Duality and Thelema
-
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
@Jim Eshelman said
"They're quite common. Basic, even. Bountiful.
Heck, our central deity is manifest as TWINS."
I appreciate how you highlight their abundance. While I realize dealing with pairs of opposites is fundamental to many initiating systems, it seems to me to be a constant affair. The writing in Liber Aleph cap XLIII seems to amplify my notions that this may be an ordeal with No End:
"I would have thee consider, O my Son, that Word of Publius Vergilius Maro, that was the greatest of all the Magicians of his Time: in medio tutissimus ibis (you will go most safely by the middle course). Which Thing hath also been said by many wise Men in other Lands; and the Holy Qabalah confirmeth the same, placing Tiphareth, which is the Man, and the Beauty and Harmony of Things, and Gold in the Kingdom of Metals, and the Sun among the Planets, in the Midst of the Tree of Life. For the Centre is the Point of Balance of all Vectors. So then if thou wilt live wisely, learn that thou must establish this Relation of Balance with every Thing soever, not omitting one. For there is nothing so alien from thy Nature that it may not be brought into harmonious Relation therewith; and thy Stature of Manhood waxeth great even as thou comest to the Perfection of this Art. And there is nothing so close Kin to thee that it may not be hurtful to thee if this Balance be not truly adjusted. Thou hast need of the whole Force of the Universe to work with thy Will; but this Force must be disposed about the Shaft of that Will so that there is no Tendency to Hindrance or to to Deflection.""
I wonder if being a Gemini has anything to do with all this.
@Jim Eshelman said
"Of course such things exist. In fact, you can't get any more ovic (or much more lunar) than... an egg.
But "ovic" isn't the reciprocal of "phallic." It should be yonic. Not the egg, but the {****}. ("Phallic" isn't "seminal." "Semen" would be the complement of "egg." Don't confuse the care with the highway.)
So, one of the very most common symbols for this principle is the grail.
"Lion-serpent" - and, even more, solar-lion-serpent - is just a way of saying Teth, or Leo. The complement you are seeking, then, can be found in the symbolism of Cheth, or Cancer."
Thanks for setting me straight on these points. A complementary contrast between Leo and Cancer is also something I have never considered before.
I remember reading something by Crowley where he explicitly states that the sexual act should be performed exclusively for reproductive purposes, complete with the standard preliminary banishings and consecrations (which would simply be bathing and prayer in my own approach as it stands). I'm sure there's another way of reading those passages, probably from the perspective of the Body of Light, which renders this differently than it does at face-value. While I would like to cite the source from memory, I will have to do some digging to find exactly where I read that. I'm hoping you'll know what I'm talking about; if not, I'd happily work to provide further clarification.
@Jim Eshelman said
"I'm not sure what you're looking for. Yes, there's a lot here. (I did a whole talk on it 25 years ago, F.L.O. sold a tape of it for a while.) What's the mystery you're chasing?"
While I don't think I can put it into Qabalistic terms, I find myself brought back to my preoccupation with Gender established in my original post. I've always felt that Nature has put things in an accord that involves 50% of human experience being closed off to each individual; Manhood is removed from Womanhood and vice-versa. That may be a naive way to look at things, but I'm at least being honest with how I see it.
The only time I have ever even remotely transcended this way of seeing things has been during sex. I've had the experience several times before climax that I was, in a sense, sharing a nervous system with someone. I didn't get as far as being able to see through her eyes, but I could feel the air in the room through her skin.
I can't be sure if Qabalah explicitly deals with Gender anywhere. My first estimation would to be to refer to the Godhead, at Chokmah and Binah.
@Jim Eshelman said
"In all of your examples, you seem to have missed that the seven planetary letters of the Hebrew alphabet are double letters with pairs of opposing traits."
Again, thanks for bringing up another point I've missed. I've begun to realize I too often study Qabalah in terms of the initiatory systems that have incorporated it rather than as a subject in-and-of itself.
@Jim Eshelman said
"The key is: There is no identity separate from relationship. In fact, there's a great quote from Parker J. Palmer that I posted recently: "...the ancient human question 'Who am I?' leads inevitably to the equally important question 'Whose am I?' - for there is no selfhood outside of relationship. We must ask the question of selfhood and answer it as honestly as we can, no matter where it takes us. Only as we do so can we discover the community of our lives.""
Sublime! That's in the early chapters, too. Its such a short book, I should make it a point to finish it tonight. I have a habit of reading a great many books at once. I suppose that's the price of keeping so many that beg repeated readings, ones that will stay with you for a lifetime.
Reading it in my own way, I feel there are allusions to the Invisible College in those lines.
Love is the law, love under will.
-
@Zalthos said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"They're quite common. Basic, even. Bountiful.Heck, our central deity is manifest as TWINS."
I appreciate how you highlight their abundance. While I realize dealing with pairs of opposites is fundamental to many initiating systems, it seems to me to be a constant affair. The writing in Liber Aleph cap XLIII seems to amplify my notions that this may be an ordeal with No End:"
You're missing the point. You're looking at this as if it's some sort of problem. At the very least, duality is intrinsic to intellect, so, as long as any intellect is involved, duality is fundamental to what we are doing. (That's one important reason that Zayin bridges the Abyss and the entry process to Binah.) Even past the Abyss, duality exists and, in fact, is fundamental to the Great Work: it just has a different meaning, or valuation, and witnessing this (almost moment by moment) is basic to the training of a Magister Templi.
Since Chokmah is sephirah 2, duality is intrinsic in that grade also. This fact remains basic to his or her work. Thus (for example), Liber Magi says, "In the beginning doth the Magus speak Truth, and send forth Illusion and Falsehood to enslave the soul. Yet therein is the Mystery of Redemption." Also: "He is the First and the Last. How shall He cease to number Himself?" (And there is more.)
To say that the Work focusses on duality is like saying that breathing exercises focus on air. It's the basic component that we have to work with. At a very subtle level, you could say that it's the First Matter of the Great Work. (But there are other First Matters available for lesser works along the way.)
Regarding the quote from Liber Aleph: Equilibrium is a complex subject. I would speak of it differently to people at different points in their training. For you, at the moment, I would sayL One doesn't reach a final equilibrium in these matters; rather, one learns to live in constant response to, and (in one sense) constant management of the relationship of shifting and evolving polar forces. Even the Adeptus Major (6=5) is still learning (sometimes with every breath!) that every change one makes in oneself causes a compensating, equilibrating change in the universe. (This is a basic lesson of the Path of Lamed, which is then lived in Geburah, and is a setup for the deeper instruction in Kaph.)
"I remember reading something by Crowley where he explicitly states that the sexual act should be performed exclusively for reproductive purposes, complete with the standard preliminary banishings and consecrations (which would simply be bathing and prayer in my own approach as it stands). [...] I will have to do some digging to find exactly where I read that. I'm hoping you'll know what I'm talking about; if not, I'd happily work to provide further clarification."
I bet you're remembering them wrong - that you are the one who inserted the "should." That is, I suspect that you are remembering his statement that there is no sex act that is without issue - meaning, that it is creating on some plane (not necessarily the biological).
"I've always felt that Nature has put things in an accord that involves 50% of human experience being closed off to each individual; Manhood is removed from Womanhood and vice-versa. That may be a naive way to look at things, but I'm at least being honest with how I see it."
The differences between men and women - and here I speak of the differences from Nature (following your lead) - are relatively minor. They have been exaggerated by sociological factors (when people insist on acting out gender-conditioned roles), and there are some distinctive differences (thank Nuit!). But the percentage of our construction and constitution at the biological level alone is such that these differences only account for a tiny percentage, perhaps 5% or less.
And then there are the other levels you are ignoring when you suggest that half of human experience is closed off to everybody!
You're ignoring that the gender difference only exists at the biological level - the World of Assiah - and such parts of the psychological level that we let be affected by biology and sociology. There is no such gender differentiation in Atziluth, Briah, or most of Yetzirah.
You are also ignoring that we are each reincarnated, over and over again, as both genders - male or female according to the needs of the incarnation - and so we have, deep within us, many lifetimes of experience as both sexes. This is ours to draw upon, if we just place our attention to it. At the very least, this opens paths of empathy naturally between the genders.
I think your insights into some ways of bridging this are quite sound - maybe even excellent. I also think that you are ignoring the things more immediately at hand.
"I can't be sure if Qabalah explicitly deals with Gender anywhere. My first estimation would to be to refer to the Godhead, at Chokmah and Binah."
Yes, that's the root. And yes, it deals with gender explicitly EVERYWHERE. It's persistent in the pillars, the flow of fire and water down the sephiroth, the shifting gender relationships of each sephirah to the one before it vs. the one after it (every sephirah is feminine to the one prior to it, and masculine toward the one following it). Have you even read Dion Fortune's Mystical Qabalah? It's fundamental to your understanding of all of this. (And I haven't begun to speak of gender flows through the Paths, the phases of Y.H.V.H. and all cognate ideas, etc. It's basic!)
Not surprising, BTW, since this is an issue fundamental to the human condition overall; and, in particular, Jewish culture and spirituality have always been grounded in the specific relationship of husband and wife.
-
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
As I have read this post where you disclose the present circumstances of your workload, let me take the time to thank you for taking the time you've spent on me. It really lightens my heart that you would do this in the midst of all that's being asked of you.
@Jim Eshelman said
"You're missing the point. You're looking at this as if it's some sort of problem. At the very least, duality is intrinsic to intellect, so, as long as any intellect is involved, duality is fundamental to what we are doing. (That's one important reason that Zayin bridges the Abyss and the entry process to Binah.) Even past the Abyss, duality exists and, in fact, is fundamental to the Great Work: it just has a different meaning, or valuation, and witnessing this (almost moment by moment) is basic to the training of a Magister Templi.
Since Chokmah is sephirah 2, duality is intrinsic in that grade also. This fact remains basic to his or her work. Thus (for example), Liber Magi says, "In the beginning doth the Magus speak Truth, and send forth Illusion and Falsehood to enslave the soul. Yet therein is the Mystery of Redemption." Also: "He is the First and the Last. How shall He cease to number Himself?" (And there is more.)
To say that the Work focusses on duality is like saying that breathing exercises focus on air. It's the basic component that we have to work with. At a very subtle level, you could say that it's the First Matter of the Great Work. (But there are other First Matters available for lesser works along the way.)"
This digging has gone much deeper than I had expected it to! I've been so concerned with taking things slow and taking as many precautions as possible in preparing for the beginning stages of practice that I seem to have overlooked the "big picture" in many respects. Kether Point-of-View comes to mind; my studying the Tree from a top-down approach, as in the Flashing Sword, is the polar opposite to how I traditionally look at things. As long as I can apprehend things as objectively as possible, without attributing any subjective significance, I don't see there being much danger in studying any idea in such early stages of Initiation as I seem to find myself. And all you have said in this post brings to me new meaning to Within and Without, to Subject and Object, to a Human and the Universe. I am also reminded of the call to "be fruitful and multiply."
@Jim Eshelman said
"Regarding the quote from Liber Aleph: Equilibrium is a complex subject. I would speak of it differently to people at different points in their training. For you, at the moment, I would say: One doesn't reach a final equilibrium in these matters; rather, one learns to live in constant response to, and (in one sense) constant management of the relationship of shifting and evolving polar forces. Even the Adeptus Major (6=5) is still learning (sometimes with every breath!) that every change one makes in oneself causes a compensating, equilibrating change in the universe. (This is a basic lesson of the Path of Lamed, which is then lived in Geburah, and is a setup for the deeper instruction in Kaph.)"
This is particularly illuminating. Like I stated above (and as plainly revealed by my earlier posts), I now realize I have been leaving out some key elements to subjects fundamental to the A.'.A.'. and life in general.
These lines from Liber Tzaddi are becoming much clearer:
"33. I reveal unto you a great mystery. Ye stand between the abyss of height and the abyss of depth.
- In either awaits you a Companion; and that Companion is Yourself.
- Ye can have no other Companion.
- Liber Tzaddi"
@Jim Eshelman said
"The differences between men and women - and here I speak of the differences from Nature (following your lead) - are relatively minor. They have been exaggerated by sociological factors (when people insist on acting out gender-conditioned roles), and there are some distinctive differences (thank Nuit!). But the percentage of our construction and constitution at the biological level alone is such that these differences only account for a tiny percentage, perhaps 5% or less.
And then there are the other levels you are ignoring when you suggest that half of human experience is closed off to everybody!"
Everything you've said in this post is really broadening the base of my whole outlook on life at a very wholesome and fundamental level. I have been ignorant to my own projections for too long now, and it is painfully obvious to me that I have made sweeping generalizations a mainstay in my psychological outlook. How could I believe that everyone feels "cut-off" from the opposite gender? That's a definitely very naive of me, and I have to apologize for what seems to me as "projecting restrictions."
@Jim Eshelman said
"You're ignoring that the gender difference only exists at the biological level - the World of Assiah - and such parts of the psychological level that we let be affected by biology and sociology. There is no such gender differentiation in Atziluth, Briah, or most of Yetzirah."
This was a HUGE eye-opener for me! I am finally starting to see things in a way that encourages my human experience in this lifetime rather than the experience of a single sex exclusively. I am tempted to become sad that I have to be 24 and learn this lesson, as this seems to be a rather basic outlook that I'm sure many people have been living out ever since they were children, but I needn't regard this as catastrophic. I would prefer to be grateful for this chance to finally assimilate what has always been in front of me and move forward with it.
@Jim Eshelman said
"You are also ignoring that we are each reincarnated, over and over again, as both genders - male or female according to the needs of the incarnation - and so we have, deep within us, many lifetimes of experience as both sexes. This is ours to draw upon, if we just place our attention to it. At the very least, this opens paths of empathy naturally between the genders."
While I have given very little attention to any ideas or theories of reincarnation, I now see that I have been mistaken in doing so. Crowley has made plain the techniques for uncovering past-life memories, but I am wondering if there is any connection between these techniques and the astral. You have certainly been helpful in pointing out the missing pieces here, and I am virtually swelling with gratitude.
EDIT: Perhaps the connection lies in Yetzirah?
@Jim Eshelman said
"Yes, that's the root. And yes, it deals with gender explicitly EVERYWHERE. It's persistent in the pillars, the flow of fire and water down the sephiroth, the shifting gender relationships of each sephirah to the one before it vs. the one after it (every sephirah is feminine to the one prior to it, and masculine toward the one following it). Have you even read Dion Fortune's Mystical Qabalah? It's fundamental to your understanding of all of this. (And I haven't begun to speak of gender flows through the Paths, the phases of Y.H.V.H. and all cognate ideas, etc. It's basic!)"
In retrospect, for someone who's been "so obsessed with Gender," you think I would've been having a damned hayday with everything I've been reading for almost 4 fucking years!!
"Every man and every woman is a star." - Liber AL cap I:3
I have to admit I have never read that book. I was actually turned away from it by an older gentleman who introduced me to Thelema and its subjects; I was instructed to read more Crowley instead. As this is at least the third time I have seen this book come up in our conversations, and I truly respect you and your service, I will make it an imperative to read it. The last thing I want to do is waste your time by pulling for elementary data that I already have ready access to. However, your insight and perspective are extremely valuable to me for numerous reasons, and I thank you again for taking the time to lend them to my aid.
Love is the law, love under will.
-
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
I finished Mystical Qabalah over the course of this month, and I found it really drove home a lot of the fundamentals addressed in this thread. I think the book's only weakness is many of the outdated scientific models it employs as metaphors toward understanding, with exception to those belonging to biology (the katabolic/anabolic functions of Gedulah and Geburah specifically sticks out for me). I would have loved to see how she would've incorporated information about singularities, "big bang" theory, quantum mechanics, etc. but it can't be helped that the book was written in the 30's.
I really loved it, though. It definitely warrants repeated readings. I will more than likely read the chapters backwards in sequence next time, starting with the Malkuth and ending with Kether.
Personally, I found it to be a perfect primer for what I would consider more advanced works, like Levi's Transcendental Magic, which I am reading now. I've tried reading it before, but I found it significantly more difficult to understand than I do now, after having read Mystical Qabalah. I have read the first three parts of Liber ABA many times over the course of the last few years, and I look forward to what will be gleaned from future readings after I finish Transcendental Magic. I'm already finding that the basics in works like An Essay on Number are evoking much deeper sophistications and meanings than they had previously.
Thanks for setting me on the right track, Jim. This stuff is really starting to sink in.
Love is the law, love under will.
-
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
The insight my study of the Qabalah has lent me is not nearly as black-and-white as your assertions. I would place more emphasis on this part of your chosen excerpt:
"The whole is greater than the part, and Chokmah and Binah are wholes of which sex is a part. In understanding the relationship which sex has to polarising force as a whole, we find the key to the right understanding of sex, and we can assess against a cosmic standard the teachings of psychology and morality relating thereto."
I almost find it a little ironic that you included these statements in the basis of your argument.
Its true the Qabalah is a system in and of itself, but its one that readily encompasses all others. If one was as jarred as you seem to be by a model where male represents the active and female the passive (and I couldn't help but notice your quote describes both genders as representing a type of force), the imagery of the Hindus could readily be adapted, which provides an inverse model with the rising Kundalini representing active force while being a female serpent.
EDIT: Something worth mentioning occurred to me after making this most: the method described above of applying various culture-conditioned symbols can probably be carried as far as applying only Goddesses to every Sephira, if one so desired.
You also seem to be ignoring how the magical images of the Sephiroth occassionally "go against the grain" of what someone unfamiliar with Qabalah might expect: Geburah and Chesed both possess male images, Netzach is female in spite of being basal to the pillar of Chokmah, and Hod's image is actually hermaphroditic. With this in mind, I have to regard the gender symbolism being employed here not as inherently dogmatic, but rather as a useful convention to communicate what is often times transcendent to our rational comprehension.
I find it interesting that you regard virtually everything as a type of force, maybe even as Fortune intended; however, I don't think I have personally exhausted the usefulness of a distinction between the travel and the territory just yet.
Thanks for sharing your perspective.
Love is the law, love under will.
-
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
@Dar es Alrah said
"Jarred? No. I'm used to the ignorant use of sexist imagery in Magick. I'm also used to men eating it all up with a spoon without bothering to question it unless they are challenged on the point. Jarred? No - I'm just justifiably {******} off, Zalthos. And if maleness had been referred to as passive, static and latent to you for years then perhaps you might have a little more empathy with my position."
Okay, so you're angry and not jarred. My mistake.
@Dar es Alrah said
"The rising Kundalini does not represent the active force. It is a marriage of the Ida and Pingala that generates the rising."
Thanks for that. I haven't come across any information like that yet, or I didn't take note of it if I did.
@Dar es Alrah said
"Justify why the feminine force is labelled as passive or static please? Think up anything in the universe that is female and static and tell me about it - or tell me a single quality that is quintessentially female and passive. Go on... I bet you can't do it.
What is the basis of the assertion that "maleness is a form of dynamic force, just as femaleness is a form of static, latent, or potential force, inert till stimulus be given"? Where is the link in the natural world?
And lastly - Fortune justifies that women should not adopt certain offices in magick because apparently women have more female force and men more active force. Do you agree with that?"
I think gender attributions are more consequential to larger ideas/relationships/dynamics/etc. than anything else, really. They are representative of greater forces at play, and I personally find the number of gender to be the most important aspect of it (hence this thread).
I would use e=mc2 to be a perfect example: you've got matter on one end, energy on the other. Sure, you can say matter is an illusion and everything is energy, but the opposite has to be true, too. They each lie latent in one another. This isn't just about what energy equals, but what matter equals as well.
"Oh - I see. I don't agree with you so that must mean I must be a newbie at qabalah and magick? Of course! That must be it! sarcasm intended"
You seemed to have completely misconstrued my intention there. I was just making a point of the last sentence of the paragraph you quoted, not implying that you're unfamiliar. I do think that information gives insight into the shifting imagery in Qabalah; indeed, the gender imagery seems to be shifting all over the place, with one becoming the other and so forth.
Love is the law, love under will.
-
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
@Dar es Alrah said
"Leaving aside that matter does not 'lie latent' in energy and that energy does not 'lie latent' in matter - as that's complete tripe you've just invented on the spot - then there is no need to bring in the question of gender if you're talking about E=MC2."
You're right. I seemed to have left out the bit about this equation pertaining to energy equaling to matter in motion. It would serve much better to have the gender ordeal only on one side of the equation and leave the other half undifferentiated by such.
@Dar es Alrah said
"That may well be, but you still haven't answered why you think passive, static and latent = femaleness, and that is the point here, not that you can juggle the red and blue balls."
I never said that's what I think, though. I have to say you're attitude is very immature, and its trying my patience to the point where I cannot continue to try and have a mature conversation with you.
Thank you for the useful information you've shared. I will be looking into it further.
Love is the law, love under will.
-
@Dar es Alrah said
"So you were saying that you didn't see a problem with Dion Fortune's view of biology, and you had just read the 'Mystical Qabalah' which includes all the 'masculine = active' and 'feminine = passive' stuff, yes?"
By highlighting what stuck out for me, I meant the more general anatomical aspects of the field (things like the metabolism metaphor above, or the physical arms as Geburah and Gedulah, heart as Tiphareth, etc.) rather than those aspects of a sexual nature. I've provided the clarification for others perhaps happening of such "critical" inclinations as you do.
@Dar es Alrah said
"If you cannot have a conversation with me it's because you haven't thought critically about the book you've just read and cannot justify why you think Fortunes biological views are OK.
First you implied that I haven't understood Qabalah and now you call me immature because you didn't do your homework? Sure... that'll fly!"
I didn't intend to imply that: you read into it what you wanted to. Its your abrasive impoliteness that's driving me away from you, who are hellbent on employing such an annoying disposition.
Love is the law, love under will.
-
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
@Dar es Alrah said
"Look Zalthos - stop waffling and tell me -
Do you think feminine = passive, static and latent, or not?
Yes or no?"
Waffling? Alluding to what Jim said earlier, I no longer believe there is a "problem" per se, begging for us to solve by creating such conclusive descriptors for the two genders. But the ideas of active and passive exist, however apparent they might be, and gender exists.
So, to answer your question more directly, I think it really depends on a deeper, more overarching context as to whether or not you can say that's the case with any single woman. Men and women are human beings before they are anything else, and men have just as much capacity to be "passive, static, and latent" as women do, etc. There are a lot of variables to consider. The Court Cards of the Tarot are coming to mind here, and I think they serve as a ready testament to what I'm talking about.
Love is the law, love under will.
-
@Dar es Alrah said
"Look Zalthos - stop waffling and tell me -
Do you think feminine = passive, static and latent, or not?
Yes or no?"
If I may interject; Dar, you're allowing your own personal projections on the words "feminine and masculine" to get in the way. These words are just convenient labels and aren't about the world of "men and women." Substitute "passive and active" (in an esoteric sense) instead, if that helps you.
Water, although it can appear to flow etc, is considered, as an esoteric symbol, passive. But you say, "NO, water has energy!" Does it? Or is this appearance of energy the result of its passive play on the active force of gravity (which is actually doing something, not being done onto). Again, I refer you to remind yourself we aren't talking about men and women, but active and passive "things."
-
@Dar es Alrah said
"
I don't see why people are being so disingenuous about these facts, and are trying to avoid the fact that the tree's traditionally gender attributions are sexist! Why is that do you think?"Because some of us have moved on.
-
Honestly, I never understood this obsession that Thelema has with the Qabalah. I understand it as something "essential to learn about cause people like to discuss it." But I haven't found it useful in the practice of magick.
"So you were saying that you didn't see a problem with Dion Fortune's view of biology, and you had just read the 'Mystical Qabalah' which includes all the 'masculine = active' and 'feminine = passive' stuff, yes?
If you cannot have a conversation with me it's because you haven't thought critically about the book you've just read and cannot justify why you think Fortunes biological views are OK.
"No wonder reading Dion Fortunes book didn't make me feel any better when I read it. I don't think it was one of her better works either. Its been some time since I have looked at it, and I really don't intend to waste me time on it now.
Biologically female here too, btw, as if that makes a difference.
-
93,
Shadow Self said:
"Honestly, I never understood this obsession that Thelema has with the Qabalah. I understand it as something "essential to learn about cause people like to discuss it." But I haven't found it useful in the practice of magick. "
That's fascinating. The Book of the Law is an entirely Qabalistic text, and incomprehensible without deep knowledge of the subject. And most magick employs Qabalistic formulae at some point. Maybe you have a different idea of 'Qabalah' to other people?
(Or am I being really slow about an April Fool's joke?)
93 93/93,
Edward -
Dar, you could for example look at the polarity phenomenon as it appears in electricity - there's nothing good or bad inherent in the phenomenon itself, and in the difference between the 'passive' and 'active'; the poles are what they are only in comparison to each other. We could say that the relationship makes them. Looking at it on the Tree: 2 is not 'active' unless compared to 3 as 'passive' (and vice-versa); not one of them is first there, and the other second - Time only comes into play from their interaction!
(and besides, we could say 2 is passive, regarding its relationship with 1) -
you're implying that 'passive' is a derogative. it's not. it's just a term used to describe one aspect of a relationship.
of course we are, as incarnated humans, every one of us, both passive-and-active, on many levels. I'm saying that the play of polarity that we are is interwoven in such manner, that one (half-part of the polarized couple) exists only with the other, always, and simultaneously. but when we think and speak about the phenomenon of polarity, we can 'vivisect' the reality and say 'passive', as an abstract quality - temporarily not thinking about it's 'active' counterpart, but only focusing on this one aspect; it sure is limited, but the mind itself (taken as Ruach) is dual and limited - and it has its use.it's all a matter of definition here. if someone, saying you're passive, means by that that you lack_activity, I can see why you object. but if we define 'passive' not as 'lack-of-active', but as its necessary counterpart, bearing in mind that the relationship is inter-dependable, in such manner that one exist only in relation to the other, than I do not see your point of objection.
-
@Dar es Alrah said
"
@danica said
"Dar, you could for example look at the polarity phenomenon as it appears in electricity - there's nothing good or bad inherent in the phenomenon itself, and in the difference between the 'passive' and 'active'; the poles are what they are only in comparison to each other. We could say that the relationship makes them. Looking at it on the Tree: 2 is not 'active' unless compared to 3 as 'passive' (and vice-versa); not one of them is first there, and the other second - Time only comes into play from their interaction!
(and besides, we could say 2 is passive, regarding its relationship with 1)"There is no 'passive' anywhere Danica. It's an illusion. Change is the only stability there is in the Universe. The illusion of 'passive' allows people to feel in control by using a label that doesn't actually mean anything. It's like the 0 in mathematics. Useful for practical purposes but it doesn't actually mean anything. People used to think that matter was 'passive' - and all of the energies that flow down the tree had reached and became matter and then stopped. Then we wised up and found out that 'matter' really wasn't the stuff we thought it was.
Binah is not 'passive'. That's just an error of the last aeon. A misapplied piece of labelling. Nothing more."
Dar, you are the only one here I am aware of who is projecting your own personal sexism (a form of "anti-sexism" that lets you fight a sexist war even though I feel it is over) toward "passive" and "active." Passive (in my magical grammar) doesn't mean "unable" or "helpless" or "weak," it means "receptive." At it's least "potent" (for want of a better word), it is "influenced." As for the Tree, the spheres have both qualities within them (as danica tried pointing out to you). Perhaps in your quoting of Fortune she did use the words "female" and "male," and perhaps in her world view she did liken them to the play of men and women around her - but we don't play that way any more. It doesn't change, though, the nature of intellectual, spiritual, and creative forces. The sword is active - it creates influence upon the passive (it slices, it dices, it does so much more!). The air around you is active - it blows, it cools, it heats that which it envelopes. The cup is passive - it sits, it waits, it is filled and unfilled. Water is passive - though to you it may look like air, it does not move (energy moves through it). It falls by the force of gravity. (Yes, water can transfer it's temperature/quality; but it's like I said, each contains its opposite as well).
However you choose to use your own personal magical grammar is fine with you, but no one enjoys being corrected in their speech (especially in public).
-
If you want to quote Crowley's Liber 333 as your source and battle-stance, but not just pick and choose at your convenience - then read Chapter 49 and its commentary (I won't quote it, you have the source material). Apparently your source also holds to masculine/feminine and active/passive concepts.
-
Sure, if we limit "passive" to the single, non-magical definition of "inert" we can say that there's no such thing as passive. That's missing the point.
Passive and active are simply perspectives. Subject and object of a sentence. Giver and receiver. Learner and teacher. Reader and writer.
Whether or not a cup or an electrical wire engages in activity is completely irrelevant. The perspective exists.
By rejecting the perspective, we could fool ourselves into thinking we've transcended it, when all that's really happened is that we've allowed our personal prejudices to prevent us from experiencing a specific perspective.
-
It's not some old teaching that is learned by wrote.
It's the initial language of unconscious imagery.
Just the other day, someone who has no qabalistic training at all was relating a dream he had: Looking for mushrooms in a forest, he came upon the royal personages of the King and Queen. He didn't learn that from alchemical or qabalistic study. It arose spontaneously from his unconscious.
The symbols are naturally occurring reflections of the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems.
One may, by reason, make an excellent case (as you have) against the ultimacy of these symbols, and one may have an excellent argument for their ultimate transcendence (as you have).
But I think to demand that this be understood from the very beginning of The Work is to work against the natural evolution and growth of these symbols by restricting the meaning of their early and naturally occurring symbolism in the psyche.
In my view, we don't create and decide the symbolism. We record it as it occurs and use it to communicate and instruct.
It's the communcation part that becomes difficult without these relative constructs.
-
@Dar es Alrah said
"Gentlemen - what use is this error to the work?
Success is thy proof - so tell me! Do you go up a grade when you can add this abstraction to the tree? Does it help in meditation or ritual towards the two essential tasks of the magician? If so - how? (And please be as specific as you can if you attempt this.) Does it aid you in expressing yourself as sexual beings? Perhaps resolve some type of Amfortas wound? Or help you in your relationship with your mother or HGA? Does it help to confront your demons? How does it mesh with your projections? Infact - does it do anything besides providing your ego with yet another place to stand?
There are many erroneous perceptions in the world that are of no use at all.
And I don't know of any unconscious imagery that means 'passive' except by the application of conscious abstract labelling after the fact, in the fashion that Crowley described so elegantly in his poem.And Sardonyx - if you don't get the foundations of your temple right from the start, then you'll find you have a lot of building and reconstruction work to do when the walls fall down later."
You are the one making the charges here (accusations), so success is your proof. Tell me how your perspective (or lack thereof, depending on who is describing it) helps you in those things? Tell me how someone who projects their own issues passes beyond knowledge of the Secret of the Knights of the East and West?