If you were not a Thelemite, what would you be?

igniprimum

Yeah, I came in pretty late, but I have thoughts on the subject, so I will express them.

It seems to me if anyone has even a semi-serious opinion about what they would be if they -weren't- a Thelemite, then they must not be 100% sure of their identification as a Thelemite in the first place.

Do you think in Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or even Buddhist, Taoist, or Hindu communities, they even come close to entertaining the idea of what other gods or principles they would be devoted to if they weren't completely devoted to the god or principle that they actually -are- devoted to?

But let's set that aside, and look at what our own supposed principal deities have to say on the subject:

Nuit says:
10. Let my servants be few & secret: they shall rule the many & the known.
11. These are fools that men adore; both their Gods & their men are fools.

Hmm, wonder why these lines are so damn close together... Must be a mystery that we will never understand, and can't discuss anyway, since to do so would make us centres of pestilence... Since I am already tainted, I may as well continue digging myself into a deeper, muckier pit.

Anyway, she goes on to say:
32. Obey my prophet! follow out the ordeals of my knowledge! seek me only!

Without too much discussion, doesn't that kind of exclude serious consideration of what other religion you would like to subscribe to if Thelema never was, or failed in some way?

Further on...
58. I give unimaginable joys on earth: certainty, not faith, while in life, upon death; peace unutterable, rest, ecstasy; nor do I demand aught in sacrifice.

Hmm, aside from this whole thing about "certainty, not faith," this line shows at least some little promise to the "devotees" who would prefer to keep their feet in separate ponds, but common sense would shoot this idea down pretty quickly. Just because there is no overt, initial demand, doesn't mean that there isn't a fitness requirement for actual recognition. If you're on the bus, street, or train, checking out some hottie of your preferred gender, and they don't exactly notice you, then they are highly unlikely to make any demand on you. However, if you want to go further than just gawking at them anonymously, you may have an easier time getting a kiss from them than from Nuit.

Chances are, they won't expect that "For one kiss wilt thou then be willing to give all;"

Neither would they be so self-assured as to proclaim that "but whoso gives one particle of dust shall lose all in that hour."

If Nuit is so certain that this total loss is a natural, inevitable result of giving even one particle of dust, how can one who fantasizes about other gods claim to have ever given anything at all?

Hmm, and Nuit is supposed by most Thelemites to be the easiest of the Thelemic deities/principles, at least insofar as Chapter I is the natural stopping-point for most so-called Thelemites.

Let's see what Hadit has to say...

Behold! the rituals of the old time are black. Let the evil ones be cast away; let the good ones be purged by the
prophet! Then shall this Knowledge go aright.

D'oh!

I am alone: there is no God where I am.

If this is true, then there certainly isn't enough room near Hadit for all the other gods and pantheons that so many "neopagans" and "Thelemic (insert what they really are here)s" find so attractive.

Let the rituals be rightly performed with joy & beauty!
(blah blah blah, pleasure of uttermost delight)

I looked, but I didn't see any other rituals described in this section except the principal Thelemic ones.

And these are only the lines that strongly suggest the exclusivity of Thelema. Pretty much all of the content of Liber AL will stand as fully or at least partially a statement against the principles of other popular old aeon systems.

But Ra Hoor Khuit addresses them directly in the strongest possible language, right? Let's look at what he says:

Now let it be first understood that I am a god of War and of Vengeance. I shall deal hardly with them.

I wonder who "they" are? Could at least some of "them" be the "heathen" mentioned later, a few lines down?

If we are truly Thelemites, and we entertain fantasies of being these "heathen," does that mean that we should perhaps be "deal hardly" with ourselves?

But don't answer yet, there are a few other interesting lines:

Get the stélé of revealing itself;

What does "itself" mean? Does that mean just the stele, and not some other stele by mistake, or does it mean that no other object is worthy of that place within the temple? Wait, don't answer yet, we may have some help further down...

set it in thy secret temple... (blah blah blah) ...& it shall be your Kiblah for ever.

Wait, I think I remember, a Kiblah is something important to Muslims, right? I think, if I remember correctly and am not just having a flaky occultist moment, it is something of singular and very serious importance.

This shall be your only proof. I forbid argument.

Ooh, forbid. With all these other gods to turn to, why should we let a two-bit thug like Ra Hoor Khuit forbid us to do anything?

"Trample down the Heathen; be upon them, o warrior, I will give you of their flesh to eat."

Those Heathen. When will they learn? If we really are Thelemites, and we harbor (even in hypothetical fantasies) the values of the Heathen, shouldn't we be trampling down ourselves, and eating our own flesh? Gives a new meaning to the expression "having your ass handed to you on a platter". By Ra Hoor Khuit, even...

But your holy place... (blah blah blah) ...standeth, and shall stand until the fall of the Great Equinox; when... (blah blah blah) ...blessing no longer be poured To the Hawk-headed mystical Lord!

Has this happened yet? If we are Thelemites, and we believe this hasn't happened yet, we might want to take a closer look at the blah blah's in this verse, the instructions that precede it, and what is said in "the holier place," at which we will have a look as soon as we check out this next part:

Let the Scarlet Woman beware! If pity and compassion and tenderness visit her heart; if she leave my work to toy with old sweetnesses; then shall my vengeance be known... (blah blah blah)
But let her raise herself in pride! Let her follow me in my way! (blah blah blah)

Now, assuming we don't simply dismiss these lines as an admonition to female Thelemites against rejecting their male partners polyamorous aspirations, we could go all through this chapter to see what RHK means by "my way". But for the purpose of this discussion, we can focus on this next part:

I am in a secret fourfold word, the blasphemy against all gods of men.
Curse them! Curse them! Curse them!

Then he goes on to say what he will do to all those heathen that this poll does reverence to.

Sure I know the Comment forbids us to discuss this, but why is it so hard for so many so-called Thelemites to grasp? Why do we need to risk running up against the Comment to point out such seemingly simple things?

Jim Eshelman

We don't place much stock in that Comment around here, so don't sweat it

Some of us know what other road we might have gone down - not because of current doubts, but because of knowing what direction our lives were headed before ever encountering Thelema.

For another point of view: I notice that there are a couple of quotes you excluded that seem to me quite relevant to a discussion of the points you are making:

CCXX 1:56
"All words are sacred and all prophets true; save only that they understand a little..."

CCXX 3:22
" The other images group around me to support me: let all be worshipped, for they shall cluster to exalt me."

I take these as core demonstrations of Thelema's fundamental ecumenicalism, its embracing (to the point of cooption) of every sincerely held faith existing. Every god is to be worshipped, understanding that in such worship we are adoring that inmost thing which is behind each and all of them. Every prophet has something worthwhile to say, provided there's a bit of Neshamah actually coming through.

And the curses are applied as much to superficial Thelema as to the others. It's the external forms (including those of Horus) that are assaulted, not what lies behind them.

Avshalom Binyamin

"For the colours are many, but the light is one.
Therefore thou writest that which is of mother of emerald, and of lapis-lazuli, and of turquoise, and of alexandrite.
Another writeth the words of topaz, and of deep amethyst, and of gray sapphire, and of deep sapphire with a tinge as of blood.
Therefore do ye fret yourselves because of this.
Be not contented with the image.
I who am the Image of an Image say this.
Debate not of the image, saying Beyond! Beyond! "

igniprimum

*CCXX 1:56
"All words are sacred and all prophets true; save only that they understand a little..."

CCXX 3:22
" The other images group around me to support me: let all be worshipped, for they shall cluster to exalt me."*

"I take these as core demonstrations of Thelema's fundamental ecumenicalism,"

Weighed against the majority of the language of Chapters II and III, and much of Nuit's instruction to AanK in Chapter I, I:56 can at best be reasonably regarded as a statement that, from their own points of view, other religions have some kind of internal consistency, but since their doctrine is incompatible with the formula of the present Aeon, their devotees will at best "understand a little".

The "other images" dicsussed in III:22 do not appear to me to be the trappings of other religions.

22. The other images group around me to support me: let all be worshipped, for they shall cluster to exalt me. I am the visible object of worship; the others are secret; for the Beast & his Bride are they: and for the winners of the Ordeal x. What is this? Thou shalt know.

If Ra Hoor Khuit is the visible object of worship, then the only object we should be seeing in the temple (of which our mind must be at least a minor extension) is his image, which I assume must be the Stele. If the others are secret, then doesn't that kind of disqualify the ubiquitous trappings of all these other popular old aeon systems?

It seems the only ones who would know what these secret images are would be the Beast, his Bride, and the winners of the Ordeal x. Since Liber HAD is written for this latter group, we must assume that these winners must be fully and strictly identified with Hadit in accord with all the apparently strenuous requirements of that practice.

Are there any people on this list who have won this Ordeal X, and successfully identified themselves with Hadit according to Liber HAD? Maybe they can help shed some light on what these secret images are, and how they should be worshiped.

igniprimum

"For the colours are many, but the light is one.
Therefore thou writest that which is of mother of emerald, and of lapis-lazuli, and of turquoise, and of alexandrite.
Another writeth the words of topaz, and of deep amethyst, and of gray sapphire, and of deep sapphire with a tinge as of blood.
Therefore do ye fret yourselves because of this.
Be not contented with the image.
I who am the Image of an Image say this.
Debate not of the image, saying Beyond! Beyond!"

Ok, but is this for most of us on this list to be trying at our level? Who is the aspirant here? Who is the HGA?

My brother was in Navy EOD for most of my childhood and teenage years. He had to go through years of training in order to be fit to handle the many varieties of live ordnance that he disarmed throughout his career. I am sure if he had been haphazardly encouraged to mess around with whatever he found attractive during his early training, he would not have made it through, and I would be less one brother. Still such as it is that he is still around, he has had more reconstructive surgery than most celebrities due to stuff blowing up in his face.

11. Nor is it fitting for the cobbler to prate of the Royal matter. O cobbler! mend me this shoe, that I may walk. O king! if I be thy son, let us speak of the Embassy to the King thy Brother.

How many of us on this list are above the level of the cobblers mentioned above? If we were all successful adepts, I strongly doubt we would waste much time in forum posts about this kind of subject. If we were already at the level celebrated in your quote, this entire question would be a silly trifle.

Avshalom Binyamin

"Ok, but is this for most of us on this list to be trying at our level? Who is the aspirant here? Who is the HGA?"

This passage is for anyone who has attained to yetzirah - it's written in words, so it can be read.

"Adonai spake unto V.V.V.V.V" Lister=Adonai Aspirant=V.V.V.V.V."
However, this document is given to probationers, well below Tiphareth.

"How many of us on this list are above the level of the cobblers mentioned above?"

I can only speak for myself. But I consider myself to be a microcosm, having parts of me that are concerned with cobbling, and other parts that speak of royal matters to the king.

But I think we're talking across from each other. It sounds like you are interested in replacing the old dogma with new dogma. I'm not. Both points can co-exist, but you did jump into this thread, not the other way around.

Jim Eshelman

Out of respect for individual interpretation, I'm not going to debate this, only make my above statement of p.o.v. and respond to a few of your subsequent lines.

@igniprimum said

"The "other images" dicsussed in III:22 do not appear to me to be the trappings of other religions."

On this, you and I disagree. I see them as every god or object of worship from every pantheon or personal path - everything external, every image at all.

Crowley's commentary IIRC makes clear that this word is from the ineffable inmost, of which even RHK is merely one outer expression.

In any case - and above all - "let all be worshipped."

"If the others are secret, then doesn't that kind of disqualify the ubiquitous trappings of all these other popular old aeon systems?"

I don't think "The other images" and "the others" are referring to the same thing. I take "the others" to mean Nuit and Hadit. It is they who are "for the Beast & his Bride are they: and for the winners of the Ordeal x," RHK being the "front man" for the pantheon.

"It seems the only ones who would know what these secret images are would be the Beast, his Bride, and the winners of the Ordeal x."

On this we agree, but I thought it unfair to use that as an argument.

"Since Liber HAD is written for this latter group, we must assume that these winners must be fully and strictly identified with Hadit in accord with all the apparently strenuous requirements of that practice."

Liber Nu is written for them, too. This seems to support the position, handed down to me by my Superior, that "the winners of the Ordeal x" are Adepts of A.'.A.'.; for Liber Had and Liber Nu are issued to the Dominus Liminis for the use of the Adeptus Minor.

Jim Eshelman

@igniprimum said

"How many of us on this list are above the level of the cobblers mentioned above?"

I've never taken that as a "level" (or vertically hierarchical) reference. Cobblers have one job and context; princes have another job and context.

"Nor is it fitting for the plumber to prate of the electrical matter. O plumber! snake out my pipes, that I may flush. O electrician! if you are licensed, be sure to hire a good sub-contractor."

"If we were all successful adepts, I strongly doubt we would waste much time in forum posts about this kind of subject. If we were already at the level celebrated in your quote, this entire question would be a silly trifle."

Then why wouldn't it be a silly trifle even if nobody on the thread were adept?

igniprimum

"
"It seems the only ones who would know what these secret images are would be the Beast, his Bride, and the winners of the Ordeal x."

On this we agree, but I thought it unfair to use that as an argument."

Why would it be unfair? Is it more unfair to recognize a hard-won attainment, or to pretend that everyone's opinion is of equal merit regardless of what work they've done?

I am ready to accept that my opinion may be next to worthless against that of someone who has put up more of their own honest blood and sweat than I have in order to understand whatever is at issue, but I also want to see the proof that they actually have.

Comfortably claiming to be a "Thelemic (whatever)" seems to me the opposite of such proof.

Why should we encourage people to put themselves in that position and develop in that direction?

In contrast to this, a serious undertaking of Liber HAD and Liber NU seems to me like it should take about a year of dedicated practice to achieve any notable results (mostly to give the average Thelemite enough gym time to have a fighting chance at meeting the physical requirement, and to dedicate a year to observing a full course of the Thelemic Feasts specifically for the purpose of this practice).

I'm on, I guess, my 10th-12th attempt at a magical diary and regular observance of Resh, Will, and certain other degree-related practices, in addition to my normal gym habit. I've kept it up daily, mostly without fail, for just over 5 weeks now. It is my best attempt in the 12 years or so that I've been trying to work this system, and while it seems like it will stick this time, I also have to accept that if it doesn't stick, it will be due to my own failure and nothing else.

One thing I've realized as a result of getting it together to do even just this much, is that while it has taken me beyond the majority of the armchair occultists out there who seem to think a book collection is more important than practical application in real life, it is still just a beginning, and fits me in no way to take a serious stab at Liber HAD or Liber NU.

If I can keep up my current practices for a year while maintaining my current rate of physical improvement and saving enough money to procure the material components for the rites in accordance with the magical admonition against penny-pinching, then perhaps in the future I can attempt these more advanced practices with some chance of success. In any case, even if I failed utterly, I wouldn't be likely to put much stock in the opinion of someone who wasn't ready to conceive of putting up the same effort. If they claimed to successfully work through both over a single weekend, then even as a failure I couldn't reasonably allow that their views could have any merit at all.

I haven't been physically around the community for many years, but when I was physically around, the "Thelemic (whatever)s" I encountered were exactly the kind of people to seriously make this kind of "weekend attainment" claim. In retrospect, as a new member of the community, I suppose the greatest danger it presented to me was the possibility of falling into this type of persons' habits, and becoming like one of them.

I find it baffling that the leaders of the community don't seem to care about this danger, and would even encourage it by letting people believe that Thelema is something like Unitarian Universalism, only even more inclusive.

On that note, has anyone ever been to a Unitarian service, or hung out with Unitarians? I have, and I never met one who wasn't simply a castaway from some other marginal religion, or a recently reformed dabbling fugitive from Christianity who dabbled so much that when they finally realized that they really were Christians after all, were so tainted by their dabbling that they couldn't quite return to their original denomination, and so exiled themselves in the UUC. Even as a 16 year old, I could see how disingenuous and conflicted these people were, and how empty they actually were despite their smiles and effusive claims of open-mindedness at all costs.

I couldn't handle those people for more than two weeks, and I was living with "White-Light-New Age-Native American-Adoring-Neo-Animists". Do we really want the Thelemic Community to become like something that a 16 year old borderline WLNANAANA couldn't even take seriously?

igniprimum

"
"If we were all successful adepts, I strongly doubt we would waste much time in forum posts about this kind of subject. If we were already at the level celebrated in your quote, this entire question would be a silly trifle."

Then why wouldn't it be a silly trifle even if nobody on the thread were adept?"

To adepts, I imagine it would be a silly trifle. To the rest of us, if we aren't vigilant, it could be a very dangerous trifle.

igniprimum

"It sounds like you are interested in replacing the old dogma with new dogma. I'm not."

I think you are just as interested in advancing a dogma as I might be, although you honestly may not take your own dogma as such, since it is modern and bourgeois, and therefore passable in polite society. It may have even passed by you.

The only difference between our dogmas is that:

My dogma runs against the generally accepted principles of the "kicked back and mellow" relativism that takes the edge off the bitter reality that modernity leads to nothing but empty nihilism.

Your dogma honors those principles.

Vlad

Baha'i, although I'm not a thelemite. Baha'ism is a bit like thelema in that it sees all the religions as one, though it doesn't talk about magic, nor does it see as many flaws in past religions (flaws being in rewritings and reinterpretation) as thelema.

But I also particularly embrace sufism, zen-Buddhism and many others. I've been born Christian so it still has an effect.

Funny to hear that this kind of "Weekend warriorism" has also come to spiritual matters. Sounds a bit teen-agey, now that I think of it. Oh, those teenage years

Avshalom Binyamin

@igniprimum said

"
I think you are just as interested in advancing a dogma as I might be, although you honestly may not take your own dogma as such, since it is modern and bourgeois, and therefore passable in polite society. It may have even passed by you.

The only difference between our dogmas is that:

My dogma runs against the generally accepted principles of the "kicked back and mellow" relativism that takes the edge off the bitter reality that modernity leads to nothing but empty nihilism.

Your dogma honors those principles."

I think this only works if you stretch the definition of dogma beyond it's accepted definition. I'm not really interested in this kind of etymological relativism.

I don't believe in relativism in all matters; I just have learned to recognize that there difference between fact and personal opinion. The exact image of the god you worship falls in the realm of the personal.

I think if you want to continue this conversation, you might want to start a new thread, so that we don't drag this one off topic.

RobertAllen

@igniprimum said

"On that note, has anyone ever been to a Unitarian service, or hung out with Unitarians? "

They tend to be good people—educated, relaxed, and genuinely interested in doing the right thing, however they define that for themselves—it usually means making personal sacrifices, paying higher taxes for the general good of the community, canvasing for note-worth causes, etc.

Having said that there is a famous joke about Unitarians. There is a modicum of truth in it:

A Unitarian has died and is walking along a path in the afterlife that will take him/her to heaven. He/she comes to a fork in the road with two arrows pointing up each fork. One says 'to heaven,' the other says 'to a discussion about heaven.' She/he quickly makes up his/her mind on which one to take—they would never think of missing a discussion about heaven!

@igniprimum said

"I'm on, I guess, my 10th-12th attempt at a magical diary and regular observance of Resh, Will, and certain other degree-related practices, in addition to my normal gym habit. I've kept it up daily, mostly without fail, for just over 5 weeks now. It is my best attempt in the 12 years or so that I've been trying to work this system, and while it seems like it will stick this time, I also have to accept that if it doesn't stick, it will be due to my own failure and nothing else."

I kind of get where you are coming from, and I respect it. You are prepared to do whatever it takes to make this real for yourself, and a community that doesn't feel the same way as you will only make it harder, if not impossible. It's a commendable attitude, and part of a genuine understanding about what it is going to take to truly align yourself with the ideal you are hinting at.

To this end, I suspect your open criticism of the community is simply something you are going to have to let go of because it will hurt your efforts in the long run. My two cents is that it's just another distraction.

Love and Will

igniprimum

@AvshalomBinyamin said

"
I think this only works if you stretch the definition of dogma beyond it's accepted definition. I'm not really interested in this kind of etymological relativism. "

Another thing you're not really interested in. If you're so uninterested, then why do you respond?

A guy I used to know in the Thelemic community was very fond of calling his online opponents on incorrect usages of language. He usually posted a dictionary definition to go along with his call. Since you only executed half of his technique, I'll do the other half for you:

from www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dogma

*Definition of DOGMA
1: something held as an established opinion; especially
a: a definite authoritative tenet
b: a code of such tenets <pedagogical dogma>
a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds

2: a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church.*

Since this whole business of "All faiths point to the same thing, and are all therefore equal" conforms to

1a among pretty much all modern people in the developed world who have a view about faith and don't belong to a fundamentalist sect of one of the major religions,
1b within certain academic departments (religious studies, anthropology, humanities, and the like,) and
1c among all of the above,

how is this spiritual relativism that you are putting forth as authoritative without adequate grounds not a dogma?

I'm not saying we should be burning churches or temples, or anything like that. More power to the other faiths for actually having their own churches and temples, as ours are at best, as far as I know, in rented commercial spaces.

My humble study of Crowley does not include any instances where he encouraged his readers or associates to pursue other faiths as though they were on a par with Thelema, or as though they should become active members of those other faiths in addition to considering themselves Thelemites. In fact, the only direct detailed accounts I can remember him giving of other systems (Eight Lectures on Yoga springs immediately to mind,) was as one who claimed to have stripped them of all the useless garbage (which he seemed to think comprised the majority of their teachings,) and extracted only the useful principles and techniques that he was interested in, while giving some warning against being taken in by the garbage aspects.

From my experience (which is fairly dated, I know, but the contents of this thread suggest that nothing has changed,) it seems the "Thelemic (whatever)s" within the community are more bedazzled by the garbage aspects of the secondary systems they follow, oftentimes more than they seem interested in Thelema itself. This of course assumes that Thelema is not in fact the secondary system.

Two of my best friends from those days, both of whom were heavily into Hinduism (and one into Voudon,) when I knew them back in 2000-2003, were in the OTO, initiated at least to II*, and where are they now?

One is a dedicated Voudon practitioner who claims that Thelema is the real garbage that she wasted her time with.

The other is a dedicated Muslim who likewise rejects Thelema, although not as vehemently as the first friend.

I still consider them friends, and I am happy for them that they found their true spiritual calling, but why does the OTO and the Thelemic community want to be this kind of gateway, only to attract people who are simply passing through on their way to some other system, or to encourage otherwise potentially dedicated new community members to pass through in the same fashion?

Why should I not find that alarming?

Archaeus

I suppose as its my thread I should have a little bit of input.

I think some people come to Thelema because on the outside its kooky and different, and when they mature they want something a bit more settled and laid back.
As a member of the OTO myself I can say that there are indeed a lot of flaky people that are in it for the weird factor, although there are also genuine aspirants as well, sometimes it can be hard to tell which is which.
Actually I think that they are all genuine aspirants, although a lot get caught up in one thing or another and don't make much progress as a result.

As I said, I am essentially a Taoist, with a heavy Dose of Sufi and a touch of Christian Mysticism; I follow the A.'.A.'. system because it is easier for me to get my western mindset around its ideas and structure, and being more or less elastic it allows me a freedom of expression unthinkable if I were to label myself in any way; at this point I need something more substantial to chew on than inscrutable Chinese abstractions, and something with a bit more spice to it than bland Christianity, and a bit more structure than ecstatic Sufism, for me the A.'.A.'. covers all these in turn, especially in the outer college grades.

Bereshith

"Why should I not find that alarming?"

A better question: Why do you find it alarming?

What is your image of what *should be *happening?

What practical steps would you take to accomplish that in your personal sphere?

And what do you imagine the results would be?

Avshalom Binyamin

@igniprimum said

"Since this whole business of "All faiths point to the same thing, and are all therefore equal" "

It's in quotes, but not something I said.

Jim Eshelman

I'm a big fan of Vivekananda's statement to the effect that, until one has direct experience of God, it's better to be an atheist than a hypocrite.

That general mode of thinking applies to so many things in the course of spiritual development.

For example, it's a fairly spiritual mature perspective that all external forms of worship share the same Holy of Holies - that, behind all visible systems is a shared, deep reality of which the best of the outer systems is but a veil.

This idea is expressed rather well in Liber X: Porta Lucis, and meant to be intellectually assimilated near the beginning of one's formal journey - but that doesn't mean that it's necessarily understood or appreciated at the beginning.

And, until one's mature journey lets one look back on the Path - look back down the mountain, so to speak - one isn't likely to see how many paths lead up the same mountain.

It is both understandable and admirable that someone would take a stand for what is evident to their own mind and senses, rather than buy into a theory that they just can't see.

igniprimum

@Aegis55 said

"A better question: Why do you find it alarming?"

An even better question: Why don't you?

But I'll bite on yours. If you read what I've written before in this thread, you might find some clue as to why I find it alarming.

"What is your image of what *should be *happening?"

I don't think I should have to formulate an alternative to what we have all by myself. Equinox I:1-10 contains articles that describe the image, and Equinox III:1 and III:10 are almost exclusively devoted to further developing that image. If you think that we have now is already like what is described in those books or even a reasonable approximation given the time we've had to work on it, then I would like to sell you a bridge in Brooklyn.

"What practical steps would you take to accomplish that in your personal sphere?"

Please see the answer to your first question. I've already described some details of my personal work.

"And what do you imagine the results would be?"

I can't imagine what the results would be, but I can safely guess that the product of dedicated and focused individuals all working energetically toward a common goal must be better than that of indecisive and scattered individuals all working haphazardly on something they can never agree on.