That's a tough one to answer. Probably. Crowley doesn't mention Hegel directly, but there is Hegel on the AA reading list (included in Erdmann's History of Philosophy). Some Hegel fits well (0=2 formula). Some Hegel is problematic (therapeutic end-state). The hot tip on Hegel, I hear from friends, is the introductory work of Alexandre Kojeve.

The AA has a reading list? Really?

Guess this is it.

http://www.the-equinox.org/sectionone.html

The main idea in Hegel is that we see obstacles that we experience in the outside world as outside of us. "Alienated" from our experience and as we gain our feeling of freedom the more we see those obstacles as a part of ourselves and the more we have control over them. Sounds very Thelemic to me. For Hegel there would be no contradiction between the individual and the State since the individual participates as equally in Spirit as the state as a whole although in practice that probably has authoritarian implications as noted in the video.

Alexandre Kojeve probably is the best beginner source on Hegel, haven't read him yet though.

here

I refer you to Liber Al Ch 1 line 26.

Hegel from his lectures on philosophy of history. The copies of whi cvh i cannot, at tjis stage, find.

However, Paul Bishop in his book Plato and German political thought  claims Hegel said this.

A World-historical individual is not so unwise as to indulge a variety of wishes to divide his regards. He is devoted to the One Aim, regardless of all else. It is even possible that such men may treat other great, even sacred interests, inconsiderately; conduct which is indeed obnoxious to moral reprehension. But so mighty a form must trample down many an innocent flower — crush to pieces many an object in its path. (34/32) 62

When i read this i had an aha moment. Hegel discusses the dialecticsl unfolding of consciousness and teleology (correct me if i should use the word  determinism). Hegel like others led to AC.

The explanation is so simple. The line is a political statement about mankinds growth, under our true natural governers.

Q789

I can confirm Hegels words in Rubin Alvardos book translating and commenting on Hegels lectures.

Posted by: @

Does Hegelian thought have any important relationship to Thelema.

I'll make a couple of sweeping statements that answer this, first off the notion of everything unfolding has some correlation to the notion of aeonic development and secondly Hegel seemed to have stumbled upon Daoist thought thereby.   Crowley dealt with this is    https://lib.oto-usa.org/libri/liber0027.html    

Liber Trigrammaton

sub figurâ XXVII

Being the Book of the Trigrams of the Mutations of the Tao with the Yin and the Yang

Thank you Dom. When i return home from the mines i will study that link.

From a Western perspective it was Heraclitus that originated the Dialectic .

The word flower was also used by Mao Zedong.  I am sure he read Hegel.

However, in this case Aiwas was refering to flower in the Hegelian sense. The first line also intrigues me. Refering to Crowley as the slave.

Is it a reference to his personal life?

Or to his relation to Nuit?

@Q789

The man to ask here about this is @arthuremerson.  I know Crowley referenced Kant, Hume and Berkley and we know he stated that Nietzsche was "almost an avatar of Thoth" but as far I know he didn't go in depth about the rest of the Western tradition philosophers.

Who was "the slave" in Liber AL and why? Good question.

Arthur lost the ability to login under that name and is now known to us as @thearthuremerson

I'm afraid that when it comes to Hegel I can't offer much insight. What comparably small amount of time I've spent reading his work has involved nothing more than confusion. I can't make heads or tails of it, to be honest. I imagine Hegel is the point of departure from the Analytic to the Continental philosophical tradition. My education and interests are largely confined to the former, though there are Continental philosophers for whom I have a great deal of respect. 

I will say that I don't see how there can be any more than a very superficial relationship between Hegelianism and Taoism. The latter shuns any kind of teleology, whereas Hegel's philosophy, so the philosophical commonplace goes, very much embraces it. 

@Q789 Why should/would Aiwass be referencing anything Hegelian? Flowers abound in the imagery of the esoteric and religious traditions with which Crowley was familiar. That Hegel used the imagery of a flower seems unlikely fodder for Aiwass' communication with Crowley, whom I would bet ten to one when asked about the imagery of a flower would not even think of Hegel. Not before he though about the doorway to the birthing house, at any rate. It's not clear to me that Hegel played any significant role in Crowley's thinking. Crowley does reference Hegel in a few places, but the references hardly amount to praise.

That Crowley's aeonics shares some relationship with Hegel's dialectic seems to me a mistake. Hegel's dialectic, whatever little I understand of it, concerns judgments. While it has a historical aspect as well, it seems very far from the ages Crowley imagines -- at the very least Crowley does not talk about them in a Hegelian manner. Moreover, the notion of "ages" far predates Hegel. The notion of aeonics has long been among those found in Western esotericism. It wasn't injected into that tradition by Hegel. 

@Q789 I'm not sure what you're on about when saying that Heraclitus originated the Dialectic. Dialectic, whatever it is, is hardly monolithic. It's been given a variety of theoretical accounts throughout the history of Western philosophy. Moreover, we lack any systematic account of Heraclitus' thought since none of his writings survive in complete form. We rely on fragments quoted by other authors and interpretations of his views provided by, for example, Plato and Aristotle. A more likely candidate for setting the groundwork for the Greek philosophical dialectic would be Parmenides.

To make an overly brief, broader point re: Crowley and his influences. I think it shortsighted to find or impute much influence of any one philosophical or religious tradition to Crowley's thought. Crowley was a widely read, highly idiosyncratic thinker who had a syncretic vision. He freely adopted various bits of religious, philosophical, social and scientific frameworks where they helped him to elucidate what he took to be truths. Crowley wasn't Hegelian any more than he was Hindu or scientific materialist. Or so it seems to me. Any attempt to interpret Crowley's thought through a singular lens is bound be a confounding enterprise. 

æ

@ignant666 -- Digging the new avatar!

Edit: please forgive the above post its likely many deficiencies. As universities move into the first semester of the Covid era, I am stretched beyond thin.

@djedi clearly knows his way around the philosophical tradition, he might have more to say about Hegel and Thelema.

If anyone's interested Robert Anton Wilson discusses Hegel in the appendices of his jointly written Illuminatus Trilogy novel.    Wilson discusses the 'Law of Fives' which is one of his conspiratorial games.  This is his occult take on the laws of the universe particularly anthropology where there are five stages to the processes of social organization and it's inevitable downfall.  I think he claims that Hegel intuited this with his Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis idea as a description of mutation.  Wilson takes it further and adds Paranthesis-Paralysis as the next two stages hence 'Law of Fives' .  He claims that Marx's theory of history with it's predictive- inevitability theme (the rise of the minority ruling class and their inevitable overthrow etc)  was developed from Hegel i.e not the political philosophy but the idea of hidden laws of change that impact upon organization.  Wilson describes cycles entailing, in sequence, Chaos-Discord-Confusion-Bureaucracy-Return to Chaos.  The Chaos stage is according to Wilson the natural cooperative society which existed before the rise of the ruling minority i.e anarchy or 'chaos'. 

Specifically page 742 APPENDIX GIMEL section; The Illuminati theory of History,  The Illuminatus! Trilogy novel by Robert Anton Wilson and Robert Shea, , Raven Books, 1998 edition.  

@markus may have something to say on this, I remember he left an interesting comment on another thread.

Posted by: @markus

"Contradiction is the rule of truth, non-contradiction that of falsehood." As first of Hegel's habilitation theses, the most important. This sentence is the basis of all his thought, which wouldn't be of interest save the fact that Master Therion once remarked - I forget where - that Hegel's philosophy is a means to cross the abyss.

Posted by: @thearthuremerson

Djedi clearly knows his way around the philosophical tradition, he might have more to say about Hegel and Thelema.

Hegel isn't really my bag, either, and I must admit my agreement, sometimes, with Schopenhauer's critique of Hegel. However, the man has influenced some art I've enjoyed, so in the past I've gone out of my way to get a hold of his ideas, for whatever they're worth.

As to Hegelianism as it relates to Thelema, I can't think myself out of the belief that the Hegelian Phenomenology of Spirit is an inverted Thelema. Hegel's Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis dialectic functions in a system where Many evolve into One, for good -- the other way being bad. Contrast Thelema, where One is divided into Many, for love's sake. 

In Hegel's Master-Slave dialectic (and I think I'm reducing it here), an unconsciousness is "devolved" into two self-consciousnesses. The self-consciousnesses enter a death struggle, each aiming to be recognized as the original unconsciousness by the other, as victor. Self and Other. The experiment degrades from here, but this is as far as we need to go to see the nihilistic inversion of the Thelemic ethic.

Allow me to remind the reader that my understanding of Hegel's philosophy doesn't come from the horse's vacuously verbose mouth. I'll be the first to tell you that I'm as far from a Hegel scholar as you can get. If anyone with a wider knowledge of the man's ideas wants to refute what I've said here, it won't hurt my feelings.

Apart from Nietzsche can any of the Western philosophers even be thought of as "Thelemic"?  Is it too general to classify them as the thinkers of the Old Aeon?  Wasn't the introduction of the New Aeon a radical move away from all of their ponderings and uncertainties? 

Well, lets refere back to Chap 1 line 26.

There are two references to Hegels work. Slave and flower. 

The Hegelian concept of flower lets tje whole sentemce meaningful to me. 

Any tjeories of why the reference to slave. Crowley and the Bestuous one Rose Kelly? Which was ACs fetish.

Or AC the Slave to Nuit?

I see Hegels theories as very relavant. The dialectic unfolding of humanity. From the developement of a pointed stick to computers,G5 and cryptocurrency.  

Hegels work was follwed by dozens of philosophies including Frued, Marx, ( material dialectic he got tjat rigjt imo) and more. The uniting of opposites, the chaos ad two opposites battle and a new stage after. AIO.

You dont have to be a great devpted fan. But, you have to see Hegels part in philosophical developement over 2.5k years.

AC topped of or sealed a 2.5k year debate on philosophy such as phenomonology and more. 

I can see the growth and developement just as Hegel describes. Its an exciting subject and the more i study it, the more i realize the value of ACs work. Genius.

DOM that should put it into perspective.

Yes i understand your 'inverted' concern. I think of it as Brahma/Skiva duality. Manifestation/destruction. See it like that and Hegel was a rougj prelude to uniting opposites.

Mankind developes as a whole soul, evolving along teological lines(lines is tje wrong word). 

Anyway, wjat do you think about the 2 Hegelian concepts in Chap 1. 26?

Posted by: @q789

Well, lets refere back to Chap 1 line 26.

There are two references to Hegels work. Slave and flower.

In your world-view yeah.  'Slave' and 'flower' could be a reference to some Biblical text, I dunno, Exodus or something or to anything.  Does everyone else here think 'Hegel' when they read those lines?   These are merely two words of the English language.   Do you know what confirmation bias is?  It's where you try to force a triangle into a round-hole because that's the place you think it belongs.    

I'll face your other points probably when I get free time.  

When i read Hegel i re read the Liber AL lines and had a strong flush. A realisation that was so simple.

The line describes a society in which Nuit has a hand in. Yet without damaging those who are not ready for such energies. An aristocracy or caste system. 

It is true tjat i am very passionate  about my studies and also a bit ocd over them.

Maybe, i should let it rest for a while and see if it sticks.

Thank you all.

Posted by: @q789

When i read Hegel i re read the Liber AL lines and had a strong flush. A realisation that was so simple.

 

Nothing like 'a flush' to bring thinkers to the Truth I say. 

Maybe get a good classic text/critique on the history of Philosophy (e.g. A History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell) and dissect the chapter on Hegel, condense it into it's main points and see how you feel about your perceived correlation between these Hegelian ideas and Liber Al..... then reopen this thread.     

I have a copy (Routledge publsihed 1996), you will find that the Hegel chapter is around page 666 lol. 

Posted by: @dom

Nothing like 'a flush' to bring thinkers to the Truth I say. 

Which Truth is that?

(There are so many these days)

@Shiva
“ Nothing like 'a flush' to bring thinkers to the Truth I say. “
“ Which Truth is that? “

how about

Distortion, organization and interpretation, gives way to action;
acquiesces to the radiant star center.

Formulated mind gives way to formlessness.

A slave to the beauteous one
not an intellectual nail on a head.

The blockages are removed;
the human fetish is animated in the presence of immense boundless life.

Though it is quite possible to be both a Thelemite and a Hegelian, and though it is possible to use Hegel to elucidate some difficulties and ideas of Thelema, the two are quite distinct. Extremely simplified: 0=2 (Thelema) and 3=1 (Hegel).

Hegel was never really concerned with the development of the Individual, whereas in Thelema this is a basic tenet. He was concerned with the development of the Whole, and the Individual is only important in so far he plays his part in aiding said development of the Whole. Hegel would almost certainly agree with: "Every man and woman is a star", but never with: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law", the latter being too individualistic and egotistical for his thought.

There are two aspects of his philosophy which I believe are useful for Thelemites in general and Occultists in particular: 

1) His system. This is somewhat reminiscent of Gnosticism and Kabbala and is triune in structure, viz.:

a] Logic - the Idea is with itself / "God's thoughts before the creation of the universe";

b] Nature - the Idea is outside itself / the world of space, time and matter, physics, chemistry and biology;

c] Spirit - the Idea returns to itself / Spirit becomes self-aware and therefore God by means of art, religion and philosophy, family, society and state, ethics and mores, etc.

Much like the Kabbala, Hegel truly explains Gott und die Welt (God and the World - German idiom for: Everything).

2) His methodology. The value of Hegel lies not so much in what he says, but in the modus operandi of his thinking. This is more than his famous dialectical process, rather he shows and thus teaches how to think. The result is, to use theosophical terminology, a disciplining of the mental body.  Hegel's method of thinking allows you to cross the Abyss in Thought - a point also made by Crowley, if I remember correctly.

Thus, in my opinion, Hegelian philosophy is not wholly congruent with that of Thelema. However, if you do study Hegel, then you'll basically be cleansing your Temple, polishing your Chalice, strengthening your Wand, and above all sharpening your Dagger! And though these philosophies not be congruent, they can peacefully co-exist - even in one and the same mind!

Hope that helped,

Markus

P.S. For those interested, there is a wonderful book by Alexander Magee, Hegel and the Hermetic Tradition.

Posted by: @markus

Hegel's method of thinking allows you to cross the Abyss in Thought - a point also made by Crowley, if I remember correctly.

Thanks for your interesting post, Markus. Can you please source where Crowley says of Hegel that his system can help one to cross the abyss? I don't recall ever reading this, but I'm very interested to see it for myself. 

Posted by: @markus

The result is, to use theosophical terminology, a disciplining of the mental body.  Hegel's method of thinking allows you to cross the Abyss in Thought - a point also made by Crowley, if I remember correctly.

Disciplining the mental body, in terms of balance and alignment is required in any discipline, but a "method of thinking" that "allows" one to cross the abyss is questionable. Said crossing is something that is done to one, either by external initiatory archetypes within or without, but the personal mind itself is not capable of stopping itself, regardless of how much uniting of opposites is performed.

93, Don't know whether this was the reference that Markus was referring to, but there is a reference to Hegel in Liber Os Abysmi vel Daäth - A Method for Entering the Abyss: "7. Also the "Logik" of Hegel." The text was first published in Equinox I (7) in Class B; in the 1913 “Syllabus”; it was listed in Class C. 474 is the number of tod, Da’ath.

There is a footnote, footnote 9, in a Celephaïs Press edition, last revised 2018, that says: "It is not clear whether Crowley refers to the Science of Logic or the “Lesser Logic” (Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences: Part I –Logic), so-called because it is shorter than the Science of Logic and thus more widely read. Modern English translations of both works exist (e.g.of the Enclopedia Logicby W. Wallace, Oxford University Press, 1977, and of the Science of Logicby A.V. Miller, Oxford University Press, 1969)." 93, 93/93

Thank you very much, empiricus! That is exactly the text I was referring to.

Whether AC was consulting the "greater" or "lesser" Logic does not matter. They are fairly similar in content.

Markus

@empiricus Thanks for drawing this to the thread's attention.

Yes, I'm familiar with that reference. It had occurred to me that Markus might have had it in mind. It is not, however, an instance of Crowley saying that Hegel's method can lead one across the abyss. Perhaps it's a case of misremembering. 

Some references to Hegel can also be found in Berashith:

True, Hegel says: “Pure being is pure nothing!” and it is true that the infinite heat and cold, joy and sorrow, light and darkness, and all the other pairs of opposites, cancel one another out: yet I feel rather afraid of this Absolute!

It's accompanied by a footnote (19): 

The Hindus see this as well as any one, and call Atman Sat-chit-ananda, these being above the pairs of opposites, rather on the Hegelian lines of the reconciliation (rather than the identity) of opposites in a master-idea. We have dismissed infinity as the figment of a morbid mathematic: but in any case the same disproof applies to it as to God.—A.C.

Another footnote (22) contains a minor reference to Hegel:

A possible mystic transfiguration of the Vedanta system
has been suggested to me on the lines of the Syllogism—
     God = Being (Patanjali).
     Being = Nothing (Hegel).
     God = Nothing (Buddhism).
Or, in the language of religion:
Every one may admit that monotheism, exalted by the introduction of the ¥ symbol, is equivalent to pantheism. Pantheism and atheism are really identical, as the opponents of both are the first to admit. If this be really taught, I must tender my apologies, for the reconcilement is of course complete.—A.C.

Note that Crowley's syllogism in the above is fallacious. 

I take these references from the digital edition of Berashith available here from 100th Monkey Press.

@markus Thanks for confirming. You slipped in while I was writing this post. I'll leave it as it stands. 

Posted by: @shiva

Disciplining the mental body, in terms of balance and alignment is required in any discipline, but a "method of thinking" that "allows" one to cross the abyss is questionable.

If we assume Hegel's "mental body" and "method of thinking" to be only the mind's interactions with sense-objects, then yes. It could very well have been, however, that Hegel was reaching into the same sphere inhabited by the Advaitists and the author of the Amritabindu Upanishad, which reads,

"When the mind, with its attachment for sense-objects annihilated, is fully controlled within the heart and thus realizes its own essence, then that Supreme State (is gained)."

The key to interpreting this is understanding that annihilating outwardly discriminatory mental activity does not annihilate the Buddhi, or discriminatory mind, if the brahman and atman are conceived as one. No, in fact the buddhi then contemplates itself, and it "realizes its own essence, and the supreme state is gained."

No other, all self.

If this is what is meant by "crossing the abyss in thought," then I don't see any reason to dispute the notion.

(But I'll say again that I'm not that familiar with Hegel, and the ways he expresses his ideas obscure them to me.)

Posted by: @shiva

Posted by: @markus

The result is, to use theosophical terminology, a disciplining of the mental body.  Hegel's method of thinking allows you to cross the Abyss in Thought - a point also made by Crowley, if I remember correctly.

Disciplining the mental body, in terms of balance and alignment is required in any discipline, but a "method of thinking" that "allows" one to cross the abyss is questionable. Said crossing is something that is done to one, either by external initiatory archetypes within or without, but the personal mind itself is not capable of stopping itself, regardless of how much uniting of opposites is performed.

Agreed, I've read posts of yours talking about UG Krishnamurti, and to my knowledge he is one of the best modern debunkers of all this intellectual nonsense. He is often accused of making some kind of system of philosophy of his statements, which is false; he "negates all systems of thought and knowledge", but he truly does it, he doesn't make a philosophy of it. It's a matter of perspective; it's the same difference between talking about a thing from an outside perspective, and speaking from inside that thing, being that thing. For the same reason people who "explains" magic a lot, which is a quite extended thing nowadays, tend to not be good magicians; I don't think a good magician would do anything like that, he/she would simply "do magic", or "be magic", but that's maybe going a bit offrails from the topic here.

Posted by: @apuleius

U.g. ... he "negates all systems of thought and knowledge", but he truly does it, he doesn't make a philosophy of it.

Right. Nuthin' is nuthin', and it's not somethin' as an alternative.

@markus

Thank you Markys.

I just ordered

Hegel and the Hermetic Tradition

Posted by: @apuleius

U.G. ... is one of the best modern debunkers of all this intellectual nonsense.

Yes, he is. And he walked the whole Path. It should be made clear that he, and other pretenders (U.G. was not a pretender), like to condemn the various religions, metaphysical concepts, systems, and thoughts. This is because he is/was operating in the ninth vehicle of liberation (from the mind). Surely, we have all heard that the lesser eight vehicles are intellectually contrived ... "Made up."

The only problem with this point of view is that some people are firmly dedicated to one or more of these lesser carriages, and as long as they are using the faculties of that vehicle to balance and align the whole fleet, then that is just dandy. Religious belief systems clog and opaquify the lesser cars, so that doesn't fit in anywhere.

Pretenders, cited above are well defined by U.G.  They pretend to be enlightened. Then they form organizations, create libraries, and give lectures, which is the work of the lower spheres.

In relation to this thread, the work of Hegel and the other guys is fine, as long as they don't try to explain enlightenment, or crossing the abyss, or transcending reason by use of the reasoning chip itself ... because, right there, where the star-sponge meets "me," is where paradox flips and the mentat steps out, and this the key to the whole deal called the Path.

Anyone, regardless of their level or the color of their car or bike, would do themselves a long-term favor to read any one book about U.G. (he wrote none), followed by The Book of Lies. This is the official Reading List for students who are attempting to form some sort of tentative concept about things on "the other shore."

Posted by: @shiva

Posted by: @apuleius

U.G. ... is one of the best modern debunkers of all this intellectual nonsense.

Yes, he is. And he walked the whole Path. It should be made clear that he, and other pretenders (U.G. was not a pretender), like to condemn the various religions, metaphysical concepts, systems, and thoughts. This is because he is/was operating in the ninth vehicle of liberation (from the mind). Surely, we have all heard that the lesser eight vehicles are intellectually contrived ... "Made up."

The only problem with this point of view is that some people are firmly dedicated to one or more of these lesser carriages, and as long as they are using the faculties of that vehicle to balance and align the whole fleet, then that is just dandy. Religious belief systems clog and opaquify the lesser cars, so that doesn't fit in anywhere.

Pretenders, cited above are well defined by U.G.  They pretend to be enlightened. Then they form organizations, create libraries, and give lectures, which is the work of the lower spheres.

In relation to this thread, the work of Hegel and the other guys is fine, as long as they don't try to explain enlightenment, or crossing the abyss, or transcending reason by use of the reasoning chip itself ... because, right there, where the star-sponge meets "me," is where paradox flips and the mentat steps out, and this the key to the whole deal called the Path.

Anyone, regardless of their level or the color of their car or bike, would do themselves a long-term favor to read any one book about U.G. (he wrote none), followed by The Book of Lies. This is the official Reading List for students who are attempting to form some sort of tentative concept about things on "the other shore."

 

Everything by every genius ever is "made up". Crowley himself took a lot from predecessors, then very kindly sainted them for their contribution to his intellectual and magical makeup. As a matter of fact, his genius was nothing without theirs. Imagination is our conduit with the genius of all, as is our intuition. 

Your condemnation of religion, however, irks me a bit, because I disagree. Religion, on the base level, leads to all kinds of ill will, I agree. It takes root like cancer in the mind, and makes overmuch of superstitious ideas, e.g. "don't take that kid to the doctor, as that would be an insult to God". That kind of bullshit. 

Yet religion isn't just sprung out of nothing: it comes from genius, and that genius is glorious. It doesn't end with the old prophets: it rises like a phoenix again and again, always changing its approach -- its doctrine and practice -- to adapt with the evolutionary pattern of humanity.

The manifestation of the genius of prophecy varies over time. I don't need to tell you this you're old and knowing enough: I'm not trying to "school" you. It's just that I don't believe religion itself is, in times far to come, as isolated to superstition and madness as it manifests so often in past and present. 

I should add that I am an atheist myself, and that I started out 40 years ago completely dedicated to the elimination of religion. Religion isn't going anywhere. And its votaries will continue to grow from every root we dig up, like cockroaches. The only way to purify religion of its religious madness is to embody it, then convince those who take nourishment from it to differ slightly in its dogma, methodolgy, and tradition. It can be done, we know this: the Christians did it with the pagan traditions, which then were unthinkably deep and seemingly unchangeable. It can be done. Hit them with enough power of genius, and all humanity -- no matter what their religious outlook -- will indeed pay heed.

I've altered my approach with regard to religion in recent years, because of this realization. Religious fanatics will never go away. The best thing to do is to take Thelema as the overarching law of religion that it is, then reform existing religious views (where clearly wrong) per our own brilliant law. It need not be forced on anyone. Genius has a way of winning. All it requires is enough creative genius to serve as a dynamo to attract future thinkers.

The important thing, of course, is liberating religion from its harmful superstition, its ridiculous notions, and its baseless hope. The Book of the Law is the key; but it is veiled. Getting at the heart of the matter is the most important thing. Fortunately, I see the light at the end of the tunnel.

It's coming.

Posted by: @aleisterion

 

The only way to purify religion of its religious madness is to embody it, then convince those who take nourishment from it to differ slightly in its dogma, methodolgy, and tradition. It can be done, we know this: the Christians did it with the pagan traditions, which then were unthinkably deep and seemingly unchangeable. It can be done. Hit them with enough power of genius, and all humanity -- no matter what their religious outlook -- will indeed pay heed.

 

 

Christianity didn't "conviced" pagan traditions to "differ slightly in their dogma, methodology, and tradition", they simply forcibly erradicated all of them. Julian the Apostate was indeed right when he accused Christians of being atheists, partly because in essence that's what atheists does, either garmed in secular or religious clothes, it doesn't matter.

Posted by: @aleisterion

Everything by every genius ever is "made up".

Absolutely. The ninth vehicle is not concerned with genius or make-up. It is at the end of the Path. It is not made up. Sixty-one and all that.

Posted by: @aleisterion

Your condemnation of religion, however, irks me a bit, because I disagree.

Like I said, "Religious Belief System."

Posted by: @aleisterion

I started out 40 years ago completely dedicated to the elimination of religion.

You, and and some others, but not me. I simply dismissed it. As you say, it'll always be there in one form or another. It is known as the spiritual con. One gives them money, the more the better, and in return they give inspiration and hope, and sometimes a circuit or two clicks and somebody gets a result!

Posted by: @aleisterion

The best thing to do is to take Thelema as the overarching law of religion that it is

That's a good idea. Most everyone here, not that there's been many since the column widened again, would agree with that. For those who have appreciated the 61 maneuver, we must admit that Thelema is a concept, and there's something else overarching it.

Posted by: @aleisterion

then reform existing religious views (where clearly wrong) per our own brilliant law.

This would be great for the individual. Reforming existing external religions might prove to be frictionable. Only people who are programmed (and want to unwind it) need to address these matters. Astoundingly, my father once said, "Look I know I've been brainwashed by the church, but that's how I feel." Admitting brainwashing was astounding. Confessing that his feelings were the result of said washing was insightful on the surface, but somewhat ridiculous in the core.

Posted by: @aleisterion

I see the light at the end of the tunnel.

What color is it?

Posted by: @apuleius

Christianity didn't "conviced" pagan traditions to "differ slightly in their dogma, methodology, and tradition", they simply forcibly erradicated all of them.

I find it interesting that when one visits the Indian pueblos, for tours or rain dances, there is always a church, and they want you to see it, inside. They appear to be proud of their churches. But when it comes time to crank up the mojo, they put on feathers, beat drums, and jump around.

Posted by: @shiva

.

In relation to this thread, the work of Hegel and the other guys is fine, as long as they don't try to explain enlightenment, or crossing the abyss, or transcending reason by use of the reasoning chip itself ... 

 

Yes I was referring to this particular assumption, as quoted above. Hegel and philosophy are perfectly fine, of course.

Regarding UG fans, they've made a stupid new age cult around him, and like you said they feel very entitled to disparage every religion, tradition, etc. I've also heard that the famous horror writer Thomas Ligotti is a big fan of him, which makes quite sense, knowing his work.

Posted by: @apuleius

Regarding UG fans, they've made a stupid new age cult around him

As we know, and I repeat it for those who don't, this is the last thing UG wanted, and he said so. He wanted to leave a zero-footprint after he left. If they reveal the Spiritual Con, I guess that's okay. AC did it. Most of us do it. But if they revile or use the potty-mouth equivalent in their holy disgust, then we see how things get made-up ... out of nothing ... the nothing UG left behind for us.

This thread is about Hegel and AC right?

So i am studying Hegel and relating him to AC. I am finding some very interesting result. Fascinating. 

Here is a video i found thst easily somes it up. 

Hegel and Goethe IMO did very much the same thing, only from different perspectives. AC put the cream on the cake in several ways. One is by applying a mathematical therom to an abstract principle.

https://youtu.be/_1c-F9n_8J4

The problem goes back to Plato and Parmanides. Where did i read AC mention the old philosophers?

Can anyone relate Liber Al to this?

Posted by: @q789

Hegel and Goethe IMO did very much the same thing,

@q789

Can you please explain how those two did 'very much the same thing'? 

Both philosophers tried to change mankinds paradigm view by uniting the two halfs of the brain and viewing the world interms of the whole by seing the all through the lens of the negative.
Goethe used colours. He contrasted the Newtonian view that colours come out of light by seing that they come out of darkness. He showed how glowers unfold interms of the whole. All comes from the primal mythological archaic upside-down soul.

Hegel saw the the whole has to be viewed through the dialectic negative. This constant process of change is best viewed through the negative primal self and all change is to the whole.
Both, seek to unite magick/philosophy and Aristotelian scientific rational thinking into one supreme formula of the whole.

Refer Liber Al 2:32.

To invert our perception and work science for a religous end of the whole.
Love is the law, love under will.

Plato made this mistake and Parmanides had this more or less right.

In my words. To use Dialectic to unite the archaic abstract with the pure logic of rational thinking into a supreme formula of the nuit whole.
You should be able to see what AC did here.

Q789

Just a further note.

AC has refereed Hegel and Buddism in Liber B Magi Section 0.

That and this is a Buddist version of Hegel difference and identity.

I will point out that, imo, the Buddist did not understand that which unites, Hegel only touches this universal law.

Love is the law

Now I can see more and more of what he did.

A toast to Mega Therion

I've read over some of the answers you've been given, including some from a so-called "philosopher", and those who write don't seem to have much of an idea of what they're talking about, as you might expect. Not that Hegel is an easy philosopher to understand either.

Instead of jumping directly to the 'Logic', I recommend that you meditate on this passage from Hegel's Phaenomenologie des Geistes:

Dieses unglückliche, in sich entzweite Bewußtsein muß also, weil dieser Widerspruch seines Wesens sich ein Bewußtsein ist, in dem einen Bewußtsein immer auch das andere haben, und so aus jedem unmittelbar, indem es zum Siege und zur Ruhe der Einheit gekommen zu sein meint, wieder daraus ausgetrieben werden. Seine wahre Rückkehr aber in sich selbst, oder seine Versöhnung mit sich wird den Begriff des lebendig gewordenen und in die Existenz getretenen Geistes darstellen, weil an ihm schon dies ist, daß es als ein ungeteiltes Bewußtsein ein gedoppeltes ist; es selbst ist das Schauen eines Selbstbewußtseins in ein anderes, und es selbst ist beide, und die Einheit beider ist ihm auch das Wesen, aber es für sich ist sich noch nicht dieses Wesen selbst, noch nicht die Einheit beider

The translation would be something like this:

This unhappy, divided consciousness must therefore, because this contradiction of its nature is a consciousness in which one consciousness always has the other, and so must be driven out of each of them directly, thinking that it has come to the victory and peace of unity. But its true return into itself, or its reconciliation with itself, will represent the concept of the spirit that has come to life and has entered into existence, because it already has this in it, that as an undivided consciousness it is a doubled one; it itself is the looking of one self-consciousness into another, and it itself is both, and the unity of both is also the essence to it, but it is not yet itself this essence, not yet the unity of both, but it is not yet itself this essence, not yet the unity of both.

This idea comes from the Metaphysics of Francisco Suárez, the source of Lutheran scholasticism from which Wolff, Leibniz and later Kant and Hegel emerged. Suárez made a subtle distinction between conceptus formalis et obiectivi. To sum up the story, the objective concept is the object of the act of conceiving, which is the formal concept. The point is that for Suárez the object had a subject, that is, a substance or an extramental support that 'sustained' it. That is to say, it had a substantial reality. From Descartes onwards this subject became the thinking thing, intra animam, and from there the objective concept lost its reality to become a mere phenomenon. From there Hegel takes the distinction between the act of conceiving and the concept itself. In order to analyse the phenomenology consciousness à la Hegel, one has to remove objects. The problem is that when you remove them all you are left with the same act of conceiving, which is thought of as an act of conceiving, and the primary unity apparently achieved 'expels' you back into a new objectification. That is why the Spirit contains in its very essence an internal contradiction that causes it to unfold in nature and in history, until it passes through the German State, of course. That is why Hegel's dialectic is different from other dialectics, insofar as it is not a process of reaching a unitary truth after a 'Socratic' confrontation, but rather discovers that in the same truth there is already an essential contradiction. 

This is a description of the dynamic of the Abyss. The very act of conceiving cancels itself out, and therefore what is beyond the Abyss is 'unthinkable'. This can be seen very clearly in Vedanta, where the superimposition or adhyasa over Atman as a substance begin to be analysed until Atman itself can no longer be 'something before which to superimpose nothing', because it is in itself no-thing; the very idea of Atman as substance being deconstructed. But this is already unthinkable in itself, and it presupposes the discovery of the Ajata Vada or "non-origination of the world", that is, the Abyss.

It seems very complex but in reality it is very simple once you have fallen off the horse. What could be more evident that in reality there is no origin of the world nor any reality that has emerged?

So, if you read Phaenomenologie des Geistes 666 times hopefully you will cross the Abyss.

The return to the Octagon of the IBERIAN IPSISSIMUS!!!

Welcome back, oh smug Dunning-Kruger Demonstrator!

I know you missed me, you ugly-faced social vigilante.

And with the wit, and charm, that have so justly made Spain famous intact, i see. We have missed you so.

I warn you that I am surviving the Covid, in one of the (socialist) countries with the highest number of infections per million in the world, but I still have enough strength to kick your ass like Don Juan. You have been warned.

Noted, oh Don Juan Who Is So Devastatingly Handsome He Dare Not Show His Face!

But help me out here- was Don Juan actually noted for kicking ass? I thought he was known for being a pathetic narcissist who could only seduce women by lying to them?

More or less, depending on which version of it you read. But what they all agree on is that an objective morality sent him to hell.

Posted by: @xavier-moreno

So, if you read Phaenomenologie des Geistes 666 times hopefully you will cross the Abyss.

No that won't work. There is hope in other spells, but reading, or using the mind, will not get one across the Abyss. Philosophy is the enemy of Magick, so that won't work either. Sometimes, if a person takes a large dose of a legal strange drug, and then does the work (practices), the whole matter can be cleared up in a few hours. Those who do no work, or who have complexes (demons), will mere have a "bad trip," and then they will spout philosophy.

The most annoying, but also the most common, irritating and ridiculous concept floating around is the one where a person, and maybe his/her spouse and children, maintain that the mind is capable of doing something (like crossing over to the "other side") through mental efforts or clever mental juxtapositions or things like that.

Posted by: @xavier-moreno

You have been warned.

Scotty (Injuneer Scott), turn up the power to the shields!  The Klingons are back, and they're looking for blood. Pompous bravado machoism. (or is it Maoism?) always brightens up the threads with incendiary flas and bang. Offering violence is prohibited by The Guidelines. Some people like to tread on thin frozen water.

Posted by: @shiva

No that won't work. There is hope in other spells, but reading, or using the mind, will not get one across the Abyss.

The point is not to use the mind without purpose, but to use the mind against the mind.

Philosophy is the enemy of Magick, so that won't work either.

It sounds like an excuse from someone who, instead of taking the trouble to deal with his enemy, just lets himself be crushed by him. Philosophy can be transcended when it has been gone through.

Sometimes, if a person takes a large dose of a legal strange drug, and then does the work (practices), the whole matter can be cleared up in a few hours. Those who do no work, or who have complexes (demons), will mere have a "bad trip," and then they will spout philosophy.

You know, this whole obsession of yours about 'doing the work, doing the work, doing the work' without really defining what that means sounds like a Protestant fanatic work ethic. This emphasis on 'doing the work' reduces the issue to mere meritocracy just to earn the right to feel better than others. It is mere justification.

Bear in mind that in the face of merit there are some of us who have been taken by Grace.