Aristotle and Hermeticism.
-
@Alrah said
"Aristotle never denied that woman had a soul, but he denied that her physiology contributed an active, creative and spiritus part to the generation of the child. And whether the 'child' is a product of the womb or a work of art, music, or literature, the divine creativity of women (the essence of the female magician) was derided, neglected, ignored and repressed in the last Aeon. To deny a woman has true creativity is to make her a slave and this is abhorent to Thelema. Creativity is so closely a product of the true Will, that any repression or suppression of it causes a distortion of the psyche as the creative force obstructed becomes it's opposite: a destructive force. And this is true I think, for men and women alike. "
You forget several things:
A.) The works of Aristotle are only some of many works composed in the Hellenic/Hellenistic era.
B.) When we talk of the Ancient Greek world, and its schools of thought, we must realize that there were hundreds of self-contained political units--cities, islands, colonies--most with differing ideologies and lifestyles from the other. Such diversity is what capitvates us when speaking of the Greeks; their freedom of thought and expression still continues to inspire us today, but...
C.) Many of the "freer" forms of Greek epression were purgated by various Christian counsels over the centuries, on grounds of immorality. Relatively little survives to us today, openly, of the Greek Mystery Religions, wherein women had a far different role than that of daily life. In Sparta, also, the wives of landholding men were very much in control of the property for much of the year, as the men devoted so much time to training and homosexual bonding.
The gender situation of Ancient Greece was, if one compares it to, say, the Persian Empire of the time, rather liberal. And as far as literature is concerned, Sappho, of the isle Lesbos, proved her sex quite worthy in the realm of poetry. Far more than Aristotle, I might say.
And when speaking of Greek philosophers, remember: we have only what was written down, what survives. We cannot judge a whole period of history by one Thinker of note. That being said, in all respects I agree.
-
@JPF said
"
A.) The works of Aristotle are only some of many works composed in the Hellenic/Hellenistic era."
yes, but his systematic influence is huge. he classified and arranged all the work before him (esspecially that of greek thinkers) and he systematized the knowledge itself - which set the frame for all divisions into scientific fields we have today (natural sciences, spiritual sciences - i.e. humanistic as we call it today; practical and theoretical aspects of knowledge; the very term empiria - empirical, experiental and experimental knowledge, as we use it today, stems from his works). he is the father of philosophy of science.
and his metaphysical thought is deeply influental. (again, the very term meta-physic is his! - he introduced it, trying to describe the whole field of theoretical - theoreia - research of the existence of all things, i.e. investigation of the first cause(s), of The First in general...)he introduced a structured approach to the work of mind - the 'science of logic' (with his Organon).
all in all, he made enormous influence on further development of science (I speak of that method, in general,and not the appearance of specific sciences, which arose from 17.century on) and of mainstream western spirituality (because christian theologists used his metaphysics [and his main notions, definitions, concepts] to explain, understand - rationally elaborate their religious dogma... )
"And when speaking of Greek philosophers, remember: we have only what was written down, what survives. We cannot judge a whole period of history by one Thinker of note."
but it's not that past period that we judge, we estimate its influence over time, up untill the present day
(or I mis-understood Alrah's first post) -
Danica, well said.
-
I still feel we're off topic, and I only press the issue because, like Alrah I would like to know what you think. She asked:
"I think the legacy of Aristotle is a malignant influence when it comes to magick and the New Aeon. What do you think?
"-cody 93 93/93
-
I think that the Aeon of Osiris was a significant step forward and necessary - essential - since it represented the quantum leap "next step" for the species as a whole. It was positive in the sense that it was necessary, and it had its own glory. Like all things, it also had its shadow side and, with its rightful time expired, it can well be considered malignant in the present.
Q'lippoth, after all, are shells - husks - left-overs - things that were fine in their time, but are now rightfully left behind.
And I would describe Aristotle, a significant player in the formulation of the Aeon of Osiris' consequences, in much the same way: positive, with his own glory, and also responsible for consequences now rightly characterized as malignant.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"positive, with his own glory, and also responsible for consequences now rightly characterized as malignant."
I agree. excellent choice of words
-
@poor+blind+misfi said
"93.
I still feel we're off topic, and I only press the issue because, like Alrah I would like to know what you think. She asked:
"I think the legacy of Aristotle is a malignant influence when it comes to magick and the New Aeon. What do you think?
"-cody 93 93/93"
I think the answer is implied in the discussion that has been inspired by Alrah's post, to the extent it can be.
The whole question of Aeons lasting x-number of years, and how they effect the world, whole or in part, is a very messy business—it is intellectually mushy at the outset. But as long as we understand that we are generalizing and simplifying in order to define a real influence in our lives, a habit of mind that has been inherited, it is a valid exercise. At least I think so.
The last Aeon is the that of the Father, who is the authority figure. The bias of this mode is that of the orthodoxy, the mainstream. I think it is telling that Magick as an alternative to mainstream religions has had to hide. And when it didn't have to hide anymore it was marginalized as an escapist belief system of the uneducated and superstitious. By contrast, Eastern systems of attainment could be practiced and discussed openly, for the most part, in their native lands—they didn't have to hide, which is why so many Westerners look to the east for instruction, because there is the perception that the West has no viable tradition of its own. This I think qualifies as a 'malignant influence,' to quote Alrah. Even today, despite Crowley's pledge to rehabilitate the term Magick, the subject is treated with some suspicion. Even the imports, Yoga and Buddhism, are treated with more respect.
But this is just how it affects Magick, and not the whole story to be sure. Nevertheless, as has been pointed out, this way of thinking has soiled everything. Concerns about the effect it has had on the sciences and the arts are valid because our understandings in these fields interface so dynamically with our attitudes about Magick.
For the sake of the discussion then, Aristotle is just a cipher—someone who rose to the top of the heap because he did such a good job of representing the spirit of his age. I'm grateful for this because it makes it easy for us to discuss the current that flowed through him by simply referencing the man.
peach and 93
-
@RobertAllen said
"The whole question of Aeons lasting x-number of years, and how they effect the world, whole or in part, is a very messy business—it is intellectually mushy at the outset. But as long as we understand that we are generalizing and simplifying in order to define a real influence in our lives, a habit of mind that has been inherited, it is a valid exercise. At least I think so. "
I think you haven't seen my (draft) essay on the subject. You may find it interesting: heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?f=81&t=6153
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@RobertAllen said
"The whole question of Aeons lasting x-number of years, and how they effect the world, whole or in part, is a very messy business—it is intellectually mushy at the outset. But as long as we understand that we are generalizing and simplifying in order to define a real influence in our lives, a habit of mind that has been inherited, it is a valid exercise. At least I think so. "I think you haven't seen my (draft) essay on the subject. You may find it interesting: heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?f=81&t=6153"
I did find it interesting, though I have to admit I am not prepared to comment on the essay, my emphasis on not being prepared, because I would like to respond. It's just that I feel strongly that I would need to do a lot of research and meditation on the subject before I would be able to stand toe to toe with you.
I will say that I generally agree with your statements—I accept the notion of the progression of Aeons as you have mapped them onto various changes of human perception, functioning and understanding, but I have always balked at the idea that these somehow conformed to a strict historical time-line.
Do you think that this Aeonic classification might also have some utility in describing personality types? For example, I might describe my father as a hard core Osirian, while I have always been a Horus type. This mismatch might go a long way to explaining a lot of the conflict that has characterized our relationship.
peach and 93
I've decided I like the misspelling of peace because a peach suggests the concept of love.
-
@RobertAllen said
"Do you think that this Aeonic classification might also have some utility in describing personality types? For example, I might describe my father as a hard core Osirian, while I have always been a Horus type. This mismatch might go a long way to explaining a lot of the conflict that has characterized our relationship. "
Broadly, sure.
(Understanding, of course, that anytime we label someone from outside their "shoes," especially if it's a me-vs.-them thing... we create a particular [Osirian type] problem.)
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"(Understanding, of course, that anytime we label someone from outside their "shoes," especially if it's a me-vs.-them thing... we create a particular [Osirian type] problem.)"
I only wanted to stop for a moment to reply what a wonderful gem that is.
-
I have never been interested in the works of Aristotle.