The Solar Phallic King
-
Since Froclown seems too timid to go ahead and start this thread , I decided to take the initiative for him.
Where do people stand on this issue of the "Solar Phallic King"? Is this the natural state of affairs? If this be the case, then we need no government soever as the equilibrium will stabilize out of anarchy. To be honest despite apparent evidence to the contrary i am still undecided on this issue. 
-
Useless squabbles.
-
@BlasphemousTruth said
"Useless squabbles."
Maybe not really a squabble? & Maybe not useless?"..As brothers fight ye.." u assume too much, I would expect some to "get" my particularly sarcastic humor and some not too, but I am free to express myself how I deem fit. This is an important topic to me and to others also, the phrase I use is in proper accordance with the nature of the debate, a debate that developed organically between aspirants to wisdom(which did not start today either), and which if you have nothing to contribute to, are better off remaining silent and observing(as evidently you've been doing for quite some time), instead of getting directly involved in what you denounce? if you think this way, then why jump in the middle of it? As absurd as it is hypocritical?? you must need attention!
-
@Frater I-Ness said
"Since Froclown seems too timid to go ahead and start this thread , I decided to take the initiative for him.
Where do people stand on this issue of the "Solar Phallic King"? Is this the natural state of affairs? If this be the case, then we need no government soever as the equilibrium will stabilize out of anarchy. To be honest despite apparent evidence to the contrary i am still undecided on this issue. "The priest-king, or sacred king, is a racial memory, now considered a myth. I suggest reading The Golden Bough by Frazer. The king was sacrificially slain yearly, probably on Lammas. There are alot of good Pagan sources for more information on this. This was prevelant in many countries but I'm talking msotly about Britain since that's what I've done research on.
Anyway, this belief that the king was either God, or spoke for God, hung on and degenerated as people evolved. Henry VIII claimed this right when he formed the church of England by divine right. As we know, this whole process was very bloody and painful, as England went back and forth between Protestant and Catholic, depending on who was on the throne.
Why would we ever want to return to a condition where one person was the people's connection to God? We, as a race, have been there, done that. The British cherish the myth of King Arthur, and all that Glastonbury means to them as a racial memory. I hope this makes sense. Persephone -
93,
Why is it, I wonder, that we always have to project these concepts onto an exterior object, or person? Or maybe I shouldn't wonder, because it's a natural first step in the process of understanding. We can perceive and analyze such ideas better when we initially see them as exterior.
But eventually, we have to see such things as residing within ourselves, and operating through us, not over us.
The eventual implications of this are obviously more than we want to face. It's easier to stick with notions of structured societies (or feudalisms...?) that have rulers we can revere and blame at will. A switch in the orientation of our thinking to an interior Ruler means a revolution in our ideas, which might explain why some people who contribute here are so adamantly against conceding the possible existence of such an Entity. Its first instruction, usually, is "Ssshhh... and listen."
And that spoils ALL the fun.93 93/93,
EM
-
@Persephone said
"
The priest-king, or sacred king, is a racial memory, now considered a myth. I suggest reading The Golden Bough by Frazer. The king was sacrificially slain yearly, probably on Lammas. There are alot of good Pagan sources for more information on this. This was prevelant in many countries but I'm talking msotly about Britain since that's what I've done research on.
Anyway, this belief that the king was either God, or spoke for God, hung on and degenerated as people evolved. Henry VIII claimed this right when he formed the church of England by divine right. As we know, this whole process was very bloody and painful, as England went back and forth between Protestant and Catholic, depending on who was on the throne.
Why would we ever want to return to a condition where one person was the people's connection to God? We, as a race, have been there, done that. The British cherish the myth of King Arthur, and all that Glastonbury means to them as a racial memory. I hope this makes sense. Persephone"Thanks, Persephone, this makes sense; however I wonder did you mean "ritually slain"? or "sacrificially slain"(actually sacrificed)?
@Edward Mason said
"93,
Why is it, I wonder, that we always have to project these concepts onto an exterior object, or person? Or maybe I shouldn't wonder, because it's a natural first step in the process of understanding. We can perceive and analyze such ideas better when we initially see them as exterior.
But eventually, we have to see such things as residing within ourselves, and operating through us, not over us.
The eventual implications of this are obviously more than we want to face. It's easier to stick with notions of structured societies (or feudalisms...?) that have rulers we can revere and blame at will. A switch in the orientation of our thinking to an interior Ruler means a revolution in our ideas, which might explain why some people who contribute here are so adamantly against conceding the possible existence of such an Entity. Its first instruction, usually, is "Ssshhh... and listen."
And that spoils ALL the fun.93 93/93,
EM"
It would seem you are referencing the HGA??
-
Frater I-ness; According to The Golden Bough he was sacrificed, then at some point in time the sacrifice became symbolic. Again, check the book and other sources on this for more specifics, its been awhile since I read alot on this subject.
Persephone -
"These are fools that men adore; both their Gods & their men are fools."
-
Frater I-ness, 93
"It would seem you are referencing the HGA??"
Yup. All gods, goddesses and ruling forces are, in some sense, aspects of the HGA. So any discussion of Solar-Phallic Kings, Ra-Hoor-Khuit, Nuit, or whatever, becomes a circular discussion, returning to that one overriding theme. I find the stage of beginning to consider that notion is one of the most interesting in the pursuit of the Mysteries. It's the point at which the particular begins to dissolve into a Totality that, at the very least, hints at vast Nothingness.
And Blasphemous Truth's "usless squabbles" are seen to be just what he says.
93 93/93,
EM
-
The HGA is the aspect in one self that is part of the transcendent order, the King is rather the HUB or network server than connects the various HGA's together.
If we think of the transcendent as a wireless network, the HGA is the wi-fi card that connects each individual to a LAN (local race-community) and the king is the access point to the WAN. The King helps to organize each individual into the local network.
The HGA is constitutes ones individual Spiritual Caste, ones HGA determines if one's true nature is the ardor and manliness of the warrior caste, the spiritual sublimity of the priest, the shrewed correctness of the scribe/clerk, the economic prowess of the merchant, etc. But the King is the transcendent, the King represents the Whole community, and also connects the community to a larger transcendent network, the world and all the other communities.
HGA is to Hadit as King is to Nuit.
The King need not be ritually slain any more, as that is old aeon formula, the Kingly formula is Horus the same as the HGA formula.
-
Froclown, 93,
"The HGA is constitutes ones individual Spiritual Caste, ones HGA determines if one's true nature is the ardor and manliness of the warrior caste, the spiritual sublimity of the priest, the shrewed correctness of the scribe/clerk, the economic prowess of the merchant, etc."
Why is the HGA about any specific notion such as 'ardor and manliness' or "the economic prowess of the merchant" ? That's an absurd restriction on what an HGA really is. I also see no reason whatsever for your distinction between the HGA and the King, unless it's to fit the HGA into a private and very narrow conception.
I've previously said I completely reject the very notion of caste or anything like it in Thelema in the course of other exchanges - we are ALL royalty waiting to emerge - so it's not worth my rehashing that.
93 93/93,
EM
-
The HGA is ones TRUE self, its not just prowess or ardor, but is what makes on man timid, another a hot head. etc.
Its a realization of what one is, the nature of ones Incarnation. To incarnate means to renounce the infinite potential of the continuous all and to take form in one specific particular sort of being. Hadit is Nuit, manifest as a point, by that point accepting one property or nature and rejecting another.
One point can only be here or there, it you are here and there, you are either a line or a self contradiction.
it is not true that everyone is unlimited that would be absurd. The fact than YOU are in any way distinguishable from anyone and anything else means, that you have limit, boarders than define You vs the other. That is the nature of incarnate existence. The Hadit or HGA is the expression of ones particular limits and proper relation to the limits of other particular points. These particulars do always balance out in a homeo-stasis of total equalibrium, to the nothingness of Nuit. But each of us is not than balanced all, we contribute to than state, and we do so only by fulfilling our the role and station of that is proper to our particular manifestation.
While yes each individual is Unique, still general similarities exist as well. Those with short fuses and less dexterity are not suited to working it watch factories, any more than the patient dexterity of the watchmaker is appropriate to the heaven construction work. The simple fact that such factors are genetic, and closed population have developed some of these genetic skills and allowed other to atrophy, means than Race does exist. Race is not merely skin color, it is the Eskimos Genetic tendency to store an insulating layer of fat, it is the short temper of the Iris, the Passion of the Latino. Which are a combination of genetics and local cultures that are symbiotic with the genetics, and the actual land conditions on which these traits came into play.
To mismatch a people, with its culture and land is destructive to the individual as well as his whole race. The globalized world where we are all one HUMAN cattle, stripped of our local culture, taught that our myths, legends and heros are fairy tales to be dismissed and forgotten, taught to forget our ties to our own people and our own history. rooted out of the connection to our homelands, and our pride is our local arts and crafts, displaced by globalist standardization. We become individuals, we may even became Humans, but in such a world we can not be called persons. Stripped of our culture, our history, our myths, our land, we became empty shells, mere humans, with to value or virtue beyond our pragmatic use as a tool or a commodity.
Strip us of King and caste, of race and homeland and you dare to call these empty shells human, and go so far as to rise yourself up as Humanist. I have a better name for this, I call it spiritual Vampirism, the very essence of the Black school, which Crowley was sent to work against, not to be enlisted as one of its ranks, to continue the vampirism of Christ.
-
93,
"Strip us of King and caste, of race and homeland and you dare to call these empty shells human, and go so far as to rise yourself up as Humanist. I have a better name for this, I call it spiritual Vampirism, the very essence of the Black school, which Crowley was sent to work against, not to be enlisted as one of its ranks, to continue the vampirism of Christ."
Oh, utter piffle and uncomprehending misrepresentation.
(Edit:)
Any definition of the HGA is inherently self-contradictory and therefore absurd. To define is to limit. And a belief in dynamic evolution is NOT humanism.
Perhaps when we reach the day when the Supreme Guardian of the Iranian revolution, Ayatollah Babalon 'Babs' Ghotzbadegh announces in Tehran that the citizenry is not living up to its traditional erotic standards; when 14 US Republican Governors in a row confess to having been miserable monogamists all their lives; and the Premier of China, Hong Feng Kuo, announces that he is simply and solely gay, explaining tearfully on TV that "Not everyone can be bi - I know, I tried, and it just isn't my thing!"... then, perhaps, it will make sense to be discussing how we Thelemites will rule the world, and what system(s) we will adopt.
Until then, Bahlasti! Ompehda! We choke on these crapulous screeds! Our only sensible task is personal development, not determining how to divide the spoils we are centuries away from claiming.
93 93/93,
EM
-
you make the HGA out to be above the abyss, the HGA is YOU yourself, plain and simple. It is not a transcendent of Duality, The HGA is the very foundation stone of duality. It is than fulcrum on which duality in divided.
Nor is thin any sort of political plan of action to take over the world, it is a model of Exactly on what grounds we are to accept authority, and what level of authority we possess as well as what the proper sphere of action in for each individual.
We can not claim that the proper area in which to act is everyone acts in the universe as a whole. That is impossible, each of us as a particular innate ingrained physical and spiritual essence which we are to act upon. Crowley was an expression of Jupiter forces in his incarnation, others may be Mars, or Mercury, some may be water and others fire or air.
it is possible any one might become a mathematics professor against their inner spiritual nature, but it is those whose HGA is strongly expressive of Air and Mercury who finds his self expression balanced in the sphere of Hod, developing theories, rather than the mechanical creations based on math, that a more earth element would devise.
Now Races as a whole tend to have elemental and planetary natures, that is who one incarnates in a particular time and place, in a particular vessel that is genetically and culturally appropriate to the expression of ones spiritual nature.
I am concerned with nothing less, than that we have fitting vessels into which the divine essence can incarnate in the future. Thus the political and social structure on earth must reflect what is above with races and castes that mirror the heavens.
"The gross must pass through fire; let the fine be tried in intellect, and the lofty chosen ones in the highest. Thus ye have star & star, system & system; let not one know well the other! "
star and star = castes with in a race or ethnic group.
System and system = Various small self consistent Races with the larger world.
Thus the Social system mirrors the organization of the cells, organs, systems in the body bellow it and the Stars, solar-systems and galaxies above it.
We are cells in an organ, organs in the system, systems in the body (Self-race-world-universal)
We are stars in the solar system and solar systems in the galaxy and galaxies in the universal.
The earth, moon, and sun are all stars, each one is the center in its own perspective, Einstein shows that any point in the center. However which ever you take as center the light comes first from the sun, it is reflected and shared as in the collect from the Gnostic mass.
The King receives the light directly, and gives of life and light to those of us who orbit about him.
every man and every woman is a star, but not all stars are the same nor are they all equal.
-
@Frater I-Ness said
"Where do people stand on this issue of the "Solar Phallic King"?"
Sounds silly and limiting. The crowned and conquering child of the New Aeon integrates both male and female energies into itself.
-
@he atlas itch said
"
@Frater I-Ness said
"Where do people stand on this issue of the "Solar Phallic King"?"Sounds silly and limiting. The crowned and conquering child of the New Aeon integrates both male and female energies into itself."
93,
Agreed.
The Godhead of every man and every woman is "Solar-Phallic" in that it unites one with the procreative life-will of all things.
One's highest Self of oneself is also the HGA, also the Secret Self, also a King-and/or-Queen... it is that which cannot fall having never been born or died, but permeating and giving Life to all things (righteous shall be righteous still, etc). All things that are impermanent - those of the 4 - will inevitably perish and be subservient (the slaves shall serve the King to do His Will) to the Law of the permanent - that which is hidden behind the 4, the babe in the blue egg, the self which is All things.
All these things are metaphors and symbols - rise up & awake... beyond! beyond!
93 93/93
IAO131 -
Well, it has been said many times that the best form of government is government by the "Good King" - the king that has the best interest of the people at heart. It cuts out all the beaurocracy and all the possibilities of popular ignorance running affairs.
The problem, since the dawn of time, is that "Good Kings" are very, very rare and cannot be produced at will, no matter the spiritual technology that is available (see Babylon, Egypt, Rome). As a result, monarchy, with ALL of human history standing as testimony, always reduces to dynasties, which become, without a single exception in history, self-serving shadows of that rare good king. As a form of government, it has proved itself again and again to be unstable, unsustainable, and undesireable.
The integral part of the equation that Froclown always leaves out is how any "Solar Phalic King" form of monarchy would ensure that each of its kings in succession are in fact "Good Kings." Without this, the ideal of the "initiated monarchy" is merely wishful, idealistic thinking.
- Where does this steady supply of "initiated monarchs" come from?
Does no one seek power nor have the power to usurp power if they are not "rubber stamped" by the initiating bodies? And if so, don't the initiating bodies have more power than the king - deciding who may become one?
- What is the process of stable transfer of power from one unquestionably and plentiful "good king" to the next?
If it's not dynastic and if it doesn't mean we have another war every single time one king merely appears to be weak, then what is it? Is there no selfishness or greed in this utopia? Is there no misplaced power? If not, then why need a ruler?
These are the eternal problems of any ideal of "initiated monarchy," and they remain completely untouched and unresolved in this discussion. How then, can anyone yet take it seriously? If he could answer these two, simple questions (upon which his entire utopia depends), I would take him so very much more seriously. As it is, it strikes me as euphoric idealism divorced from any serious, practical conception of history or politics.
From another angle, it goes completely against the very heart and spirit of the Book of the Law; namely, it suggests that I should view another as "king" and myself as "not king." It tells the "slave class" that they should be content where they are and submit to an outside authority because it is in their best interests - indeed, it is ordained from on High! - even though doing this would be to practice the same "spiritual vampirism" that it is supposedly so against.
"The word of Sin is Restriction"
Government IS Restriction. Govern - "to exercise a directing or restraining influence over."
What does it mean "to be governed" but to be restrained?
The only "proper" government based on the perspective of the characters in the Book of the Law is Anarchy - no Restriction, no "rule," not ever. The Book of the Law is about throwing off restrictions, not creating, organizing, and forcing others to follow them.
I'm sorry, but the weight of the entire history of the human race is in the other side of the balance on this one. So unless there is some truly new idea somewhere in here that *no one *has yet been able to discover, then it's just another old and outworn form that will continue to die whether we choose to debate about it or not...
-
just because one workers under a king, does not mean that the Kind forces you against your own WILL. the book of the law cast off restrictions to your own, Will it does nt remoeve all order and reason from the world.
An ant colony for example, some ants are born workers some are queens, some are soldiers others are drones. The leaf cutter ants soldiers have large heads and jaws, they cut the leaves and the worker ants are smaller and faster but have small weak jaws. Part of the genetic programing of those ants is that each one's behaviors are genetically determined to fit their physiology. The queen lays eggs, but she also secretes a hormone that alters the other ants behaviors and keeps them working to bring her food and protect her etc. In bees the queen hormone is necessary to the life of the worker bee that does not produce the chemical themselves. the point being that the ants of bees would all run off on their own rather than act as a social hive if not for the fact that each of the same community have common pheromones and other shared hormones, and that each different type of cast of ant in the colony has a job that is vital to the whle workings. the queen is the common focus of all the others. And the any queens actually select mates to produce the genetic line up she requires, and thus also selects new queens. in bee hives royal jelly is fed to the young to create new queens. these hormones, pheromones and royal jellies, are chemical agents that trigger dormant gene expressions.
In humans and larger other social mammals, we trigger these dormant genes by other cues, by symbols and and ordeals. we imprint our nervous systems as Leary put it by being exposed to certain types of experiences at the right time and place. Our cultures titles and ordeal, or myths, symbols and initiations serve to trigger these genes, in some cases we use symbiotic plant relationships to attain the chemicals drugs, opium, hashish, fermented fruits and grains, which in combination with the race, culture and rituals of the people who traditionally use these methods, we awaken awareness, and dormant genetic processes. and in some of these we awaken kings.
The alpha male baboon for example, is genetically the same as the other males, but once it is in the position of alpha male, its fangs from, its fur thickens, it body mass increases due to testosterone and other hormones released by its recognized social role. the same with wolves. And for humans, it has been shown for example that after receiving a promotion to a more dominate job, from lower to upper management or form grunt to Sargent, men produce more testosterone and become more aggressive risk takers, and I learn from Dr. Drew that penis size increases.
Here we have evidence that social situations, and ordeals, have an effect on self image as well as physiological effects all inter-related.
That each of these adapts a person to a role, that these gene expressions and the social rituals that induce them as well as create meaningful expression of them are necessary to human psychology and proper social dynamics.
In no ways does the fact that a soldier any cuts the leaf and the worker and does not cut leaves does it mean the worker is restricted from cutting, it means the worker has no TRUE WILL to do cutting. It has no ability and it is not part of its WILL. The fact that kings shall be kings does not restrict the slaves from serving. The WILL to be what one is, does not include a right to attempt what one does not WILL, nor to feel ashamed at failure to meet the expectation of a caste not of owns own WILL. The fish may dream of flying, but its HGA (Hadit) is a fishes Hadit and not a birds, if the fish took to flight is wold suffer, and return to the sea. A fish in its true WILL takes comfort in the sea, an if nature made the fish a leader of a school or a follower, That role is the fishes WILL.
A worker bee does not sulk at not being a queen and seek to lay eggs.
-
@Froclown said
"just because one workers under a king, does not mean that the Kind forces you against your own WILL. "
yet elsewhere
@Froclown said
"The same is True with Slaves [as it is with tractors], their purpose is to serve and thus it is proper that they be USED up as fodder to ones own WILL, a tool run into the ground and used for a purpose that meets its talents. Be they mental or physical skills.
I would go so far as to say ideally with Thelema one self is King and all other humans, animals, objects, beliefs, etc are merely tools to be used, worn out, and cast aside, with no value in themselves but only as means to ones ends. "
and also
@Froclown said
"Thelema is to do away with all of this [egalitarian notions], and impose harsh standards on others, those who fail to meet up with ones standards are unfit and caste out of the social order. "Kings shall be kings forever, the slaves shall serve" "
yet
@Froclown said
"the book of the law cast off restrictions to your own, Will it doesn't remove all order and reason from the world. A worker bee does not sulk at not being a queen and seek to lay eggs."
Say one thing, and say it well. As it is, you paint a very conflicted and self-contradictory picture.
Also, your ideal "initiated monarch" is not only a complete douche, but he also apparently fits the DSM IV criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder. People don't joyfully serve such cancerous growths. They cut them out even if it means losing their own limbs. You may do a Google video search for the execution of Saddam Hussein if you need clarification about what happens to such "kings."
All that, and you didn't even attempt to answer either of the only questions that matter from a practical standpoint. Allow me to reproduce those questions so as to keep them from leaving the very forefront of anyone's mind:
"***1. Where does this steady supply of "initiated monarchs" come from? **
Does no one seek power nor have the strength to usurp power if they are not "rubber stamped" by the initiating bodies? And if so, don't the initiating bodies have more power than the king - deciding who may become one?
***2. What is the process of stable transfer of power from one unquestionably and plentiful "good king" to the next? ***
If it's not dynastic and if it doesn't mean we have another war every single time one king merely appears to be weak, then what is it? Is there no selfishness or greed in this utopia? Is there no misplaced power? If not, then why need a ruler?
These are the eternal problems of any ideal of "initiated monarchy," and they remain completely untouched and unresolved in this discussion. How then, can anyone yet take it seriously?. . . As it is, it strikes me as euphoric idealism divorced from any serious, practical conception of history or politics. "