Are groups of no im...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Are groups of no importance in the age of Horus?....

22 Posts
8 Users
0 Likes
317 Views
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
Topic starter  

The aeon or age of Horus "the crowned and conquering child" is supposed to have started in 1904, here Horus is defined as balanced and completed.

This aeon is supposed to last around 2000 years, and the formula for this aeon is "Do what you will shall be the whole of the law, love is the law, love under will". Love here being defined as "the union of opposites".

In another thread at this forum bibs_mcgeeOnline! writes that Horus according to Crowley "quite explicitly is a complete symbol: he contains all opposites in himself as per the 1st Aethyr of Vision & the Voice)".

My question is this, is the formula for the Aeon of Horus, "Do what you will shall be the whole of the law, love is the law, love under will", only related to the individual thelmite's "union of opposietes" within herself, reflecting Horus' individual union of all opposites within himself in this his Aeon?

Or is the thelemick formula allso related to the "union of opposites" between and among groups of individual thelemites?

The reason for my question is thar Crowley seems to have stated that the individual was at the center of things in the age of Horus, and that belonging to tribes, families, nations and simmilar groups, was unimportant in this age of Horus starting 1904.


   
Quote
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"totalnekt!" wrote:
The aeon or age of Horus "the crowned and conquering child" is supposed to have started in 1904, here Horus is defined as balanced and completed.

This aeon is supposed to last around 2000 years, and the formula for this aeon is "Do what you will shall be the whole of the law, love is the law, love under will". Love here being defined as "the union of opposites".

In another thread at this forum bibs_mcgeeOnline! writes that Horus according to Crowley "quite explicitly is a complete symbol: he contains all opposites in himself as per the 1st Aethyr of Vision & the Voice)".

My question is this, is the formula for the Aeon of Horus, "Do what you will shall be the whole of the law, love is the law, love under will", only related to the individual thelmite's "union of opposietes" within herself, reflecting Horus' individual union of all opposites within himself in this his Aeon?

Or is the thelemick formula allso related to the "union of opposites" between and among groups of individual thelemites?

The reason for my question is thar Crowley seems to have stated that the individual was at the center of things in the age of Horus, and that belonging to tribes, families, nations and simmilar groups, was unimportant in this age of Horus starting 1904.

Do What Thou Wilt.

The bibs is flattered at your quotation.

This all hinges on the presupposition that the boundary of 'self' ends at your body (and also your awareness of your own mind). And that is what it is: something presupposed, and not a truth in-itself!

The fact is that our bodies our separated from our environment by a pretty arbitrary line, delineated for convenience by our minds. We all (should) know how inaccurate our sensory and mental apparatuses are. The philosopher George Berkeley famously wrote in a preface to his Three Dialogues, "Sense is fallacious, Reason defective." For example, optical illusions are plays on our imperfect perceptive abilities and the eyes see things as solid when they are mostly empty space and then atoms (and atoms are themselves mostly empty space!) The point is that this distinction of the body from the environment, and one's mind from anothers is based on our imperfect perceptions on one hand, but more importantly on our mind's necessity in dividing things up for convenience.

Even if we ask "Is Thelema (and the union of 'opposites') only for one's self" and have an answer of "Yes!," then the next question we must ask is: "What is the self?"

...Coming at this again from another angle, we might remember that "There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt" and the nature of this Will is Love, the assimilation of foreign elements (opposite, complement, or whatever...) In this case, the accomplishment of our independent will and the assimilation of all and any foreign elements depends entirely on the interdependent co-operation of about an infinite amount of diverse forces. For example, if you want to eat a donut across the room, it requires that you have a way to move yourself through space to the donut (a body with legs, perhaps?) including the co-operation of things like gravity, the sturdiness of the floor, etc., a way to acquire the donut (a body with an arm, perhaps, or a hungry face...), and a way to eat the donut (a digestive system that is capable of handling donuts... the pinnacle of evolution!), etc etc etc. That is only a donut across from the room. Imagine something like publishing a book. This requires a company, itself composed of many individuals, to cut down the trees, a company to make the paper, a company to make the instrument you are writing it with (if its a computer, that itself requires an absurd amount of individuals helping you), a company to accept your publication, and an ideological setting that is not hostile (e.g. you are not anti-Church in Europe in 1450). The point is that the Will, if we consider it "independent" and "individual," depends almost entirely on interdependence. We can be a lone wolf and tough it out on our own (which in some situations is the best case scenario in some facets of life) but we can also have friends, connections, etc. even if we regard these simply as means of manifesting our Will. It seems Crowley often construed the body & mind as vehicles & ministers of the Will - why not include the whole Khu, the universe as vehicles of the Will? The body & the mind are simply the aspects of the Khu "closest" to us. And this new treatment may be considered as destructive (hence why many rail against adepts like in Liber LXV I:21). Walter Kauffman writes: "The powerful, as Nietzsche points out expressly, have no need to prove their might either to themselves or to others by oppressing or hurting others; if they do hurt others, they do so accidentally in the process of using their power creatively; they hurt others 'without thinking of it.' Only the weak man 'wishes to hurt and to see the signs of suffering' [according to Nietzsche]."


   
ReplyQuote
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 

This is a very interesting thread. Very true, Bibs_mcgee, This arbitary line which you mention to be delineated by the insufficiency of the mind to 'see things as they really are' brings my attention to the eastern perspective of thinking i.e. the concept of 'interdependency'. So, what I am saying is... How then can 'everyman and woman be a star'?

Best Wishes
Charles


   
ReplyQuote
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"magispiegel" wrote:
This is a very interesting thread. Very true, Bibs_mcgee, This arbitary line which you mention to be delineated by the insufficiency of the mind to 'see things as they really are' brings my attention to the eastern perspective of thinking i.e. the concept of 'interdependency'. So, what I am saying is... How then can 'everyman and woman be a star'?

Best Wishes
Charles

Do What Thou Wilt, charles.

To our perceptions, things should be considered practically, not abstractly & theoretically. From a theoretical standpoint, theres no way to distinguish things from other things in a determinate chain. From a practical standpoint, there is a body separate from the environment, there is a self separate from not-self, there is a me separate from you, and our entire language and society are founded on these distinctions (convenient but not necessarily true in the end of the analysis).

In this sense, we make a fundamental assertion: we will draw the line at the individual human being. Every man and every woman is a star - if anything their minds & bodies being the manifestations of the Will. As he says in Magick Without Tears, Liber AL declares "the Individual is Autarch." The unit (and values) of the family, the church, the state, or the tribe is not the most important now - the values of the individual are (as this is what is needed for this age, an emphasis on following one's own values, doing one's own will).

Really, "in the end" all stars are one in the body of Nuit (who is Infinite Space & the Infinite Stars thereof). "Note that Nuith, although She is Infinite Space, speaks as an individual might do, often enough. This is not that She is 'talking down to our level'; it is a fact. In the Cosmos almost any aggregation can think and act as an Ego. For instance, the cells of our bodies are each units, diverse in composition and character, living each a life of its own. Yet we think and act for them, and say "I". The stars are the cells of Her Body. Each one of us is such a cell; not less itself but more because of its secret function in Her." Crowley wrote that as a commentary to AL I:13. Also, in his comment to AL III:49 he writes, "The evident interpretation of this is to take the word to be "Do what thou wilt," which is a secret word, because its meaning for every man is his own inmost secret. And it is the most profound blasphemy possible against all 'gods of men,' because it makes every man his own God. We may then take it that this Solar-Phallic Ra Ha is Each Man Himself. As each independent cell in our bodies is to us, so is each of us to Heru-Ra-Ha. Each man's 'child'-consciousness is a Star in the Cosmos of the Sun, as the Sun is a Star in the Cosmos of Nuith." What, ho!

This is a 'paradox' of Thelema but a wonderful attribute of it: One-All-Naught-Many... all these conceptions of the Universe (and consequently, the self) are united in Thelema (ch.2 of Book of Lies).

How do you reconcile such lines as "Every man and every woman is a star" with ones like "I am alone"... and "Bind nothing! Make no difference..."? As said by someone somewhere... Liber AL itself is a complex of opposites, containing its own contradictory opposite within itself (in a fractal/holonistic way).


   
ReplyQuote
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Thanks for your response,

Yes, It truly is an interesting paradox...

I have no memory to hand of Nuit 'speaking as an individual'? Like you say, she is infinite space. But, I am interested in your statement and how you have come to it?

This eastern perspective, the aggregations of elemental particulars is very similar to yogacharya idealism. The idea that a composition of aggregates generate the sense of the 'I', does not define the 'will'. The 'will' arises from a merging flux of NUIT-HADIT...which you mention. It is a reconciliation of vibrations of a dual monism in action, the adumbration of NUIT-HADIT. To the adept, it is the witnessing of an autonomous upsurging of 'will'. What I am saying in this crude rambling, is that the 'will' does not belong to the 'I' or the 'ego', but the precipitation or crystallisation of the 'will' appears or is observed by the adept when the reconciliation of 2=0...The sensation would be analogous to the 'will' feeling like it is washing through the adept, or maybe, feeling that they are boundlessly 'carried' or 'mounted' by it. Such experience of the 'will' in a sense is involuntary.

Hail Nuit in her division !
IO Pan !


   
ReplyQuote
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"magispiegel" wrote:
Yes, It truly is an interesting paradox...

I have no memory to hand of Nuit 'speaking as an individual'? Like you say, she is infinite space. But, I am interested in your statement and how you have come to it?

Do What Thou Wilt, magispiegel!

Chapter 1 of Liber AL in its entirety is Nuit speaking as an individual. The statement "I am [anything]" is a statement as an individual (as an Ego, as an "I"). I didnt mean (nor does Crowley mean) by 'individual' a physical human being of body & mind in this case.

Secondly, I didnt 'come to it,' that was Crowley talking in a commentary to Liber AL.

This eastern perspective, the aggregations of elemental particulars is very similar to yogacharya idealism.

I assure you that you can find this idea in western thought as well (gnostic, mystic christianity, etc.), its just not a part of the major exoteric forms of the religion.

The idea that a composition of aggregates generate the sense of the 'I', does not define the 'will'.

Right. The fact that an aggregate of things can act as an Ego or an I doesnt mean it actually IS an Ego or I, just that it acts like that, i.e. it talks as if it has an identity (just like your ego! Crowley says in his commentary to Liber LXV, ""the Ego is not really the centre and crown of the individual; indeed the whole trouble arises from its false claim to be so.")

The 'will' arises from a merging flux of NUIT-HADIT...which you mention.

Actually, I never mentioned that. I never asserted that the will 'arises' from anything.

It is a reconciliation of vibrations of a dual monism in action, the adumbration of NUIT-HADIT.

Unfortunately, this sentence is close to meaningless to me. A vibration is itself a duality, and 'dual monism' is a contradiction (which can be easily reconciled but I wonder whether you mean what you say).

To the adept, it is the witnessing of an autonomous upsurging of 'will'. What I am saying in this crude rambling, is that the 'will' does not belong to the 'I' or the 'ego', but the precipitation or crystallisation of the 'will' appears or is observed by the adept

I can agree with this so far! ...

when the reconciliation of 2=0...

No. The will is 'felt' and 'perceived' before the 'reconciliation of 2=0,' but the perception tehreof may become more 'true' or 'accurate' after this 'reconciliation.' This also is a pertinent issue: 0 is equal to, equivalent to 2; the universe can be conceived of as 0 and/or 2, in the sense of 0 there is no individual (as separate from soemone or something else) and in the sense of 2 there is division.

The sensation would be analogous to the 'will' feeling like it is washing through the adept, or maybe, feeling that they are boundlessly 'carried' or 'mounted' by it. Such experience of the 'will' in a sense is involuntary.

Crowley says somewhere that identifying oneself with the Will is Ra-Hoor-Khuit/the Sun and identifying oneself as the vehicle of the will is Thoth/Tahuti/Mercury. The idea of oneself as a vehicle is specifically a non-ego idea - I am nothing but hte vehicle of somethign greater than myself, whereas the idea of oneself AS Will (not merely the vehicle thereof) is switching one's identity from the normal ego to the All/the Universe-as-a-Whole.

Hail Nuit in her division !
IO Pan !

Hail in all division and all unity, and diversity-in-unity and vice versa! Hail You & I and Hail 'the-I-which-encompasses-You-&-I'!


   
ReplyQuote
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"bibs_mcgee" wrote:
This is a 'paradox' of Thelema but a wonderful attribute of it: One-All-Naught-Many... all these conceptions of the Universe (and consequently, the self) are united in Thelema (ch.2 of Book of Lies).

Gosh!? As I said, and like you say, in different words..the merging of HADIT-NUIT! Which, on the surface, are dual metaphysical principles of reference. They are tools for magick, are they not? and, yes, they are a 'dual monism' aka TAO.

I know, naturally words written in a text can sometimes look very confusing when one reads with a bias and when the mind is distracted.

Best Wishes

Charles


   
ReplyQuote
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 

As for the original post...

Seeing as the main concern is a "union of opposites" it hinges on what is required by the individual.

In example : If you were always a loner, part of your magical journey might involve joining a group in order to assimilate how such a relationship functions.


   
ReplyQuote
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Do What Thou Wilt, magispiegel & Uni_verse!

"magispiegel" wrote:
"bibs_mcgee" wrote:
This is a 'paradox' of Thelema but a wonderful attribute of it: One-All-Naught-Many... all these conceptions of the Universe (and consequently, the self) are united in Thelema (ch.2 of Book of Lies).

Gosh!? As I said, and like you say, in different words..the merging of HADIT-NUIT! Which, on the surface, are dual metaphysical principles of reference. They are tools for magick, are they not? and, yes, they are a 'dual monism' aka TAO.

I know, naturally words written in a text can sometimes look very confusing when one reads with a bias and when the mind is distracted.

Yes... perhaps, but it seems that you are reading into what I say what you want to hear rather than what I am saying. Naught-One-Many-All doesnt mean the conjunction of Hadit-Nuit brings about Will. Perhaps we are talking about the same thing with different words but I am merely confused and am 'read[ing] with a bias and... the mind is distracted' as you suggest.

I was wondering whether your choice of words ("dual monism") was intentional or not, but I agree with what you say although I would call it "dialectical monism."

Why the 'Gosh?!' Is it so bad that I may not agree with you? MichaelStaley seemed equally exasperated when I disagreed with him! It seems I perhaps should not have come here... I was certain that the forums were a place for discussion and debate on Crowley and such.

Best Wishes

Charles

You too.

As for the original post...

Seeing as the main concern is a "union of opposites" it hinges on what is required by the individual.

In example : If you were always a loner, part of your magical journey might involve joining a group in order to assimilate how such a relationship functions.

Yes... exactly!


   
ReplyQuote
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Of course you must stay!

Best Wishes

Charles


   
ReplyQuote
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 

When you have the time, please expand on your understanding of 0=2... especially when you say how the 'will' is felt before the reconciliation of 0=2?

My apologies for all the questions!

Best Wishes
Charles


   
ReplyQuote
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"magispiegel" wrote:
When you have the time, please expand on your understanding of 0=2... especially when you say how the 'will' is felt before the reconciliation of 0=2?

My apologies for all the questions!

Best Wishes
Charles

Do What Thou Wilt, charles.

I can only answer if I know what you mean by 'the reconciliation of 0=2' really.

The Will is apparent right now. Its simply: "The theory [of 'Do what thou wilt'] is that every man and every woman has each definite attributes whose tendency, considered in due relation to environment, indicate a proper course of action in each case. 'Do that, and no other shall say nay'" -Confessions, ch.49 . This is a very practical definition, which is essentially 'right reaction' or some resident Buddhists might recognize it as the phrase 'skillful means.' You dont need to understand that the Universe can be understood both as an un-differentiated non-dual transcendent (symbolized by 1, and in Thelema it is 0 as per Liber AL ch.1) and dualism. Really, this 0 can only be expressed in forms of 2. Any expression is necessarily 2, hence the two-fold equation of 0=2 (and also the term "dialectical monism"). Both 0 the unmanifest undifferentiated and the 2 the manifest differentiated are really just part of the Absolute 0, they 'keep reeling back to zero' as Crowley says somewhere. It may be true that we cannot completely understand our will until we understand this, but that is no reason to not do one's will before understanding this.

Think of the True Will, not as something you are either (A) Doing or (B) Not doing, but rather as something you are already doing imperfectly. Your true will is really like a Sun beaming with light in your heart, but covered over incidentally by clouds of ignorance. You can consciously disperse the clouds - that is what we call "the Great Work," or "yoga" or whatever... and we may understand it almost like our actual will is a curve coming to the limit of the True Will (this itself is only a symbol, don't take it too literally but only for illustration and to view something familiar, the Will, from a new perspective). In this situation, the 'reconciliation of 0=2' will fortify your understanding, and therefore your knowledge of your own will.

We need to get rid of this idea of True Will as something that flashes down like lightning and bestows us with a divine plan. In one sense this is true when we realize the truth of Mysticism (That All is One... and that One is None) but this is nothing like a practical plan of one's life (its quite universal, and impersonal actually...) The Will is simply "the dynamic aspect of the self" (Liber II), we need to stop attaching numinous titles to it. The fact is: even "true" will doesn't occur in Liber AL, only pure will and this furthers my point. Our will is like a wand, yet it is impure. By various ways (understanding teh Law of Thelema is a good star) such as not having "lust of result" and working "with purpose unassuaged."

This is all quite off-topic, though, isn't it?


   
ReplyQuote
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"bibs_mcgee" wrote:
No. The will is 'felt' and 'perceived' before the 'reconciliation of 2=0,' but the perception tehreof may become more 'true' or 'accurate' after this 'reconciliation.' This also is a pertinent issue: 0 is equal to, equivalent to 2; the universe can be conceived of as 0 and/or 2, in the sense of 0 there is no individual (as separate from soemone or something else) and in the sense of 2 there is division.

It is what you wrote.

Best Wishes
Charles


   
ReplyQuote
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 19 years ago
Posts: 5373
 

bibs_mcgee is Aum418 aka IAO131.

That should explain a fair bit.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


   
ReplyQuote
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"lashtal" wrote:
bibs_mcgee is Aum418 aka IAO131.

That should explain a fair bit.

Yes - it explains that there is actually some interesting conversation around here again! (and why MichaelStaley has indigestion again)

Have you ever considered asking if any other members (other than MichaelStaley) care about what I say and perhaps would not want me banned?

If I adopt a slightly different persona, the people who disagree will still disagree, but people enjoy the content nonetheless. Is there really a reason to ban all these accounts, anyways? Can you not just remove the right to post?

(and why not mention "cantankerous_grandma"? That one was funny)


   
ReplyQuote
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 19 years ago
Posts: 5373
 
"Disingenuous@" wrote:
Yes - it explains that there is actually some interesting conversation around here again! (and why MichaelStaley has indigestion again)

You're beginning to sound more than a little bit self-obsessed and, well, 'odd'...

Is there really a reason to ban all these accounts, anyways?

In connection with you, I have only ever banned one account: yours. Your attempt to use multiple usernames is strange and says more about you than anything I do. I wish you well: if people want to communicate with you then they'll find you and Erwin on http://www.erwinhessle.com

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


   
ReplyQuote
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 19 years ago
Posts: 5373
 
"wolf354" wrote:
Why are your messages deleted on Erwin's site (or Aum or whoever it might be)?

It wouldn't be appropriate to discuss it on a Forum that Aum418 can't post to.

So, back to the importance of groups in the age of Horus...

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


   
ReplyQuote
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 

I think man can work in tribes and groups as he will, or use any methods he feels best for compliting his own personal great work.
And when there was talk above about getting rid of the lust of result, the real seeking of ones true will truly takes courage sometimes, to follow intuition without doubt and so on. The desire separates the wolfs and the sheeps.

Though undividual would be the center of the current aeon, I donΒ΄t see why people couldn`t work in groups. Man should think what has insrument/tool-value,and what does have absolute-value.

- 93 -


   
ReplyQuote
gurugeorge
(@gurugeorge)
Member
Joined: 19 years ago
Posts: 622
 
"Azoneris" wrote:
I think man can work in tribes and groups as he will, or use any methods he feels best for compliting his own personal great work.
And when there was talk above about getting rid of the lust of result, the real seeking of ones true will truly takes courage sometimes, to follow intuition without doubt and so on. The desire separates the wolfs and the sheeps.

Though undividual would be the center of the current aeon, I donΒ΄t see why people couldn`t work in groups. Man should think what has insrument/tool-value,and what does have absolute-value.

- 93 -

Wow necro a go-go! Good subject though. I'd say that the difference is whereas before the groupings were were in were, in the main, something we were born into, groupings in the Aeon of Horus are voluntary - e.g. little groupings like our gathering here, facilitated by extremely cheap high tech form of communication (the web). When we see "the X community" these days, we think of people voluntarily enthusiastic about something.

It's actually hard for us to conceive just how much a person was defined by and trapped in their group roles in the past.


   
ReplyQuote
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"gurugeorge" wrote:
"Azoneris" wrote:
I think man can work in tribes and groups as he will, or use any methods he feels best for compliting his own personal great work.
And when there was talk above about getting rid of the lust of result, the real seeking of ones true will truly takes courage sometimes, to follow intuition without doubt and so on. The desire separates the wolfs and the sheeps.

Though undividual would be the center of the current aeon, I donΒ΄t see why people couldn`t work in groups. Man should think what has insrument/tool-value,and what does have absolute-value.

- 93 -

Wow necro a go-go! Good subject though. II think there has been a lot more unity on the past. And I guess it varies a lot how much the sense of community means to people. Depending on culture, history, peoples habits and 666 other things.


   
ReplyQuote
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Tell me how to use those quote-options better πŸ˜€ I don`t know should I laugh or cry again.. I clicked "Quote the last message" and I got that.


   
ReplyQuote
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 19 years ago
Posts: 5373
 

What does this thread have to do with Aleister Crowley's legacy or the impact of Thelema on modern culture and media?

From the banner at the top of the home page of this site: "LAShTAL.COM is home of The Aleister Crowley Society. It is a non-commercial and non-partisan website devoted to the legacy of Aleister Crowley and to the impact of Crowley and Thelema on media, news and culture. It is NOT an occult website."

This thread appears to have little relevance to the purpose of the site and I have therefore locked it.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


   
ReplyQuote
Share: