the ending of the word  

Page 1 / 2
  RSS

 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
01/12/2007 3:28 pm  

The ending of the woed-the magick of aleister crowley, release 2007. Spotted this on amazon, anyone know anything about this book???


Quote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 5305
01/12/2007 4:48 pm  

http://www.amazon.com/Ending-Words-Magical-Philosophy-Aleister/dp/1847536050/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196527505&sr=8-9

$65.50 for a 128-page Lulu paperback: "First Edition (8.5"x11", 128 pages, full colour). With the dark glamour of symbolism that has been used by mystical and magical cults since the firelight first danced on the walls of Plato's cave, "The Ending of the Words" puts the thought and philosophy of the magician Aleister Crowley through the lens of research and practical experiment. It presents Thelema, the Law of the New Aeon as declared by Crowley, to a modern readership."

According to his Lulu page, "Oliver St. John was born in London, in 1956. After receiving formal training in the Hermetic Art in W.E. Butler's Servants of the Light, an offshoot of the Dion Fortune organisation, Fraternity of the inner Light, St. John joined Kenneth Grant's Typhonian Ordo Templi Orientis. St. John is the founder of the Thelemic college, Ordo Astri." Apparently, he can be contacted at art@starofnuit.org

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3756
01/12/2007 5:07 pm  

Oliver St. John has a truly excellent short story - 'The Stone of Stars' - appearing in the forthcoming issue of Starfire.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
01/12/2007 5:23 pm  

If the book seems a bit steeply priced, but you're still curious, it can be downloaded for a catchy £6.66 here.

http://www.lulu.com/content/888358


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
02/12/2007 2:50 am  

Do What Thou Wilt.

From reading the preview it seems he takes a Maat-ian stance: i.e. Horus is somehow completed by Maat (something never said by Crowley and certainly not in Liber AL!) He identifies Hrumachis erroneously with Maat as well on ~p.2...

He makes an supportable assertion abotu soul & body in Liber AL on ~pg.4

Aside from these errors of research/judgment, the topic seems quite needed and interesting!


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3756
02/12/2007 9:55 am  
"bibs_mcgee" wrote:
. . . (something never said by Crowley and certainly not in Liber AL!)

How horrific, that he should say something unsupported by Crowley.

😯


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
02/12/2007 12:52 pm  

Horrific indeed... This sort of individual probably also possesses a teddy bear named Aleister, just to infuriate true followers such as us.

I'm getting my faggots stoked up... 👿


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 1134
02/12/2007 1:16 pm  

It seems to me that bibs_mcgee is merely saying that the authors are making an assertion about Thelema that they don't properly justify (regardless of who or what might help justify it).

I don't think the sarcasm is really very fair, nor is it pleasant to see you both jumping up like this against someone who has mixed feelings about the publishing efforts of two of your brethren. However, I'm sure it's just a coincidence; and you are, of course, welcome to put forward your own view of the book.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3756
02/12/2007 1:33 pm  

93 Ian,

I think you're taking the comments by Alistair and I just a little bit too seriously. They were clearly tongue-in-cheek, I would have thought; after all, the use of the shock smilie is hardly indicative of weighty criticism nor of venemous intent.

My apologies to bibs_mcgee if he is devastated by my remarks, but I doubt it somehow.

93 93 / 93


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3756
02/12/2007 2:28 pm  
"bibs_mcgee" wrote:
From reading the preview it seems he takes a Maat-ian stance: i.e. Horus is somehow completed by Maat (something never said by Crowley and certainly not in Liber AL!) He identifies Hrumachis erroneously with Maat as well on ~p.2...

I wouldn't go along with you on that. Although agreeing with you that that there is nothing in Crowley's works which states that "Horus is somehow completed by Maat", the following from the Old Comment to AL.I.34 is of interest:

"Crowley" wrote:
His formula [Horus] is not yet fully understood.

Following him will arise the Equinox of Ma, the Goddess of Justice, it may be a hundred or ten thousand years from now; for the Computation of Time is not here as There.

It's clear to me that Crowley was here identifying Ma with Hrumachis. That this Ma is Maat is made clear in the description in The Book of Thoth of Atu VIII, Adjustment:

"Crowley" wrote:
The figure is that of a young and slender woman poised exactly upon toetip. She is crowned with the ostrich plumes of Maat, the Egyptian goddess of Justice . . .

And later in the same passage:

"Crowley" wrote:
She is the goddess Maat; she bears upon her nemyss the ostrich feathers of the Twofold Truth.

So the identification of Hrumachis with Maat seems well-founded.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
02/12/2007 3:11 pm  

Do What Thou Wilt.

"MichaelStaley" wrote:
"bibs_mcgee" wrote:
From reading the preview it seems he takes a Maat-ian stance: i.e. Horus is somehow completed by Maat (something never said by Crowley and certainly not in Liber AL!) He identifies Hrumachis erroneously with Maat as well on ~p.2...

I wouldn't go along with you on that. Although agreeing with you that that there is nothing in Crowley's works which states that "Horus is somehow completed by Maat", the following from the Old Comment to AL.I.34 is of interest:

"Crowley" wrote:
His formula [Horus] is not yet fully understood.

Following him will arise the Equinox of Ma, the Goddess of Justice, it may be a hundred or ten thousand years from now; for the Computation of Time is not here as There.

It's clear to me that Crowley was here identifying Ma with Hrumachis. That this Ma is Maat is made clear in the description in The Book of Thoth of Atu VIII, Adjustment:

"Crowley" wrote:
The figure is that of a young and slender woman poised exactly upon toetip. She is crowned with the ostrich plumes of Maat, the Egyptian goddess of Justice . . .

If you were to read closely and not take the quotes out of context (sorry, but you are!), you would read:

"Hrumachis is the Dawning Sun; he therefore symbolizes any new course of events. The "double-wanded one" is "Thmaist of dual form as Thmais and Thmait", from whom the Greeks derived their Themis, goddess of Justice."

Hrumachis = Dawning Sun. Liber AL goes on to describe ANOTHER figure, i.e. "and the-double wanded one..." etc. Hrumachis represents the new course of events, and the God of Justice represents the new event.

It seems pretty clear that Maat, or Thmaist is NOT a completion of Horus but rather the "next" Aeon. How can the Aeon of Horus start and then 50 years later, Maat comes in? The Aeon has not even begun (relatively) to take hold... The point is that after this Equinox (which Crowley consistently insisted was about 2000 years, correct?) The fact that Maat is the Next Aeon is NOT the position taken here (or by Nema); it is ratehr that Maat somehow "completes" Horus as is Horus himself was not complete (even though he quite explicitly is a complete symbol: he contains all opposites in himself as per the 1st Aethyr of Vision & the Voice).

And later in the same passage:

"Crowley" wrote:
She is the goddess Maat; she bears upon her nemyss the ostrich feathers of the Twofold Truth.

So the identification of Hrumachis with Maat seems well-founded.

It seems, rather, unfortunately conflated. Hrumachis symbolizes any new change of events, therefore Hrumachis coudl be said to have arisen in 1904 as well when THIS double-wanded one ("The Wand of Double Power"), Horus/Ra Hoor Khuit, arose for THIS Aeon.

The real point is that there is a difference between saying that Maat is the completion of Horus (which presupposes that Horus is un-balanced and un-completed!) and that Maat will rule the next Equinox when Horus is entirely gone.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
02/12/2007 3:43 pm  

This wasn't a synchronised assault Ian, regardless of how it appeared from your end. I in fact only read the opening post and then skimmed down to Staley's comment and augmented it in a way which I found amusing. My first coffee of the day had just kicked in so I was full of mirth and laughter. My fingers were roving all over the place.

I haven't actually yet read this work but look forward to it. Amidst the pile of AC biographies that are available, a focus on contemporary Thelemic philosophy and magic is sorely needed.

Dear Bibs, I'm not so up on things Maatian, but the idea of (Thelemic) Aeons being coterminous and interdependent with each other, conceived in more of a spatial rather than purely temporal dimension, is a perspective that has been evolving since the 1970's. It's best not to confuse too much the 'deity' representing the Aeon with the new mode of consciousness it somewhat arbitrarily signifies, as a conceptual device.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3756
02/12/2007 4:07 pm  

I wonder, bibs_mcgee, if you might engage with the views I have expressed, rather than those you impute to me?

"bibs_mcgee" wrote:
. . .(which Crowley consistently insisted was about 2000 years, correct?). . .

Err, no. Take another look at that quote from the Old Comment:

"Crowley" wrote:
. . .it may be a hundred or ten thousand years from now; for the Computation of Time is not here as There.

Elsewhere (I don't recall exactly where) Crowley spoke of the possibility of the Aeon of Horus collapsing after a few hundred years if certain preparatory work was not done.

So no, your assertion that Crowley "consistently insisted" that the span of an Aeon was "about 2000 years, correct?" is incorrect.

"bibs_mcgee" wrote:
It seems pretty clear that Maat, or Thmaist is NOT a completion of Horus but rather the "next" Aeon.

I didn't maintain that the Aeon of Maat was a completion of the Aeon of Horus. I was merely responding to your inaccurate remark that nowhere did Crowley identify Hrumachis with Maat. I don't recall mentioning Nema at all, nor asserting that Maat was the completion of Horus.

Clearly I'm not the only one here who is not reading closely . . .


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
02/12/2007 5:18 pm  

Do What Thou Wilt!

Though I sense a certain amount of unnecessary indignance in your replies (in that I questioned how closely you read the commentaries, as one example) I will still attempt a reply:

"MichaelStaley" wrote:
I

"bibs_mcgee" wrote:
. . .(which Crowley consistently insisted was about 2000 years, correct?). . .

Err, no. Take another look at that quote from the Old Comment:

"Crowley" wrote:
. . .it may be a hundred or ten thousand years from now; for the Computation of Time is not here as There.

Elsewhere (I don't recall exactly where) Crowley spoke of the possibility of the Aeon of Horus collapsing after a few hundred years if certain preparatory work was not done.

He writes in the introduction to Liber AL: "It explains that certain vast 'stars' ( or aggregates of experience ) may be described as Gods. One of these is in charge of the destinies of this planet for periods of 2,000 years. (The moment of change from one period to another is technically called The Equinox of the Gods.) In the history of the world, as far as we know accurately, are three such Gods: Isis, the mother when the Universe was conceived as simple nourishment drawn directly from her; this period is marked by matriarchical government."

So no, your assertion that Crowley "consistently insisted" that the span of an Aeon was "about 2000 years, correct?" is incorrect.

Indeed - perhaps consistent was not the correct word as there is one instance where he says "Time is not here as There" but contradicts this quite plainly when saying each Aeon is 2000 years.

Further, in Magick Without Tears, he writes:

a) "Accordingly, it stands to reason that those charged with the conduct of the Order should be at least Masters of the Temple, or their judgment would be worthless, and at least Magi (though not that particular kind of Magus who brings the Word of a New Formula to the world every 2,000 years of so) or they would be unable to influence events on any scale commensurate with the scope of the Work. -ch.9

&

b) "these titles may be assumed to refer to any one who happens to hold either of those offices during the whole period of the Aeon—approximately 2000 years." -ch. 48

Perhaps these 3 quite clear instances is why I said he "consistently" insisted an Aeon is approximately 2000 years.

"bibs_mcgee" wrote:
It seems pretty clear that Maat, or Thmaist is NOT a completion of Horus but rather the "next" Aeon.

I didn't maintain that the Aeon of Maat was a completion of the Aeon of Horus. I was merely responding to your inaccurate remark that nowhere did Crowley identify Hrumachis with Maat. I don't recall mentioning Nema at all, nor asserting that Maat was the completion of Horus.

Sure, and I am telling you that Hrumachis is not Maat - then I went on to say that not only is Hrumachis not Maat but Maat is not the 'completion' of Horus but the successor.

Clearly I'm not the only one here who is not reading closely . . .

There are two points that I made, one in relation to your comments, one that is an extension thereof. The former is that Hrumachis does not equal Maat (I wrote: "Hrumachis = Dawning Sun. Liber AL goes on to describe ANOTHER figure, i.e. "and the-double wanded one..." etc. Hrumachis represents the new course of events, and the God of Justice represents the new event."). Secondly it is that Maat, if anything, is the next Aeon and not a completion of this one (I wrote: "there is a difference between saying that Maat is the completion of Horus ... and that Maat will rule the next Equinox when Horus is entirely gone.")


ReplyQuote
Palamedes
(@palamedes)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 452
02/12/2007 5:51 pm  

It seems to me - correct me if I am wrong - that everybody here is referring to the Aeon of Maat without distinguishing clearly (emphasis on clearly) between exoteric and esoteric understanding of the concept. If by the advent of the Aeon of Maat is meant a spiritual experience of harmony that a person may achieve, then it clearly may happen - for that person - at any time. If however the reference is made to the state of humanity OUT THERE - and this seems to me as Crowley's intended meaning - one should only spend 15 minutes watching news in order to realize that this is NOT the age of peace and harmony but the time of war and vengeance.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3756
02/12/2007 5:59 pm  
"bibs_mcgee" wrote:
Secondly it is that Maat, if anything, is the next Aeon and not a completion of this one (I wrote: "there is a difference between saying that Maat is the completion of Horus ... and that Maat will rule the next Equinox when Horus is entirely gone.")

I'm fast losing the will to live. Just how many times do I have to reiterate that I never suggested that Maat is the completion of Horus?

🙄


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
02/12/2007 8:12 pm  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
"bibs_mcgee" wrote:
Secondly it is that Maat, if anything, is the next Aeon and not a completion of this one (I wrote: "there is a difference between saying that Maat is the completion of Horus ... and that Maat will rule the next Equinox when Horus is entirely gone.")

I'm fast losing the will to live. Just how many times do I have to reiterate that I never suggested that Maat is the completion of Horus?

🙄

Do What Thou Wilt, Mr. Michael Staley!

I see that my sensing of indignance was right... but oh well, I dont care!

In relation to this same sentiment I wrote to you in my post above: "Sure, and I am telling you that Hrumachis is not Maat - then I went on to say that not only is Hrumachis not Maat but Maat is not the 'completion' of Horus but the successor."

I actually went on to repeat myself to make sure you understood me (and you did not), and I said: "There are two points that I made, one in relation to your comments, one that is an extension thereof. "

Im not sure how much clearer one can be! There is no need for your rolling of emoticon eyes nor is there need to be exasperated. The fact that your will to live hinges on your lack of ability to see you don't need to explain yourself is quite frightening to me!


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
02/12/2007 10:28 pm  

It is puzzling that Staley would be misunderstood in this instance. Read his original comment again, he is making an identification of Hrumachis and Maat based on a few quotes. Not that one completes the other.

I never thought of him as taking a stance of 'taking up' for the author of this book and his conclusions. However, it is interesting that Crowley is more consistent in subscribing the period of 2000 years so much more overwhelmingly than otherwise.

Also, read III:34 carefully(I will bold the important distinctions, and also notice what I underline and how the use of Hrumachis could be used to signify the dawning sun rather than the actual one who assumes the throne):

"But your holy place shall be untouched throughout the centuries: though with fire and sword it be burnt down & shattered, yet an invisible house there standeth, and shall stand until the fall of the Great Equinox; when Hrumachis shall arise and the double-wanded one assume my throne and place. Another prophet shall arise, and bring fresh fever from the skies; another woman shall awake the lust & worship of the Snake; another soul of God and beast shall mingle in the globed priest; another sacrifice shall stain the tomb; another king shall reign; and blessing no longer be poured To the Hawk-headed mystical Lord!"


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
03/12/2007 1:42 am  
"KCh" wrote:
It is puzzling that Staley would be misunderstood in this instance. Read his original comment again, he is making an identification of Hrumachis and Maat based on a few quotes. Not that one completes the other.

I recognize that hes not doing it. I am saying Hrumachis is NOT Maat, nor is Maat the completion of Horus. BTW dont expect me to respond anymore - LAShTAL (Paul) bans me on sight because he does not enjoy these ideas apparently.

I never thought of him as taking a stance of 'taking up' for the author of this book and his conclusions. However, it is interesting that Crowley is more consistent in subscribing the period of 2000 years so much more overwhelmingly than otherwise.

Yes, thats why I said it was 'consistent.'

Also, read III:34 carefully(I will bold the important distinctions, and also notice what I underline and how the use of Hrumachis could be used to signify the dawning sun rather than the actual one who assumes the throne):

Exactly - this is my point. He is the dawning of the sun before someone arises: Thmaist. Hrumachis arose in 1904 too technically.

"But your holy place shall be untouched throughout the centuries: though with fire and sword it be burnt down & shattered, yet an invisible house there standeth, and shall stand until the fall of the Great Equinox; when Hrumachis shall arise and the double-wanded one assume my throne and place. Another prophet shall arise, and bring fresh fever from the skies; another woman shall awake the lust & worship of the Snake; another soul of God and beast shall mingle in the globed priest; another sacrifice shall stain the tomb; another king shall reign; and blessing no longer be poured To the Hawk-headed mystical Lord!"

Right. Maat is not equal to Hrumachis, but it says Hrumachis AND (not Maat but) Thmaist (but I will allow the discrepancy since they are both Gods of Justice and such, even though it doesnt mention "Justice" or "Maat" anywhere in that line). Its not saying Hrumachis is Thmaist, its saying they are together perhaps but not the same thing. Thats my point. I made a further point saying theres little justification (beyond Acahd & Nema) for saying the Maat aeon is already here (aside from other considerations like the poster above mentioned about war and such).

Anyways, farewell. 93.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
03/12/2007 1:48 am  

Not to be too pestilential here, but..

If Hrumachis is the same as the Greek "Harmachis" (or Heru-em-makht, Horus of the Horizon), then it seems pretty close to the idea of Ra-Hoor-Khuit (Heru-Khuti, Horus of the two horizons).

Hrumachis shall arise and the double-wanded one assume my throne and place.

My interpretation:

In 1904, Osiris "gets up" from the Throne of the East, and Horus sits down. 2000 years hence, Horus will get up from the Throne (i.e., "Hrumachis shall arise") and Maat will sit down to start her reign.

Many people seem to interpret the key word "arise" as "arrive," but I think it essentially means "depart!" 🙂

And welcome back, Frater Victus. I hope you can stay for a while.

EDIT: Geez, I guess not. I know this isn't a democracy, but I for one do enjoy Aum418's posts, even if I disagree with some of what he has to say.

Steve


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 5305
03/12/2007 2:14 am  
"Disingenuous@" wrote:
LAShTAL (Paul) bans me on sight because he does not enjoy these ideas apparently.

I have no opinion about your voluminous observations and comments and I don't ban you on sight. You were banned from the site for reasons that were made clear some time ago: since that time you've used numerous usernames, but you - the anonymous individual - remain banned.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
03/12/2007 5:14 pm  

93 all.

Where in Liber Al does it state that the Aeon of Horis will last a specified period of time? Crowley may have thought so, but then according to 777 (snipped):

"The Spider is particularly sacred to Tiphereth. She has six legs.

93 93/93

Steve W


ReplyQuote
spike418
(@spike418)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 214
03/12/2007 5:48 pm  
"sethur666" wrote:
93 all.

Where in Liber Al does it state that the Aeon of Horis will last a specified period of time? Crowley may have thought so, but then according to 777 (snipped):

"The Spider is particularly sacred to Tiphereth. She has six legs.

93 93/93

Steve W

Thelema Steve

Many thanks for this ! I don't think you will ever appreciate just how timely your posting was to me 😆

Its enabled me to tie together a couple of "loose ends" that have been dangling in the cosmic winds for some months now.......

Right am off to my temple now to call the spiders up/in/out and continue the experiment.......

ALWays (with thanks)

Spike


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
03/12/2007 6:08 pm  

While the magical "aeons" are to be differentiated from astrological ones (according to some) it is nevertheless evident that there does or should exist a relationship between them. The 2000 marker period is, in my mind, based on the inception/fall of Christianity and since magical/gnostic/theosophical, etc. tradition teaches the law of periodic change it's supposed to seem reasonable that the aeons preceding and proceeding the Aeon of Osiris should themselves consist of roughly 2000 yrs. Going back to the magical aeon vs astrological aeon dilemma I think it should be noted that while the latter is fixed and immutable the former seems to have the potential to manifest sporadically and perhaps it's "life" may last as long as it takes in order for it's Will to be carried out.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
18/01/2011 11:29 am  

My book, "The Ending of the Words - Magical Philosophy of Aleister Crowley", is effectively a new commentary on Liber AL (or L) vel Legis. I would concede that the title could be somewhat misleading, therefore. If I were to have been publishing it now, I might call it "Magical Book of..." or something like that. However, it was never intended to reflect the views of Aleister Crowley - who was more than capable of doing that for himself. Any biographical content is strictly limited to an account, in my Introduction to the book, of the reception of the transmission of Liber AL by Aleister and Rose Crowley.

With the subject of magical and precessional Aeons, I never found Crowley's explanation of the "three Aeons of Isis, Osiris and Horus" to be in any way satisfactory. This scheme is only mentioned briefly in my book, before being dismissed. Much more space is given to the Aeon of Hormaku or Hrumachis that is mentioned in Liber AL.

While I was much gratified to find this post and to see that my work has inspired some intelligent (if somewhat heated!) discussion, I would like to clarify some inaccuracies:

The title of my book, first published 2007, is "The Ending of the Words - Magical Philosophy of Aleister Crowley". The price mentioned, in US dollars, only applies to the edition with full colour illustrations. It should not be more than about 50 dollars US at the current exchange rate; I fixed the retail price at £31 Stirling. The black and white edition of the book is retailed at £14.99, that's about 25 US dollars currently. There is usually a discount when this book is ordered direct from Lulu. Sellers on Amazon, however, can charge whatever they like! And they do... The book is now in its 3rd Edition and the illustrations, cover art etc. are much improved. It is certainly not overpriced.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
18/01/2011 7:49 pm  

This was a good little thread in its time, as it demonstrated relatively concisely Crowley's aeonics theory and how some few would seek to contradict that theory supported (in part) by two brief statements from AC himself, one an abstract quip concerning the relativity of time in the Magical Universe and another a doubt-ridden note on the possible failure of his efforts as Magus, certain misinterpretations of verses from Liber AL - plus a pile of stuff written by others, mostly related to post-AL visions and voices of their own - in an effort to circumvent AC, Liber AL and the Aeon of Horus for their own ends, ends which are often summarized as "Thelema Beyond Crowley."

I have my own problems with the uneven nature of AC's aeonics vs actual historical patterns, but I tend to see the aeonic trinity to date in terms of polytheism-monotheism-Thelema, regardless of timeframe, so I don't fret too much over it.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
22/01/2011 4:04 am  

🙄

Yes, Thelema begins and ends with Aleister Crowley, I agree.

The same way that evolution began and ended with Charles Darwin.


ReplyQuote
Patriarch156
(@patriarch156)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 486
22/01/2011 9:18 am  
"Noctifer" wrote:
🙄

Yes, Thelema begins and ends with Aleister Crowley, I agree.

The same way that evolution began and ended with Charles Darwin.

I would be interested in knowing who made such a assertion and quotes demonstrating such a serious accusation? Otherwise it is just a demonstration of straw-man and have more to do with your own insecurities than the one you project these ideas into.

The only thing I have seen here is an attempt at demonstrating that one can't really (if read carefully and in context) use Crowley as an source of authority for claiming heterodox ideas about his Aeonic procession of world history. While you might disagree with the notion that this attempt was successfull, doing such a thing is a far cry from declaring that Thelema begins and ends with Aleister Crowley.

In fact, considering that those that advanced such heterodox ideas were the ones bringing in Crowley as a source of authority for their own heterodox ideas in the first place, by quoting him, taking them to task over such quotations is an entirely valid part of this discourse as it focus on the argument rather than the person. It is a legitimate expression of disagreement in an entirely civil form adhering to the rules of rational discourse.

In the future, please go after the ball rather than the person when someone has the nerve to express views you find calls your own into question and I think you will soon find discussion to be much more pleasant and we will all find that we will learn a little bit more as well about the strengths or weaknesses of arguments rather than the perceived flaws of your adverseraries and that you harbor an need to call attention to these.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
22/01/2011 9:39 am  
"Noctifer" wrote:
🙄

Yes, Thelema begins and ends with Aleister Crowley, I agree.

The same way that evolution began and ended with Charles Darwin.

It won't surprise you to learn that I've heard this snide shit a number of times before, but I always reply simply that if it weren't for Crowley we wouldn't be discussing the Word of the Law, Thelema, today - hardly anyone would be discussing the word at all. The antecedents would be fading even more quickly into oblivion than they already are and 'those who came after' AC would be much less than they are for never having known of him.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 5305
22/01/2011 2:18 pm  

Meanwhile, back to the thread…

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3756
22/01/2011 8:18 pm  
"Camlion" wrote:
This was a good little thread in its time, as it demonstrated relatively concisely Crowley's aeonics theory and how some few would seek to contradict that theory supported (in part) by two brief statements from AC himself, one an abstract quip concerning the relativity of time in the Magical Universe and another a doubt-ridden note on the possible failure of his efforts as Magus, certain misinterpretations of verses from Liber AL - plus a pile of stuff written by others, mostly related to post-AL visions and voices of their own - in an effort to circumvent AC, Liber AL and the Aeon of Horus for their own ends, ends which are often summarized as "Thelema Beyond Crowley."

Crowley was syncretic, taking a great deal of interest in comparative religion, mythology, and other spiritual paths. His considerable body of work is consequently not a closed system, but owes a lot to the background of magic, mysticism, religion and mythology from which it emerged. Where I come across resonances in Crowley's work to other traditions in which I have a particular interest, then I take particular notice. I'm not saying that my interpretation of Crowey is the correct one, but simply that I find it of considerable interest. You don't; that's fine by me. If your dark reference to people who are trying to "circumvent AC, Liber AL and the Aeon of Horus" is a reference to me, then you are incorrect; I cannot recall suggesting such a thing.

"Thelema Beyond Crowley" seems anathema to you. As a matter of fact we've had "Thelema Beyond Crowley" ever since 1st December 1947, unless you think that he is orchestrating things from beyond the grave. Even whilst Crowley was alive it was still "Thelema Beyond Crowley" because, however fertile the soil in which it was subsequently earthed, the inspiring current of Thelema came from Aiwass, and thus from beyond Crowley.

"Camlion" wrote:
I have my own problems with the uneven nature of AC's aeonics vs actual historical patterns, but I tend to see the aeonic trinity to date in terms of polytheism-monotheism-Thelema, regardless of timeframe, so I don't fret too much over it.

Since you mention Crowley's aeonics, I'll express my opinion that compared to something like, for instance, the vast cycles of time which characterise the Hindu system of Yugas, it is somewhat lacking. Thus, for instance, my interest in the passage from the Old Comment that the Aeon of Horus might last 100 or 10,000 years, an interest that is not negated by the fact that Crowley reiterates many times elsewhere that an aeon lasts for 2,000 years. Despite your efforts to suggest otherwise, I'm not saying that my opinion is a closer interpretation of Crowley than yours, or a truer reading of Crowley;that's not my concern.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
24/01/2011 3:04 am  

How long was the Aeon of Isis? And did the Aeon of Osiris begin with the life and times of Jesus? The assertion that an Aeon has to be 2,000 years seems flawed to me. What was Crowley basing this timeline on and where can I find reference in Crowley's works that indicate the Aeons flow in 2,000 year cycles?
Sorry to drag the thread further off topic.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3756
24/01/2011 10:46 am  
"AEternitas" wrote:
. . . where can I find reference in Crowley's works that indicate the Aeons flow in 2,000 year cycles?

There are several such references. This from the Introduction to the 1938 edition of The Book of the Law, referring to chapter III:

It explains that certain vast 'stars' (or aggregates of experience) may be described as Gods. One of these is in charge of the destinies of this planet for periods of 2,000 years. In the history of the world, as far as we know accurately, there are three such Gods: Isis, the mother, when the Universe was conceived as simple nourishment drawn directly from her; this period was marked by matriarchal government.

Next, beginning 500 B.C., Osiris, the father, when the Universe was imagined as catastrophic, love, death, resurrection, as the method by which experience was built up; this corresponds to patriarchal systems.

Now, Horus, the child, in which we come to perceive events as a continual growth partaking in its elements of both these methods, and not to be overcome by circumstance. This present period involves the recognition of the individual as the unit of society.

Best wishes,

Michael.


ReplyQuote
Patriarch156
(@patriarch156)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 486
24/01/2011 12:16 pm  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
"AEternitas" wrote:
. . . where can I find reference in Crowley's works that indicate the Aeons flow in 2,000 year cycles?

There are several such references. This from the Introduction to the 1938 edition of The Book of the Law, referring to chapter III:

It explains that certain vast 'stars' (or aggregates of experience) may be described as Gods. One of these is in charge of the destinies of this planet for periods of 2,000 years. In the history of the world, as far as we know accurately, there are three such Gods: Isis, the mother, when the Universe was conceived as simple nourishment drawn directly from her; this period was marked by matriarchal government.

Next, beginning 500 B.C., Osiris, the father, when the Universe was imagined as catastrophic, love, death, resurrection, as the method by which experience was built up; this corresponds to patriarchal systems.

Now, Horus, the child, in which we come to perceive events as a continual growth partaking in its elements of both these methods, and not to be overcome by circumstance. This present period involves the recognition of the individual as the unit of society.

Best wishes,

Michael.

Interestingly enough the major civilizations (like Egypt), to the extent that such a generalization can be said to be accurate, were Patriarchal during the heyday of what Crowley termed the Aeon of Isis.

Clearly Crowley's Aeonics system is deeply flawed (I do not really think the hindoo Yugas are anymore accurate though) and does not really fit with history as we know it.

It does however, albeit loosely, correspond with the major civilizations move from a hunter-gatherer society, to an agrarian to an industrial civilisation though, but that would extend the Aeons to last around 4-6000 years.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3756
24/01/2011 12:37 pm  
"Patriarch156" wrote:
Clearly Crowley's Aeonics system is deeply flawed (I do not really think the hindoo Yugas are anymore accurate though) and does not really fit with history as we know it.

I largely agree, Patriarch156, with your observation about the yugas. They encapsulate such huge spans of time that correlation with recorded history is difficult to say the least. But then, I think that they are mythological rather than actual, and I take Crowley's aeonics in similar vein.

Best wishes,

Michael.


ReplyQuote
Aleisterion
(@aleisterion)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 321
24/01/2011 1:48 pm  

I don't think the idea is flawed. I think that relativity plays a factor. Time is after all relative to your position. Some cultures are stuck in the middle ages still, for example, whilst others are well into the New Aeon. Similarly, I think that it is possible that certain individuals could be more in a Maatian Aeonic frame of mind than a Horusian one, while many others are still clouded by an Osirian perception.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
24/01/2011 3:04 pm  

"Thelema Beyond Crowley" simply means that some of us want to get right away from the cult of Crowley's personality. That is "Crowleyanity" as distinct from Thelema. There is no need to seek any "authority" in the writings of the beast - to do that you have to accept Crowley's authority in the first place, and that is sheer nonsense in this occult field. I certainly have not done that in my book.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
24/01/2011 3:21 pm  

Aleister Crowley's Aeonics always struck me, right from the get-go, as being better suited to intuitive, suggestive, and principally poetic interpretation and application, not pseudo-scientific literalising.

The sums - as with so much more of his work, if taken literally - just don't add up:

If the Age of Osiris began - according to Aleister Crowley - "around 500 B.C.", and each Aeon only goes for the period of "2,000 years" (an arbitrary figure which, also, is not Class-A doctrine, a category which Crowleyites seem incapable of distinguishing from the other 99 % of what he wrote; and a surprisingly round number - if mistakenly taken as though intended literally and infallibly, which in my view it was not), then what, by Jiminy Cricket, went on between "around" 1500 A.D. (2,000 years later) and precisely 1904 A.D. - arguably the most interesting and eventful periods of history of the exponential development of human power and knowledge of which we have ever had knowledge?

It doesn't take a cool but fatally clumsy jet-propulsion researcher to deduce that Crowley's aeonic model is an inspired sketch of poeto-esoteric psychohistory; and that Baptist-like clingings to the rusty details of dogma, based on the simple fact that it was published by Aleister Crowley, are not only not what he would have expected or asked for, but that, whether or not he did ask for it, they are simply impossible to anyone capable of basic arithmetic.

Crowley was, as seems to often slip literalists' minds, primarily a Poet. His mind worked poetically before anything else, and that is partly what makes his magickal themes so resonant and compelling. In my view, the doctrine of Aeons should be taken poetically, not literally. Take them to heart - apply them in your occult work, sure, as you wish - but the other half of what they are meant to be and to do is inside the reader. Vagueness is what poetry requires - vagueness to calculation; articulate suggestiveness, not single-level input-output equations from an irrelevant crypto-industrial model. Where did he pluck the 2,000 year period out of? Thin air? His arse? Or perhaps it was just the combination of his anti-messianic delusion, Christian conditioning and the apocalyptic fantasies of the day, conveniently located nearly 2,000 years after Christ?

Don't misunderstand my use of the term "poet" : it is not a diminutive nor trivialising, but rather an alignment of category. Poets wrote the myths which nourish the souls and minds of man. "Enchantment" literally is a form of song, and vice-versa. Magick is primarily (in my view) a poetic endeavour: all the use of sympathy, allegory, symbol, rhythm and rhyme etc.

"Language is code", as Terence McKenna said. "Code can be hacked", as he also said.

The fabrication of an aeonic system such as Crowley's - which has a fair bit going for it, in my view, if not too fine a point is put upon it - is one way to hack the code of reality, of history, of destiny. The ongoing developments by Parsons, Achad, Nema, Bertiaux, and the many, many more who are alive now and who will follow are, similarly, hacks into the matrix. This is what magick is all about - all Crowley was doing with his Aeonic conception was furnishing his Temple, temporally.

That doesn't present any incongruency (by the way) with the idea which I alluded to in my previous post in this thread - the idea that Thelema is not a contrivance or invention out of nothing, but that it is instead, rather, in the nature of an identification, or discovery, of something which is real - regardless of what we call it or how we are compelled by the limits of our capacity and understanding to define it.

Like all discovered territory, it requires ongoing exploration and experience if our maps of it are to be refined, and our experience of it always more articulate, and ever more exquisitely familiar with its truth. That will not come from referring exclusively to sketched maps which are a century old, and insisting they are complete, or even completely correct, rather than indicative or suggestive - even ones drawn up by so skilled a cartographer as Aleister Crowley.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
24/01/2011 8:11 pm  
"Camlion" wrote:
I have my own problems with the uneven nature of AC's aeonics vs actual historical patterns, but I tend to see the aeonic trinity to date in terms of polytheism-monotheism-Thelema, regardless of timeframe, so I don't fret too much over it.

In rereading my previous post, I see that I was interupted here and did not complete it as intended, here is the correction:

"I have my own problems with the uneven nature of AC's aeonics vs actual historical patterns, but I tend to see the aeonic trinity to date in terms of polytheism-monotheism-Thelema (Deus est Homo - 'God is Man'), regardless of timeframe, so I don't fret too much over it."

Thanks.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
24/01/2011 8:33 pm  

The Greek word "Aeon" is identical with the word for "Temple", so, the notions of being a "Word of the Aeon" and a "Master of the Temple" are identical. (I.e. "Temple of Hermes" is "Ermaeon", in Greek.) Temples and "temporal" are inseperable, though the cyclical festivities, "the times", are celebrated in outer rites, whereas inner rites may seek to penetrate beyond these bounds. The "Aeon of Aeons" was an eponymous name for a high priest at one time, and in ancient shamanistic traditions the priest was both the Aeon and the Word in flesh. So yes, Crowley was furnishing his temple, I couldn't agree more.

Thelema is not a contrivance or invention out of nothing, but that it is instead, rather, in the nature of an identification, or discovery, of something which is real - regardless of what we call it or how we are compelled by the limits of our capacity and understanding to define it.

–Sounds as though you might have read my book!


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
24/01/2011 8:41 pm  

Hello OliverStJohn, 93,

"OliverStJohn" wrote:
"Thelema Beyond Crowley" simply means that some of us want to get right away from the cult of Crowley's personality. That is "Crowleyanity" as distinct from Thelema. There is no need to seek any "authority" in the writings of the beast - to do that you have to accept Crowley's authority in the first place, and that is sheer nonsense in this occult field. I certainly have not done that in my book.

I have my own criticisms of Crowley's 'cult of personality' and the unquestionable authority granted to his writ among some of those interested in him, but I am wondering your opinion of the ideology of 'true Will,' if I may ask?

This is a foundational element of Thelema that AC emphasized, and it stands apart from the aforementioned criticisms that I myself have.

By the way, is Thelema limited to an "occult field," in your opinion? Or does it possibly have a broader significance than that, with the occult aspects being those of your own personal interest?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
24/01/2011 11:06 pm  

Camlion, I thught the Aeon of Osiris was marked by it's emphasis on sacrifice and the dying god, not monotheism. I thought, in terms of Thelema and Thelemic magic, that Polytheism and Monotheism could both be true for the initiate, depending on his or her level of Initiation


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
25/01/2011 12:26 am  

Hi AEternnitas,

"AEternitas" wrote:
Camlion, I thught the Aeon of Osiris was marked by it's emphasis on sacrifice and the dying god, not monotheism.

That is true as far as Magical Formulae are concerned, from certain very specific Initiatory perspectives. I was thinking in the context of historical religious development that can actually be traced.

"AEternitas" wrote:
I thought, in terms of Thelema and Thelemic magic, that Polytheism and Monotheism could both be true for the initiate, depending on his or her level of Initiation

I was thinking in terms of the sovereignty of the individual Star (wandering God) Going in the Way of its Will, in contrast to the submission to external deities or a single deity characteristic of the two previous phases.

In this way, we have the introduction to the concept of deity itself with polytheism, by way of many departmentalized gods; the progression with monotheism into the concept of a single omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent deity; and, finally, the identification with the latter by each individual, while still remaining one of many wandering Gods similar in essence.

Just my own take on aeonics. Make any sense?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
25/01/2011 1:01 am  

PS to my last: Of course, there are still no clean definitive start or finish lines to these phases. Monotheism reared its ugly head in ancient Egypt, and there are still polytheists today. (Real ones, not the neo- variety.) There remain exceptions and gray areas amongst the greater trends.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
25/01/2011 6:52 am  
"OliverStJohn" wrote:
The Greek word "Aeon" is identical with the word for "Temple", so, the notions of being a "Word of the Aeon" and a "Master of the Temple" are identical. (I.e. "Temple of Hermes" is "Ermaeon", in Greek.) Temples and "temporal" are inseperable, though the cyclical festivities, "the times", are celebrated in outer rites, whereas inner rites may seek to penetrate beyond these bounds. The "Aeon of Aeons" was an eponymous name for a high priest at one time, and in ancient shamanistic traditions the priest was both the Aeon and the Word in flesh. So yes, Crowley was furnishing his temple, I couldn't agree more.

Fascinating remarks, OliverStJohn, and welcome to the site - it's great to see such clear, original, free-thinking, and independent insight on these matters being shared here. The symbolism of that primary modern Temple in many traditions, the Circle, is of course intimately linked with the cycles of Time (elements/quarters/seasons/Solar motion/Zodiac etc.) - what you say brings additional depth to the notion. I haven't read your book but now I think I'll certainly add it to the queue (don't worry, it's in good company!).

Best regards,
Noctifer


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
25/01/2011 5:52 pm  
"Noctifer" wrote:
"OliverStJohn" wrote:
The Greek word "Aeon" is identical with the word for "Temple", so, the notions of being a "Word of the Aeon" and a "Master of the Temple" are identical. (I.e. "Temple of Hermes" is "Ermaeon", in Greek.) Temples and "temporal" are inseperable, though the cyclical festivities, "the times", are celebrated in outer rites, whereas inner rites may seek to penetrate beyond these bounds. The "Aeon of Aeons" was an eponymous name for a high priest at one time, and in ancient shamanistic traditions the priest was both the Aeon and the Word in flesh. So yes, Crowley was furnishing his temple, I couldn't agree more.

Fascinating remarks, OliverStJohn, and welcome to the site - it's great to see such clear, original, free-thinking, and independent insight on these matters being shared here. The symbolism of that primary modern Temple in many traditions, the Circle, is of course intimately linked with the cycles of Time (elements/quarters/seasons/Solar motion/Zodiac etc.) - what you say brings additional depth to the notion. I haven't read your book but now I think I'll certainly add it to the queue (don't worry, it's in good company!).

Best regards,
Noctifer

Yes, well, obviously AC's usage of the word 'aeon' was in other than its original context in Greek, as was his use of the Word 'Thelema.'

I haven't read the book either, but I hope that author replies to my questions above, because I have a follow-up question regarding the use of the name Aleister Crowley in the title that occurred to me after reading this...

"OliverStJohn" wrote:
"Thelema Beyond Crowley" simply means that some of us want to get right away from the cult of Crowley's personality. That is "Crowleyanity" as distinct from Thelema. There is no need to seek any "authority" in the writings of the beast - to do that you have to accept Crowley's authority in the first place, and that is sheer nonsense in this occult field. I certainly have not done that in my book.

perhaps it was a sales strategy? I'm curious. (No offense intended, seriously, it just wouldn't be the first time that this was done.)


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 2999
25/01/2011 6:37 pm  

93,

If magick is both a science and an art, then I view Crowley as both a scientist and an artist. Sometimes he was good at one, sometimes the other. Sometimes he was great at both, sometimes he was terrible at both.

Name me one Chemist who does not have shortcomings in his field, a field that has more support, more feedback, and is generally more accepted than that of magick.

I'm all about "Thelema Beyond Crowley", but I also believe that as a scientist, he conducted some very valuable experiments and paved the way for even yet more valuable ones. In that light, he was like any other scientist.

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
26/01/2011 10:27 am  

@Camlion:

I am wondering your opinion of the ideology of 'true Will,' if I may ask?

If the "true Will" is an ideology, then it's doomed, as are all ideologies. That's why I called the book, "The Ending of the Words". I'm quite happy to adopt, for all practical purposes, this manifesto: "Individuals fulfil a particular role in creation according to their True Will."

By the way, is Thelema limited to an "occult field," in your opinion? Or does it possibly have a broader significance than that, with the occult aspects being those of your own personal interest?

A point of view is based on knowledge and fact, whereas an opinion is not. There is a difference. As for "sales strategy" - the book in question is a commentary (and comparative work) on Liber AL vel Legis. I spent five years writing, researching and editing it so that other people would read it. It was written for those that have an in-depth interest in Thelema, magick and mysticism, and that have studied the works of Aleister Crowley as well as the Hermetic tradition.


ReplyQuote
Patriarch156
(@patriarch156)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 486
26/01/2011 12:25 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
If magick is both a science and an art, then I view Crowley as both a scientist and an artist. Sometimes he was good at one, sometimes the other. Sometimes he was great at both, sometimes he was terrible at both.

For accuracy's sake, if it is Crowley's defintion you are referring to above then it should be noted that he explained what the Science and Art consisted of: "Magick is the Science of understanding oneself and one's conditions. It is the Art of applying that understanding in action."

That being said, I suppose your main point about him being varying successfull in this endeavor still holds true 🙂


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
26/01/2011 12:52 pm  
"Camlion" wrote:
I am wondering your opinion of the ideology of 'true Will,' if I may ask?

This is a foundational element of Thelema that AC emphasized

Where did Crowley claim that 'True Will' was an ideology?


ReplyQuote