Home Forums Aleister Crowley Writer the ending of the word

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 65 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #4956

    newneubergOuch
    Participant

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

    #32271

    lashtal
    Keymaster

    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

    #32272

    Michael Staley
    Participant

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

    #32273

    felis_silvestris
    Participant

    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

    #32274

    bibs_mcgee
    Participant

    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!

    #32275

    Michael Staley
    Participant
    "bibs_mcgee" wrote:
    . . . (something never said by Crowley and certainly not in Liber AL!)

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

    😯

    #32276

    m.klaw
    Participant

    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… 👿

    #32277

    ianrons
    Participant

    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.

    #32278

    Michael Staley
    Participant

    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

    #32279

    Michael Staley
    Participant
    "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.

    #32280

    bibs_mcgee
    Participant

    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.

    #32281

    m.klaw
    Participant

    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.

    #32282

    Michael Staley
    Participant

    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 . . .

    #32283

    bibs_mcgee
    Participant

    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.”)

    #32284

    Palamedes
    Participant

    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.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 65 total)
  • You must be logged-in to reply to this topic.