare, Leary, Burroughs, the list goes on…

And as I put it in a book review myself: the entire matter is visually summed up by “Eight Arrows Leading Everywhere and Nowhere”...

Norma N Joy Conquest


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
 
"lashtal" wrote:
I note that you are absolutely confident that Crowley 'is' the prophet. Also that you interpret 'Obey my prophet' as an instruction for the 'chosen ones' to obey Crowley, rather an instruction to Crowley (with a pause after 'obey'). Interesting.

I think Paul has given a most interesting alternative slant to this question in the context of ‘the stops as thou wilt’: in the sense of Liber AL I:32, "Obey comma my prophet!" could be taken as instructional to A.C. as the Prophet, and not to the readership of the Book in general. 

This would put a completely opposite inflection to the sense of the command and not require anyone's obedience to the Prophet of The Book of the Law at all in this context.  It would also fit in with the informal/ intimate ‘dialogue’ tone of the rest of the transmission as a whole (e.g. cf. “I see thee hate the hand & the pen... thou hast ill will…[etc etc.]")

The remainder of I:32 could be taken to apply to the prophet specifically or the readership generally – do what thou wilt.  (I ascribe to its principles naturally as a matter of course or orbit).

N Joy


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

an instruction to Crowley

indeed, that is the way that i have always heard it, as in instruction for the prophet to obey the speaker. wouldn't it have to be - as the prophet was the only one present? or did the speaker, turning his head to us for a moment like Frank Underwood, give a wink and say 'by the way, obey this fellow who is busy scribbling it all down here'…


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

an instruction to Crowley

indeed, that is the way that i have always heard it, as in instruction for the prophet to obey the speaker. wouldn't it have to be - as the prophet was the only one present? or did the speaker, turning his head to us for a moment like Frank Underwood, give a wink and say 'by the way, obey this fellow who is busy scribbling it all down here'…

Wouldn't that require a comma after obey? 


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

perhaps... you're the Englishman, it's your language, you tell me!


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 
"WilliamThirteen" wrote:
perhaps... you're the Englishman, it's your language, you tell me!

The idea of a one on one instruction to Crowley alone, wtf,?  The idea of a  pause as in,  "Obey! " then "my prophet" is .....wrong imo..very wrong.  I am ashamed to be part of anything that would even consider such an aberration. 

Here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m69Yl26ictQ  5m17s  Ashe seems to think likewise as does anyone else I'm sure.
The "children of men" are being addressed , follow the context through "Obey my prophet... and I shall redeem ye from all pain I swear it....by all I can give by all I can desire of YE ALL"  ALL are being addressed here.

sheesh!!  What next?  "gather store of women" means gather women's clothes and their other belongings? 

Hope that's clear now.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5330
 

David,

"david" wrote:
The idea of a one on one instruction to Crowley alone, wtf,?  The idea of a  pause as in,  "Obey! " then "my prophet" is a crock of shit.  I am ashamed to be part of anything that would even consider such a mindless aberration. 
Hope that's clear now.

What a foolish person. Why a 'crock of shit'? Why do you feel 'ashamed'? A 'mindless aberration'? Actually, your posts under the username 'david' are just as silly, aggressive and impolite as they were under your previous login username.

Pre-moderation now required. See the Guidelines. Grow up.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


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

Ok, which is why I edited.  See above.  I feel strongly about this"obey" point.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
 
"WilliamThirteen" wrote:

an instruction to Crowley

indeed, that is the way that i have always heard it, as in instruction for the prophet to obey the speaker. wouldn't it have to be - as the prophet was the only one present? or did the speaker, turning his head to us for a moment like Frank Underwood, give a wink and say 'by the way, obey this fellow who is busy scribbling it all down here'…

Oh, what I wouldn't give to see Kevin Spacey play Aiwass!


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

I feel strongly about this"obey" point.

i see, and when you feel strongly about something you simply must jump up & down and stamp your little feet?

however, referring back to the previous verse, we do indeed find 'ye are my chosen ones', making it apparent that Nuit is addressing her audience here in the aggregate. That, along with Michael's comma (you wouldn't perchance be an Oxford man eh Mick?), pretty much puts paid to my alternative reading.

that returns us to the question of the exact intent behind Nuit's injunction to 'Obey my prophet', but i am confident that 'david' can enlighten us.

Oh, what I wouldn't give to see Kevin Spacey play Aiwass!

with Robin Wright as Nuit perhaps - 'her lithe body arched for love'?

on that note, reading an interview with Beau Willimon, i noted the Thelemic aspect Underwood's character when Willimon pointed out that Frank was interested strictly in movement towards his goal and as such would interpret Ethics as a form of weakness.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 
"lashtal" wrote:
David,
? Actually, your posts under the username 'david' are just as silly, aggressive and impolite as they were under your previous login username.

My posts of late are solely based upon the work e.g. "yoga excruciating?" , "verses" and "columns".  I fail to see how discussing the practical ins and outs of the work, from a trans-ego perspective,  is "silly".    I apologise if I came across as uncivil in the latest post.  From now on if I think someone is straying from the fold,  I shall let them stray.  It was an xtian sentiment, to save and help but no, that aeon is blackened now.  Thankyou admin for helping me to learn that lesson.

@ William who said, "that returns us to the question of the exact intent behind Nuit's injunction to 'Obey my prophet', but i am confident that 'david' can enlighten us?". 

Chapter 1 on Liber CCXX, yes by dint of there being , receiving the Book it's clearly a one on one transmission much like a message we may receive on our answer phone from a friend, or is it?  The answer is yes and no.  The transmitter was giving the message to one man but knowing that he was to relay the messages  therefore the contextual mode of who the receiver(s) is/are  flits from one to the other in various parts.    I mean the classic sci-fi message from an alien civilization to humanity usually takes place when the aliens take over the TV airwaves and give us a collective message.  Of course, that isn't the case with Liber CCXX.

Therefore delineating who the message is directed at in specific parts of the reception is determined by the grammatical rules of the English language.  (Does this give a new meaning to what it is to, "confound the spacemarks"?)  1: 52)

We've established that  "obey my prophet" is a directive for the collective.       

31. For these fools of men and their woes care not thou at all! They feel little; what is, is balanced by weak joys; but ye are my chosen ones.

  ye are my chosen ones.  (plural)

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

Interestingly enough before the instructions of 31 and 32 change, the mode of communication becomes curiously narrative,

33. Then the priest fell into a deep trance or swoon, & said unto the Queen of Heaven; Write unto us the ordeals; write unto us the rituals; write unto us the law

It's clear, William, and all , that the writing of Liber Legis was done with the methodology employed much like in dramatic plays, where monologues, asides and soliloquies are used before an audience.  A Goddess is quantal, after all and can meta-morph-asise accordingly.   

To answer your question.  "Obey my prophet", imo, is echoed in  1:37 and 1: 38 and 1: 50 which deals with Crowley's mission to take the pious excretion out of yogic instruction and to inject Hermetic magick with the scientific attitude and rigorous, vigorous work-ethic hence obey my prophet, the methodology of Aleister Crowley and his output of spiritual instruction .


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
 
"WilliamThirteen" wrote:
reading an interview with Beau Willimon, i noted the Thelemic aspect Underwood's character when Willimon pointed out that Frank was interested strictly in movement towards his goal and as such would interpret Ethics as a form of weakness.

Indeed. There's something Nietzschean about the character as well, which we see in the very first scene as he mercy-kills a dog with his bare hands, saying to the camera that he cannot stand useless pain and prefers the kind that makes you strong. It's that attitude that influences a number of the more intriguing moments of the two seasons to follow.

Unfortunately, while the show is fun to watch for Spacey's performance (and Wright's, especially in Season Two), I find it often dissatisfying because Underwood never encounters any meaningful opposition. The other characters on the show are less characters than parts of the scenery. They are too easily manipulated by Underwood, who appears to be the only remotely competent player in a supposedly ruthless game. President Plot-Device, for example, is almost too stupid for words. As a result, I often feel like the show is a kind of junk food: it's really tasty and enjoyable, but not especially nutritious. I'm intending to watch the original, British version of the show soon, to see how different the American version is.

I think it's fair to say, though, that a discussion of House of Cards from a Thelemic perspective -- or any perspective, really -- beats the "discussion" on this thread any day of the week.


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

I think it's fair to say, though, that a discussion of House of Cards from a Thelemic perspective -- or any perspective, really -- beats the "discussion" on this thread any day of the week.

Feel free to start a new thread on the topic.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
 
"david" wrote:
The idea of a one on one instruction to Crowley alone, wtf,?  The idea of a  pause as in,  "Obey! " then "my prophet" is .....wrong imo..very wrong.  I am ashamed to be part of anything that would even consider such an aberration.

How about the muted asides, almost like prompts in stage directions: ‘Write this in whiter words?  But go on…’; not to mention especially the ‘personal’ remarks to the prophet made in Liber AL II:10-13 and II:61-64, ... and 'there is a light before thine eyes’…’But I am stronger…’ ‘Now I want to go on to the holier place’ (etc.)

I think you may have been unnecessarily harsh in being dismissive of this theory unless you have since recanted and ‘seen the light’ rather than the heat there, david.  Although William Thirteen has stated he found the direct command to the prophet to be the natural interpretation it only came over secondarily to me, and I wonder if that is actually more typical of those readers coming across it – it would be rather interesting to find out which resonates most.  But it wasn’t altogether surprising that Paul popped you into a pause in premoderation!  "Sheesh!!"  You broke the first commandment – Thou must not piss off our discerning webmaster on any account as his will is final… (You will, I take it in your own fine time, grow up!?!)

Reading through the totality of your contributions (I am not sure who else you may have been in a previous incarnation on this website – do enlighten!), methinks perhaps you are a teensy bit of an agitator after all!  You seem to have a curiously schizoid approach to your postings – i.e., you can be quite civil and maybe make a good point and then blow it by saying something daffy out of the blue or else get tetchy & waspish on what may seem a fairly minor technicality.  Have you noticed that?  I’m pointing this out not to wind you up but hopefully in order so that you might perceive an aspect of how you are coming across which might be unconscious to you otherwise.  I should be knighted for it, really… would others do it to me!! 

It shouldn’t be necessary to point out that everyone is entitled to their own viewpoint, and to express it, even if they may seem hopelessly wrong to everybody else around them.  There is only a problem if such folk manage to be insulting about it or somehow make out their point of view to be in some way more valid than everyone(anyone) else’s.  It is quite amusing to read how often that tends to occur on the Lash, which of all places is one where one would expect everyone else’s rights to true self expression, self-determination & mutual tolerance would tend to be on display a bit more prevalently than with similar discussion websites elsewhere!

"david" wrote:
sheesh!!  What next?  "gather store of women" means gather women's clothes and their other belongings?

It means furtively steal their apparel from off clothes horses and the like.  Didn’t you know?  Like Arnold Layne (♪ “moonshine, washing line…’  This is an arcane OTO secret, btw.  I may be in deadly jeopardy by revealing it to you ;D )…

"david" wrote:
Chapter 1 on Liber CCXX, yes by dint of there being , receiving the Book it's clearly a one on one transmission much like a message we may receive on our answer phone from a friend, or is it?  The answer is yes and no.  The transmitter was giving the message to one man but knowing that he was to relay the messages  therefore the contextual mode of who the receiver(s) is/are  flits from one to the other in various parts.    I mean the classic sci-fi message from an alien civilization to humanity usually takes place when the aliens take over the TV airwaves and give us a collective message.  Of course, that isn't the case with Liber CCXX.

“Klaatu”, Gort.  “Klaatu Barada Nikto”! for fuck’s sake Listen to me, will you…?!!

"david" wrote:
Therefore delineating who the message is directed at in specific parts of the reception is determined by the grammatical rules of the English language.  (Does this give a new meaning to what it is to, "confound the spacemarks"?)  1: 52)

No – a further meaning has been given to “the stops as thou wilt” where thou can be taken to be the reader not the prophet.

"david" wrote:
We've established that  "obey my prophet" is a directive for the collective.

I don’t think “we’ve” managed to do anything of the sort!  Two alternative theories have been put forward for the context of “Obey” – one that it is a command addressed specifically to “the prophet”, or A.C.; the other that it is a command more generally addressed to whoever happens to be reading the Book at that moment of time. 

A similar question of interpretation comes into the entire ”the stops as thou wilt” question as a whole.  Is the intention only that A.C. should ‘order’ the pauses, etc., as he himself individually wills – or is the ‘privilege’ open to whoever happens to be reading the Book, again?  If the latter (which I personally subscribe to & have the right to interpret as I so wish) then it also becomes down to every individual concerned to decide whether the Obey would come with a pause or not, and hence refer (or not) to the prophet or the individual reader.

As always, there is no law beyond do what thou wilt.     

So simple, isn‘t it?!

"david" wrote:
It's clear, William, and all , that the writing of Liber Legis was done with the methodology employed much like in dramatic plays, where monologues, asides and soliloquies are used before an audience.

Also “the stops as thou wilt” where a comma affects the meaning of a verse into 2 distinct, very different interpretations.  I go into this same matter of selective punctuation in some detail in the centre of pestilence discussion forum – I mean, Reply #55 of my Introduction on the Introductions board in the context of, where I discussed Liber AL III:13, the shortest verse in the Book:

But not now (v.13)
This might - as "But not, now" - have been a sotto voce rebuke by Aiwass to A.C. in the nature of "don't you quibble with me at this moment about it" - or words to that effect - taking issue with A.C.'s unspoken but not unthought opposition to the idea of murdering infants, & similar to the manner in which 'he' intercedes to observe that A.C. hates the pen and for Why, etc. , in II. vv.10-13. […] 

An alternative interpretation - as "But, not now" - is that although the temporary nature of the preceeding verse is indicated and in fact seemingly commanded, it was not meant to happen 'now', or rather immediately in 1904.  I suggest that in view of the following verse (“Ye shall see that hour, o blessed Beast”) a possible catalyst for this would have been precipitated by the Wall Street Crash of October 1929, as itself a result of the collapse of the Gold Standard as a by-product and effect of 'the war to end wars' (i.e., WW1), as a result of which money ceased to be related to anything 'real' such as the precious metals of gold and silver themselves, but paper and later electronic promissary equivalents "to pay the bearer on demand" and fiduciary, i.e., a matter of 'faith' - not certainty - only.  If so, there appears to be a clear splitting of the timeline at this point, as eighteen years later the Prophet died in 1947, with two distinct strands of divergence into alternative futures here - one a society with money, one without - in the same way that the Aeon might have developed differently say if Crowley had abstructed the Stele of Revealing from the Boulak museum, had established the clerk-house at his Kaaba, had not sold off Boleskine in 1917, etc...

"david" wrote:
A Goddess is quantal, after all and can meta-morph-asise accordingly.   

To answer your question.  "Obey my prophet", imo, is echoed in  1:37 and 1: 38 and 1: 50 which deals with Crowley's mission to take the pious excretion out of yogic instruction and to inject Hermetic magick with the scientific attitude and rigorous, vigorous work-ethic hence obey my prophet, the methodology of Aleister Crowley and his output of spiritual instruction.

Is this a deliberate typo?  Did you mean ‘exertion’?  Or were you taking the ‘pious’?  (Ditto with ‘qantal/ and ‘meta-morh-asise’?)

"Los" wrote:
[...] The other characters on the show are less characters than parts of the scenery. They are too easily manipulated by Underwood, who appears to be the only remotely competent player in a supposedly ruthless game. President Plot-Device, for example, is almost too stupid for words. As a result, I often feel like the show is a kind of junk food: it's really tasty and enjoyable, but not especially nutritious. I'm intending to watch the original, British version of the show soon, to see how different the American version is.
I think it's fair to say, though, that a discussion of House of Cards from a Thelemic perspective -- or any perspective, really -- beats the "discussion" on this thread any day of the week.

The British version will of course be better, in line with previous remarks made earlier.  I say this instinctively, having watched neither American nor British versions.  Nor currently having had a televisual apparatus of any sort for four years I am little out of touch as far as this medium goes.  (This shouldn’t prevent me from being an jingoistic opinionated know-it-all of course… What else is new!? 😀 )

Temporarily taking a break from my break,
N Joy


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
 
"jamie barter" wrote:
"david" wrote:
I think you may have been unnecessarily harsh in being dismissive of this theory unless you have since recanted and ‘seen the light’ rather than the heat there, david. 

"my scribe.....Also the mantra and the spells these..he must teach".  Are we clear on who the he is?  If anyone disputed that the he wasn't Crowley there, I would find that to be ........ amazing.    Each to his own interpretation. 

"jamie barter" wrote:
"david" wrote:
.  But it wasn’t altogether surprising that Paul popped you into a pause in premoderation!  "Sheesh!!"  You broke the first commandment – Thou must not piss off our discerning webmaster on any account as his will is final… (You will, I take it in your own fine time, grow up!?!)

I'm not here to disrupt... or talk about me, my, I. 

"david" wrote:

Reading through the totality of your contributions (I am not sure who else you may have been in a previous incarnation on this website – do enlighten!), methinks perhaps you are a teensy bit of an agitator after all!  You seem to have a curiously schizoid approach to your postings – i.e., you can be quite civil and maybe make a good point and then blow it by saying something daffy out of the blue or else get tetchy & waspish on what may seem a fairly minor technicality.  Have you noticed that?  I’m pointing this out not to wind you up but hopefully in order so that you might perceive an aspect of how you are coming across which might be unconscious to you otherwise.  I should be knighted for it, really… would others do it to me!! 

Please don't feed my ego by implying that I'm an unpredictable, erratic genius lol.  Thanks.  I'm not agitating no.

"david" wrote:
A similar question of interpretation comes into the entire ”the stops as thou wilt” question as a whole.  Is the intention only that A.C. should ‘order’ the pauses, etc., as he himself individually wills – or is the ‘privilege’ open to whoever happens to be reading the Book, again?  If the latter (which I personally subscribe to & have the right to interpret as I so wish) then it also becomes down to every individual concerned to decide whether the Obey would come with a pause or not, and hence refer (or not) to the prophet or the individual reader.

As always, there is no law beyond do what thou wilt.     

So simple, isn‘t it?!

[

I disagree there as the laws of grammar are pretty ruthless and do , of course have the last say.

"david" wrote:

But not now (v.13)
This might - as "But not, now" - have been a sotto voce rebuke by Aiwass to A.C. in the nature of "don't you quibble with me at this moment about it" - or words to that effect - taking issue with A.C.'s unspoken but not unthought opposition to the idea of murdering infants, & similar to the manner in which 'he' intercedes to observe that A.C. hates the pen and for Why, etc. , in II. vv.10-13. […] 

An alternative interpretation - as "But, not now" - is that although the temporary nature of the preceeding verse is indicated and in fact seemingly commanded, it was not meant to happen 'now', or rather immediately in 1904.  I suggest that in view of the following verse (“Ye shall see that hour, o blessed Beast”) a possible catalyst for this would have been precipitated by the Wall Street Crash of October 1929, as itself a result of the collapse of the Gold Standard as a by-product and effect of 'the war to end wars' (i.e., WW1), as a result of which money ceased to be related to anything 'real' such as the precious metals of gold and silver themselves, but paper and later electronic promissary equivalents "to pay the bearer on demand" and fiduciary, i.e., a matter of 'faith' - not certainty - only.  If so, there appears to be a clear splitting of the timeline at this point, as eighteen years later the Prophet died in 1947, with two distinct strands of divergence into alternative futures here - one a society with money, one without - in the same way that the Aeon might have developed differently say if Crowley had abstructed the Stele of Revealing from the Boulak museum, had established the clerk-house at his Kaaba, had not sold off Boleskine in 1917, etc...

very interesting.  Well done.

"david" wrote:
[

"david" wrote:
A Goddess is quantal, after all and can meta-morph-asise accordingly.   

To answer your question.  "Obey my prophet", imo, is echoed in  1:37 and 1: 38 and 1: 50 which deals with Crowley's mission to take the pious excretion out of yogic instruction and to inject Hermetic magick with the scientific attitude and rigorous, vigorous work-ethic hence obey my prophet, the methodology of Aleister Crowley and his output of spiritual instruction.

Is this a deliberate typo?  Did you mean ‘exertion’?  Or were you taking the ‘pious’?  (Ditto with ‘qantal/ and ‘meta-morh-asise’?)

This is very funny.  I'm impressed.  I meant "excretion".

As for House of Cards and it's ilk, have you noticed in the last couple of years since the Netflix phenomenon and other such facilities for downloading "the latest" TV series, be it Game Of Thrones, House Of Cards, particularly Breaking Bad etc there is some sort of idiotic, cultural hysteria involved in , "you must  see" this new series?  People are staying in and watching hours and , ahem, flipping hours of such instant emotional- engineering like crack addicts.  It smacks of what AC predicted in his "whole nations excited by disputes between the boys".  It's a step backwards imo.  I mean Channel 4 News  did a feature on Breaking Bad.

Why?

It's a  TV series. 

I suggest reading some novels instead.


ReplyQuote
Share: