Runes, Maanantai, etc.
-
@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.
-
@Maanantai said
"Maybe it hasn't dawned upon you yet but a ban from this forum would be a mark of honor to me. I desperately long for it. I collect those sort of marks, it's just an innocent hobby but its one of my most cherished collections."
If that's true, then you aren't welcome here and never were. I'll be happy to assist you in this regard.
You're gone.
-
@Maanantai said
"It's a religious practice for me. The BOTL specifically demands it, read it well.
II:21the only crime I'm guilty of is having a sharp mind and wit. Not appreciated here? I don't care.
a ban from this forum would be a mark of honor to me. I desperately long for it. I collect those sort of marks, it's just an innocent hobby but its one of my most cherished collections."
As an exercise in stamping out the wretched and the weak (i.e. subduing one's fear and disgust), I could imagine that (for me at least), tromping into an internet forum full of people I respect on an intellectual and spiritual level and in the most obnoxious way, intentionally making myself seem like a novice behaving the way a lot of novices do (thinking they've got the answers, and that even the teachers are idiots), would be quite effective assault on my ego.
If something like that is what Maanantai meant by his behavior being a religious practice, then I salute him whole-heartedly. I'm with you there, brother: fuck your self-image. Attack it without pity or quarter.
-
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
Hurumph!
Pathetic and sad.
However, I feel rather bouyant.
Jim, again, thanks for all the time and energy you put into this and all your efforts to promulgate the Law of Thelema.
Love is the law, love under will.
Frater LA'AL, Neter Ankh
-
maanantai wrote:
"I didn't particularly ask you. Fact is, the first solution is ridiculous, even if only because it's so temporary, the second one doesn't fit because the words are plural. As it stands my solution is simply the best available. If anyone has a better one I'd be glad to hear it."
Okay. The forties is Maanantai's mouth and the Eighties is Maanantai's foot.
-
An interesting discussion went bad because the lack of manners.
Manantai got it right but couldn't cope with what he got.
Yes, it's all useless and that's why one should not discuss it. You have to change your point of view and that is done by practical exercises and not sophistry. This thread shows this.
Jim, c'mon, Crowley wrote to be read centuries later. Politics and War is nothing to Wisdom & Understanding. Still, I like the trick Crowley used about WWI, WWII - it gets people involved.
-
None of the physical prophecy details are the root meaning of CCXX passages IMHO. Event-oriented prophecies of this sort are externalizations, or "leaks" into the World of Action, of psychological truths not given expression psychologically. There's invariably something deeper and more fundamental.
This doesn't deny them on their own plane, however. Though I don't think the Scarlet Woman passages in Chapter 3 were about Rose Crowley per se (they refer to the psychological - in this case, neshamic - Scarlet Woman archetype), this doesn't change the fact that Rose's life (one should say, Rose's and Aleister's lives) gave external expression to them.
Similarly, the Christian 666 "prophecies" in The Apocalypse of St. John weren't about Nero per se - but this doesn't change the fact that Caesar Nero = 666 gave actualization to them in a way that was relevant to the early generations of Christians most directly connected to the receiving of this revelatory text. Nero is probably the most important physical anchor of the unactualized potential of 666 as best it could be understood by most Christians of the time.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"[...]Event-oriented prophecies of this sort are externalizations, or "leaks" into the World of Action[...]Though I don't think the Scarlet Woman passages in Chapter 3 were about Rose Crowley per se (they refer to the psychological - in this case, neshamic - Scarlet Woman archetype), this doesn't change the fact that Rose's life (one should say, Rose's and Aleister's lives) gave external expression to them.[...]"
Thanks for that Jim! What an interesting concept!...I am reminded of Kolgore Trout's 'Leaks' in Vonnegut's masterpiece 'Breakfast of Champions'. lol
616