M.A.A.T.
-
@Patrick Ossoski said
"Not sure about the 2000 years though. Too fast."
Just speculating, but imagine what might happen if we do not experience total civilisation breakdown and mankind entered an age of exploration, unhindered by the "morals" and religions that dominated the last 2000 years ... where will we be, technologically, culturally, spiritually then?
When illnesses, poverty, war, even aging itself might have been removed as normal occurences, world-wide, and mankind might have spread over the whole solar system, with more people living off-earth than on it, and perhaps even farther out?
This would drive people up the maslow pyramid ... more resources into self-development ... and my suspicion is that 90% of what is standing between healthy people with a head on their shoulders and a spirit of adventure and the "K&C" are complexes stemming from our cultural artifacts and stupidities from the dark ages.
But, this is entirely speculation and (optimistic) conjecture, I admit.
-
@Simon Iff said
"imagine what might happen if we do not experience total civilisation breakdown and mankind entered an age of exploration, unhindered by the "morals" and religions that dominated the last 2000 years ... where will we be, technologically, culturally, spiritually then?"
It depends. There are various ways to fuck up.
"When illnesses, poverty, war, even aging itself might have been removed as normal occurences, world-wide, and mankind might have spread over the whole solar system, with more people living off-earth than on it, and perhaps even farther out?"
OTOH, this could cause a predominantly materialistic worldview which can hinder the spiritual progress of humanity as a whole. (Assuming all of that can even happen within 2000 years. As you said, it's an optimistic conjecture.)
"my suspicion is that 90% of what is standing between healthy people with a head on their shoulders and a spirit of adventure and the "K&C" are complexes stemming from our cultural artifacts and stupidities from the dark ages."
90%? Not sure...
Anyway, we'll have to wait and see.BTW, I used to be incredibly optimistic, but now I have more of an "whatever, let's do what we can" approach.
-
@Patrick Ossoski said
"BTW, I used to be incredibly optimistic, but now I have more of an "whatever, let's do what we can" approach."
I don't see how this has to be either/or - actually, I can pretty much identify with that.
As said, my conjecture is optimistic.
-
@Simon Iff said
"Wasn't it one of Crowley's ideas that the stage of K&C might constitute average adulthood 2000 years in the future, so the abyssal experience might be "the next step" for people then?
I think I read that somewhere, not sure where and when."
That was me.
If Crowley also said it, then he obviously stole the idea from me
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@Simon Iff said
"Wasn't it one of Crowley's ideas that the stage of K&C might constitute average adulthood 2000 years in the future, so the abyssal experience might be "the next step" for people then?I think I read that somewhere, not sure where and when."
That was me.
If Crowley also said it, then he obviously stole the idea from me
"Timetravel?
-
Postulatory ramblings...
In Osiris, passivity ("dying") was the trick and the nature of the visible object of worship.
In Horus, activity ("living") is the trick and the nature of the visible object of worship.
Perhaps in Maat, people finally learn to do without the illusory "either/or" of dying versus living perspectives. The trick and the visible object of worship is equating/equilibating the "two."
-
I was going to make an edit, in light of a reply I will say this:
The H (which in English was originally silent) represents the Silent Breath
For MAAT is MAAT(H) or a Living, BREATHING Master of the Temple
HE whom has conquered TRUTH while LIVING
V
-V
--V
-V
VEDIT: V spacing was not working out
-
I feel the urge to elaborate, given the expected resistance to understanding anything Osirian, black as he is. (this isn't pointed at Uni_Verse)
In Osiris, the "self" primarily referred to was the lower nature, the Nephesh. "Die to your'self,' so that Christ may live in you." Let the "old self" die. Let the energies of the Nephesh be transmuted into higher energies. (Be careful not to confuse the current outer dogma with the ancient inner truth - of course, for most, this is so impossible as to require an Equinox of the Gods to break free of it, so, what can I hope to expect?)
In Horus, the "self" primarily refered to is the Ruach. Here, instead of being encouraged to let the "self" (seen as Nephesh) die, we see the "self" (seen as the Ruach) killing the impulses of the lower nature. Yet still, the energies of the lower nature undergo a death and are transmuted into higher energies.
The initial perspective is different, but Maathematically, the result is the same.
But, you know, now that we know about evolution and have to understand the previously very secret and popularly persecuted symbolism of the supernals (Beast and Whore), "living" and "killing" are more consistent symbols with what one has to assimilate in the higher grades. And evolution points to them up from the beginning, so.. Why not start with them now?
Accepting change is dying.
Causing change is living.
Change remains the constant.
Ho hum,
what a conundrum...
April Fools!In Silence, inhaling is living, exhaling is dying.
In Speech, exhaling is living, inhaling is dying.
Breathing remains the constant.
Ho hum,
What a conundrum...
April Fools!It seems such an obvious and simple thing, but, oh, what wars will most likely be fought over the dominance of one's analogies.
-
As it relates to Maat(h).
I think she will be seen more as the initiator who forces you to balance what you don't think you are, whatever that is.
If you identify with Hoor-Par-Kraat most, then learn Ra-Hoor-Khuit.
If Ra-Hoor-Khuit most, then learn Hoor-Par-Kraat.
But maybe without one being overtly emphasized over the other by the Aeon.I mean, I don't know. Who could know? I'm just guessing at stuff a few thousand years in advance.
-
Well, that's what always happens. We're getting into the difference between the eternal function and the changing gods who take that seat in the different Aeons.
I was speaking more in terms of how the visible object of worship is outwardly presented. By comparison, RHK is not overtly about balance. He is "a god of war."
-
Yep, and specifically, a balance to the abuses of the previous Aeon through his warring.
And after an Aeon of the warring Horus, its abuses will need a visible object of worship that attempts to correct them without going too far back in the passive/dying direction, hence Maat.
Further, the usual weakness of idolizing balance is indecision and its resulting stagnation. Always, the abuses come from an imperfect understanding of the ideal, requiring a change of outward emphasis and, thus, another Equinox of the Gods. I don't know enough to intelligently guess at the next presiding influence (god).
-
@Bereshith said
"And after an Aeon of the warring Horus, its abuses will need a visible object of worship that attempts to correct them without going too far back in the passive/dying direction, hence Maat."
I thought something like that too.
"I don't know enough to intelligently guess at the next presiding influence (god)."
Anubis?
Okay, I'll stop.
