Friedrich Nietzsche...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Friedrich Nietzsche and Aleister Crowley


 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
Topic starter  

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

As Nitezsche is one of the 'gnostic saint's' in EGC it would be interesting to hear some observation's about comparison between Nietzsche's 'Der Antichrist' and 'Liber AL vel Legis'.

Note that 'Der Antichrist' in german langauge mean 'anti-christian' and not 'anti-Christ'. Nietzsche himself in 'Antichrist' stated that he is against anti-semitism.

Love is the law, love under will.

Apostates


Quote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Dear Apostates,

in German Der Antichrist can mean both, either the anti-christian or the antichrist and usually this is used for the anti-christ.

`best

David


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
Topic starter  

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

TauMelchizedek,
thank you for your attention on my post. I was reminded that 'Christ' in german language is spelled as 'Christus' (as in latin). From here came the emphasis about 'anti-christian' and 'anti-Christ'.
But anyway, what about 'Liber AL vel Legis' and 'Der Antichrist' comparison?

Love is the law, love under will

Apostates.


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1906
 

Dreiundneunzig!

Please note that "Der Antichrist" in German is exactly what it is in English: it is "The Anti-Christ", as understood by the Bible. If you want to use the adjective "anti-christian" you would use "antichristlich". What I perceive in Germany is that an (not THE) "Antichrist" would almost always be described with "antichristlich eingestellte Person" (a person with anti-christian attitude) but if you use "Antichrist" you would always mean THE Anti-Christ. Please note that this is not a definitive rule but the common usage of the term, it has nothing to do with Nietzsche, but with the way language is used day-by-day (and who really knows Nietzsche anyway today?). The thing is that THE ANTICHRIST would indeed be DER ANTICHRISTUS in German, but that term does not exist really. So we say Antichrist if we mean the biblical anti-hero, and although an Antichristian could be called Antichrist, but would be described as above mentioned. Ooops, and I see that David said the same already...

Liebe=Gesetz
Lutz


ReplyQuote
joe93
(@joe93)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 49
 

Nietszche was a 'Thelemite' before Crowley was even born. He was also an absolute master of the succinct quotation:
"Will a self and thou shalt become a self"
"Six thousand feet beyond man and time"
"You should become him who you are"
"The irrationality of a thing is no argument against it's existence, rather a condition of it"
"For everything good was once now consequently unfamiliar, contrary to custom, immoral and gnawed at the heart of it's fortunate inventor..."
"What does not kill me makes me stronger"
"For our body is only a social structure composed of many souls"
"God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him"
"We can destroy only as creators"
"This is my way; where is yours?"— thus I answered those who asked me "the way." For the way—that does not exist"
"Whatever is done from love always occurs beyond good and evil"
All taken from A Nietzsche Reader [Penguin]
R.I.P. Karlheinz Stockhausen [1928-2007] the Genius composer who claimed to have been born "on a planet orbiting the star Sirius, and that he was put on earth to give voice to a cosmic music that will change the world." Typhonian, or what?! And he was standing near AC on the Pepper sleeve [separated by Mae West and Lenny Bruce!]


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"joe93" wrote:
R.I.P. Karlheinz Stockhausen [1928-2007] the Genius composer who claimed to have been born "on a planet orbiting the star Sirius, and that he was put on earth to give voice to a cosmic music that will change the world." Typhonian, or what?! And he was standing near AC on the Pepper sleeve [separated by Mae West and Lenny Bruce!]

AND he was an honorary member of Coil


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

It`s been a long time since I read the antichrist so I can`t really go into a discussion on how it compare to Liber Al, but I hold the view that the relationship between Nietzche and Crowley is that Crowley picks up 2 of N. unfinished tasks:
1. The revival of morality after the death of god
2. The revival of pagan religion


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 5330
 
"BlueKephra" wrote:
AND he was an honorary member of Coil

Thanks for the photo, BlueKephra.

By a quite striking synchronicity, a week ago Leahalostrael submitted the associated photo of Stockhausen with Bill Breeze for consideration of being included in the Galleries.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Oh you're welcome. The photo is from www.brainwashed.com/coil though, so isn't mine. I think Jon Whitney took it. I'd be surprised if the one by Leah wasn't by Whitney too, as Coil met Stockhausen at the Sonar festival a few years back, where he apparently agreed to be " an honorary member of Coil". I do believe Mr Breeze was aboard for this trip.


ReplyQuote
gurugeorge
(@gurugeorge)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 456
 
"joe93" wrote:
R.I.P. Karlheinz Stockhausen [1928-2007] the Genius composer who claimed to have been born "on a planet orbiting the star Sirius, and that he was put on earth to give voice to a cosmic music that will change the world." Typhonian, or what?! And he was standing near AC on the Pepper sleeve [separated by Mae West and Lenny Bruce!]

Shame to hear that. Like many people I suppose, my only exposure to Stockhausen's music is the bits in 2001 (which are phenomenally awesome in that context).

One thing he said that I thought was extremely perceptive and induced some respect in me for him, was what he said about 9/11 at the time; it was something that immediately became public, because of course from an ordinary point of view it is quite an outrageously silly thing to say. He said that 9/11 was one of the greatest works of art recently done (or words to that effect).

Now, as I say, on one level this can easily be construed as the words of a silly fool, because AQ aren't artists, and their intention wasn't artistic (not to mention the appalling nature of the "work" itself). But one understands what he means (especially if one is a mad artist oneself 🙂 ). For a few weeks after 9/11 everyone was shocked out of their everyday trance. And if pulling people out of their everyday trances and giving them a bit of a broader context to look at things in is part of art's job (as I think most will agree that it is), then 9/11 did that job superbly well, and globally.

Of course it didn't take long for people to get back to routine, but for a while, everyone was superbly awake.

So kudos to him: it's a mad thing to say, but the sort of thing only a genuinely crazy artist could say.

Re. Nietzsche. In some ways I've often thought Nietzsche is better than AC - smarter, more prophetic, etc. And sometimes it seems AC cribbed Nietzsche without really understanding him - but then a lot of people did that at the 19th/20th century cusp, including later, of course, the Nazis. But of course it's fuzzy saying who's "better" at that level, they're both huge geniuses.

Coincidentally, I've just been re-reading Twilight of the Idols, which was the first book I read by Nietzsche, back in my early 20s. At that time I felt immediately that this guy was on a different level from most thinkers, really an extraordinarily lofty thinker. I also remember that wrt many of the topics Nietzsche referred to in terms of philosophies of the past, I sort of uncritically took on his viewpoint, and it was only later as I became more familiar with the materials that I came to see he wasn't always right about everything, and that in fact I hadn't understood what I thought I'd understood at all. And yet, in a way I had understood it.

What I mean is, he refers to syndromes that permeate our lives, by means of talking about the originators of those syndromes (e.g. Socrates). This makes one think one is learning something about Socrates, whereas actually you have to learn something about Socrates to really understand what Nietzsche is saying - and yet at the same time, because what he's referring to through Socrates, is something that's familiar from everyday life, but at an abstract, deep level that isn't normally articulated, paradoxically, one does actually grasp what Nietzsche is saying, or at least the gist of it. It's just that (from my experience) the more one knows about history and philosophy, the richer and deeper one's reading of Nietzsche becomes.


ReplyQuote
Palamedes
(@palamedes)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 450
 

Apropos Crowley misunderstanding Nietzsche and Nietzsche misunderstanding Socrates, I am sure you are familiar with Harold Bloom, American literary critic (who also wrote a book on literary analysis and kabbalah, as well as a book on angels and gnosis et al.). He developed a concept, which he calls 'the anxiety of influence.' In a nutshell, a budding artist is burdened with the problem how to say something new when everything has already been said and in order to do so, s/he misreads and misrepresents the tradition and by making a stance against the tradition misread in such a way, in effect creates original work. Thus Nietzsche misrepresents Socrates, and Crowley Nietzsche.

As far as Liber Legis is concerned, I am not into interpreting it as much as into actually reading what it actually says. So, since the original poster implies a possible connection between the text and Nietzsche's "Antichrist," I would only like to point out that there is nothing in Liber Legis against (i.e. 'anti') either Christianity or Christ. One verse is critical of the Jesus hanging on the Cross and one verse is critical of Mary inviolate. Please note that both verses qualify certain view of these two figures and that - at least in my reading - only these qualifications and not the persons as such have been rejected. I am not being clear, I fear. I am trying to say that Liber Legis does not 'reject' Jesus but only Jesus hanging on the cross, as well as it does not 'reject' Mary but only Mary inviolate.

I think that it is very difficult to read any text, perhaps especially so a 'sacred' text, without reading into it. In that sense, a 'true' reading is really similar to meditation.


ReplyQuote
Palamedes
(@palamedes)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 450
 
"gurugeorge" wrote:
Like many people I suppose, my only exposure to Stockhausen's music is the bits in 2001 (which are phenomenally awesome in that context).

I think you are mistaken here gurugeorge. There is no Stockhausen in 2001 (provided you had in mind Kubrick's film). You are probably having in mind the music by Gyorgy Ligeti, which does have a similarity to Stockhausen. (Sorry, off the thread again.)


ReplyQuote
gurugeorge
(@gurugeorge)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 456
 
"Gordan" wrote:
"gurugeorge" wrote:
Like many people I suppose, my only exposure to Stockhausen's music is the bits in 2001 (which are phenomenally awesome in that context).

I think you are mistaken here gurugeorge. There is no Stockhausen in 2001 (provided you had in mind Kubrick's film). You are probably having in mind the music by Gyorgy Ligeti, which does have a similarity to Stockhausen. (Sorry, off the thread again.)

Darn, you're right. Memory playing me false again 🙂

Re. the Christianity thing: I liked the way Motta interpreted the "curse" - the hawk deals with the "eyes" of Christianity and Islam (Christianity more fiercely than Islam), indicating that it's their fundamental perspective that's at fault, whereas with the rest of the religions, their perspective is ok but it's their "flesh" (i.e. their practice) that's the problem. That kind of makes sense, although this was before our current knowledge of just how well the practices of classical Indian "University" Buddhism have been preserved in Tibet. (Although, on the other hand, we don't know how corrupt they'd gotten by the time of "University" Buddhism in India, before the destruction of Indian Buddhism by Islam. There's something murky going on in the way what seem to have originally been Buddhicised gynocentric "folk" religions - i.e. Tantra - were absorbed by the androcentric heirarchical systems of Universities at that time. How much were they bowdlerized or sanitized? Indeed, we can't even be sure how much of Gotama Siddhartha's original system was preserved even in Theravada, because by the time Theravada precursors drifted apart from Mahayana there had already been many "schools" with seemingly quite varied interpretations. Lots of to and fro could be said on these things.)

I think the basic problem that AC saw with Christianity and Islam is the way it looks at human being as "ever so 'umble" with God "out there" - as opposed to the more "royal" "God is inside" take on human being in Liber AL, and indeed in Buddhism and the other religions. But the Gnostics were "God inside"people too.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
Topic starter  

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

The intention of the topic was to see some ideas (from 'Lasthal' members) about comparison between Nietzsche's and Crowley's overlook on christianity.

Nietzsche's 'Law against Christiantity' was signed at '30. september 1888 e.v.' and we all know about 'Liber AL vel Legis' dates...

Of course we talk here about 'historical christianity' (st. Paul) and not about the 'Christ' in initiated sense.

Just 'go on' or 'JUST DO IT' every.body here (10+6+300+9+4+70+10+9=418)...

Love is the law, love under will.

Apostates


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 4132
 

For me the significance of Nietzsche is not in any comparison with the Book of the Law, but rather than an underlying ecstasy.

In his early years, Nietzsche was if anything a nihilist. He took reason to its ultimate, which is a brick wall. "No way out, no way round, no way through". What breaks through is life-affirmation ecstasy. You can see it creeping into 'The Dawn', being rather more explicit in 'The Gay Science', and finally bursting through in the glory of Zarathustra. This is set out - much more succinctly - in Hollingdale's introduction to his translation of Zarathustra.

When I first read Zarathustra, it seemed to me akin to 'The Book of the Heart Girt with the Serpent' in its sheer joy. I think that Nietzsche is distrusted by some sophers as a "mystic".


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

however i can not see alot reason for a comparision between Liber AL vel Legis and Nietzsches Der Antichrist, but there is one parallel thats is surely evident.
Nitzsche basically condemns christianity for its cultivation, of 'Mitleid'.
The german word 'Mitleid' is a very universal and versatile term.
if you look it up using a german -> english translator, the following words should come up:
commiseration, compassion, mercy, pity, pitifulness, ruth
..sometimes it even translates to charity and/or sympathy.
the term itself comes from Mit- (= with (as in together)) and -Leid (= affliction, agony, distress, sorrow, suffering etc.)

Liber AL seems to condemn the same thing, but in an more general way
(without blaming christianity specifically as a causation for it).
the most relevant parts in my oppinion:

II 21. Compassion is the vice of kings
III 18. Mercy let be off; damn them who pity!
III 43. Let the Scarlet Woman beware! If pity and compassion and tenderness visit her heart...


ReplyQuote
Share: