Magical formula of the sexes
-
I wrote the following on Sun and Moon a while back. I wonder if this has anything useful to you in your project.
THE SUN
Qabalistic: Self-conscious ego-center – the “gold” in each of us. The King. Archetypal Masculinity expressed as The Center.
Psychological: Sense of identity and purpose (direction). – “What you are” at the core of your identity. All forms of authority, power, eminence, leadership.
Physiological: Vitality. The essence of life.THE MOON
Qabalistic: Subconsciousness. Instincts. Adaptation. The Queen. Archetypal Femininity expressed as surrounding, embracing, receiving.
Psychological: Receptivity, adaptability, sensitivity, appetite, imagination, immediacy of feelings. – Personality (mannerisms, idiosyncrasies, tastes). That which we reveal most easily, which adapts to the environment in which it is placed and absorbs conditions around it.
Physiological: The substance of life. All fluids. -
From what I have read of the dual principles, if one is to be considered as representing domination, it would be the dark, receptive, all-encompassing, all-swallowing, all-birthing, fathomless abyss of limitless power which is referred to as the Feminine.
-
Thanks Jim this does help!
"All forms of authority, power, eminence, leadership. "
This is what I was getting at. But trying to roll all these qualities into one the best I could come up with was a species of domination.
93 Bryan,
"From what I have read of the dual principles, if one is to be considered as representing domination, it would be the dark, receptive, all-encompassing, all-swallowing, all-birthing, fathomless abyss of limitless power which is referred to as the Feminine."
Seemingly so, but I think domination is the downfall of the female formula. You see she does absorb all and encompass all but the key to the other half of the formula is to integrate into herself all which she absorbs.
Here is another part of my study which takes a look at where actual people go wrong in regard to their Archetypal formula in the new Aeon:
Women, their formula being that absorption can easily stray by a number of errors. First and foremost by ignorance of their own being. Most simply do not know their own make up on any but the most mundane level. A close second would be obsession and the quest to dominate that which cannot be dominated. She buries in herself that which she desires to control and tries to change its form to suit her ideals. She is the Queen of form and it is in her nature to form Energy into Matter but you must remember that this is also Death! Control of another is not a part of any correct formula. Third goes with the second and they are really two sides of the same coin, integration is either not attempted or it has failed causing the afore mentioned obsession. In Her highest aspect she is the Creator of Form, but in this She must be indifferent to the form which She creates.
-
phoinix,
In your description of where you feel that actual women go wrong in their archetypal formula, it sounds to me like you're describing problems MOST people have, women AND men:
Ignorance of their own makeup beyond the most mundane levels,
Quest to control that which cannot be controlled in order to suit their ideals,
Failing to integrate with those aspects of existence that are beyond control.I don't know what your thoughts are exactly on the metaphysical makeup of men and of women, but in other places I often read and see evidence of an interpretation that goes something like this: The fundamental metaphysical nature of males is best described by the symbol of the "divine masculine", and the fundamental metaphysical nature of females is best described by the symbol of the "divine feminine". Masculine being the Center, stillness, Being, the eternal spiritual axle of the wheel of the cosmos, and the Feminine being the Circumference, movement, Becoming, all change and impermanence and context of the cosmos. "This is what is meant when we say that woman has no soul," says Crowley, and so said the 1,500+ years of christian doctrine before him, which essentially implied that only men are endowed with the metaphysical anatomy capable of identification with the Eternal Being of the Crown.
I suspect that this is incorrect at some vital level, and that physical males and females in fact possess BOTH metaphysical organs of the lingam and yoni. Perhaps one sex or another is a bit more well-endowed with one organ than the other, but is not integration of these two separate aspects the nature of the alchemical wedding?
Anyway, I could be wrong here, but it sounds like you're having girl troubles and you're trying to figure out what the hell is wrong with some woman in your life. But these sound like problems everybody has, not just women.
-
Bryan,
i know it seems like I'm attacking women here but I'm not. It's my fault for not just posting the whole study so far. I'll post it now and you'll see that we are not really disagreeing. This study however is focusing on the psycho/sexual formula of Chaos and Babalon, what they are and where we as people fail therein causing strife in our lives.
Here's the whole thing:
Thoughts on the formula of the sexes.
Women: yoni, absorption & integration, Archetype: Babalon who excepts all impressions into her cup equally not obsessing over any one of them but integrating them into Her whole. (pun intended)
Men: Lingam, projection & penetration Archetype: Chaos the undirected force of energy (Will) he is perpetually going. He penetrates the heart of matter implanting himself therein making her the vehicle of his will.
Where they go wrong:
Women, their formula being that absorption can easily stray by a number of errors. First and foremost by ignorance of their own being. Most simply do not know their own make up on any but the most mundane level. A close second would be obsession and the quest to dominate that which cannot be dominated. She buries in herself that which she desires to control and tries to change its form to suit her ideals. She is the Queen of form and it is in her nature to form Energy into Matter but you must remember that this is also Death! Control of another is not a part of any correct formula. Third goes with the second and they are really two sides of the same coin, integration is either not attempted or it has failed causing the afore mentioned obsession. In Her highest aspect she is the Creator of Form, but in this She must be indifferent to the form which She creates.
Men are built to project, it is far more obvious a formula than the woman's because it is right out there in front of you! It is the Positive lightning to the woman's negative grounding post. Men are a bit harder to stray on this path because they are not subjected to 'new impressions' the same way women are. But none the less, there are still pitfalls! The main one being the Woman herself. The woman who is ignorant of her own formula is by far the worst 'outside' influence to any man. The Kundrie is a woman that seeks to control, change or direct the actions of the man in such a way that he is imprisoned by her. This is easily remedied by any man who can realize what is happening and bring it to bay. If he does not he's more to blame than she! Another point of confusion for man is over indulgence in the dominating aspect. The mans natural center being in tipharet (the ego center) he can easily become a overbearing person if he 'projects' himself too much in one direction. Essentially his formula is to implant the essence of Life. To give it not form but intent to the form it shall take within woman.
Nature and True Will:
These two formula are inherent in every one of us to some degree and the denial or ignorance of them are a main cause of strife in the lives of people today. It is the Law of Nature to be who and what we are. To go against this is to go against the inertia of the Universe and if we do that we cannot be doing our True Will. For in doing your True Will you have the inertia of the Universe at your back.
-
Brian, could you quote the Bible or something from the christian canon where it is written that a woman has no soul? I got some christian girls to annoy.
Phoinix93, some good insights. Maybe some quotes from Crowley, the Bible etc etc would be nice. -
"Men: Lingam, projection & penetration Archetype: Chaos the undirected force of energy (Will) he is perpetually going. He penetrates the heart of matter implanting himself therein making her the vehicle of his will. "
hello and 93!
is it me or this it sounds as if women were some kind of zombies doing the will of men?
-
"The Kundrie is a woman that seeks to control, change or direct the actions of the man in such a way that he is imprisoned by her. This is easily remedied by any man who can realize what is happening and bring it to bay. If he does not he's more to blame than she! "
this you describe is what jung called the anima. these are qualities that are in the man and projected into a woman. they are two aspects to the anima, the negative (described by you) and the positive. but the important thing to remember is that these aspects are inside the masculine psyche not the feminine.
"Another point of confusion for man is over indulgence in the dominating aspect. The mans natural center being in tipharet (the ego center) he can easily become a overbearing person if he 'projects' himself too much in one direction."
i want to make the observation that humanity and not the masculine is centered in tipharet. tipharet is not on the masculine pillar (mercy) nor on the feminine pillar (severity).
-
"is it me or this it sounds as if women were some kind of zombies doing the will of men? "
Personally I have a hard time distinguishing the wheat from the chaff when it comes to AC and Thelema, and this statement strikes a major reoccuring chord in my Wagnerian battle.
To generalize my dilema:
- AC is a man.
- He seems to deify the sexual instinct as God, and furthermore the Sperm as the physical manifestation of that Power.
this makes sense to me when I consider Thelema in the context of a Male Cult... AC is a man, why would he make the powers-that-be female, and remove himself from that role...
Regarding his writings, there are numerous cases of blatant sexism. I've just reread parts of "The Diary of a Drug Fiend" and in the final analysis, it seems like the character of Lou's True Will is to server her man and do whatever he needs to fulfill his own TW (ie. to be the zombie to his necromancer).
I guess what I'm getting at, is, can we discuss Thelema, as Crowley wrote about it, without a male oriented/dominating POV? If we wish to follow a more gender-equal perspective, how much of Crowley's Thelema do we need to change?
Miss Ruby I noticed you began a post with the 93 greeting... which I assume (Ass-U-Me... I know) means you follow Thelema somewhat closely... have you found you need to reinterpret some of what Crowley says in order to find a more common ground?
Thanks for any help from a female perspective on this.
-
93 All,
"Quote Miss Ruby: I want to make the observation that humanity and not the masculine is centered in Tiphareth. Tiphareth is not on the masculine pillar (mercy) nor on the feminine pillar (severity)."
Agreed: If I may interject one small point, we (females & males) contain both polarities. That is we can be both receptive & projective.
"Quote Miss Ruby: is it me or this it sounds as if women were some kind of zombies doing the will of men?"
I am really not the most qualified person to rewrite anything but… since there has been a number of treads on this forum that have just been immature in regards toward women…I just gotta try and put this in perspective. It helped me to reword Liber Oz to clear up my thinking. Maybe it will help others?
Just my 2.cents
There is no God but Woman.
- Women has the right to live by her own law--
To live in the way that she wills to do:
To work as she will:
To play as she will:
To rest as she will:
To die when and how she will. - Woman has the right to eat what she will:
To drink what she will:
To dwell where she will:
To move as she will on the face of the earth. - Woman has the right to think what she will:
To speak what she will:
To write what she will:
To draw, paint, carve, etch, mould, build as she will:
To dress as she will. - Woman has the right to love as she will:--
"take your fill and will of love as ye will,
when, where, and with whom ye will." --AL. I. 51 - Woman has the right to kill those who would thwart these rights.
"the slaves shall serve." --AL. II. 58
"Love is the law, love under will." --AL. I. 57
- Women has the right to live by her own law--
-
Most seem to be missing this part.
"These two formula are inherent in every one of us to some degree and the denial or ignorance of them are a main cause of strife in the lives of people today. It is the Law of Nature to be who and what we are. To go against this is to go against the inertia of the Universe and if we do that we cannot be doing our True Will"
-
Phoenix93, 93.
"Most seem to be missing this part.
Quote:
These two formula are inherent in every one of us to some degree and the denial or ignorance of them are a main cause of strife in the lives of people today. It is the Law of Nature to be who and what we are. To go against this is to go against the inertia of the Universe and if we do that we cannot be doing our True Will"
Agreed
-
Can we seperate AC's views on the "formula" of woman from his views on actual "women?"
I know many of the attributions of Binah, and Women, were in place before AC, but attributing the moon to women and the sun to men has some psychological implications on your view of the females of the species, regardless if you say that we, each of us, have aspects of both in us.
I guess I've known too many feminists to take it for granted that on the TOL, Chokmah, is above Binah. It's a structure with some sense of hierarchy...
From Confessions of Aleister Crowley:
""... morally and mentally, women were for me beneath contempt. They had no true moral ideals. They were bound up with their necessary preoccupation, with the function of reproduction. Their apparent aspirations were camouflage. Intellectually, of course, they did not exist. Even the few whose minds were not completely blank had them furnished with Wardour Street Chippendale. Their attainments were those of the ape and the parrot. These facts did not deter me. On the contrary, it was highly convenient that one's sexual relations should be with an animal with no consciousness beyond sex."
Sounds like the receptivity that we've identified as being the forumla of women.
-
93 scarecrow,
@Scarecrow said
"
Personally I have a hard time distinguishing the wheat from the chaff when it comes to AC and Thelema, and this statement strikes a major reoccuring chord in my Wagnerian battle.To generalize my dilema:
- AC is a man. "
...and he is also the prophet. two different things.
sometimes generalizations help, but we have to be able to distinguish the man from the prophet if we want to make progress overall.@Scarecrow said
"
- He seems to deify the sexual instinct as God, and furthermore the Sperm as the physical manifestation of that Power.
"
two points here... "only" sperm as the physical manifestation of that power? power corresponds to geburah and the severity pillar. the tarot card the charriot has the secret of the holy graal. it unites geburah and binah. in other words, the point doesn't exist without the circle, and viceversa. i find it fascinating that the sigil for the sun is a dot and a circle.
second:
thelema is a solar-phalic religion/philosopy/movement/belief system (whatever you want to call it). it is a mistake to think that only males posses this energy. that is the most literal and shortsighted view of thelema. we humans exist in different planes and we both posses this energy even if our genitals express different aspects of the same energy on the physical plane. this is very important to understand.@Scarecrow said
"
this makes sense to me when I consider Thelema in the context of a Male Cult... "this is only true if you want to create a cult around a man and not follow thelema.
in other words, you can be a thelemite and don't pay attention to crowley as a man.@Scarecrow said
"
Regarding his writings, there are numerous cases of blatant sexism. I've just reread parts of "The Diary of a Drug Fiend" and in the final analysis, it seems like the character of Lou's True Will is to server her man and do whatever he needs to fulfill his own TW (ie. to be the zombie to his necromancer).
"if i tell you that victor neuburg's true will was to pursue crowley sexually, am i saying that all men have to do the same?
every human being has to decide what is her or his true will and you can't generalize based on one example.@Scarecrow said
"
I guess what I'm getting at, is, can we discuss Thelema, as Crowley wrote about it, without a male oriented/dominating POV? If we wish to follow a more gender-equal perspective, how much of Crowley's Thelema do we need to change?"my personal belief is that thelema has always been gender-equal, and only the imperfections in crowley's personality obscured some aspect of it. that's why i am so adamant in making clear that this constant mistake is removed from our comprehension of thelema.
@Scarecrow said
"
Miss Ruby I noticed you began a post with the 93 greeting... which I assume ({@$$}-U-Me... I know) means you follow Thelema somewhat closely... have you found you need to reinterpret some of what Crowley says in order to find a more common ground?"see above...
93s
miss ruby -
93 again scarecrow
@Scarecrow said
"
I guess I've known too many feminists to take it for granted that on the TOL, Chokmah, is above Binah. It's a structure with some sense of hierarchy..."mmm i don't think i understand this. can you elaborate a bit more?
@Scarecrow said
"
From Confessions of Aleister Crowley:""... morally and mentally, women were for me beneath contempt. They had no true moral ideals. They were bound up with their necessary preoccupation, with the function of reproduction. Their apparent aspirations were camouflage. Intellectually, of course, they did not exist. Even the few whose minds were not completely blank had them furnished with Wardour Street Chippendale. Their attainments were those of the ape and the parrot. These facts did not deter me. On the contrary, it was highly convenient that one's sexual relations should be with an animal with no consciousness beyond sex."
Sounds like the receptivity that we've identified as being the forumla of women."
please see my post above. this is statement is not thelema even with crowley's signature...
this is thelema:
"every man and every woman is a star"if he was criticizing women, it was women that had not started their development and that are only operating from a primitive stand point (sadly common situation in the victorian era). just to balance this attack on women, men can be stupid and primitive as well. but my intent is not to start a war of the sexes, just to understand that:
a) crowley was a man and bound to make stupid remarks once in a while.
b) thelema is not crowley. crowley was a fascinating man that helped us grasp the concept, but we should not go astray by his mistakes.93s
miss ruby