Runes, Maanantai, etc.
-
@Maanantai said
"1. Either the 'numbers' line refers to the whole book or it refers to the context "
Why can't it be both?
@Maanantai said
"2. If it refers to the context, there is no reason to assume the rest of the book can't be perfectly read in context"
I see the context of the chapter ( and in turn every line in it) as being (bold added by me):
@The Book of the Law, Chap 1, v 1 said
"1. Had! The manifestation of Nuit."
@Maanantai said
"3. If it refers to the whole book, discussion about the book becomes utter nonsense"
We can still discuss our own personal interpretations.
@Maanantai said
"I'd be really happy to find out why some people think they can quote a part of a magical grimoire in moralistic stances. Because that's essentially what happened here."
I am merely pointing out my own view point and the train of thought which lead to its conclusion (as best as I can).
-
@Maanantai said
"Simple: because if it refers to the whole book, that includes this line. If it includes this line, there is no difference to the context. Hence: 'numbers' here either is contextual, or it refers to the whole book."
Considering how each word in the English language has more than one meaning (ie, definition), I do not understand your instance on there being only one interpretation.
@Maanantai said
"That makes me happy you're not one of my book reviewers. Do you feel the context of 'little red riding hood' is 'once upon a time a girl strolled through the forest..'? "
Are you trying to imply that 'Little Red Riding Hood' did not take place in a forest? If she never went into the forest, she would have never made it to Grandmas house and would have never met the big bag wolf. So, without the context of the forest, there is no 'Little Red Riding Hood.'
@Maanantai said
"Nonsensical, since all of them are of equal value.
"How does that prevent a discussion? We can still gain insights and a greater understanding by hearing the ideas of others and sharing our own. No one has to be 'right' or 'wrong.'
-
@Maanantai said
"And why exactly is the word 'runes' used, there?"
I think it discloses that a secret meaning is hidden in the words, only accessible by the trained, the initiated, and the intuitive.
-
@Maanantai said
"What a weird interpretation of thelema you have. I have 'studied' the BOTL for quite some years and I am convinced most thelemites are simply unable to read even the most basic English sentences. One must be pretty warped, in my opinion, to read 'change not as much as the style' as some sort of comment about TBOTL"
Well, it was Crowley's understanding, and, yeah, I guess some people would call him "pretty warped." It's the long-accepted meaning and, to my eye, is the most obvious.
The first reference is extremely specific about the applicability of this category of instruction to Liber L.: "My scribe Ankh-af-na-khonsu, the priest of the princes, shall not in one letter change this book."
Chapter I continues in 1:54 with the verse under discussion: "Change not as much as the style of a letter; for behold! thou, o prophet, shalt not behold all these mysteries hidden therein."
The message appears again in 2:54: "The stops as thou wilt; the letters? change them not in style or value!" Crowley understood this to mean (and I concur) that he could arrange punctuation as he chose, gut the letters themselves were to be reproduced invariably and with complete fidelity.
In 3:47 it gets quite specific again in its reference to The Book itself: "This book shall be translated into all tongues: but always with the original in the writing of the Beast; for in the chance shape of the letters and their position to one another; in these are mysteries that no Beast shall divine."
"Other than that, you don't seem to have given the system you've been practicing for so many years a whole lot of thought."
If I were a Christian, I would forgive you for your obvious ignorance. Since I'm not a Christian, I'll simply confirm that you really don't have your facts right about me.
"Why would you, it made you 'happy', right? Just to live in the shade of someone elses work."
Since I get (roughly) equally accused by some folks for taking way too many liberties with the foundations of Thelema, then I must be hitting somewhere near the right balance.
"There are only 4 basic modes in regards to existence: and the crux of the matter here, as always, is whether we should live in Crowley's shadow or rather become Crowleys of our own."
That's pretty either-or. I'm initially suspicious of such absolute dualisms. However, to make my position clear, I unapologetically affirm that Liber Legis is the sole foundation of Thelema. I hold that Aleister Crowley was the only first-person witness to the transmission of The Book and, additionallty, was specified as Nuit's prophet for hte purpose of receiving and propagating this Book. The Book itself also says he won't understand everything in it. From these facts I conclude that he is the first and best source of understanding of The Book, but not the only one or a perfect one. I further hold that each person has to form his or her own assessment of the work, first in terms of whether to accept or reject it, and, secondly, to find personal understanding of the text by his or her own relationship to the text, which often is in Neshamic language that doesn't render easily into the literal (Ruach-based) written word.
That's just about the Law itself. Whether or not one "lives in Crowley's shadow," I think, comes from what is next: Whether one tries to live out Crowley's True Will, or finds and does their own. Liber L. remains the context for the whole, in any case.
-
@Maanantai said
"What I'm trying to imply is that the first line of any work isn't 'the context of the entire work' because its the first line. Really not that hard to comprehend."
I disagree (obviously). To go back to The Book of the Law as an example...
The company of heaven is in Nuit.
Each number is in Nuit.
Or rather, each is in turn a manifestation of Nuit.Nuit precedes and follows each line, she literally is the context of the Book, let alone chapter.
Just as, the path 'Little Red Riding Hood' travels down is in the forest.
The cottage she goes to is in the forest.
The wolf is inside the cottage, which is in the forest.'Little Red Riding Hood' entering the forest precedes all the events which occur within the forest, thus making them dependent on her entrance and continued presence inside the forest.
@Maanantai said
"Why would I want to hear the ideas of others if they have the same value as my own?"
As I said before, to leave open the possibility to gain a greater insight and understanding of your own idea.
@Maanantai said
"I don't have any reason then to change my own ideas, because the whole concept of a 'better idea' became impossible.
"First, I consider nothing to be impossible. Worst case scenario is that it is highly improbable.
So, while the concept of someone having a 'better idea' than you is improbable (from your own perspective; generally speaking). I think you can still derive a 'better idea' on your own perspective.
Take the series of posts between your self and I in this thread. I do not make these posts in an attempt to prove you wrong or to force you to change your view point. It is, essentially, an exercise to help me develop a better understanding of my own ideas and their expression. Each 'refutation' giving me an opportunity to refine my awareness.
-
@Maanantai said
"
@Nudor said
"Start by giving us your interpretation of III:46."Quite an easy one, really. This verse refers to the book itself. 'The Eighties' are the comment. They are 'abased' as in 'not part of the book' and people who take that shit serious 'cower before him'.
That neither Crowley nor anyone else solved that simple riddle does give me some credit, even though I don't think it's worth any fuss. It just shows how 99% of of all people are incapable of analytical or creative thought."
Please explain what you mean by, "'The Eighties' are the comment."
-
@h2h said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@h2h said
"You, on the other hand, state that 1) AC’s fidelity to the Stele is not important and 2) what is important is his fidelity to the instructions of Aiwaz. "Actually, my point was that Aiwass' infidelity to the stele is important only to the extent that it shows a departure."
First, I would be interested to hear the significance of this “departure” from the Stele."
The facet I meant when writing this was that the deities mentioned in Liber L. are not those listed on the stele. The latter were Egyptian deities worshipped thousands of years ago. The former are, at best, Egyptoid (Egyptian-like and possibly Egyptian-influenced in their formulation) but, at root, new expressions of deity.
"If you mean Liber Legis is introducing new truths for humanity, I do not agree. The more I study AC’s writings, the more I see correspondences with truths stated before his time."
I agree. The motto I chose for Black Pearl was, "Find the New in the Old - Find the Old in the New."
I've never aligned with those who use the Thelemic dispensation as a reason to discard everything they don't like from before it. The core spiritual truths have been expressed down through time, and much that is central to Thelema can be found (expressed differently) in many ancient systems. What the new articulation does is give this new expression including the expression of concepts not previously expressible.
I see Liber L. and Crowley's prophetic role much as the concept is stated in Baha'i: There is central spiritual Truth that is eternal, God sends a prophet to articulate it, and then with the passage of time and change of culture and change of humanity the earlier meaning is lost so another prophet is sent to restate the same thing.
Except, with Liber L., we also have the threshold of a new aeon. It's not just a rearticulation in the same framework, but now needs to speak to a humanity opening into an entirely new threshold of consciousness.
-
@Maanantai said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"Please explain what you mean by, "'The Eighties' are the comment.""If you continue the numeration of the book, the comment starts exactly at number 80. Thus, 'I am the warrior lord of the forties (place where statement is made), the eighties cower before me & are abased""
By continuous numeration do you mean to number the 220 verses consecutively from 1-220 instead of reinitializing them at each chapter start? If so, then verse 80 is Cap. II, v. 14, which makes no allusion to the commentary.
If this isn't what you mean, then could you provide a more exacting explanation?
"That's my take on it. Better explanations welcome, but I have not heard any so far."
If you're interested, here's my simpler one for verse 2:46 (verse 191 of the entire Book, which is the Kether verse of the 20th decanate of verses):
I am the warrior Lord of the Forties: the Eighties cower before me, & are abased. I will bring you to victory & joy: I will be at your arms in battle & ye shall delight to slay. Success is your proof; courage is your armour; go on, go on, in my strength; & ye shall turn not back for any!
Heru-Ra-Ha identifies Himself as "I am," the great Name of Unity and the crown.
The physical prophecies seem unusually acute here. Horus is a solar war-force. He corresponds to atomic power. As Nuit and Hadit, the Circumference and theCenter, imply subatomic particles, so is their Child the product of their union, the Atom, the Kether of a given World (whether the physical universe or human consciousness; it is all the same). Verse 49 (yet to come) can be understood to refer to the four fundamental forces, and Horus is surely all of these (strong force, weak force, gravitation, and elctromagnetism). Therefore, in the physical universe, He is atomic power. As such He was definitely "the warrior Lord of the Forties" (the 1940s) and also that before which "the Eighties" - the Chernobyl and Reagan years - did "cower" and were "abased."
But within each of us, this Atom is the Atman or Yechidah. Here, again and clearly, is the voice of the Holy Guardian Angel. In this sense, what does the first sentence mean? I don't know; but I have a good guess. 40 is Mem, a Path especially associated with Adepthood. 80 is Peh, the highest path of the First Order, of those who are not Adepts. Horus, the HGA, to the Adept is "the warrior Lord," the source of strength and light (open the way, in fact, to Geburah); but to those outside the Veil of Paroketh, he is the blasting terror of Mars unleashed, before which the psyche cowers and is abased. Mem is peace and stillness, Harpocrates, wherein is strength; Peh is the severity of the shattered tower, Ra-Hoor-Khuit, of whom it is written,
Mine eyes have seen the Glory
Of the coming of the Lord.
He is trampling out the vintage
Where the grapes of wrath are stored.
He hath loosed the fearful lightning
Of his terrible swift sord,
His truth is marching on.And,
The Lord is a god of war and vengeance. "Lord of Armies" [YHVH TzBAVTh] is His Name.
Together, Harpocrates and Ra-Hoor-Khuit are Heru-Ra-Ha, even as Mem + Peh = 4= + 80 = that wonderful number 120.
The rest is all clear on its own. This is Horus, the image of the Holy Guardian Angel, speaking at his best and clearest. The promises are the natural consequences of the K&C of the HGA and, before that, of the knowing and doing of the True Will.
-
@Maanantai said
"
"If this isn't what you mean, then could you provide a more exacting explanation?"This comment was made in chapter III. If you count on at the end of the chapter and go to the comment the comment starts at number 80. "
Ah, you mean the short comment that, decades later, was appended to some copies of Liber Legis.
Thanks for the explanation. Personally, I have a hard time accepting it since that text isn't part of The Book of the Law. I'm also still a little unclear how you're counting, since Chapter III ends with verse 75, not (as your explanation would seem to require) verse 79.
-
@Maanantai said
"
"Thanks for the explanation. Personally, I have a hard time accepting it since that text isn't part of The Book of the Law. "Fine with me, but then let's not stick it in every time. "
Agreed. I don't. In fact, I don't even take it very seriously as a comment (particularly disagreeing that it's Class A as some label it).
"
"I'm also still a little unclear how you're counting, since Chapter III ends with verse 75, not (as your explanation would seem to require) verse 79."
"Thanks for the explanation on your renumbering. To me, this violates the entire structure of the book since the 220-verse structure unfurls as a Qabalistically confirmable map of 22 sets of 10. Nonetheless, you've made a clever observation.
-
Maanantai: It seems very arbitrary in the sense that your placing it there to give weight to your own concept. This still doesn't answer or fit with the Book of the Law and it's 220 verses. It's not the "books" of the law.
But even so, you admit the 80's is a reference to The Tower, which contradicts your earlier statement that it referred to "the comment." For if you go that route, then 40 is the Hanged Man, not the verses of the 40's.
It seems that you are just here to argue and read your own words (hear yourself speak) and completely ignore the comments of others. And sometimes even your own comments (thus your contradiction).
One example being you praise your simplicity, yet have accused me for example as being a "simpleton." Which is it?
The forum is for the discussion of ideas yet you hold this to be "nonsensical, since all of them are of equal value." And, "I don't have any reason to change my own ideas, because the whole concept of a "better idea" becomes impossible."
Then why are you here? Because if you believed and acted with what you write, you wouldn't be.
I conclude that you have some "bone to pick" with Jim on a personal level, and Thelemites in general. Out of all those volumes you have written "that exceed and are "better" than Crowley's work" most be some coherent train of thought the explains your issues with Thelema.
State them, and maybe we can have a real discussion. If you think it's possible.
-
@Maanantai said
"Nonsense. For that matter, the fact that both 'fourties' and 'eighties' is plural isn't supportive of Jim's interpretation and speaks in favor of mine."
That's backwards. Almost the only time in English that we use that form of these words is to describe a decade within a given century. I understand that you don't like the idea that atomic power was the warrior lord of the 1940s and the force before which the world of the 1980s cowered and was abased, but it actually was.
"I don't think the 'Mem and Pe' interpretation is very good."
You're entitled
It's not my favorite of all my interpretations of CCXX passages. But the book is substantially a Qabalistic instruction, especially when unusual wording emerges, so it seems at least a natural line of analysis. -
@Nudor said
"But even so, you admit the 80's is a reference to The Tower, which contradicts your earlier statement that it referred to "the comment." For if you go that route, then 40 is the Hanged Man, not the verses of the 40's."
Since we’re all verging on being pestilential, just a couple of thoughts on “runes”.
If 80s = the Tower = ruins = the comment
However, don’t forget Odin hung upside down on the World Tree (= Hanged Man = 40) to gain knowledge of the runes. If so, it suggests Liber Legis is built on the Tree of Life. Nu = Kether and II:2 corresponds with pathway 2 Beth “house” perhaps explaining why “Khabs is the name of my House”.
I’m sure someone clever can piece it together…
-
@h2h said
"But it does answer my questions about Liber Legis and the Cairo Working. Rose was not there..."
She was in the next room. However, she was getting independent communications begining weeks earlier and following through past the dictation (e.g., Crowley considered her an authority on completing the lacunae from the dictation).
-
@Maanantai said
"
"That's backwards. Almost the only time in English that we use that form of these words is to describe a decade within a given century."In what English? I'll assume you're referring to a local dialect. Standard English uses the word in 3 different ways:
Eighties: plural : the numbers 80 to 89; specifically : the years 80 to 89 in a lifetime or century"
Agreed: A decade of life. That's a variation of the above where it is a decade within a century. (The use of reference to the numbers from 80 to 89 is very rare in actual usage, though perfectl acceptable.) BTW, note that I said "almost the only time," not, "the only time."
"
"I understand that you don't like the idea that atomic power was the warrior lord of the 1940s and the force before which the world of the 1980s cowered and was abased, but it actually was."Well, if you think the whole world cowered before Chernobyl I'm afraid there's not much chance talking sense into you."
I didn't say just Chernobyl. My original statement was "the Chernobyl and Reagan years," and I had Reagan much more in mind (but couldn't reasonably exclude the other).
"What is this obsession with atomic force anyway? There have been countless atomic explosions in last century, certainly not only in 'the 40's and 80's'... for that matter Chernobyl wasn't an atomic explosion either. It was a steam explosion that resulted in a meltdown of one of the reactors."
My experience of seeing the world enter the '80s and leave them was that it was specifically a time when there was deeper cowering before atomic threats that even in the heat of the earlier Cold War. Reagan was talking as if he were a totally loose cannon (I don't believe he was - but he talked that game) and the world knew better than to ignore him entirely. BTW there's no 'obsession' with the idea, it just seems the most obvious and relevant for this particular verse.
It came out of a much earlier realization that Ra-Hoor-Khuit was the warrior force of the Sun, whose symbol was an atom or the Sun (various combinations of circumference and center images combined) and whose is "in a secret fourfold word, the blasphemy against all gods of men" - not only equating him to that other blood-and-war god Y.H.V.H., but which tied together these other ideas here listed by being the four fundamental forces of physics. That understanding resolved the 80s-40s mystery quite simply and satisfactorily.
-
You asked. I answered.
-
-
Since there is no further reason for me to participate in this thread as an individual, I'm switching roles.
ADMINISTRATIVE ADVISORY - First Warning
Maanantai, on-going contentious behavior isn't acceptable here. Understandably, some debate will get heated from time to time. Also understandably, someone new to the forum may not have taken the time to get the pulse of the place before diving in.You've demonstrated a persistently contentious and even bellicose behavior here. I'm issuing a first warning and requesting that you honor this forum's culture and stop the contentiousness. Further warnings and/or barring from this forum will be the result of any further behavior of this type.
Thank you.
-
@Maanantai said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"I'm issuing a first warning and requesting that you honor this forum's culture and stop the contentiousness."I will do no such thing. It's ridiculous to even suggest that either contentiousness or bellicoseness would be undesirable behavior for a thelemite. "
First the practical response: It isn't acceptable here regardless of your theory or opinion. Second warning issued because of your explicit indication in this post that you have no intention of changing your behavior.
Second the philosophical approach: Good manners were always part of Crowley's presention of Thelema and his expectation of initiates. Thelema's social philosophy is an inclusive spiritual aristocracy, and we expect a measure of that.
"
"Further warnings and/or barring from this forum will be the result of any further behavior of this type."Feel free to ban me. I am not going to adopt myself to fit some strange moralistic fantasy that has nothing to do with TBOTL, thelema or even good manners, for that matter."
You're entitled to your opinion no matter how full of shit you are. I just wanted to make sure you knew the house rules.