"Low men" and Kings
-
93,
How does one reconcile things like:
AL I:3. Every man and every woman is a star.
AL I:22. Bind nothing! Let there be no difference made among you between any one thing & any other thing; for thereby there cometh hurt.with lines like
AL II:17. Hear me, ye people of sighing!
The sorrows of pain and regret
Are left to the dead and the dying,
The folk that not know me as yet.
AL II:18. These are dead, these fellows; they feel not. We are not for the poor and sad: the lords of the earth are our kinsfolk.
AL II:19 Is a God to live in a dog? No! but the highest are of us. They shall rejoice, our chosen: who sorroweth is not of us.
AL II:25. Love one another with burning hearts; on the low men trample in the fierce lust of your pride, in the day of your wrath.In the second batch of verses we have different dialectics: those people who are "sighing," "dead and the dying," "dead," who "feel not", are "poor and sad"... as opposed to those who presumably DO "know me as yet" (II:17) and are related to "lords of the earth." There are "the highest" who "are of us" who are "chosen" and will "rejoice" - those people who "sorroweth" are not considered part of this group. More differentiation, division, and dialectics. One is told to trample on "the low men," as well... as oppose to "the high men"? Also we come to the famous line:
AL II:21. We have nothing with the outcast and the unfit: let them die in their misery. For they feel not. Compassion is the vice of kings: stamp down the wretched & the weak: this is the law of the strong: this is our law and the joy of the world.
These people are said to "feel not" once again, and are proclaimed to be both "outcast" and "unfit." We are bidden to "stamp down the wretched & the weak, " even as we are told to "Love one another with burning hearts" and "on the low men trample in the fierce lust of your pride, in the day of your wrath." (II:24) AL II:24 also describes those that are "of us:"
*AL II:24. Behold! these be grave mysteries; for there are also of my friends who be hermits... Beware lest any force another, King against King! *
And it is as this point we are told "Love one another with burning hearts; on the low men trample in the fierce lust of your pride, in the day of your wrath." Here there are "also of my friends" who are called "hermits" - presumably this is the same group who is "of us" as opposed to the group of sad and sorrowful outcast. Then a warning against "forc* another" is given, and the players in this are called "Kings."
Then it is proclaimed:
AL II:46. Dost thou fail? Art thou sorry? Is fear in thine heart?
AL II:47. Where I am these are not.Failure, sorrow/regret, and fear are designations of those who "are not" in the "chosen."
AL II:48. Pity not the fallen! I never knew them. I am not for them. I console not: I hate the consoled & the consoler.
We are told not to pity "the fallen," presumably identified with those that think they fail, have sorrow, or are fearful - the outcast & unfit.
AL II:49. I am unique & conqueror. I am not of the slaves that perish. Be they damned & dead! Amen.
Hadit proclaims him (and presumably those identified with him) as "unique & conqueror" as opposed to "the slaves that perish." In fact, "be they damned & dead! Amen." Basically, this dialectic is furthered.
Then it is proclaimed later:
AL II:57. He that is righteous shall be righteous still; he that is filthy shall be filthy still.
Presumably a reference to the Kings and the sorrowful outcasts/low men.
*AL II:58. Yea! deem not of change: ye shall be as ye are, & not other. Therefore the kings of the earth shall be Kings for ever: the slaves shall serve. There is none that shall be cast down or lifted up: all is ever as it was. *
Here the famous line "the slaves shall serve" is encountered. The dialectic between King & slave is reinforced. This dialectic of the King/low men is apparent in ch.2 of Liber AL. It is also apparent in Liber Tzaddi when it is said:
24. My disciples are proud and beautiful; they are strong and swift; they rule their way like mighty conquerors.
25. The weak, the timid, the imperfect, the cowardly, the poor, the tearful --- these are mine enemies, and I am come to destroy them.
26. This also is compassion: an end to the sickness of earth. A rooting-out of the weeds: a watering of the flowers."My" disciples (as opposed to the disciples which are not "mine") are proclaimed to be "proud," "beautiful," "strong," "swift," etc. as opposed to the "enemies" which are characterized by "weak" "timid," "imperfect," "cowardly," "poor," "tearful," and as we know from before "failure," "sorrow," and "fear." This is quite a plain dialectic being set up.
Crowley affirms all this in Magick Without Tears when he writes:
"The Book [Liber AL] announces a new dichotomy in human society; there is the master and there is the slave; the noble and the serf; the "lone wolf" and the herd." -MWT, ch.48
He comments on this, saying, "The 'Master' roughly denotes the able, the adventurous, welcoming responsibility. The 'slave:' his motto is 'Safety first,' with all that this implies. Race, birth, breeding etc. are important but not absolutely essential factors." Here he claims a dichotonomy between lone wolf/herd... noble'serf - also Master/slave... much like D.H. Lawrence's notion of aristocrat/democrat and Nietzsche's ideas of the master & slave moralities (but not identical).
...
Essentially: how does one reconcile the view in ch.1 that all people are "stars" and that one should "make no difference" when, in ch.2, there is clearly a difference being made (as well as in other texts like Liber Tzaddi). It is interesting, as one point, that ch.1 - attributed to Nuit - refers a lot to the understanding of things as undifferentiated whereas Hadit focuses on differentiation (0=2). Aside from this being merely interesting, it doesnt explain how these two concepts can coexist. How do you reconcile these two things?
65 & 210,
111-418"Or, to put it another way: It's all selfish, but the definition of "self" evolves with one's own psychological and spiritual evolution, until it eventually includes the whole universe."
Tell it!
Love under Will. (They're the same thing eh? 93=93). And of course Love requires both an awareness of self as separate and an understanding of the interconnectedness of others and self. I doubt that it is anyone's True Will to go about damaging others.
-
93,
How does one reconcile things like:
AL I:3. Every man and every woman is a star.
AL I:22. Bind nothing! Let there be no difference made among you between any one thing & any other thing; for thereby there cometh hurt.with lines like
AL II:17. Hear me, ye people of sighing!
The sorrows of pain and regret
Are left to the dead and the dying,
The folk that not know me as yet.
AL II:18. These are dead, these fellows; they feel not. We are not for the poor and sad: the lords of the earth are our kinsfolk.
AL II:19 Is a God to live in a dog? No! but the highest are of us. They shall rejoice, our chosen: who sorroweth is not of us.
AL II:25. Love one another with burning hearts; on the low men trample in the fierce lust of your pride, in the day of your wrath.In the second batch of verses we have different dialectics: those people who are "sighing," "dead and the dying," "dead," who "feel not", are "poor and sad"... as opposed to those who presumably DO "know me as yet" (II:17) and are related to "lords of the earth." There are "the highest" who "are of us" who are "chosen" and will "rejoice" - those people who "sorroweth" are not considered part of this group. More differentiation, division, and dialectics. One is told to trample on "the low men," as well... as oppose to "the high men"? Also we come to the famous line:
AL II:21. We have nothing with the outcast and the unfit: let them die in their misery. For they feel not. Compassion is the vice of kings: stamp down the wretched & the weak: this is the law of the strong: this is our law and the joy of the world.
These people are said to "feel not" once again, and are proclaimed to be both "outcast" and "unfit." We are bidden to "stamp down the wretched & the weak, " even as we are told to "Love one another with burning hearts" and "on the low men trample in the fierce lust of your pride, in the day of your wrath." (II:24) AL II:24 also describes those that are "of us:"
*AL II:24. Behold! these be grave mysteries; for there are also of my friends who be hermits... Beware lest any force another, King against King! *
And it is as this point we are told "Love one another with burning hearts; on the low men trample in the fierce lust of your pride, in the day of your wrath." Here there are "also of my friends" who are called "hermits" - presumably this is the same group who is "of us" as opposed to the group of sad and sorrowful outcast. Then a warning against "forc* another" is given, and the players in this are called "Kings."
Then it is proclaimed:
AL II:46. Dost thou fail? Art thou sorry? Is fear in thine heart?
AL II:47. Where I am these are not.Failure, sorrow/regret, and fear are designations of those who "are not" in the "chosen."
AL II:48. Pity not the fallen! I never knew them. I am not for them. I console not: I hate the consoled & the consoler.
We are told not to pity "the fallen," presumably identified with those that think they fail, have sorrow, or are fearful - the outcast & unfit.
AL II:49. I am unique & conqueror. I am not of the slaves that perish. Be they damned & dead! Amen.
Hadit proclaims him (and presumably those identified with him) as "unique & conqueror" as opposed to "the slaves that perish." In fact, "be they damned & dead! Amen." Basically, this dialectic is furthered.
Then it is proclaimed later:
AL II:57. He that is righteous shall be righteous still; he that is filthy shall be filthy still.
Presumably a reference to the Kings and the sorrowful outcasts/low men.
*AL II:58. Yea! deem not of change: ye shall be as ye are, & not other. Therefore the kings of the earth shall be Kings for ever: the slaves shall serve. There is none that shall be cast down or lifted up: all is ever as it was. *
Here the famous line "the slaves shall serve" is encountered. The dialectic between King & slave is reinforced. This dialectic of the King/low men is apparent in ch.2 of Liber AL. It is also apparent in Liber Tzaddi when it is said:
24. My disciples are proud and beautiful; they are strong and swift; they rule their way like mighty conquerors.
25. The weak, the timid, the imperfect, the cowardly, the poor, the tearful --- these are mine enemies, and I am come to destroy them.
26. This also is compassion: an end to the sickness of earth. A rooting-out of the weeds: a watering of the flowers."My" disciples (as opposed to the disciples which are not "mine") are proclaimed to be "proud," "beautiful," "strong," "swift," etc. as opposed to the "enemies" which are characterized by "weak" "timid," "imperfect," "cowardly," "poor," "tearful," and as we know from before "failure," "sorrow," and "fear." This is quite a plain dialectic being set up.
Crowley affirms all this in Magick Without Tears when he writes:
"The Book [Liber AL] announces a new dichotomy in human society; there is the master and there is the slave; the noble and the serf; the "lone wolf" and the herd." -MWT, ch.48
He comments on this, saying, "The 'Master' roughly denotes the able, the adventurous, welcoming responsibility. The 'slave:' his motto is 'Safety first,' with all that this implies. Race, birth, breeding etc. are important but not absolutely essential factors." Here he claims a dichotonomy between lone wolf/herd... noble'serf - also Master/slave... much like D.H. Lawrence's notion of aristocrat/democrat and Nietzsche's ideas of the master & slave moralities (but not identical).
...
Essentially: how does one reconcile the view in ch.1 that all people are "stars" and that one should "make no difference" when, in ch.2, there is clearly a difference being made (as well as in other texts like Liber Tzaddi). It is interesting, as one point, that ch.1 - attributed to Nuit - refers a lot to the understanding of things as undifferentiated whereas Hadit focuses on differentiation (0=2). Aside from this being merely interesting, it doesnt explain how these two concepts can coexist. How do you reconcile these two things?
65 & 210,
111-418 -
93,
How does one reconcile things like:
AL I:3. Every man and every woman is a star.
AL I:22. Bind nothing! Let there be no difference made among you between any one thing & any other thing; for thereby there cometh hurt.with lines like
AL II:17. Hear me, ye people of sighing!
The sorrows of pain and regret
Are left to the dead and the dying,
The folk that not know me as yet.
AL II:18. These are dead, these fellows; they feel not. We are not for the poor and sad: the lords of the earth are our kinsfolk.
AL II:19 Is a God to live in a dog? No! but the highest are of us. They shall rejoice, our chosen: who sorroweth is not of us.
AL II:25. Love one another with burning hearts; on the low men trample in the fierce lust of your pride, in the day of your wrath.In the second batch of verses we have different dialectics: those people who are "sighing," "dead and the dying," "dead," who "feel not", are "poor and sad"... as opposed to those who presumably DO "know me as yet" (II:17) and are related to "lords of the earth." There are "the highest" who "are of us" who are "chosen" and will "rejoice" - those people who "sorroweth" are not considered part of this group. More differentiation, division, and dialectics. One is told to trample on "the low men," as well... as oppose to "the high men"? Also we come to the famous line:
AL II:21. We have nothing with the outcast and the unfit: let them die in their misery. For they feel not. Compassion is the vice of kings: stamp down the wretched & the weak: this is the law of the strong: this is our law and the joy of the world.
These people are said to "feel not" once again, and are proclaimed to be both "outcast" and "unfit." We are bidden to "stamp down the wretched & the weak, " even as we are told to "Love one another with burning hearts" and "on the low men trample in the fierce lust of your pride, in the day of your wrath." (II:24) AL II:24 also describes those that are "of us:"
*AL II:24. Behold! these be grave mysteries; for there are also of my friends who be hermits... Beware lest any force another, King against King! *
And it is as this point we are told "Love one another with burning hearts; on the low men trample in the fierce lust of your pride, in the day of your wrath." Here there are "also of my friends" who are called "hermits" - presumably this is the same group who is "of us" as opposed to the group of sad and sorrowful outcast. Then a warning against "forc* another" is given, and the players in this are called "Kings."
Then it is proclaimed:
AL II:46. Dost thou fail? Art thou sorry? Is fear in thine heart?
AL II:47. Where I am these are not.Failure, sorrow/regret, and fear are designations of those who "are not" in the "chosen."
AL II:48. Pity not the fallen! I never knew them. I am not for them. I console not: I hate the consoled & the consoler.
We are told not to pity "the fallen," presumably identified with those that think they fail, have sorrow, or are fearful - the outcast & unfit.
AL II:49. I am unique & conqueror. I am not of the slaves that perish. Be they damned & dead! Amen.
Hadit proclaims him (and presumably those identified with him) as "unique & conqueror" as opposed to "the slaves that perish." In fact, "be they damned & dead! Amen." Basically, this dialectic is furthered.
Then it is proclaimed later:
AL II:57. He that is righteous shall be righteous still; he that is filthy shall be filthy still.
Presumably a reference to the Kings and the sorrowful outcasts/low men.
*AL II:58. Yea! deem not of change: ye shall be as ye are, & not other. Therefore the kings of the earth shall be Kings for ever: the slaves shall serve. There is none that shall be cast down or lifted up: all is ever as it was. *
Here the famous line "the slaves shall serve" is encountered. The dialectic between King & slave is reinforced. This dialectic of the King/low men is apparent in ch.2 of Liber AL. It is also apparent in Liber Tzaddi when it is said:
24. My disciples are proud and beautiful; they are strong and swift; they rule their way like mighty conquerors.
25. The weak, the timid, the imperfect, the cowardly, the poor, the tearful --- these are mine enemies, and I am come to destroy them.
26. This also is compassion: an end to the sickness of earth. A rooting-out of the weeds: a watering of the flowers."My" disciples (as opposed to the disciples which are not "mine") are proclaimed to be "proud," "beautiful," "strong," "swift," etc. as opposed to the "enemies" which are characterized by "weak" "timid," "imperfect," "cowardly," "poor," "tearful," and as we know from before "failure," "sorrow," and "fear." This is quite a plain dialectic being set up.
Crowley affirms all this in Magick Without Tears when he writes:
"The Book [Liber AL] announces a new dichotomy in human society; there is the master and there is the slave; the noble and the serf; the "lone wolf" and the herd." -MWT, ch.48
He comments on this, saying, "The 'Master' roughly denotes the able, the adventurous, welcoming responsibility. The 'slave:' his motto is 'Safety first,' with all that this implies. Race, birth, breeding etc. are important but not absolutely essential factors." Here he claims a dichotonomy between lone wolf/herd... noble'serf - also Master/slave... much like D.H. Lawrence's notion of aristocrat/democrat and Nietzsche's ideas of the master & slave moralities (but not identical).
...
Essentially: how does one reconcile the view in ch.1 that all people are "stars" and that one should "make no difference" when, in ch.2, there is clearly a difference being made (as well as in other texts like Liber Tzaddi). It is interesting, as one point, that ch.1 - attributed to Nuit - refers a lot to the understanding of things as undifferentiated whereas Hadit focuses on differentiation (0=2). Aside from this being merely interesting, it doesnt explain how these two concepts can coexist. How do you reconcile these two things?
65 & 210,
111-418@Froclown said
In particular, I have always liked the following excerpt from that chapter - and draw your attention to its last sentence:
"In practice, I begin afresh, it is almost entirely a matter of the point of view. That poor chap looks as if a square meal wouldn't hurt him; and you chuck him a half-crown. You offend his pride, you pauperize him, you make a perfect cad of yourself, and you go off with a glow of having done your good deed for the day. It's all wrong. In such a case, you should make it the request for favour. Say you're "dying for someone to talk to, and would he care to join you in a spot of lunch" at the Ritz, or wherever you feel that he will be the happiest.
When you can do this sort of thing as it should be done, without embarrassment, false shame, with your whole heart in your words — do it simply, to sum up — you will find yourself way up on the road to that royal republic which is the ideal of human society."
-
93,
How does one reconcile things like:
AL I:3. Every man and every woman is a star.
AL I:22. Bind nothing! Let there be no difference made among you between any one thing & any other thing; for thereby there cometh hurt.with lines like
AL II:17. Hear me, ye people of sighing!
The sorrows of pain and regret
Are left to the dead and the dying,
The folk that not know me as yet.
AL II:18. These are dead, these fellows; they feel not. We are not for the poor and sad: the lords of the earth are our kinsfolk.
AL II:19 Is a God to live in a dog? No! but the highest are of us. They shall rejoice, our chosen: who sorroweth is not of us.
AL II:25. Love one another with burning hearts; on the low men trample in the fierce lust of your pride, in the day of your wrath.In the second batch of verses we have different dialectics: those people who are "sighing," "dead and the dying," "dead," who "feel not", are "poor and sad"... as opposed to those who presumably DO "know me as yet" (II:17) and are related to "lords of the earth." There are "the highest" who "are of us" who are "chosen" and will "rejoice" - those people who "sorroweth" are not considered part of this group. More differentiation, division, and dialectics. One is told to trample on "the low men," as well... as oppose to "the high men"? Also we come to the famous line:
AL II:21. We have nothing with the outcast and the unfit: let them die in their misery. For they feel not. Compassion is the vice of kings: stamp down the wretched & the weak: this is the law of the strong: this is our law and the joy of the world.
These people are said to "feel not" once again, and are proclaimed to be both "outcast" and "unfit." We are bidden to "stamp down the wretched & the weak, " even as we are told to "Love one another with burning hearts" and "on the low men trample in the fierce lust of your pride, in the day of your wrath." (II:24) AL II:24 also describes those that are "of us:"
*AL II:24. Behold! these be grave mysteries; for there are also of my friends who be hermits... Beware lest any force another, King against King! *
And it is as this point we are told "Love one another with burning hearts; on the low men trample in the fierce lust of your pride, in the day of your wrath." Here there are "also of my friends" who are called "hermits" - presumably this is the same group who is "of us" as opposed to the group of sad and sorrowful outcast. Then a warning against "forc* another" is given, and the players in this are called "Kings."
Then it is proclaimed:
AL II:46. Dost thou fail? Art thou sorry? Is fear in thine heart?
AL II:47. Where I am these are not.Failure, sorrow/regret, and fear are designations of those who "are not" in the "chosen."
AL II:48. Pity not the fallen! I never knew them. I am not for them. I console not: I hate the consoled & the consoler.
We are told not to pity "the fallen," presumably identified with those that think they fail, have sorrow, or are fearful - the outcast & unfit.
AL II:49. I am unique & conqueror. I am not of the slaves that perish. Be they damned & dead! Amen.
Hadit proclaims him (and presumably those identified with him) as "unique & conqueror" as opposed to "the slaves that perish." In fact, "be they damned & dead! Amen." Basically, this dialectic is furthered.
Then it is proclaimed later:
AL II:57. He that is righteous shall be righteous still; he that is filthy shall be filthy still.
Presumably a reference to the Kings and the sorrowful outcasts/low men.
*AL II:58. Yea! deem not of change: ye shall be as ye are, & not other. Therefore the kings of the earth shall be Kings for ever: the slaves shall serve. There is none that shall be cast down or lifted up: all is ever as it was. *
Here the famous line "the slaves shall serve" is encountered. The dialectic between King & slave is reinforced. This dialectic of the King/low men is apparent in ch.2 of Liber AL. It is also apparent in Liber Tzaddi when it is said:
24. My disciples are proud and beautiful; they are strong and swift; they rule their way like mighty conquerors.
25. The weak, the timid, the imperfect, the cowardly, the poor, the tearful --- these are mine enemies, and I am come to destroy them.
26. This also is compassion: an end to the sickness of earth. A rooting-out of the weeds: a watering of the flowers."My" disciples (as opposed to the disciples which are not "mine") are proclaimed to be "proud," "beautiful," "strong," "swift," etc. as opposed to the "enemies" which are characterized by "weak" "timid," "imperfect," "cowardly," "poor," "tearful," and as we know from before "failure," "sorrow," and "fear." This is quite a plain dialectic being set up.
Crowley affirms all this in Magick Without Tears when he writes:
"The Book [Liber AL] announces a new dichotomy in human society; there is the master and there is the slave; the noble and the serf; the "lone wolf" and the herd." -MWT, ch.48
He comments on this, saying, "The 'Master' roughly denotes the able, the adventurous, welcoming responsibility. The 'slave:' his motto is 'Safety first,' with all that this implies. Race, birth, breeding etc. are important but not absolutely essential factors." Here he claims a dichotonomy between lone wolf/herd... noble'serf - also Master/slave... much like D.H. Lawrence's notion of aristocrat/democrat and Nietzsche's ideas of the master & slave moralities (but not identical).
...
Essentially: how does one reconcile the view in ch.1 that all people are "stars" and that one should "make no difference" when, in ch.2, there is clearly a difference being made (as well as in other texts like Liber Tzaddi). It is interesting, as one point, that ch.1 - attributed to Nuit - refers a lot to the understanding of things as undifferentiated whereas Hadit focuses on differentiation (0=2). Aside from this being merely interesting, it doesnt explain how these two concepts can coexist. How do you reconcile these two things?
65 & 210,
111-418in any effect the only thing one can know for sure is that oneself is real and all others are but phantasms which aid the self.
Thus everyone and everything I perceive is nothing in and of itself but a mere creation of my mind to amuse me.
Thus there is no harm done in treating those imaginary friends in any way I like.
but it is to my advantage to use characters in my drama according to their proper role and not cast the butler in the role of the king or the detective as a house maid.
-
93,
How does one reconcile things like:
AL I:3. Every man and every woman is a star.
AL I:22. Bind nothing! Let there be no difference made among you between any one thing & any other thing; for thereby there cometh hurt.with lines like
AL II:17. Hear me, ye people of sighing!
The sorrows of pain and regret
Are left to the dead and the dying,
The folk that not know me as yet.
AL II:18. These are dead, these fellows; they feel not. We are not for the poor and sad: the lords of the earth are our kinsfolk.
AL II:19 Is a God to live in a dog? No! but the highest are of us. They shall rejoice, our chosen: who sorroweth is not of us.
AL II:25. Love one another with burning hearts; on the low men trample in the fierce lust of your pride, in the day of your wrath.In the second batch of verses we have different dialectics: those people who are "sighing," "dead and the dying," "dead," who "feel not", are "poor and sad"... as opposed to those who presumably DO "know me as yet" (II:17) and are related to "lords of the earth." There are "the highest" who "are of us" who are "chosen" and will "rejoice" - those people who "sorroweth" are not considered part of this group. More differentiation, division, and dialectics. One is told to trample on "the low men," as well... as oppose to "the high men"? Also we come to the famous line:
AL II:21. We have nothing with the outcast and the unfit: let them die in their misery. For they feel not. Compassion is the vice of kings: stamp down the wretched & the weak: this is the law of the strong: this is our law and the joy of the world.
These people are said to "feel not" once again, and are proclaimed to be both "outcast" and "unfit." We are bidden to "stamp down the wretched & the weak, " even as we are told to "Love one another with burning hearts" and "on the low men trample in the fierce lust of your pride, in the day of your wrath." (II:24) AL II:24 also describes those that are "of us:"
*AL II:24. Behold! these be grave mysteries; for there are also of my friends who be hermits... Beware lest any force another, King against King! *
And it is as this point we are told "Love one another with burning hearts; on the low men trample in the fierce lust of your pride, in the day of your wrath." Here there are "also of my friends" who are called "hermits" - presumably this is the same group who is "of us" as opposed to the group of sad and sorrowful outcast. Then a warning against "forc* another" is given, and the players in this are called "Kings."
Then it is proclaimed:
AL II:46. Dost thou fail? Art thou sorry? Is fear in thine heart?
AL II:47. Where I am these are not.Failure, sorrow/regret, and fear are designations of those who "are not" in the "chosen."
AL II:48. Pity not the fallen! I never knew them. I am not for them. I console not: I hate the consoled & the consoler.
We are told not to pity "the fallen," presumably identified with those that think they fail, have sorrow, or are fearful - the outcast & unfit.
AL II:49. I am unique & conqueror. I am not of the slaves that perish. Be they damned & dead! Amen.
Hadit proclaims him (and presumably those identified with him) as "unique & conqueror" as opposed to "the slaves that perish." In fact, "be they damned & dead! Amen." Basically, this dialectic is furthered.
Then it is proclaimed later:
AL II:57. He that is righteous shall be righteous still; he that is filthy shall be filthy still.
Presumably a reference to the Kings and the sorrowful outcasts/low men.
*AL II:58. Yea! deem not of change: ye shall be as ye are, & not other. Therefore the kings of the earth shall be Kings for ever: the slaves shall serve. There is none that shall be cast down or lifted up: all is ever as it was. *
Here the famous line "the slaves shall serve" is encountered. The dialectic between King & slave is reinforced. This dialectic of the King/low men is apparent in ch.2 of Liber AL. It is also apparent in Liber Tzaddi when it is said:
24. My disciples are proud and beautiful; they are strong and swift; they rule their way like mighty conquerors.
25. The weak, the timid, the imperfect, the cowardly, the poor, the tearful --- these are mine enemies, and I am come to destroy them.
26. This also is compassion: an end to the sickness of earth. A rooting-out of the weeds: a watering of the flowers."My" disciples (as opposed to the disciples which are not "mine") are proclaimed to be "proud," "beautiful," "strong," "swift," etc. as opposed to the "enemies" which are characterized by "weak" "timid," "imperfect," "cowardly," "poor," "tearful," and as we know from before "failure," "sorrow," and "fear." This is quite a plain dialectic being set up.
Crowley affirms all this in Magick Without Tears when he writes:
"The Book [Liber AL] announces a new dichotomy in human society; there is the master and there is the slave; the noble and the serf; the "lone wolf" and the herd." -MWT, ch.48
He comments on this, saying, "The 'Master' roughly denotes the able, the adventurous, welcoming responsibility. The 'slave:' his motto is 'Safety first,' with all that this implies. Race, birth, breeding etc. are important but not absolutely essential factors." Here he claims a dichotonomy between lone wolf/herd... noble'serf - also Master/slave... much like D.H. Lawrence's notion of aristocrat/democrat and Nietzsche's ideas of the master & slave moralities (but not identical).
...
Essentially: how does one reconcile the view in ch.1 that all people are "stars" and that one should "make no difference" when, in ch.2, there is clearly a difference being made (as well as in other texts like Liber Tzaddi). It is interesting, as one point, that ch.1 - attributed to Nuit - refers a lot to the understanding of things as undifferentiated whereas Hadit focuses on differentiation (0=2). Aside from this being merely interesting, it doesnt explain how these two concepts can coexist. How do you reconcile these two things?
65 & 210,
111-418@Froclown said
"in any effect the only thing one can know for sure is that oneself is real and all others are but phantasms which aid the self.
Thus everyone and everything I perceive is nothing in and of itself but a mere creation of my mind to amuse me. "
Wow. If this was really the fundamental ontology of Thelema (and if the "self" above is intended to imply what we usually regard the "ego-self" to be), then I'm no Thelemite.
I have a feeling that this is a topic on which Thelemites disagree...
After doing some quick reading,
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism
I find that there are hosts of ways that these ideas interpenetrate schools of thought like Buddhism, Advaita Hinduism, etc. -- but I have a feeling that the "Self" spoken about in those traditions isn't the same thing as the standard conscious ego.Steve
-
93,
How does one reconcile things like:
AL I:3. Every man and every woman is a star.
AL I:22. Bind nothing! Let there be no difference made among you between any one thing & any other thing; for thereby there cometh hurt.with lines like
AL II:17. Hear me, ye people of sighing!
The sorrows of pain and regret
Are left to the dead and the dying,
The folk that not know me as yet.
AL II:18. These are dead, these fellows; they feel not. We are not for the poor and sad: the lords of the earth are our kinsfolk.
AL II:19 Is a God to live in a dog? No! but the highest are of us. They shall rejoice, our chosen: who sorroweth is not of us.
AL II:25. Love one another with burning hearts; on the low men trample in the fierce lust of your pride, in the day of your wrath.In the second batch of verses we have different dialectics: those people who are "sighing," "dead and the dying," "dead," who "feel not", are "poor and sad"... as opposed to those who presumably DO "know me as yet" (II:17) and are related to "lords of the earth." There are "the highest" who "are of us" who are "chosen" and will "rejoice" - those people who "sorroweth" are not considered part of this group. More differentiation, division, and dialectics. One is told to trample on "the low men," as well... as oppose to "the high men"? Also we come to the famous line:
AL II:21. We have nothing with the outcast and the unfit: let them die in their misery. For they feel not. Compassion is the vice of kings: stamp down the wretched & the weak: this is the law of the strong: this is our law and the joy of the world.
These people are said to "feel not" once again, and are proclaimed to be both "outcast" and "unfit." We are bidden to "stamp down the wretched & the weak, " even as we are told to "Love one another with burning hearts" and "on the low men trample in the fierce lust of your pride, in the day of your wrath." (II:24) AL II:24 also describes those that are "of us:"
*AL II:24. Behold! these be grave mysteries; for there are also of my friends who be hermits... Beware lest any force another, King against King! *
And it is as this point we are told "Love one another with burning hearts; on the low men trample in the fierce lust of your pride, in the day of your wrath." Here there are "also of my friends" who are called "hermits" - presumably this is the same group who is "of us" as opposed to the group of sad and sorrowful outcast. Then a warning against "forc* another" is given, and the players in this are called "Kings."
Then it is proclaimed:
AL II:46. Dost thou fail? Art thou sorry? Is fear in thine heart?
AL II:47. Where I am these are not.Failure, sorrow/regret, and fear are designations of those who "are not" in the "chosen."
AL II:48. Pity not the fallen! I never knew them. I am not for them. I console not: I hate the consoled & the consoler.
We are told not to pity "the fallen," presumably identified with those that think they fail, have sorrow, or are fearful - the outcast & unfit.
AL II:49. I am unique & conqueror. I am not of the slaves that perish. Be they damned & dead! Amen.
Hadit proclaims him (and presumably those identified with him) as "unique & conqueror" as opposed to "the slaves that perish." In fact, "be they damned & dead! Amen." Basically, this dialectic is furthered.
Then it is proclaimed later:
AL II:57. He that is righteous shall be righteous still; he that is filthy shall be filthy still.
Presumably a reference to the Kings and the sorrowful outcasts/low men.
*AL II:58. Yea! deem not of change: ye shall be as ye are, & not other. Therefore the kings of the earth shall be Kings for ever: the slaves shall serve. There is none that shall be cast down or lifted up: all is ever as it was. *
Here the famous line "the slaves shall serve" is encountered. The dialectic between King & slave is reinforced. This dialectic of the King/low men is apparent in ch.2 of Liber AL. It is also apparent in Liber Tzaddi when it is said:
24. My disciples are proud and beautiful; they are strong and swift; they rule their way like mighty conquerors.
25. The weak, the timid, the imperfect, the cowardly, the poor, the tearful --- these are mine enemies, and I am come to destroy them.
26. This also is compassion: an end to the sickness of earth. A rooting-out of the weeds: a watering of the flowers."My" disciples (as opposed to the disciples which are not "mine") are proclaimed to be "proud," "beautiful," "strong," "swift," etc. as opposed to the "enemies" which are characterized by "weak" "timid," "imperfect," "cowardly," "poor," "tearful," and as we know from before "failure," "sorrow," and "fear." This is quite a plain dialectic being set up.
Crowley affirms all this in Magick Without Tears when he writes:
"The Book [Liber AL] announces a new dichotomy in human society; there is the master and there is the slave; the noble and the serf; the "lone wolf" and the herd." -MWT, ch.48
He comments on this, saying, "The 'Master' roughly denotes the able, the adventurous, welcoming responsibility. The 'slave:' his motto is 'Safety first,' with all that this implies. Race, birth, breeding etc. are important but not absolutely essential factors." Here he claims a dichotonomy between lone wolf/herd... noble'serf - also Master/slave... much like D.H. Lawrence's notion of aristocrat/democrat and Nietzsche's ideas of the master & slave moralities (but not identical).
...
Essentially: how does one reconcile the view in ch.1 that all people are "stars" and that one should "make no difference" when, in ch.2, there is clearly a difference being made (as well as in other texts like Liber Tzaddi). It is interesting, as one point, that ch.1 - attributed to Nuit - refers a lot to the understanding of things as undifferentiated whereas Hadit focuses on differentiation (0=2). Aside from this being merely interesting, it doesnt explain how these two concepts can coexist. How do you reconcile these two things?
65 & 210,
111-418the self includes the world. that is everything is an aspect of the self.
and it is true that I too am just an aspect of your self.
however, I am not you and thus it is proper for be to concern myself with my own perspective. Thus all things are lesser spirits that are to be put to proper use by my WILL to achieve those ends that are proper to me.
A general might find that the proper use of pawns is to send them across a mine field to clear the way for his better fighters, and the only proof that this act was proper and moral is that he he succeeds that is he wins the battle.
The pawn will not harbor a grudge for it is his Will to die for a cause of strong leader, thus he will rejoice at the oppertunity to prove his devotion in any way he can.
-
93,
How does one reconcile things like:
AL I:3. Every man and every woman is a star.
AL I:22. Bind nothing! Let there be no difference made among you between any one thing & any other thing; for thereby there cometh hurt.with lines like
AL II:17. Hear me, ye people of sighing!
The sorrows of pain and regret
Are left to the dead and the dying,
The folk that not know me as yet.
AL II:18. These are dead, these fellows; they feel not. We are not for the poor and sad: the lords of the earth are our kinsfolk.
AL II:19 Is a God to live in a dog? No! but the highest are of us. They shall rejoice, our chosen: who sorroweth is not of us.
AL II:25. Love one another with burning hearts; on the low men trample in the fierce lust of your pride, in the day of your wrath.In the second batch of verses we have different dialectics: those people who are "sighing," "dead and the dying," "dead," who "feel not", are "poor and sad"... as opposed to those who presumably DO "know me as yet" (II:17) and are related to "lords of the earth." There are "the highest" who "are of us" who are "chosen" and will "rejoice" - those people who "sorroweth" are not considered part of this group. More differentiation, division, and dialectics. One is told to trample on "the low men," as well... as oppose to "the high men"? Also we come to the famous line:
AL II:21. We have nothing with the outcast and the unfit: let them die in their misery. For they feel not. Compassion is the vice of kings: stamp down the wretched & the weak: this is the law of the strong: this is our law and the joy of the world.
These people are said to "feel not" once again, and are proclaimed to be both "outcast" and "unfit." We are bidden to "stamp down the wretched & the weak, " even as we are told to "Love one another with burning hearts" and "on the low men trample in the fierce lust of your pride, in the day of your wrath." (II:24) AL II:24 also describes those that are "of us:"
*AL II:24. Behold! these be grave mysteries; for there are also of my friends who be hermits... Beware lest any force another, King against King! *
And it is as this point we are told "Love one another with burning hearts; on the low men trample in the fierce lust of your pride, in the day of your wrath." Here there are "also of my friends" who are called "hermits" - presumably this is the same group who is "of us" as opposed to the group of sad and sorrowful outcast. Then a warning against "forc* another" is given, and the players in this are called "Kings."
Then it is proclaimed:
AL II:46. Dost thou fail? Art thou sorry? Is fear in thine heart?
AL II:47. Where I am these are not.Failure, sorrow/regret, and fear are designations of those who "are not" in the "chosen."
AL II:48. Pity not the fallen! I never knew them. I am not for them. I console not: I hate the consoled & the consoler.
We are told not to pity "the fallen," presumably identified with those that think they fail, have sorrow, or are fearful - the outcast & unfit.
AL II:49. I am unique & conqueror. I am not of the slaves that perish. Be they damned & dead! Amen.
Hadit proclaims him (and presumably those identified with him) as "unique & conqueror" as opposed to "the slaves that perish." In fact, "be they damned & dead! Amen." Basically, this dialectic is furthered.
Then it is proclaimed later:
AL II:57. He that is righteous shall be righteous still; he that is filthy shall be filthy still.
Presumably a reference to the Kings and the sorrowful outcasts/low men.
*AL II:58. Yea! deem not of change: ye shall be as ye are, & not other. Therefore the kings of the earth shall be Kings for ever: the slaves shall serve. There is none that shall be cast down or lifted up: all is ever as it was. *
Here the famous line "the slaves shall serve" is encountered. The dialectic between King & slave is reinforced. This dialectic of the King/low men is apparent in ch.2 of Liber AL. It is also apparent in Liber Tzaddi when it is said:
24. My disciples are proud and beautiful; they are strong and swift; they rule their way like mighty conquerors.
25. The weak, the timid, the imperfect, the cowardly, the poor, the tearful --- these are mine enemies, and I am come to destroy them.
26. This also is compassion: an end to the sickness of earth. A rooting-out of the weeds: a watering of the flowers."My" disciples (as opposed to the disciples which are not "mine") are proclaimed to be "proud," "beautiful," "strong," "swift," etc. as opposed to the "enemies" which are characterized by "weak" "timid," "imperfect," "cowardly," "poor," "tearful," and as we know from before "failure," "sorrow," and "fear." This is quite a plain dialectic being set up.
Crowley affirms all this in Magick Without Tears when he writes:
"The Book [Liber AL] announces a new dichotomy in human society; there is the master and there is the slave; the noble and the serf; the "lone wolf" and the herd." -MWT, ch.48
He comments on this, saying, "The 'Master' roughly denotes the able, the adventurous, welcoming responsibility. The 'slave:' his motto is 'Safety first,' with all that this implies. Race, birth, breeding etc. are important but not absolutely essential factors." Here he claims a dichotonomy between lone wolf/herd... noble'serf - also Master/slave... much like D.H. Lawrence's notion of aristocrat/democrat and Nietzsche's ideas of the master & slave moralities (but not identical).
...
Essentially: how does one reconcile the view in ch.1 that all people are "stars" and that one should "make no difference" when, in ch.2, there is clearly a difference being made (as well as in other texts like Liber Tzaddi). It is interesting, as one point, that ch.1 - attributed to Nuit - refers a lot to the understanding of things as undifferentiated whereas Hadit focuses on differentiation (0=2). Aside from this being merely interesting, it doesnt explain how these two concepts can coexist. How do you reconcile these two things?
65 & 210,
111-418@Froclown said
"the self includes the world. that is everything is an aspect of the self.
and it is true that I too am just an aspect of your self.
however, I am not you and thus it is proper for be to concern myself with my own perspective. Thus all things are lesser spirits that are to be put to proper use by my WILL to achieve those ends that are proper to me. "
Now we're getting somewhere!
Froclown, the above is an example of cognitive dissonance. "The self includes the world" and "I am not you" are mutually contradictory statements. This doesn't mean that they can't both be true at once in some sense(s) - it just acknowledges the logical incompatibility.
I think the practical resolution is that, in the course of spiritual growth, one becomes more capable of understanding (rather than simply theorizing abot) the actual truth of the former, and one realizes that the second quoted sentence is only true by temporary definition and in a limited way.
I think it entirely right that you speak from the level of what is actually evident to you at the present time, and therefore you're going to speak in terms of ego-isolation, divisions between people, polarization and power-dominance games, and the alienation and antagonism that arises naturally from not actually experiencing that there every other person you encounter is authentically the same person you are.
But - in speaking from the personality level - I think it also important to understand that most of the statements you've been quoting don't have much to do with the personality level. The words mean something different (sometimes subtly, sometimes grossly) than they would mean if the only reality were the dividual and personality level of existence.
"A general might find that the proper use of pawns is to send them across a mine field to clear the way for his better fighters, and the only proof that this act was proper and moral is that he he succeeds that is he wins the battle. "
As long as you experience that you are both the general and the pawns (and, for that matter, the opposing army), I have no problem with this. A test: Would you feel the same way in this scenario if you place yourself in the pawn position as you would if you place yourself in the general's position? That is, can you see the equality and even identity of the "king" and the "slave"? (I'm not asking for theory. I'm asking for your actual feelings about the matter.)
-
93,
How does one reconcile things like:
AL I:3. Every man and every woman is a star.
AL I:22. Bind nothing! Let there be no difference made among you between any one thing & any other thing; for thereby there cometh hurt.with lines like
AL II:17. Hear me, ye people of sighing!
The sorrows of pain and regret
Are left to the dead and the dying,
The folk that not know me as yet.
AL II:18. These are dead, these fellows; they feel not. We are not for the poor and sad: the lords of the earth are our kinsfolk.
AL II:19 Is a God to live in a dog? No! but the highest are of us. They shall rejoice, our chosen: who sorroweth is not of us.
AL II:25. Love one another with burning hearts; on the low men trample in the fierce lust of your pride, in the day of your wrath.In the second batch of verses we have different dialectics: those people who are "sighing," "dead and the dying," "dead," who "feel not", are "poor and sad"... as opposed to those who presumably DO "know me as yet" (II:17) and are related to "lords of the earth." There are "the highest" who "are of us" who are "chosen" and will "rejoice" - those people who "sorroweth" are not considered part of this group. More differentiation, division, and dialectics. One is told to trample on "the low men," as well... as oppose to "the high men"? Also we come to the famous line:
AL II:21. We have nothing with the outcast and the unfit: let them die in their misery. For they feel not. Compassion is the vice of kings: stamp down the wretched & the weak: this is the law of the strong: this is our law and the joy of the world.
These people are said to "feel not" once again, and are proclaimed to be both "outcast" and "unfit." We are bidden to "stamp down the wretched & the weak, " even as we are told to "Love one another with burning hearts" and "on the low men trample in the fierce lust of your pride, in the day of your wrath." (II:24) AL II:24 also describes those that are "of us:"
*AL II:24. Behold! these be grave mysteries; for there are also of my friends who be hermits... Beware lest any force another, King against King! *
And it is as this point we are told "Love one another with burning hearts; on the low men trample in the fierce lust of your pride, in the day of your wrath." Here there are "also of my friends" who are called "hermits" - presumably this is the same group who is "of us" as opposed to the group of sad and sorrowful outcast. Then a warning against "forc* another" is given, and the players in this are called "Kings."
Then it is proclaimed:
AL II:46. Dost thou fail? Art thou sorry? Is fear in thine heart?
AL II:47. Where I am these are not.Failure, sorrow/regret, and fear are designations of those who "are not" in the "chosen."
AL II:48. Pity not the fallen! I never knew them. I am not for them. I console not: I hate the consoled & the consoler.
We are told not to pity "the fallen," presumably identified with those that think they fail, have sorrow, or are fearful - the outcast & unfit.
AL II:49. I am unique & conqueror. I am not of the slaves that perish. Be they damned & dead! Amen.
Hadit proclaims him (and presumably those identified with him) as "unique & conqueror" as opposed to "the slaves that perish." In fact, "be they damned & dead! Amen." Basically, this dialectic is furthered.
Then it is proclaimed later:
AL II:57. He that is righteous shall be righteous still; he that is filthy shall be filthy still.
Presumably a reference to the Kings and the sorrowful outcasts/low men.
*AL II:58. Yea! deem not of change: ye shall be as ye are, & not other. Therefore the kings of the earth shall be Kings for ever: the slaves shall serve. There is none that shall be cast down or lifted up: all is ever as it was. *
Here the famous line "the slaves shall serve" is encountered. The dialectic between King & slave is reinforced. This dialectic of the King/low men is apparent in ch.2 of Liber AL. It is also apparent in Liber Tzaddi when it is said:
24. My disciples are proud and beautiful; they are strong and swift; they rule their way like mighty conquerors.
25. The weak, the timid, the imperfect, the cowardly, the poor, the tearful --- these are mine enemies, and I am come to destroy them.
26. This also is compassion: an end to the sickness of earth. A rooting-out of the weeds: a watering of the flowers."My" disciples (as opposed to the disciples which are not "mine") are proclaimed to be "proud," "beautiful," "strong," "swift," etc. as opposed to the "enemies" which are characterized by "weak" "timid," "imperfect," "cowardly," "poor," "tearful," and as we know from before "failure," "sorrow," and "fear." This is quite a plain dialectic being set up.
Crowley affirms all this in Magick Without Tears when he writes:
"The Book [Liber AL] announces a new dichotomy in human society; there is the master and there is the slave; the noble and the serf; the "lone wolf" and the herd." -MWT, ch.48
He comments on this, saying, "The 'Master' roughly denotes the able, the adventurous, welcoming responsibility. The 'slave:' his motto is 'Safety first,' with all that this implies. Race, birth, breeding etc. are important but not absolutely essential factors." Here he claims a dichotonomy between lone wolf/herd... noble'serf - also Master/slave... much like D.H. Lawrence's notion of aristocrat/democrat and Nietzsche's ideas of the master & slave moralities (but not identical).
...
Essentially: how does one reconcile the view in ch.1 that all people are "stars" and that one should "make no difference" when, in ch.2, there is clearly a difference being made (as well as in other texts like Liber Tzaddi). It is interesting, as one point, that ch.1 - attributed to Nuit - refers a lot to the understanding of things as undifferentiated whereas Hadit focuses on differentiation (0=2). Aside from this being merely interesting, it doesnt explain how these two concepts can coexist. How do you reconcile these two things?
65 & 210,
111-418you have to understand relativity to gen what I said.
This Solar system is 8 planets, a star, and many smaller bodies asteroids, moons, pluto, etc.
now we say the sun is the center and all else revolves about the sun, but this is only a mathematical convenience.
The Geo-centric solar system is just as true as the helio-centic. The If we take the earth as a point of reference the sun and planets all move arround they earth. They only advantage to the helio-centric is that the planets orbit in neat circles that yield easier mathematics.
however each point has its own unique web of relations within its own perspective. That is every planet is part of the perspective solar system that is unique to each chosen point of reference.
Truly however, we only speculate that there is a solar system that is shared in common with every reference point. We attempt to justify that a world out there exists on its own by taking the average sum of differences in perspective or trying to banish subjective qualities from the equation.
his is fruitless all we learn is the similarities and differences between ifferent perspectives never that there is an objective world out there that lies open to be perceived.
Anyway he sun in not the moon and thus the sun does not have access to the moons perspective. If the sun where te behave as the moon then the solar system would fly apart.
So the sun is the sun and all the planets are part of the suns universe the all serve the sun and glorify it.
However for the earth all the planets and even the sun are part of its universe and far be the earth to bend a knee to the sun, it is the sun which warms and serves the earth.
Thus say I, I am as the sun and all else is my plaything it exists to glorify and amuse me and I shall use all as I see fit.
-
93,
How does one reconcile things like:
AL I:3. Every man and every woman is a star.
AL I:22. Bind nothing! Let there be no difference made among you between any one thing & any other thing; for thereby there cometh hurt.with lines like
AL II:17. Hear me, ye people of sighing!
The sorrows of pain and regret
Are left to the dead and the dying,
The folk that not know me as yet.
AL II:18. These are dead, these fellows; they feel not. We are not for the poor and sad: the lords of the earth are our kinsfolk.
AL II:19 Is a God to live in a dog? No! but the highest are of us. They shall rejoice, our chosen: who sorroweth is not of us.
AL II:25. Love one another with burning hearts; on the low men trample in the fierce lust of your pride, in the day of your wrath.In the second batch of verses we have different dialectics: those people who are "sighing," "dead and the dying," "dead," who "feel not", are "poor and sad"... as opposed to those who presumably DO "know me as yet" (II:17) and are related to "lords of the earth." There are "the highest" who "are of us" who are "chosen" and will "rejoice" - those people who "sorroweth" are not considered part of this group. More differentiation, division, and dialectics. One is told to trample on "the low men," as well... as oppose to "the high men"? Also we come to the famous line:
AL II:21. We have nothing with the outcast and the unfit: let them die in their misery. For they feel not. Compassion is the vice of kings: stamp down the wretched & the weak: this is the law of the strong: this is our law and the joy of the world.
These people are said to "feel not" once again, and are proclaimed to be both "outcast" and "unfit." We are bidden to "stamp down the wretched & the weak, " even as we are told to "Love one another with burning hearts" and "on the low men trample in the fierce lust of your pride, in the day of your wrath." (II:24) AL II:24 also describes those that are "of us:"
*AL II:24. Behold! these be grave mysteries; for there are also of my friends who be hermits... Beware lest any force another, King against King! *
And it is as this point we are told "Love one another with burning hearts; on the low men trample in the fierce lust of your pride, in the day of your wrath." Here there are "also of my friends" who are called "hermits" - presumably this is the same group who is "of us" as opposed to the group of sad and sorrowful outcast. Then a warning against "forc* another" is given, and the players in this are called "Kings."
Then it is proclaimed:
AL II:46. Dost thou fail? Art thou sorry? Is fear in thine heart?
AL II:47. Where I am these are not.Failure, sorrow/regret, and fear are designations of those who "are not" in the "chosen."
AL II:48. Pity not the fallen! I never knew them. I am not for them. I console not: I hate the consoled & the consoler.
We are told not to pity "the fallen," presumably identified with those that think they fail, have sorrow, or are fearful - the outcast & unfit.
AL II:49. I am unique & conqueror. I am not of the slaves that perish. Be they damned & dead! Amen.
Hadit proclaims him (and presumably those identified with him) as "unique & conqueror" as opposed to "the slaves that perish." In fact, "be they damned & dead! Amen." Basically, this dialectic is furthered.
Then it is proclaimed later:
AL II:57. He that is righteous shall be righteous still; he that is filthy shall be filthy still.
Presumably a reference to the Kings and the sorrowful outcasts/low men.
*AL II:58. Yea! deem not of change: ye shall be as ye are, & not other. Therefore the kings of the earth shall be Kings for ever: the slaves shall serve. There is none that shall be cast down or lifted up: all is ever as it was. *
Here the famous line "the slaves shall serve" is encountered. The dialectic between King & slave is reinforced. This dialectic of the King/low men is apparent in ch.2 of Liber AL. It is also apparent in Liber Tzaddi when it is said:
24. My disciples are proud and beautiful; they are strong and swift; they rule their way like mighty conquerors.
25. The weak, the timid, the imperfect, the cowardly, the poor, the tearful --- these are mine enemies, and I am come to destroy them.
26. This also is compassion: an end to the sickness of earth. A rooting-out of the weeds: a watering of the flowers."My" disciples (as opposed to the disciples which are not "mine") are proclaimed to be "proud," "beautiful," "strong," "swift," etc. as opposed to the "enemies" which are characterized by "weak" "timid," "imperfect," "cowardly," "poor," "tearful," and as we know from before "failure," "sorrow," and "fear." This is quite a plain dialectic being set up.
Crowley affirms all this in Magick Without Tears when he writes:
"The Book [Liber AL] announces a new dichotomy in human society; there is the master and there is the slave; the noble and the serf; the "lone wolf" and the herd." -MWT, ch.48
He comments on this, saying, "The 'Master' roughly denotes the able, the adventurous, welcoming responsibility. The 'slave:' his motto is 'Safety first,' with all that this implies. Race, birth, breeding etc. are important but not absolutely essential factors." Here he claims a dichotonomy between lone wolf/herd... noble'serf - also Master/slave... much like D.H. Lawrence's notion of aristocrat/democrat and Nietzsche's ideas of the master & slave moralities (but not identical).
...
Essentially: how does one reconcile the view in ch.1 that all people are "stars" and that one should "make no difference" when, in ch.2, there is clearly a difference being made (as well as in other texts like Liber Tzaddi). It is interesting, as one point, that ch.1 - attributed to Nuit - refers a lot to the understanding of things as undifferentiated whereas Hadit focuses on differentiation (0=2). Aside from this being merely interesting, it doesnt explain how these two concepts can coexist. How do you reconcile these two things?
65 & 210,
111-418When interpreting the Book of the Law, I have found it useful to remember that we are looking to return.
In other words, we must first be like Ra-Hoor-Khuit, fortifying ourselves, using force and vigor to conquer personal enemies and become a "King of Self."
Then you become "He who goes" ever moving forward. Compassion becomes the vice of a King because it requires you to stop. Instead of continually advancing yourself, you stop to offer someone else assistance.
Lastly, do you become "chief of All" by becoming "one" with Nuit. You come to view things from a "higher" perspective, that of the continuity of existence. Their joy becomes your joy, their sorrow your sorrow.
A bit of an oversimplification. Things can certainly be viewed the other way around as well.
Where you become one with Nuit, recognizing the fact that all things are but one thing.
Once that occurs you would stop being compassionate - as you are no longer helping others but rather something that is a part of your Self.
All penetrant and ever moving forward, your enemies fall before you like insects because you never actually stop to do anything. They are brought down by their own transgressions against the Self.
Hopefully this all makes some sense
-
93,
How does one reconcile things like:
AL I:3. Every man and every woman is a star.
AL I:22. Bind nothing! Let there be no difference made among you between any one thing & any other thing; for thereby there cometh hurt.with lines like
AL II:17. Hear me, ye people of sighing!
The sorrows of pain and regret
Are left to the dead and the dying,
The folk that not know me as yet.
AL II:18. These are dead, these fellows; they feel not. We are not for the poor and sad: the lords of the earth are our kinsfolk.
AL II:19 Is a God to live in a dog? No! but the highest are of us. They shall rejoice, our chosen: who sorroweth is not of us.
AL II:25. Love one another with burning hearts; on the low men trample in the fierce lust of your pride, in the day of your wrath.In the second batch of verses we have different dialectics: those people who are "sighing," "dead and the dying," "dead," who "feel not", are "poor and sad"... as opposed to those who presumably DO "know me as yet" (II:17) and are related to "lords of the earth." There are "the highest" who "are of us" who are "chosen" and will "rejoice" - those people who "sorroweth" are not considered part of this group. More differentiation, division, and dialectics. One is told to trample on "the low men," as well... as oppose to "the high men"? Also we come to the famous line:
AL II:21. We have nothing with the outcast and the unfit: let them die in their misery. For they feel not. Compassion is the vice of kings: stamp down the wretched & the weak: this is the law of the strong: this is our law and the joy of the world.
These people are said to "feel not" once again, and are proclaimed to be both "outcast" and "unfit." We are bidden to "stamp down the wretched & the weak, " even as we are told to "Love one another with burning hearts" and "on the low men trample in the fierce lust of your pride, in the day of your wrath." (II:24) AL II:24 also describes those that are "of us:"
*AL II:24. Behold! these be grave mysteries; for there are also of my friends who be hermits... Beware lest any force another, King against King! *
And it is as this point we are told "Love one another with burning hearts; on the low men trample in the fierce lust of your pride, in the day of your wrath." Here there are "also of my friends" who are called "hermits" - presumably this is the same group who is "of us" as opposed to the group of sad and sorrowful outcast. Then a warning against "forc* another" is given, and the players in this are called "Kings."
Then it is proclaimed:
AL II:46. Dost thou fail? Art thou sorry? Is fear in thine heart?
AL II:47. Where I am these are not.Failure, sorrow/regret, and fear are designations of those who "are not" in the "chosen."
AL II:48. Pity not the fallen! I never knew them. I am not for them. I console not: I hate the consoled & the consoler.
We are told not to pity "the fallen," presumably identified with those that think they fail, have sorrow, or are fearful - the outcast & unfit.
AL II:49. I am unique & conqueror. I am not of the slaves that perish. Be they damned & dead! Amen.
Hadit proclaims him (and presumably those identified with him) as "unique & conqueror" as opposed to "the slaves that perish." In fact, "be they damned & dead! Amen." Basically, this dialectic is furthered.
Then it is proclaimed later:
AL II:57. He that is righteous shall be righteous still; he that is filthy shall be filthy still.
Presumably a reference to the Kings and the sorrowful outcasts/low men.
*AL II:58. Yea! deem not of change: ye shall be as ye are, & not other. Therefore the kings of the earth shall be Kings for ever: the slaves shall serve. There is none that shall be cast down or lifted up: all is ever as it was. *
Here the famous line "the slaves shall serve" is encountered. The dialectic between King & slave is reinforced. This dialectic of the King/low men is apparent in ch.2 of Liber AL. It is also apparent in Liber Tzaddi when it is said:
24. My disciples are proud and beautiful; they are strong and swift; they rule their way like mighty conquerors.
25. The weak, the timid, the imperfect, the cowardly, the poor, the tearful --- these are mine enemies, and I am come to destroy them.
26. This also is compassion: an end to the sickness of earth. A rooting-out of the weeds: a watering of the flowers."My" disciples (as opposed to the disciples which are not "mine") are proclaimed to be "proud," "beautiful," "strong," "swift," etc. as opposed to the "enemies" which are characterized by "weak" "timid," "imperfect," "cowardly," "poor," "tearful," and as we know from before "failure," "sorrow," and "fear." This is quite a plain dialectic being set up.
Crowley affirms all this in Magick Without Tears when he writes:
"The Book [Liber AL] announces a new dichotomy in human society; there is the master and there is the slave; the noble and the serf; the "lone wolf" and the herd." -MWT, ch.48
He comments on this, saying, "The 'Master' roughly denotes the able, the adventurous, welcoming responsibility. The 'slave:' his motto is 'Safety first,' with all that this implies. Race, birth, breeding etc. are important but not absolutely essential factors." Here he claims a dichotonomy between lone wolf/herd... noble'serf - also Master/slave... much like D.H. Lawrence's notion of aristocrat/democrat and Nietzsche's ideas of the master & slave moralities (but not identical).
...
Essentially: how does one reconcile the view in ch.1 that all people are "stars" and that one should "make no difference" when, in ch.2, there is clearly a difference being made (as well as in other texts like Liber Tzaddi). It is interesting, as one point, that ch.1 - attributed to Nuit - refers a lot to the understanding of things as undifferentiated whereas Hadit focuses on differentiation (0=2). Aside from this being merely interesting, it doesnt explain how these two concepts can coexist. How do you reconcile these two things?
65 & 210,
111-418@Froclown said
"Thus say I, I am as the sun and all else is my plaything it exists to glorify and amuse me and I shall use all as I see fit."
Just a quick question... Does telling other people THAT, totally make them want to DO immediately what you want them to do?
Cuz that would be sweet...
btw- I think this thread needs a little perspective... enjoy!