Home Forums Aleister Crowley Writer the ending of the word

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 65 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #32315

    Camlion
    Participant
    "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.)

    #32316

    Azidonis
    Participant

    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

    #32317

    OliverStJohn
    Participant

    @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.

    #32318

    Patriarch156
    Participant
    "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 🙂

    #32319

    Noctifer
    Participant
    "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?

    #32320

    Camlion
    Participant
    "OliverStJohn" wrote:
    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”.
    "Noctifer" wrote:
    "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?

    I believe that my intent in the usage of the word was perfectly clear. These endless games of semantics are almost always a coward’s way out of a conversational corner; avoiding the point by way of diversion or distraction. 🙄

    #32321

    AEternitas
    Participant

    I really don’t see the problem with “semantics” here at all. Words have meanings, we might as well use them. I think your questin was adequately answered, he doesn’t think the true will is an idealogy.
    WHat is the point that is being avoided here Camlion?

    #32322

    Azidonis
    Participant

    93,

    I’m not here to throw stones…

    "OliverStJohn" wrote:
    "Camlion" wrote:
    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.

    This is a very broad-sweeping statement. I can see if you consider an “eventual downfall” of all ideologies.

    Would you say then, that any idea mankind comes up with, any ideology, is not even worth the trouble, be that it is doomed before it even begins? Just trying to see your perspective.

    "OliverStJohn" wrote:
    "Camlion" wrote:
    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.

    This seems like a roundabout answer to a very direct question.

    "OliverStJohn" wrote:
    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.

    Quite a strategy, as I’ve known many people (myself included) that have been both studying and practicing Thelema for much longer than five years, and still don’t feel comfortable writing a commentary on Liber AL.

    Perhaps you meant writing the book itself, not doing all of the re-requisites necessary to get to that point. If so,

    From Paul’s initial post in the thread:

    "Lashtal" wrote:
    “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

    Is this a list of qualifications?

    I must have missed this thread in 2007, or just let it pass (as I do many of the “did you get [insert new book here]” threads). At any rate, I’ve considered buying the book to see what you are on about, but this thread and some of its comments are leaning me towards not doing so.

    Any clarification would be welcome.

    93 93/93

    #32323

    Camlion
    Participant
    "AEternitas" wrote:
    I really don’t see the problem with “semantics” here at all. Words have meanings, we might as well use them. I think your questin was adequately answered, he doesn’t think the true will is an idealogy.
    WHat is the point that is being avoided here Camlion?

    The question wasn’t whether or not true Will is an ideology, AEternitas. Obviously your own comprehension was successfully diverted. The question was “I am wondering your opinion of the ideology of ‘true Will,’ if I may ask?” An answer such as ‘true Will is not an ideology’ does not answer the question. I probably should have asked “I am wondering your opinion of the idea, or concept of ‘true Will,’ if I may ask?” But, I’m sure the reply would been, “True Will is not an idea or a concept.” Then Noc would have echoed the same sentiment. (And let’s not forget that my use of the word “opinion” was also questioned, in favor of “point of view.”)

    #32324

    Noctifer
    Participant

    In other words, Crowley doesn’t claim True Will is an ideology. Ta.

    The question wasn’t whether True Will “is” an ideology, but what Crowley said.

    This isn’t semantics, it’s Crowleyanity. If you’re going to impose your interpretation on Crowley, Cam, it’s best to be up front about it. Or at least aware of when you are doing so.

    I don’t care, btw, whether you deliberately take your own line – it would be perhaps a matter of interest if you did.

    #32325

    Camlion
    Participant
    "Noctifer" wrote:
    In other words, Crowley doesn’t claim True Will is an ideology. Ta.

    The question wasn’t whether True Will “is” an ideology, but what Crowley said.

    This isn’t semantics, it’s Crowleyanity. If you’re going to impose your interpretation on Crowley, Cam, it’s best to be up front about it. Or at least aware of when you are doing so.

    I don’t care, btw, whether you deliberately take your own line – it would be perhaps a matter of interest if you did.

    Noc, for Crowley, true Will was a reality, and I agree with him. My question to OliverStJohn was whether or not he agreed. You are already on record as believing that “Do what thou wilt” necessarily equals “Do what you want,” which differs with both Crowley and myself.

    I do not happen to agree with AC on everything, but on this foundational point, I do.

    #32326

    Fourarmored
    Participant

    I’ll share my unique view on the aeons for anyone’s interest, as like the author whose book this thread is about I do not really accept Crowley’s model of the aeons:

    I think Thelema inaugurated the aeon of Geburah upon the Tree of Life, and that these aeons are based on a type of worldwide initiation of consciousness perhaps on this specific planet rather than the whole universe, where it is possible on average for the individual to attain to that level or grade. Of course some will attain higher and some lower, but the point is a gradual progression of development.

    I see Tiphareth having been inaugurated at the beginning of civilization, which I would place to around 3500 or so BC at the beginning of Egypt. Previous to this I believe the Aeon of Venus lasted quite a while. The Aeon of Malkuth would have been the creation of Earth. If taken universally, it would be the big bang origin point in time.

    One can basically go back in time and propose different cut off points from this present Aeon. It also sheds light on this aeon’s work of attaining to Chesed, which is generally the same as an adept attaining to such. In essence, the major work will be to attain to an ordered and balanced harmony and unity amongst people, particularly in regards the world governments to where the enlightenment of the individual will be made easier to accomplish. There will be more ordering of things to accomplish this goal.

    #32327

    Noctifer
    Participant
    "Camlion" wrote:
    "Noctifer" wrote:
    In other words, Crowley doesn’t claim True Will is an ideology. Ta.

    The question wasn’t whether True Will “is” an ideology, but what Crowley said.

    This isn’t semantics, it’s Crowleyanity. If you’re going to impose your interpretation on Crowley, Cam, it’s best to be up front about it. Or at least aware of when you are doing so.

    I don’t care, btw, whether you deliberately take your own line – it would be perhaps a matter of interest if you did.

    Noc, for Crowley, true Will was a reality, and I agree with him. My question to OliverStJohn was whether or not he agreed.

    You just keep dodging, don’t you? My question was, where does Crowley say that “True Will” is ideology? He doesn’t – showing up the assumptions in your following comment for what they are: your personal interpretation of your reading of Crowley, not Crowley’s himself (which I am sure OliverStJohn is perfectly capable of reading for himself, without your personal mediation).

    You are already on record as believing that “Do what thou wilt” necessarily equals “Do what you want,” which differs with both Crowley and myself.

    I do not happen to agree with AC on everything, but on this foundational point, I do.

    Don’t blame me for the English language meaning what it does. (Personally I plump for Aiwass over Crowley where “foundational points of Thelema” are concerned).

    😉

    #32328

    Fourarmored
    Participant

    The “Do what thou wilt” not equalling the “do want you want” thing is only true below the abyss, (or) when one is not in accord with one’s true nature. It quite literally means do whatever you want, so as to divorce any notion that you are being run or ordered by a superior outer force, all so that you listen and follow your innermost supreme self. Here your wants will be true and in accord with truth, rather than banal desires.

    Only someone not in accord with the dao will want to do things not in accord with the dao, once one is in accord one’s wants is equal to one’s wilts lol.

    #32329

    Azidonis
    Participant
    "Fourarmored" wrote:
    I’ll share my unique view on the aeons for anyone’s interest, as like the author whose book this thread is about I do not really accept Crowley’s model of the aeons:

    I think Thelema inaugurated the aeon of Geburah upon the Tree of Life, and that these aeons are based on a type of worldwide initiation of consciousness perhaps on this specific planet rather than the whole universe, where it is possible on average for the individual to attain to that level or grade. Of course some will attain higher and some lower, but the point is a gradual progression of development.

    I see Tiphareth having been inaugurated at the beginning of civilization, which I would place to around 3500 or so BC at the beginning of Egypt. Previous to this I believe the Aeon of Venus lasted quite a while. The Aeon of Malkuth would have been the creation of Earth. If taken universally, it would be the big bang origin point in time.

    One can basically go back in time and propose different cut off points from this present Aeon. It also sheds light on this aeon’s work of attaining to Chesed, which is generally the same as an adept attaining to such. In essence, the major work will be to attain to an ordered and balanced harmony and unity amongst people, particularly in regards the world governments to where the enlightenment of the individual will be made easier to accomplish. There will be more ordering of things to accomplish this goal.

    You forgot Yesod, and Hod…

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 65 total)
  • You must be logged-in to reply to this topic.