Hegel and Thelema
 
Notifications
Clear all

Hegel and Thelema

Page 2 / 2

Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 6328
 
Posted by: @xavier-moreno

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

Exactly the false notion that mentats proclaim. The mind cannot be used to cancel itself. Cancellation requires an act of Will, which is not included in the human mental inventory. The necessary act of Will is that of surrender, and that can't be done by making affirmations or signing oaths, although those may help.

Posted by: @xavier-moreno

Philosophy can be transcended when it has been gone through.

Or when it has been ignored.

Posted by: @xavier-moreno

'doing the work, doing the work, doing the work' without really defining what that means.

Oh, bullshit on a stick wrapped in tinfoil. We went over this before. THE WORK consists of the practices. See Liber E and Liber O, and those kind of texts.

Posted by: @xavier-moreno

there are some of us who have taken the path of Grace.

Yes, your persona is so graceful that we all swoon in your virtual presence. We had previously determined that you don't do the work, and you're just shoveling out a bunch of discordant crap. I woul speak (write) in clearer terms, but I'm busy.

 

 


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Elderly American druggie
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3718
 
Posted by: @xavier-moreno

there are some of us who have been taken by Grace.

Do say hello when you see her; i hope she is looking well these days.


ReplyQuote
xavier-moreno
(@xavier-moreno)
Member
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 197
 

@shiva

Oh, bullshit on a stick wrapped in tinfoil. We went over this before. THE WORK consists of the practices. See Liber E and Liber O, and those kind of texts.

The question revolves around who is going to be doing this WORK. Your own fiction or the absolute no-thing where there is no need for THE WORK?


ReplyQuote
xavier-moreno
(@xavier-moreno)
Member
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 197
 
Posted by: @ignant666

Do say hello when you see her; i hope she is looking well these days.

She told me that She hates social justice. That's the funny thing about grace, that it doesn't admit any retribution.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 6328
 
Posted by: @xavier-moreno

the absolute no-thing where there is no need for THE WORK?

That is an advanced stage. We call it wu-wei (after the Chinese name of the same). It's a great concept and not limited to metaphysical/spiritual applications. The problem is, not many people get around to actually doing it.

 


ReplyQuote
xavier-moreno
(@xavier-moreno)
Member
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 197
 

This post is about Hegel and Crowley, so let's try not to distort it this time.


ReplyQuote
christibrany
(@christibrany)
Yuggothian
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2941
 

@xavier-moreno

 

No mate, you dont 'use the mind against the mind' you STOP using the MIND!

 

Nuff Said!!

 

 


ReplyQuote
xavier-moreno
(@xavier-moreno)
Member
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 197
 
Posted by: @christibrany

No mate, you dont 'use the mind against the mind' you STOP using the MIND!

And to whom does this stopped mind arise? 


ReplyQuote
xavier-moreno
(@xavier-moreno)
Member
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 197
 

You guys need more Hegel and more atma-vichara. And less Protestant work ethic.


ReplyQuote
christibrany
(@christibrany)
Yuggothian
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2941
 

@xavier-moreno

 

Seems like you are back to talk in circles.

I ain't playin' this time, boyo. 

 


ReplyQuote
xavier-moreno
(@xavier-moreno)
Member
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 197
 

@christibrany The circles in which you yourself are locked up thinking you've come to something, nuthead. 


ReplyQuote
christibrany
(@christibrany)
Yuggothian
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2941
 

@xavier-moreno

 

Thats nice dear. I like nuts , so you hit that on the head. My favourites are cashews, lightly salted. 

Second is spicy peanuts. 

Do you have a favourite nut? 

 


ReplyQuote
Tiger
(@tiger)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 1863
 

@xavier-moreno
you fail to convince
i see no Grace about you
you could do some work
get your self a pulpit
and see if that gets you some looks

image

ReplyQuote
xavier-moreno
(@xavier-moreno)
Member
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 197
 

@tiger Oh, no... no my friend. In order to con-vince, there is something to '-vincere', to overcome. You yourself are capable of killing yourself intellectually to the mockery of all, so there is no one to con-vince here. 

Thanks for suggesting the pulpit, but I don't like Stalinist models of dialogue. You can go to the gulag yourself.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 6328
 
Posted by: @xavier-moreno

And to whom does this stopped mind arise? 

You see, Chris? No matter what anybody says, this ferenghi, drive-by, occasional poster, who inserts himself in one thread (no more than one) who is not here for exchange, but only to sit in one place and pretend he is U.G., shooting down any and all things anyone says, writes, or spits.

I must be getting older. I forget. I forgot to forget Frater XM like I promised to do on his previous circuit of mayhem. He does not lead to illumination or insight of any kind. He leads to constant and continual strife.

I also forgot the Revelation (by faust-ius -ian -us) that there are Ordos or Tongs that require their aspirants to "go out and stir the pot 'til it smells bad, or worse, as part of their "training." It is their form of "work."

Whether it's his Ordo/Tong, or just the same principle applied by a single, deranged individual ego, we don;t know. What we do know this that he calls for "staying on topic," while shouting epithets about how he wil "Kick your Ass." This is a clear sign of both schizophrenia and hypocrisy. Maybe even pure malign intent.

So, the diagnosis is Cyclic Repetitive Choronzonitis (severe). Such a condition is contagious. We see a pandemic of it raging in The Daily News (checked hourly), and from time-to-time they show up here, playing Aleister's method of pitting all thoughts against their opposites, a practice (work) that does not work.

Having seen this movie before, and having walked out then, I now come to my senses and remember the previous apocalypse wherein Fr.'. XM just disappeared after a lengthy, disturbing altercation. I therefore walk out now, again, because I'm really too busy to have to shine someone else's shoes every few minutes or so. But I will donate this affirmation ...

PLEASE DO NOT FEED THE TROLL

image

Finis

 


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 6328
 
Posted by: @christibrany

I ain't playin' this time, boyo. 

You have seen the Light (in Extension and in both Vivo and Vitrio).

Posted by: @tiger

you fail to convince

A pilgrim returns from the other shore.

Another soul has seen the light darkness,
and will refrain from playing - evermore.

 


ReplyQuote
xavier-moreno
(@xavier-moreno)
Member
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 197
 

@shiva Now you think you have me in your mental categories to make you feel safer. Is this what your 'work' has brought you to?

Simply because it does not fit in your understanding that there is no other way to cross the Abyss that you consider to be 'the method', that is, the progressive meritocratic form of the spiritual junkies (as if such a thing really existed), that is why you cannot admit what I am telling you. Look for a single text where Crowley says that to know your will and Cross the Abyss you must necessarily practice what Liber E and Liber O say.

Whoever is not able to get out of his own thoughts here is you.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 6328
 

 

 

[Silence]

 

 


ReplyQuote
xavier-moreno
(@xavier-moreno)
Member
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 197
 

@shiva This is the best you can do in this post. A quick glance at your comments reveals that you haven't contributed anything to it, because you obviously have nothing to say. And to top it all off, you feel entitled to call someone who does contribute something to the thread an 'intruder'. Useless.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 6328
 
Posted by: @shiva

 

 

[Silence]

 


ReplyQuote
Q789
 Q789
(@q789)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 59
 

Hegels Phenomonology of the Spirit (POS) has some very appropriate Metaphysics. 

Samples are

162. This simple infinity, or the absolute concept, is to be called the simple essence of life, the soul of the world, the universal bloodstream, which is omnipresent, neither dulled nor interrupted by any difference, which is instead itself both every difference as well as their sublatedness. It is therefore pulsating within itself without setting itself in motion; it is trembling within itself without itself being agitated. It is itself self-equality, for the differences are tautological; they are differences that are none at all. This self-equal essence relates itself only to itself. It relates itself to itself so that this is an other essence to which the relation directs itself, and the relating to itself is in fact [the act of] estranging, or it is that very self-equality which is inner difference. These estranged items thus are in and for themselves, 100each an opposite of the other – of an other so that within that estrangement, expressing one moment is at the same time expressing the other. Or, it is not the opposite of an other, but rather it is only the pure opposite, and in that way it is thus in its own self the opposite of itself. That is, it is not an opposite at all but instead is purely for itself, a pure self-equal essence, which has no difference in it.

 

There are dozens of good hints all through this book.

 

In short, his definition of infinity, is the endless tautology of perspectives, all the same, yet different. 

Sort of like, all the infinite stars of space  seen as equal and the same  infinitely stretching.

Yet, the opposites are reflected, causing tension and the motions or interactions do not effect the whole. 

Recommended reading. 

 


Duck liked
ReplyQuote
Q789
 Q789
(@q789)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 59
 

In relation to Hegels definition. Can anyone find or remember a paragraph by Crowley?

AC describes perspectives by saying how 3 blokes walk down the street and they all see each other differently. 

Can anyone here remember where he wrote that?

Thanks ahead

Q789


ReplyQuote
Q789
 Q789
(@q789)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 59
 

So what AC was saying is this. 

Each Hadith point is subjective and singular. 

Whilst it looks outward to see many more stars, viewpoints or perspectives. Each of those infinite perspectives has a different viewpoint. A tautology of viewpoints stretching infinitely and yet reflecting back into the singular. 

Thus Nuit reflects myself back to myself. 


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2088
 
Posted by: @q789

AC describes perspectives by saying how 3 blokes walk down the street and they all see each other differently. 

Can anyone here remember where he wrote that?

Q789-I believe you may be thinking of the Introduction to The Book of the Law, in which Crowley writes (from Section 2, The Universe):

Each one of us has thus an universe of his own, but it is the same universe for each one as soon as it includes all possible experience. This implies the extension of consciousness to include all other consciousness.

In our present stage, the object that you see is never the same as the one that I see; we infer that it is the same because your experience tallies with mine on so many points that the actual differences of our observation are negligible. For instance, if a friend is walking between us, you see only his left side, I his right; but we agree that it is the same man, although we may differ not only as to what we may see of his body but as to what we know of his qualities. This conviction of identity grows stronger as we see him more often and get to know him better. Yet all the time neither of us can know anything of him at all beyond the total impression made on our respective minds.

Was this the passage you were thinking of? 


ReplyQuote
Q789
 Q789
(@q789)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 59
 

Yes. Thank you.

I believe ACs metaphysics was based on Hegel and others.

AC made serious improvements. 

Ill say it again.

Giordano Bruneo re defined infinity 

Sir Isaac Newton and Leibniz proved infinity divisability through differential and integral calculus. 

Spinoza declared god is infinite nature- thus we are all within the body of god.

Kant declared catagorical imperative but stuffed up the concept of god.

Hegel got the metaphysics right with becoming, absolute spirit, Giest being and more.

Goethe, Wagner and Nietzsche furthered Spinozas naturalism. Unfortunately, for various reasons the German poeple got it stuffed up.

Schopenhauer introduced the concept of Will and Nietzsche followed. Spinoza too tried will....nope.

Nietzsche introduced the Metaphysics of Hegel with a book 'For none and all' along with naturalism.(Hats off to Uncle Fred).

Finally, Aleister used the same gods as Goethe and drew on Uncle Freds works, including pre Socrates philosophy, as well as Schopenhauer and Hegel and made A system of metaphysics that is complete. After 3000 yrs of crap. He gave us the basis for the new world religion.

Being is nothing.

The eternal flux between the two is the powerhouse of the universe .

He ended several philosophical debates.

Master stroke Aleister.  Da man.


ReplyQuote
herupakraath
(@herupakraath)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 479
 
Posted by: @q789

and made A system of metaphysics that is complete. After 3000 yrs of crap. He gave us the basis for the new world religion.

It appears to me that Crowley cross-referenced various religious and mythological ideologies, and said there you go, see what you can do with it. Utilizing an elaborate pattern of subjective concepts makes them no less subjective, and no less imaginary, and can never serve as the basis for a new religion.

Posted by: @q789

Being is nothing

So that's it, the ultimate metaphysical truth is an oxymoron?

Posted by: @q789

The eternal flux between the two is the powerhouse of the universe .

Non-demonstrable jibber-jabber.

Posted by: @q789

He ended several philosophical debates.

Not that I can see, but he has certainly fueled a few.

 


ReplyQuote
Jamie J Barter
(@jamiejbarter)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 1825
 
Posted by: @herupakraath
Posted by: @q789

The eternal flux between the two [being & nothingness] is the powerhouse of the universe .

Non-demonstrable jibber-jabber.

However this, as modern science has come to say, is the actualité: on a quantum level, sub-atomic particles are popping into and out of existence all the time.  And arguably the Universe itself is just a large-scale version of this: at some point in the past, it "popped in" (whether fully made is a moot point) and at some point in the future (any point) it may decide to abruptly "pop out" again...

Norma N Joy Conquest


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1163
 

Pantheism is the belief that reality is identical with divinity, or that all-things compose an all-encompassing, immanent god.

Pantheism attempts to provide a consistent, comprehensive, and all-embracing philosophy, and is the belief that God or the Absolute is the world and the world is God or the Absolute.

Hegel's philosophy is developmental pantheism, in which God is unfolding himself in the historical or evolutionary process. In the view of Hegel the development is manifest in history. History is the footprints of God in the sands of time. Or, history is a phenomenological[*] theophany[**].

( [*] Phenomenology is the study of structures of consciousness as experienced from the first-person point of view. The central structure of an experience is its intentionality, its being directed toward something, as it is an experience of or about some objec.

[**] Theophany (from Ancient Greek (ἡ) θεοφάνεια theophaneia, meaning "appearance of a deity") is the manifestation of a deity in an observable way. This term has been used to refer to appearances of the gods in ancient Greek and Near Eastern religions. )

For Hegel, God comes to self-realization by unfolding in the historical process; making history necesarry to develop deity.

Hegel was an unorthodox Christian for whom God is the absolute, and his use of therefore the word Aufhebung [German word for "lifting up and surpassing]", indicates the surpassing of the separation of God from his creation, and so of God from humankind.

Hegel's central, explicit argument for the unity-in-difference of being and thought, or of object and subject, seems to be that reality is not, in principle, separable from thought. As what is truly real, according to Hegel, is what engages in thought, and thus is free, self-sublating, and infinite.

( Source: The Idea of Hegel's Science of Logic[.] Stanley Rosen, The Idea of Hegel's Science of Logic, University of Chicago Press, 2014, 509pp., $55.00 (hbk), ISBN 9780226065885. Reviewed by Robert M. Wallace, Independent Scholar 2014.04.25 - - - https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/the-idea-of-hegel-s-science-of-logic/

 

AC's BOTL contains a pantehism postulating an infinite Absolute ( = Nuit, infinite space), and also postulating the eternal reality of an individual’s selfhood ( = Hadit, "the flame that burns in every heart of man, and in the core of every star"), at any given "not extended" "everywhere the centre" "point", within said infinite Absolute. This is a pantehism according to which "there is no other God" than said individual selfhood, and said infinite Absolute (Source: AC's The Book of the Law, Chapter 1, verse 21.)

"Bind nothing! Let there be no difference made among you between any one thing & any other thing; for thereby there cometh hurt.", is a statement attributed to the latter infinite Absolute, described as consisting of "Infinite Space, and the Infinite Stars thereof".

Crowley's pantheism contains within it opposites such as good and evil, being and nonbeing, and is reflected in his use of equivocal language, with which he for example does not differentiate "... between Atheism and Theism." in one of his "holy books" for his Thelema:

"19. To you who yet wander in the Court of the Profane we cannot yet reveal all; but you will easily understand that the religions of the world are but symbols and veils of the Absolute Truth. So also are the philosophies. To the adept, seeing all these things from above, there seems nothing to choose between Buddha and Mohammed, between Atheism and Theism."

(Source: The Book of the Gate of Light, Book 10. )

(Crowley defines Nuit as "space", and "Hadit" as "that which occupies space." He also defines Nuit as "that from which we have come, that to which we must return".) As reality is identical with divinity according to Crowley's Thelema, this pantheism is metaphysically indistinguishable from atheism. Both pantheism and atheism hold that there is no supernatural realm. (This implies that "Aiwass the minister of Hoor-paar-kraat." mentioned in AC's The Book of the Law, is not a messanger from a supernatural realm.) Usually the only difference is that the pantheist decides to attribute religious significance to reality, or to the world, and the atheist does not.

Also, Crowly's infinite Absolute, that he calls Nuit, is beyond personality, but is in his The Book of the Law described as having a necessity and need for said "Hadit": "Be thou Hadit, my secret centre, my heart & my tongue!", "I love you! I yearn to you! [...] I [...] desire you. Put on the wings, and arouse the coiled splendour within you: come unto me!" (And so on and so forth.)

The pantehism contained in the most "Holy Book" of AC's Thelema, The Book of the Law, is referred to in AC's "Djeridensis Comment" to; "The unveiling of the company of heaven.", verse 2 in Chapter 1, of his The Book of the Law: 

"Pantheism of AL: The Book of the Law shows forth all things as God"

Conclusion:

The pantheism of Hegel seems to be based on that reality is not, in principle, separable from thought, and that the God of Christianity can surpass the separation of God from humankind, based on this.

The pantheism of AC's The Book of the Law, contradict Hegel's pantheism, as it involves no personal god like the God of Christianity. But is a pantehism according to which "there is no other God" than individual selfhood (called Hadit), and an infinite Absolute (called Nuit), which contains any instance of said individual selfhood.

 

Aleister Crowley does in his end note 24 to The Cry of the 2nd Aethyr of the second most important book of his Thelema, Book 418, state that the "discourse" of "the True Messengers" to Dee and Kelly implied "antinomian Pantheism". And AC's said impression of this "discourse", can have been an early inspiration for the panteheism of his own most holy book for his Thelema, The Book of the Law.

 


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1163
 

( Sorry for chain-posting.)

It is in chapter 66 of his Confessions that Aleister Crowley states that his The Vision and Voice, aka Book 418, is the second most important book of his Thelema: 

"... The Book of the Law guarantees itself by so closely woven a web of internal evidence of every kind, from Cabbalistic and mathematical proofs, and those depending on future events and similar facts, undeniably beyond human power to predict or to produce, that it is unique. The thirty Aethyrs being, however, only second in importance, though very far away, to that Book, the Lords of Vision were at pains to supply internal evidence, more than amply sufficient that the revelations therein contained may be regarded as reliable. No doubt the proof appears stronger to me than to anyone else, because I alone know exactly what happened; also because many passages refer to matters personal to myself, so that only I can fully appreciate the dovetailings. Just so a man can never prove to another the greatness of Shelley as fully as he feels it himself, since his certainty partly depends on the secret and incommunicable relations of the poet with his own individual idiosyncrasies."

( Source: THE SPIRIT OF SOLITUDE An Autohagiography Subsequently re-Antichristened The Confessions of Aleister Crowley, by Aleister Crowley - - - https://hermetic.com/crowley/confessions/chapter66  )

In addition to the just mentioned factual information with respect to his The Book of the Law being the most important book of his Thelema, and his The Vision and the Voice being the second most important book of his Thelema, according to Aleister Crowley, there is also more supporting factual information. Namely that Aleister Crowley already in 1907, is indicating that "the constants", or similarities, between what later became the two most important books within his Thelema (The Book of the Law, and The Vision and the Voice), are the contributions of their author (Aiwass), and the differences between said two books are "due to [his] inspiration alone."

I have already covered Crowley's said 1907 dated indication of similarities between his The Book of the Law and his The Vision and the Voice, as being due to Aiwass, in my posting timed at 26/03/2020 12:32 am on page two in the thread titled "Was the HGA also the actual initiator in the Order in which AC started on his path as an initiate?"; source: https://www.lashtal.com/forums/postid/105558/ .

 


ReplyQuote
Sanguine Chuck
(@sangewanchuck56)
Member
Joined: 10 months ago
Posts: 468
 

Thanks for posting all of this.

Hegel features prominently in my own tooling of Thelema, but really only limited to Hegel's influence on the historical dialectic, which I believe Crowley was also focused on.

So a few questions/notes to what you posted.

Posted by: @wellreadwellbred

For Hegel, God comes to self-realization by unfolding in the historical process; making history necesarry to develop deity

Hegel can be tough to follow, so I don't think this is quite right, although it is also probably not wrong either. 

Hegel's Historical Dialectic, the process of history as it is influenced by discussion, concludes in the liberation of spirit, the liberation of humanity.

I think calling it the "development" of Deity is a unique way to look at that, but the core of Hegel's trajectory, and the core of Thelema, are ultimately the same.

The historical dialectic is viewed as a "time spirit" or ZeitGeist, Spirt that moves through history via critical conversations and discussions, and I think this is probably the more simply and easy way to view what Hegel implied.

Posted by: @wellreadwellbred

Hegel's central, explicit argument for the unity-in-difference of being and thought, or of object and subject, seems to be that reality is not, in principle, separable from thought? 

As what is truly real, according to Hegel, is what engages in thought, and thus is free, self-sublating, and infinite.

This may be a very poor interpretation, Hegel's "dialectic" had a ternary structure of "Being, Nothing, and Becoming" where as "being" or any ideas or concepts about being, are a "thesis" about being that is only proven to be "empty" of reality as it appears in the natural state, for Hegel, Being and Becoming are elusive properties that are corrected through dialectic.

Here we see the West attempt to meet with the East.

Consider that what Hegel was "trying to do" was have a non-dual system of philosophy where all reality is Spirit or mind, so if we view his work as reaching for something that is defining reality is not, in principle, separable from mind, instead of just thought alone, we begin to find similarity.

Also, Hegel was probably a little "mad in the head" and even though he believed that all discussion should follow a "rational" process, it is really impossible to determine what Hegel was talking about most of the time, because his communication is rather, how should I put this, idealistic and subjective in comparison to "analytical" philosophy.

When the more analytical philosophers went to define Hegel, this is where we get descriptions of his dialectic that we can work with, for example Thesis, Antithesis, and Synthesis is more workable than "Being, Nothing, and Becoming", even though both are following a ternary dialectical form.

Posted by: @wellreadwellbred

The pantheism of AC's The Book of the Law, contradict Hegel's pantheism, as it involves no personal god like the God of Christianity.

 

That is the contradiction? I see that as nothing more than just a re-interpretation. "To me!" Nuit tells us. Nuit is more than just the absolute, she is the "personalized" Absolute, a collection of all sentient beings in the universe following their true wills in her glory and in her inspiration.

Posted by: @wellreadwellbred

But is a pantehism according to which "there is no other God" than individual selfhood (called Hadit)

Hmm, this seems more like Ayn Randian Libertarianism or something, at least the language and word choices.

The self is just one half of a duality of "Individual and collective" and Liber al Vel Legis addresses both of these things.

Posted by: @wellreadwellbred

The Book of the Law guarantees itself by so closely woven a web of internal evidence of every kind, from Cabbalistic and mathematical proofs, and those depending on future events and similar facts, undeniably beyond human power to predict or to produce, that it is unique.

Thanks for sharing this, I am going to repost it on the "Thelema and Maths" thread!

I think to appreciate Thelema, we really need to appreciate dialectics, and Hegel's contribution, in the full timeline, which is even playing at in this moment in history, especially right now with all of the focus on "Critical Race Theory", which has its root in Hegel as well.

  • "The dialectic of History is SPIRIT and ternary in nature, and ends in spiritual liberation!" - Hegel and all of the 18th Century.
  • "The dialectic of History is MATERIAL, and ternary in nature, and ends with a nice deal between landowners and workers" Karl Marx, Engel and the 19th century and early 20th.
  • "The dialectic of Marx concluded in authoritarianism, lets' re work the ternary structure" Critical Theory, Derrida, Deconstructionism, and the rest of the 20th century as well as the 21.
  • Crowley's "dialectic" in History is BOTH materialistic, and spiritual, the history ends in MAAT, or Historical Resolution.

Note Crowley's poem "ANTITHESIS", which is clearly dialectical, and the first few lines (from memory now), where as Crowley begins by stating "All that exists is mind and is in mind".

That is where we see East and West meet up in non-duality, but only up until Hegel.

Hegel was the last of the continental philosophers who embraced spirit, and since Hegel, Western Philosophy and dialectic has been material in nature.

Charles Darwin and Karl Marx changed all of that. Some for the better, some of the worst.

Since this conversation is about Hegel, I predict that no one in this thread, including me, knows what the hell the other person is really talking about, hehe.

 

 

"If you have come to help me, then you are wasting your time, but if you are here because your liberation is bound together with mine, then let us work together." Lilla Watson


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1163
 

Sanguine Chuck: "Thanks for posting all of this."

You're welcome.

I am in not interested in AC's so called ( inept ) mathematical proofs, and with respect to what he wrote concerning any number[-s] and his Thelema and his BOTL, I am only interested so far as what any such writing conveys about the meaning of any number[-s], according to him, in the context of his Thelema and his BOTL.

Sanguine Chuck: "That is the contradiction? I see that as nothing more than just a re-interpretation."

Agree.

 

Sanguine Chuck: "Hmm, this seems more like Ayn Randian Libertarianism or something, at least the language and word choices.

The self is just one half of a duality of "Individual and collective" and Liber al Vel Legis addresses both of these things."

Strongly agree! And one "of these things" is individual selfhood (called Hadit), as already indicated by me in my posting in this thread upon which you are paying attention. As I in said posting (source: https://www.lashtal.com/forums/thelema/hegel-and-thelema/paged/2/#post-117314 ) is quoting from a verse in AC's BOTL (Chapter 1, verse 21.), in which it is postulated that: 

"... there is no other God than me (= Nuit [= "infinite Absolute", or "infinite space", or "a symbol for all possibilities"]), and my lord Hadit [= "individual selfhood", or a symbol of "any and every potential point of view capable of experiencing some of those possibilities."]."

(Source: Wednesday, December 9, 2015 Gems from the Forums: Nuit and Hadit, by Los (formerly active on this site, later on active on Reddit as a publicly self identifying Magister Templi, or "Master of the Temple", with the signature Los, 8=3 ) - - - http://thelema-and-skepticism.blogspot.com/2015/12/gems-from-forums-nuit-and-hadit.html )

 


ReplyQuote
hadgigegenraum
(@hadgigegenraum)
Member
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 387
 

Dialectics is nothing new, certainly not invented by Hegel. who though might be blamed for adding in the "historical" notion, or fallacy, into the mix...

In the realm of history, the oligarchy has always employed dialectics by means of what has been termed "problem, reaction, solution". Such dialectics thus envelope the atmosphere with a certain haze, a particularly chosen incense accompanied by synesthesiac drones and sensations of chaos, the conditions are created by which mental projections might be brought into focus....and with witnesses who all swear the saw the particular phantasms of Because...

The question has been raised concerning authoritarianism, to which it might be added that AC added the authoritarian caveat with "The Comment" to The Book of the Law, whose wisdom seems to be that it preserves the necessary mystery of the Book for each person themselves, the force and fire, that deems to not go down into the latest answer...the din of Sunyata... as some digested gruel for the masses found upon everyone's carpet after the critical race theorist, run by the great reset financial oligarchy as the latest dialectical toy, destroy the toilet systems as racist...all under the cover of dialectic inevitability...

At least if the grid goes down some people will be able to see the skies uncluttered for the first time~

 

 

 

 


ReplyQuote
Sanguine Chuck
(@sangewanchuck56)
Member
Joined: 10 months ago
Posts: 468
 
Posted by: @hadgigegenraum

for adding in the "historical" notion, or fallacy, into the mix...

hmmm...an historical "fallacy"?

What meaneth this, o prophet?

Posted by: @hadgigegenraum

mystery of the Book for each person themselves, the force and fire, that deems to not go down into the latest answer...the din of Sunyata.

Sunyata and Mystery are synonymous....dialectically speaking that is 🙂

Socratic Dialectic embraces Sunyata in its form of "mystery" in the west, "I know that I do not know" is very alchemical. It is the application of certainty to uncertainty, as well as a standard for certainty.

We can be absolutely 100% when we do not know, it is one of the more certain places to place certainty.

The best way to keep the mystery is to discover the mystery, and to be certain that one does not know the mystery, no?

 

Posted by: @hadgigegenraum

The Comment" to The Book of the Law, whose wisdom seems to be that it preserves the necessary mystery of the Book for each person themselves..

Is that what the comment does? I am not sure about that. That prescription would suggest that Thelema cannot possibly carry on a tradition, and perhaps is even unaware what tradition it even has in its possession.

What I see is a very special book, very relevant, even prophetic, and Thelema, being twisted into "meme magick" on 4chan and 8chan message boards, toting KEK white nationalism and justifications for some sort of right wing renaissance into Fascism.

I don't see any "mystery" showing up there, I see only confusion.

Posted by: @hadgigegenraum

all under the cover of dialectic inevitability...

At least if the grid goes down some people will be able to see the skies uncluttered for the first time~

 

What happens when a dialectic, which is just a manner and form of conversing, becomes mathematically and psychologically elegant enough that only one possible outcome can occur, one of mutual resolution?

I look forward to the day when Thelemites enter the new aeon of Maat, and cast off their fears of being "pestilence" into the true freedom of Maat, where continual resolution resets the entire historical mechanism, and win-win distributes itself down to every man, woman, and child.

That is the only real future we have. (win-win)

The other option is global cataclysm. (lose-lose)

No matter how we approach the mystery, history will end in non-duality one way or another.

(I suppose I am exposing myself of being of the belief that Crowley was not only using dialectics, but that the Aeon of Horus and the Aeon of Maat are two sides of the same historical process, with RHK being the Antithesis and Maat the Synthesis. This means Maat was initiated in 1904, right along with the Aeon of Horus)

 

 

"If you have come to help me, then you are wasting your time, but if you are here because your liberation is bound together with mine, then let us work together." Lilla Watson


ReplyQuote
Sanguine Chuck
(@sangewanchuck56)
Member
Joined: 10 months ago
Posts: 468
 

 

I am sorry for the double post here, everyone, truly, I did not see this reply earlier.

 

Posted by: @wellreadwellbred

I am in not interested in AC's so called ( inept ) mathematical proofs, and with respect to what he wrote concerning any number[-s] and his Thelema and his BOTL, I am only interested so far as what any such writing conveys about the meaning of any number[-s], according to him, in the context of his Thelema and his BOTL.

According to Crowley, or according to the actual text of Liber al Vel Legis?

The former can contradict the later, and the later predicts that Crowley cannot know the meaning all.

How do you resolve that?

"If you have come to help me, then you are wasting your time, but if you are here because your liberation is bound together with mine, then let us work together." Lilla Watson


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 6328
 
Posted by: @hadgigegenraum

Dialectics is nothing new, certainly not invented by Hege

  • Dialectic
  •  
    *The art or practice of arriving at the truth by the exchange of logical arguments.
  •  
  • The process especially associated with Hegel of arriving at the truth by stating a thesis, developing a contradictory antithesis, and combining and resolving them into a coherent synthesis.
  • n.
    The Marxian process of change through the conflict of opposing forces, whereby a given contradiction is characterized by a primary and a secondary aspect, the secondary succumbing to the primary, which is then transformed into an aspect of a new contradiction.

ReplyQuote
hadgigegenraum
(@hadgigegenraum)
Member
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 387
 

@sangewanchuck56 

Posted by: @sangewanchuck56

What happens when a dialectic, which is just a manner and form of conversing, becomes mathematically and psychologically elegant enough that only one possible outcome can occur, one of mutual resolution?

 

My answer to this is- danger- when I look at the present situation of controlled dialectics of problem, reaction, solution, to which I note that by my mentioning "The Comment" you went directly towards relating your fears of Thelema to some controlled opposition knuckleheads on 4 chan 8 chan that you deem fascists and to which I would state are just the other side of the same team that is pushing the Critical Race Theory fallacies, all as part of the oligarchy's use of the globalist tech elitists push to push everyone into their own great ReSET of "you will own nothing and be happy" which can be advertised as the great Maatian Kumbaya!

 

 

 


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 6328
 
Posted by: @hadgigegenraum

"you will own nothing and be happy"

Oh?


ReplyQuote
hadgigegenraum
(@hadgigegenraum)
Member
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 387
 

@shiva 

not a voluntary, but stolen and brainwashed...


ReplyQuote
Sanguine Chuck
(@sangewanchuck56)
Member
Joined: 10 months ago
Posts: 468
 

@hadgigegenraum 

We are heading into rich territory. And I do mean $rich.

I want to make sure we are clear about our positions.

I asked

Posted by: @sangewanchuck56

What happens when a dialectic, which is just a manner and form of conversing, becomes mathematically and psychologically elegant enough that only one possible outcome can occur, one of mutual resolution?

And "mutual resolution" means, of course, to the viewpoint of all stakeholders in the discussion. As of now I know of no known cap.

What is wrong with mutual resolution between all stakeholders?

Posted by: @hadgigegenraum

My answer to this is- danger-

Do you mean that you do not trust a conversation that mathematically and psychologically insures mutual resolution, or are you saying that mutual resolution will always insure  "win/lose" outcome with a pyramid top down power hierarchy?

Posted by: @hadgigegenraum

you went directly towards relating your fears of Thelema

Why would I fear Thelema? At this moment in history, Thelema is probably the last thing anyone needs to worry about.

I worry about misinformation and division and dualistic wars between the influencers of various political power channels, national and global. I worry about those magicians, the ones who know how to manipulate and amplify signals of communication.

 
Posted by: @hadgigegenraum

to some controlled opposition knuckleheads on 4 chan 8 chan that you deem fascists and to which I would state are just the other side of the same team that is pushing the Critical Race Theory fallacies,

Well, keeping the "spirit" of the forum and themes of conversation, I'll use the opt metaphor that the "war of the magicians" is a war between the influencers of various power struggles of all society, national and global. Big and Small. Of all ideologies.

But it is magicians, plural. Divided.

Also, confused.

There dialectics don't really work, if they did, there would not be so much division.

 

Posted by: @hadgigegenraum

all as part of the oligarchy's use of the globalist tech elitists push to push everyone into their own great ReSET of "you will own nothing and be happy" which can be advertised as the great Maatian Kumbaya!

First, you know i love your writing, but your fired from playing "DJ" at the celebration at the end of history 🙂

Second, Oligarchs go to war with each other too, you know.

Do you actually think there is a united front of Rich White Guys?

Division affects the whole system when the whole system is divided.

99% versus 1% is just another duality

The whole system is 100%

No one is having a "whole system" conversation, just a bunch of power struggles recapitulating through media, and through history.

It doesnt matter how many power struggles are happening, the fact is all of these power struggles are out of date.

The very true fact that there really is a "new aeon" that has occurred, and that is the era of the anthropocene.

For the first time in history, world energy resources can be harnessed in such a way that every single human being can have access to billionaire levels of wealth, can have access to not just a life of security and stability, but a life of pure bliss and discovery.

We have the technology, science, know - how, resources, to have such a global infrastructure.

This is just a fact. And this is all known technology and knowledge that is all in the mainstream, I am not making an appeals to zero energy device machines or fantastic technologies, but technologies we have for at least 40 year.

Tech is not the problem.

There just is no current political will for such a thing, and there is no way to monetize such a thing, so such a thing does not exist.

There is zero incentive for any politician to work with other politicians across political divides, and there is, currently, zero environment that could even manage or engineer such a conversation.

The facts are on the side of global non-dual consensus building if, and only if, personalized or localized power structures can't influence the conversation with linguistic manipulation.

And that is what is coming next.

Decentralized mutually resolving consensus building, at scale.

"Billionaire Wealth" for every one is a much better selling point that capitalism, communism, socialism and all other isms.

All sides want to win at the end of the day.

Smaller conversations around win or lose will quickly be rushed away from influence, into the dust bins of history.

Homeostasis of resources through continually rising income and reward monopolies where all players win will be the final close of history.

Consider; if there are no more warring nation states, if there is no more rise and fall of dualistic power struggles, is there history at all any more?

"The rich shall be rich still, the poor shall also be rich."

"If you have come to help me, then you are wasting your time, but if you are here because your liberation is bound together with mine, then let us work together." Lilla Watson


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 6328
 
Posted by: @hadgigegenraum

not a voluntary, but stolen and brainwashed...

Oh, yes, I get that part (those parts). My "Oh?" was an "Oh, yeah?" I am told (by people, not the angels) that there are two timelines running. Many timelines, but two are dancing with each ther now. I believe Liber AL deals with this in Ch 3, and it appears to be biased in favor of the Kings over the Low Men. The paradigm you present is the Low Men's version (Prison Planet. I think we're supposed to chop them up or down.

 


ReplyQuote
Sanguine Chuck
(@sangewanchuck56)
Member
Joined: 10 months ago
Posts: 468
 
Posted by: @shiva

Many timelines, but two are dancing with each ther now.

Interesting, there is another view of this, "two" forces that come to battle it out, neck and neck, to the very end of history, and the entire way, it can appear that either side can "lose" at any time.

Who are these "two"?

One set of folks is a set of folks who tend to apply mutually resolving solutions, of any kind. Folks who are thinking "whole system" dynamics in the management and distribution of resources.

The other set of folks are, predictably even, trying to apply the opposite, who tend to apply forces of "localization" or any form of "my side wins, other side loses" as strategies to manage resources.

Game Theory, that ever so fun and illuminating branch of mathematics, psychology, finance and political science shows, even predicts, how all of these strategies play out.

If anyone would like to see themselves, even walk through the proof?

ncase.me

The great thing that Game Theory shows us, and which can be applied to any and all human social groups, from secret societies to corporations to religions to universities to street gangs.

"Non zero sum" games are "harder" to design, meaning those who are focused on increasing their intelligence enough so they can solve problems are able to work and design Non Zero Sum environments and outcomes.

Those who do not understand the underlying equanimity of Non Zero Sum, are forced to apply and play "zero sum" games.

If there are two conspiracies "running the world", it would be this.

There is a global conspiracy to get people smarter and apply non zero sum designs and solutions. I'm going to call this group "The Smart Illuminati"

There is a global conspiracy of less smarter people trying to apply the clunky and self defeating "zero sum" games. I am going to call this group "The Dumb Illuminati."

Non Zero Sum = Non- Duality

Zero Sum = Duality

Evolution always favors intelligence 🙂

(Leary taught me that)

Posted by: @shiva

I believe Liber AL deals with this in Ch 3

I think so too! I read all of Ch3 as the dynamics of Chp 1 and 2 playing out over history, beginning with the 20th Century and splashing the heels of the 21st as we speak.

"If you have come to help me, then you are wasting your time, but if you are here because your liberation is bound together with mine, then let us work together." Lilla Watson


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1163
 

(Bold added to quoted text for the sake of emphasis:)

Sanguine Chuck: "How do you resolve that?"

Easily, by ultimately only for myself, deciding "All questions of the Law", "by appeal to" AC's "writings"

As I have already stated in my posting in this thread dated "15/06/2021 11:17 am":

I am only interested in "... what he [= AC] wrote concerning any number[-s] and his Thelema and his BOTL, [and] "... the meaning of any number[-s], according to him, in the context of his Thelema and his BOTL."


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 6328
 
Posted by: @wellreadwellbred

Easily, by ultimately only for myself, deciding "All questions of the Law", "by appeal to" AC's "writings"

How sad. You decide by yourself, for yourself, perhaps referencing some of Ankh's papyri or Libers ... when there are other proponents who want to explain it AL to you. 


ReplyQuote
Sanguine Chuck
(@sangewanchuck56)
Member
Joined: 10 months ago
Posts: 468
 
Posted by: @wellreadwellbred

Easily, by ultimately only for myself, deciding "All questions of the Law", "by appeal to" AC's "writings"

Okay, but my question was how do you resolve contradictions in the text between AC and Aiwass?

Your answer is the same as saying "in my mind!" and of course you do the work for yourself, just like I do or anyone else, but surely you have to make choices when you arrive at contradictions, and I am simply asking what choices do you make when you encounter contradictions.

See, my rule is the same as yours, that is why I ask.

My rules are;

  • I only follow the instructions in the text, as I understand them.
  • I understand that I may make mistakes, therefore I test what I understand against language in the text, only. 
  • If I find a contradiction that I cannot resolve, then i discard my understanding.
  • If my understanding resolves a contradiction, I continue.
  • If the answer is not clear, I only consult the writings of Crowley, and as little as possible.
  • I don't introduce any personal wishes or introduce any personal concepts or take any steps outside of the first three rules, unless, and only if, the text instructs me otherwise.
Posted by: @shiva

You decide by yourself, for yourself, perhaps referencing some of Ankh's papyri or Libers ... when there are other proponents who want to explain it AL to you. 

Are these kind of "defensive" responses an actual wise position of an experienced practitioner, or are they expressing some other kind of psychology?

Are you two nurturing any bruised libertarian ideals that you feel someone else sharing on a message board is threatening or something?

I'm not aware of either of yours political positions, and they are not relevant anyway, but I will say that I am sure you have been paying attention, and there have been some very influential Thelemites whose names I will not mention who believe that 2016 and Trump was a fulfillment of Chp3 of Liber al Vel Legis.

Gee, it would have been great to know this whole time what their private thoughts were about the meaning of the "religion" they were spreading in the world.

There are people in this world that, in their minds, they practice magick to bring chaos about.

I think being vocal about Liber al Vel Legis, sharing what wisdom we discover in it, especially its profound non-dual historical message, is necessary right now because "fears of being centers of pestilence" can also be weaponized to suppress the free exchange of ideas in good faith and while simultaneously give birth to utterly horrible political viral marketing we've seen the past 6 or so years.

Right now here in the US, a significant number of the population believes the US election was a fraud, and that Trump is their rightful president, and their minds have been weaponized with some of the worst psychology anyone could ever imagine.

Consider the historical conversation at this moment, where Qanon has more influence than Crowley, Leary, Wilson could ever imagine.

I think Liber al Vel Legis can be the medicine, not the poison.

Obviously, it was poison to some whose names I shall not mention.

Is the source of this "fear of discussing Liber al Vel Legis" the comment?

The Comment's first statement is

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

And ends with

"There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt."

Everything in between is a contradiction to that law, as written, by the prophet.

The prophet wrote the law, and wrote a contradiction to that law (forbidding not to do something, commanding to do something else, manipulating group think social shunning, these are all classic dark social psychology traits found in every institution Crowley and Liber al Vel Legis condemns.)

The comment section is a test of your ability to think for yourself.

If you think for yourself,  you understand the paralanguage of the comment.

If you think by authority, you shun you friends if they bring up Liber al vel Legis and act like any other religion, by authority.

 

 

 

"If you have come to help me, then you are wasting your time, but if you are here because your liberation is bound together with mine, then let us work together." Lilla Watson


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 6328
 
Posted by: @wellreadwellbred

I am only interested in ...

Say, Well, did you notice we are feeling threatened?  You better be interested in properly defending yourself now that Hegel, Maths, and Numbers have been set aside in favor of the psychological octagon. Some folks don't know that absolutely nobody around here takes this sort of thing seriously. If you (anyone) feel these rambling threads have merit, please sound off. Some folks don't know that any dialog or trialog is happening only because we don't have anything better to do (except for david/dom who has something better to do right now). I have noticed nothing new, interesting, practical, or even abstractly interesting. Essentially, some threads are turning into Borgs Blogs.


ReplyQuote
Sanguine Chuck
(@sangewanchuck56)
Member
Joined: 10 months ago
Posts: 468
 
Posted by: @shiva

Say, Well, did you notice we are feeling threatened

When people act defensively, it usually means because they feel threatened.

enlighten me otherwise, please.

 

"If you have come to help me, then you are wasting your time, but if you are here because your liberation is bound together with mine, then let us work together." Lilla Watson


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1163
 

[Underlining used by me for emphasis:]

In this thread I have already stated that Aleister Crowley's The Book of the Law represents "... a pantehism according to which "there is no other God" than individual selfhood (called Hadit), and an infinite Absolute (called Nuit), which contains any instance of said individual selfhood."

( source: https://www.lashtal.com/forums/thelema/hegel-and-thelema/paged/2/#post-117314 )

This pantheism does also include what that in Aleister Crowley's The Book of the Law is called Ra-Hoor-Khuit. The latter is in his book Magick in Theory and Practice, explained as: "One conjunction of these infinites [ = Hadit and Nuit] [...] a Unity which includes and heads all things." In his book Magick in Theory and Practice, Nuit is described as "Infinite space", and Hadit is described as "... the infinitely small and atomic yet omnipresent point is called Hadit."

 

"The union of the Hadit principle, the individual monad's experience (i.e., the individual) with the boundless potentiality of infinite space—the principle of Nuit—is an act of “Love under will.” Upon the embrace of this union, the apparent separateness, the illusion of division between “self” and “other,” is dissolved in ecstasy. In other words, the dyad reduces to zero in [...] [a] [...] mathematical equation that Crowley expresses as “0=2,” or (+1) + (−1) = 0 (i.e., two opposites combine and nullify one another). [62]

[62] See Crowley (1906) “Berashith: An Essay on Ontology” in The Collected Works of Aleister Crowley, Vol. II (Des Plaines: Yogi Publication Society), 233–243. Also, Crowley (1986) “0=2” in Magick Without Tears (Tempe: New Falcon Publications), 52–63."

( Source: Keith Readdy's book, One Truth and One Spirit: Aleister Crowley's Spiritual Legacy, Ibis Press 2018, page 41 and 42 - - - https://books.google.no/books?id=1nBYDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA41&lpg=PA41&dq=%22Crowley+further+explains+in+Magick+in+Theory+and+Practice,+%E2%80%9CInfinite+space+is%22&source=bl&ots=mOcR1HtiRA&sig=ACfU3U35VrIaQZCvOSHpQVH_rpLfxvZzNA&hl=no&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwib8qHUsMvxAhVlmIsKHS8VA7gQ6AEwAHoECAIQAw#v=onepage&q=%22Crowley%20further%20explains%20in%20Magick%20in%20Theory%20and%20Practice%2C%20%E2%80%9CInfinite%20space%20is%22&f=false  )


ReplyQuote
Page 2 / 2
Share: