Heru-Ra-Ha, Ra-Hoor-Khuit, Hoor-Paar-Kraat, and Horus
-
When taken merely as metaphors for the experience of one person, cut off from any sense of real metaphysical connection with other minds and the Mind inherent in all things, the gods of The Book of the Law are known only in their most basic, fundamentally graspable sense.
They aren't "mere" metaphors. They are powerful, functional, interactive metaphors for the most fundamental relationships of Mind writ large, encompassing all things and all people. They are icons on the desktop of a vast ocean of interconnected Mind.
If taking them as "mere" metaphors for personal experience, writ small, is all one currently has the capacity to experience, accept, and understand, then fine. Start there.
But to act like some superficial philosophical interpretation of Reality really can and does appropriately confine them to merely being this and only this draws the finish line ten yards from the starting point. It serves only those without either the capacity or the courage to go further.
-
Happy Venus Day!
@Los said
""Mystical explanations are thought to be deep; the truth is that they aren't even shallow."
--Nietzsche"
Was this before crying in the town square and hugging the horse?
My personal Nietzsche favorite:
"When thou goest to woman, take thy whip."
Now for funsies:
@Crowley said
"We see and hear [angels], usually (in my own experience) as the result of specific invocation. Less frequently we know them through the sense of touch as well; sometimes their presence is associated with a particular perfume. (This, by the way, is very striking, since it has to overcome that of the incense.) I must very strongly insist, at this point, on the difference between "gods" and "angels." Gods are macrocosmic, as we microcosmic: an incarnated (materialised) God is just as much a person, an individual animal, as we are; as such, he appeals to all our senses exactly as if he were "material.""
@Legis said
""Materialist explanations of mystical phenomena only satisfy those who fear the existence of metaphysical realities." "
"The ordeals I write not: the rituals will be half known and half concealed: the Law is for all."
-
@Frater 639 said
"
@Legis said
""Materialist explanations of mystical phenomena only satisfy those who fear the existence of metaphysical realities." "
"The ordeals I write not: the rituals will be half known and half concealed: the Law is for all.""
I'm not the one invoking "True Thelema" against mystics and mysticism.
You may save your sermons for the Inquisitor.
-
Declaring the nature of reality is just a metaphor, whether from a materialist or any other single point of view.
-
@Legis said
"I'm not the one invoking "True Thelema" against mystics and mysticism. You may save your sermons for the Inquisitor."
I wasn't directing that quote toward any one in particular. I just figured these concepts must be an ordeal for someone, since we keep witnessing pretty vehement and static beliefs on both sides.
@kasper81 said
" God-forms are just maps"
They are much more than "just maps," unless you don't want them to be.
@Av said
"Declaring the nature of reality is just a metaphor, whether from a materialist or any other single point of view."
Amen.
-
"We place no reliance on virgin or pigeon.
Our method is science, our aim is religion.â-- Crowley
-
@kasper81 said
"by the way, to me, it's got nothing to do with materialism if someone wants to take out the strange Egyptological mythological names out of the functionality of transcendental awareness i.e. awareness"
I have no problem with that at all. There are plenty of varieties of language to use for this sort of thing. Nor have I a problem with someone who, for sake of letting people get a handle on something, chooses to express a complex and far-reaching idea in simple (albeit diluted) language.
I have a problem with someone taking something immeasurably greater than anything that could conceivably be called human, or human-accessible, and treating it (seriously) as if those things are only human psychological matters.
"some people seem to want religion. They rejected their school teachers' religious spoonfeeding and presumably,their parents religion, but they still want to find it, and in Thelema"
Exactly. To reject a particular religion (or delivery system of religion) need not be to reject religion per se. Ultimately, that's the whole of what we're about - first and last - bringing people to a deepening spiritual experience of their lives, an increasingly conscious awareness and embracing of their full, immortal scope of which their present human expression is no more than a currently profitable metaphor.
-
@kasper81 said
"Materialism: The doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications."
Materialism isn't a "doctrine." It's the lack of belief in any worlds other than the material one.
I've never met a single person who believes, as a matter of doctrine or dogma, that the material world is all there is. I've met scores and scores of people who are unconvinced that any other worlds exist and who therefore currently lack a belief in any worlds besides the material.
I'm afraid that trying to define materialism as a "doctrine" or a "belief" is nothing more than a clumsy attempt to make all positions whatsoever look like religions and, by implication, to suggest that "ahh, everybody's got equally unjustified beliefs in something, so it's all a wash...."
You could see why someone would try that, but it's not going to work on people who are at least partway paying attention.
-
@Los said
"
@kasper81 said
"Materialism: The doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications."Materialism isn't a "doctrine." It's the lack of belief in any worlds other than the material one.
I've never met a single person who believes, as a matter of doctrine or dogma, that the material world is all there is. I've met scores and scores of people who are unconvinced that any other worlds exist and who therefore currently lack a belief in any worlds besides the material.
I'm afraid that trying to define materialism as a "doctrine" or a "belief" is nothing more than a clumsy attempt to make all positions whatsoever look like religions and, by implication, to suggest that "ahh, everybody's got equally unjustified beliefs in something, so it's all a wash...."
You could see why someone would try that, but it's not going to work on people who are at least partway paying attention."
Anyone with any sort of philosophical education recognizes this as circular nonsense with which materialists self-justify their belief system.
A "lack of belief" based on some principle logically demands* belief *in that principle. Investigation of that principle reveals the dogma.
Anything else is just double-talking nonsense.
I mean... my freakin' god! You're actually trying to act like materialists don't have questionable presuppositions. Everyone has axiomatic presuppositions! Everyone! And absolutely all - ALL - epistemologies begin with some element of belief!
It makes me crazy how absolutely, condescendingly, and authoritatively you present a dead freaking worldview as if it has any current relevance. It's nonsensically atavistic! I can't believe you take yourself seriously.
I mean, join the freaking modern (actually post-modern) era!
-
@Legis said
"I mean... my freakin' god! You're actually trying to act like materialist don't have questionable presuppositions."
I didn't say that. I said that materialists don't have a belief that the material world is all there is. They lack certain kinds of beliefs.
What "questionable presupposition" do you think that I hold, and what makes you think that it is questionable? Depending on exactly what you mean, I might even agree with you.
-
@Legis said
"A "lack of belief" based on some principle logically demands belief in that principle."
Exactly.
In this context, excruciatingly humorous when a major aspect of magick is "suspension of disbelief." In other words, being able to "believe" X at will.
-
@Los said
"What "questionable presupposition" do you think that I hold, and what makes you think that it is questionable? Depending on exactly what you mean, I might even agree with you."
Demonstrate self-awareness and state your presuppositions yourself.
@Los said
"I didn't say that. "
Because I'm not playing this game with you again.
-
Well, going back to the original topic, as discussed earlier:
Ra-Hoor-Khuit - the "active principle".
Hoor-Paar-Kraat - the "passive principle".In my experience, these "principles" can be displayed as atavistic behavior when they become imbalanced (lacking adjustment). Does anybody agree with this? Does anybody want to discuss, from their own experience, what these behaviors may look like when there is an "active principle" imbalance?
-
FWIW, I've tended, in recent years, to move away from "passive" as the description, and adopt "still."
IMHO the Twins are referenced in the phrase, "stir me or still me". They are movement (or stirring) and stillness. (And yes, of course, these both have atavistic expressions just as they can have inspired - and inspiring - expressions.)
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"(And yes, of course, these both have atavistic expressions just as they can have inspired - and inspiring - expressions.)"
Thanks for the laugh, Jim. You knew exactly what I was trying to say.
I agree completely.
