Runes? Eihwaz/Aiwaz
-
I have just discovered that Stephen Flowers is not a reliable source, his PhD is a sham, basically, and most of his ideas can only be traced back to about the 1800's Germany.
This includes his guessed at "proto-Germanic" preferred names of the Elder Futhark.
In other words, "Eihwaz" is not the real name of this rune and I wouldn't trust a thing Flowers/Thorsson says at this point. Jan Fries is an author that deliberately gives a Thelemic bent to the runes -- his book, "helrunar" opens with "Do what thout wilt," etc. But, for all I know, he got his ideas from this "authority, " Mr. Stephen Flowers/Edred Thorsson.
In conclusion: lock/delete thread (your call). This is a waste of brainpower.
-
@Redd Fezz said
"I have just discovered that Stephen Flowers is not a reliable source, his PhD is a sham, basically, and most of his ideas can only be traced back to about the 1800's Germany."
Do have any reason to view your source about the "sham" as anymore reliable than your previous source? Even if not, you still have to deal with the limitations of his interpretations.
If you want a "real" interpretation of the runes, then you only have one thing to do. Get some decent translations of the various Norse and Anglo-Saxon rune poems and use them as the basis for you interpretations. Also, read the Norse Eddas. Some of them might give some hints about the use of runes.
I also highly recommend that you read The Well and the Tree: World and Time in Early Germanic Culture by Paul C. Bauschatz. It's out of print, but you can probably find it in a university library or through interlibrary loan. He gives a great explanation of the very distinct way in which ancient Germans understood time and space. Mind blowing.
-
@Redd Fezz said
"I have just discovered that Stephen Flowers is not a reliable source, his PhD is a sham, basically, and most of his ideas can only be traced back to about the 1800's Germany.
"
In case you didn't know, Flower's primary esoteric training is from his decades in Aquino's Temple of Set where he is a "magus." If there ever was a school of black brothers in the making, it is them.
-
@sasha said
"
@Redd Fezz said
"I have just discovered that Stephen Flowers is not a reliable source, his PhD is a sham, basically, and most of his ideas can only be traced back to about the 1800's Germany."Do have any reason to view your source about the "sham" as anymore reliable than your previous source? "
Yes, big reason.
-
@DavidH said
"
@Redd Fezz said
"I have just discovered that Stephen Flowers is not a reliable source, his PhD is a sham, basically, and most of his ideas can only be traced back to about the 1800's Germany."
In case you didn't know, Flower's primary esoteric training is from his decades in Aquino's Temple of Set where he is a "magus." If there ever was a school of black brothers in the making, it is them."
Haha, one of Edred's old housemates and still a current friend of his told me he thinks "lying is a part of their religion."
-
Yes, and they practice something they term "Lesser Black Magic" which is the manipulation of another's will to serve their purposes. Basically Brain washing long term, or mental manipulation for short term. Aquino was a psyops specialist in the Army, specializing in control of foreign countries by psycholgical warfare. But maybe this is off topic now!
-
Well, now, the moderator at Thelema93-list has brought up a good point:
@T93-L Moderator said
"
@Redd Fezz said
""I guess there's not enough evidence to really suggestAiwaz = Eihwaz
(especially since I just recently found out "Eihwaz" is
from
a reconstructed proto-Germanic language and not
authentic)."
like Hadit? exhibit 666? unedited scripture?
all very excellent topic focus in-list should
you desire to broach them."He brings up some interesting points about Hadit and the 666 exhibit. I guess maybe I was vaguely thinking along these lines initially and lost track of it... Aiwaz was a master manipulator and he DID seem to indicate the birthing of the New Aeon would be bloody... and both WWII and the 60's could be considered the "bloody beginnings."
I wish I knew where to begin with that one. I'm not the only one to have made the connection, obviously, since I was responding to an old post on the the Thelema93 List where someone asked, "So, is Aiwaz really Eihwaz?" An author named Jan Fries has taken a very Thelemic attitude toward the Runes. If Crowley was so against the attitudes and morals of the Abrahamic religions, it does seem logical that the Rune culture, notoriously self-reliant, bold and people-based, WILL power-based, and absolutely Heathen and Anti-Christ would make a natural "fit" for Crowley's vision of Thelema.
What do you think? Jim?
-
OK, just thought there might be a reason because the disinterest you expressed with such finality struck me as repulsion due to previous experience/understanding of the runes.
There's a lot of things I'm not interested in, too. So, I understand your feeling. You're just... not interested!
-
@Redd Fezz said
"I have just discovered that Stephen Flowers is not a reliable source, his PhD is a sham, basically, and most of his ideas can only be traced back to about the 1800's Germany."
Not true. He earned his PhD for a study titled Runes and Magic from the Germanic Studies Department at the University of Texas at Austin, which was and is still one of the top Germanic Studies deparmtents in the US. As you are in NYC, you can find a copy of his dissertation in the Columbia Library if you're interested. The section on the so-called "Semiotic Theory of Magic" is most interesting even if you aren't terribly interested in Runes.
"This includes his guessed at "proto-Germanic" preferred names of the Elder Futhark."
Those aren't his guesses but rather the common reconstruction used by Linguists for determining the hypothesised "Proto-Germanic" language from which all alter Germanic languages descend.
"In conclusion: lock/delete thread (your call). This is a waste of brainpower."
No reason to lock or delete it.
To answer your original question, no Crowley never wrote on the topic of the Runes, either any of the three traditions or the late 19th Century syncratic Armanen tradition. His exposure to the Runes was likely minimal as he had no connections with the Ariosophic groups influences by Guido von List active in Germany during his life time nor was he much of a reader in German by his own admission.
There is no connection between Aiwass and the rune known as Eihwaz, either factually or magically. Speculation along those lines will yeild only subjective interpretations of little transpersonal value.
-
@BlackSun9 said
"
@Redd Fezz said
"I have just discovered that Stephen Flowers is not a reliable source, his PhD is a sham, basically, and most of his ideas can only be traced back to about the 1800's Germany."Not true. He earned his PhD for a study titled Runes and Magic from the Germanic Studies Department at the University of Texas at Austin, which was and is still one of the top Germanic Studies deparmtents in the US."
His work is not accepted by scholars and established experts in the field. You may find a copy of his study, but he has declined to publish his PhD. This is because, I've been told by a friend of his, when he obtained that PhD in "Germanic Philology" there were no experts. His professor awarded it on the "strength of its depth" alone. Not it's content (which he didn't understand).
@BlackSun9 said
"
"This includes his guessed at "proto-Germanic" preferred names of the Elder Futhark."Those aren't his guesses but rather the common reconstruction used by Linguists for determining the hypothesised "Proto-Germanic" language from which all alter Germanic languages descend. "
First appeared in a 1930-something book and have no official authority other than it became common to use these names. Just because it's commonly accepted "knowledge", doesn't mean it's true, as the case of Paul Revere shows.
@BlackSun9 said
"
To answer your original question, no Crowley never wrote on the topic of the Runes, either any of the three traditions or the late 19th Century syncratic Armanen tradition. His exposure to the Runes was likely minimal as he had no connections with the Ariosophic groups influences by Guido von List active in Germany during his life time nor was he much of a reader in German by his own admission.There is no connection between Aiwass and the rune known as Eihwaz, either factually or magically. Speculation along those lines will yeild only subjective interpretations of little transpersonal value."
As the moderator of Thelema93-list said, when I mentioned "Eihwaz" was not "authentic,":
"like Hadit? exhibit 666? unedited scripture?"
He makes a good point. Have you bothered to speculate, meditate or anything else along these lines or might you be jumping the gun about "transpersonal value?"