Home Forums Aleister Crowley Writer the ending of the word

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 65 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #32300

    Michael Staley
    Participant
    "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.

    #32301

    AEternitas
    Participant

    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.

    #32302

    Michael Staley
    Participant
    "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.

    #32303

    Patriarch156
    Participant
    "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.

    #32304

    Michael Staley
    Participant
    "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.

    #32305

    Aleisterion
    Participant

    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.

    #32306

    OliverStJohn
    Participant

    “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.

    #32307

    Noctifer
    Participant

    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.

    #32308

    Camlion
    Participant
    "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.

    #32309

    OliverStJohn
    Participant

    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!

    #32310

    Camlion
    Participant

    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?

    #32311

    AEternitas
    Participant

    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

    #32312

    Camlion
    Participant

    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?

    #32313

    Camlion
    Participant

    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.

    #32314

    Noctifer
    Participant
    "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

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 65 total)
  • You must be logged-in to reply to this topic.