the ending of the w...
 
Notifications
Clear all

the ending of the word

65 Posts
24 Users
0 Likes
1,572 Views
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"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. 🙄


   
ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 

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?


   
ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 2967
 

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


   
ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"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.")


   
ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 

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.


   
ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"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.


   
ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 

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.


   
ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"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).

😉


   
ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 

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.


   
ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 2967
 
"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...


   
ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Noctifur,

Thank you very much for that very courteous welcome to this forum. I discovered it by accident, while googling for an obsolete email address, to see if it was worth renewing. That took me straight to this thread.

I am very glad to see that the subject of my book has provoked, and continues to provoke, some serious thought and discussion on a wide range of Thelema related topics. I will look forward to exploring some of the other discussions, as well as the interesting ideas that are continually coming up here.

To all:

Some of the questions that have been thrown at me in a rather aggressive manner here, are difficult for me (or anyone else) to "answer" since those persons obviously have not read the book in question! It would not really be appropriate for me to go throwing in great chunks of chapter and verse from my own book. Some of it is quoted in my manifesto on my website, and you can read about two thirds of the book online without purchasing it.

There is also the thought that, since the topic here is really "the mysteries", the question, or whether it is the right question, is more important than any answer. E.g., "What ails thee, o king?" in the Graal legend. Very often though, a person that wants to play inquisitor only wants to put you and the subject away in a box, so they will be safe from being disturbed by any truth!

In reply to one or two of the more insidious comments, though, I have studied and practiced Hermetics and Thelema for 20 years, not 5. My interest and practice of the occult in general extends over about 40 years (since I began having direct experience of the supernatural - or "supranatural" as it is termed in the book). It took 5 years to edit and "test" the first drafts by subjecting them to vigorous intellectual scrutiny - though it is not a "scholarly" book, by the way. In the end I threw out more material than is actually in the published editions. I went to great lengths to remove polemic, and to remove my personal opinions and personality from the book as far as possible - there is already far too much of that kind of stuff around. There is nothing about me in it, although the book has a magical basis in that Sophie and myself really "worked the path" experimentally and often to the point of exhaustion, at times putting ourselves in considerable danger. A lot of it is factual, but I believe these are facts that have been not aired much in the field. Some of it, the comparative work, for instance, is actually work that Crowley expected other people to do, he didn't want to bother with that himself.

Following the discussions above, I have put some thought in regarding the title of the book, and I think it is perfectly adequate. There is a slight pun in it, actually, in that Crowley never claimed any kind of philosophy at all, he felt that was best to leave for the academics with their sterile battles of words (!). The sense of the word that I intend is not the academic kind of philosophy but the literal meaning of the word, "love of wisdom".

The question of "sales strategy" is not worthy of further consideration, sorry.


   
ReplyQuote
einDoppelganger
(@eindoppelganger)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 915
 

Some people would rather criticize a book they haven't read than write one themselves. Its easier to bait and tear down than put the work in creating something real and tangible, I suppose.

Welcome to the forum Oliver.

Scott


   
ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Welcome to the forum, Oliver! BTW, I really enjoyed "The Stone of Stars" in the previous issue of Starfire!


   
ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 53 years ago
Posts: 0
 

A pleasure, Oliver, and something of a duty, one might have hoped. Thank you for the additional information kindly supplied by you above about your book - I shall simply have to get it now. I am particularly interested in progressive, independent perspectives, and in practical anecdote regarding application of/experimentation and development upon the Crowley material, to see what new fruit it bears: the product of its intersection with authentic individuality and experience.


   
ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 2967
 

93,

"OliverStJohn" wrote:
In reply to one or two of the more insidious comments, though, I have studied and practiced Hermetics and Thelema for 20 years, not 5. My interest and practice of the occult in general extends over about 40 years (since I began having direct experience of the supernatural - or "supranatural" as it is termed in the book). It took 5 years to edit and "test" the first drafts by subjecting them to vigorous intellectual scrutiny - though it is not a "scholarly" book, by the way. In the end I threw out more material than is actually in the published editions. I went to great lengths to remove polemic, and to remove my personal opinions and personality from the book as far as possible - there is already far too much of that kind of stuff around. There is nothing about me in it, although the book has a magical basis in that Sophie and myself really "worked the path" experimentally and often to the point of exhaustion, at times putting ourselves in considerable danger. A lot of it is factual, but I believe these are facts that have been not aired much in the field. Some of it, the comparative work, for instance, is actually work that Crowley expected other people to do, he didn't want to bother with that himself.

Thank you, sir, for clarifying this.

93 93/93


   
ReplyQuote
Page 2 / 2
Share: