Aristotle and Hermeticism.
-
Ah, the early morning hours of the Aeon of Osiris...
Yeah. Of course. I agree with you completely.
BTW something akin to that (except without all the soul stuff) was the position of conventional Western science until less than a hundred years ago. Here's an out-of-context passage from my discussion of the Aeons in Visions & Voices.
Regarding procreation, common sense assures us that there surely was a time when the link between sexual intercourse and pregnancy was unknown. Early humans had sex, just as they did any number of other activities, and (with no necessary link observed) women got pregnant and delivered babies. During this time, everything from pragmatic respect to religious awe would have centered on woman in this role. Women did this amazing thing all by themselves!
At some point, though, the connection of pregnancy to sex would have been discovered, and this seems to have coincided with a shift of importance and social regard to the man. Creator gods replaced creator goddesses. The prevailing theory, then, was that men deposited children within women, whose job was “merely” to bear them nine months and deliver them whole. At Crowley’s birth, this was still the general scientific theory of reproduction. I have seen one medical textbook as late as the 1920s asserting the same position.
However, by the dawn of the 20th Century, there was an emerging theory gaining ground that man and woman equally contributed parts of themselves to the creation of a child. That new knowledge would be pivotal in reformulating human thought and culture. The miracle was seen to be neither the man nor the woman alone, but their co-participation in the bringing forth of the real wonder, the child itself.
-
This is going to seem so off the wall to most of you. So be it.
A question. A question.
Aristotle's influence was huge, his philosophical perspectives seemed to have wormed their way into almost every aspect of the old Aeon. For example, theater suffered a great deal under the thumb of Aristotle's doctrine of the three unities: time, space, and action.
So Alrah's post and JE's response got me thinking. Is there any acknowledgment in Thelema of other 'masters' in other fields who might be considered as agents of Thelema, accompanying the Great Beast, in a manner of speaking, and similarly destroying old forms and establishing new paradigms in their respective disciplines?
My background is in the arts so I'm thinking Duchamp in the fine arts and Strindberg in theater.
It is my impression, perhaps misguidedly, that there is some interest in Thelema in looking for suggestive analogies between the perspectives in The Book of the Law and recent advances in the sciences. So, just wondering if is there related speculation along these lines, vis a vis, cultural developments. Would it make sense to argue, for instance, that James Joyce should be viewed as Thelemic by default, a messenger from the gods charged with transforming and transcending the old structures and definitions of 'good' writing?
Robert
Related note: the names I mention, James Joyce, Marcel Duchamp, and August Strindberg all have subtle and not so subtle connections to the western magical tradition. These connections can be attributed mostly to the provenance of art historical thesis papers and books on art theory. Jack Burnham in his book* Great American Salt Works* (his use of the word salt is meant to imply the alchemical salt) asserts that Duchamp was in fact an alchemical master—one of his aliases was Marchand Du Sel (salt seller!); Strindberg is infamous for his interest in the occult, and claimed that he could in fact turn lead into gold, his Occult Diaries remain one of the most popular accounts of a significant period in his artistic career; and Joyce is often dealt with as an inspired master, his* Finnegans Wake * being treated as a mystical text by many commentators, not unlike Crowley's writings that are classified as 'A' documents. Also, see recent efforts to promote recent literary figures like William S. Burroughs to the status of new age saint...
-
93 all.
As we get to know each other you will quickly see that I love playing the devil's advocate, and I will often "argue" points i don't necessarily agree with. Anyways, consider this: Aristotle is a downright positive influence on magick and the new Aeon because the power with which his antiquated ideas held sway over the minds of humanity, will produce, as those bonds continue to be broken during this Aeon, a reaction of equal power in the direction of initiation.
Every action has a reaction, and just as we student's are said to get the teachers we deserve, so humanity gets the philosophers it deserves. For the impact that this Aeon will have, it was, perhaps, quite necessary for Aristotle to have come before us, however convoluted we have begun to realize his ideas to have been. Think about the struggles you've faced during initiation, and the times when you've realized some hardship or another was absolutely vital in your continued growth.
I would never argue, as good ole' Pangloss, that this is the best of all possible worlds. But at the same time I hesitate to label anything as malignant. "Bind nothing! Let there be no difference made among you between any one thing & any other thing; for thereby there cometh hurt."
Are the qliphoth malignant? Goetic spirits? Well they simply exist according to their nature; as do we. So it is with Aristotle's old thought.
-cody 93 93/93
-
I agree that much of Aristotle is downright sexist. Really. But, I think that you also have to consider the time he lived in. Greece in the 300's BC wasn't exactly a pit of sexual equality...shoot, women were property and vessels for children and that was it! Plus, consider Aristotle's teacher, Plato, when he said, 'The wisest is the finest'; he was talking about his 15 year old boyfriend.
But, if you look at his metaphysics there is another story. The Unmoved Mover has much in common with Kether and the Prime Mover could be the rest of the Sephira. Then there is his epistemology, he says that part our knowledge comes from from the Nous(?) or eye of the soul, not just experience or being taught something but a sort of divine knowledge. Then there are his ethics. In 'Nichomachean Ethics' he wrote that the optimum activity for the soul that led to happiness was called eudaimonia. The word "Daimon" was over the years, turned into the word demon, but if you think about it, it might actually be the HGA or working in unison with the HGA.
-
@chasmodai said
"I agree that much of Aristotle is downright sexist. Really. But, I think that you also have to consider the time he lived in. Greece in the 300's BC wasn't exactly a pit of sexual equality...shoot, women were property and vessels for children and that was it! Plus, consider Aristotle's teacher, Plato, when he said, 'The wisest is the finest'; he was talking about his 15 year old boyfriend."
The Agamemnon by Sophocles is a decent read. There is a great adaptation by Anthony Burges that I recommend, if you can find it.
Plot summary: Agamemnon comes home from the war and is killed by Clytemnestra his wife, presumably for various crimes which include the blood sacrifice of her youngest daughter, the death of her former husband, and infidelity in the field with the trophy Casandra. Clytemnestra makes an interesting defense before the mob at the gate who come looking for answers after word gets out that she just killed the king. Basically she says she was making a sacrifice to the gods to thank them for the successful completion of the war with Troy! She goes onto say that this is normal practice in so far as she is the Queen. After all, the gods deserved a very special sacrifice for all the recent favor they have showered on the Greeks. As the Queen it is her job to make sure these things are not neglected!
Sophocles was perhaps referencing a period when the patriarchal invaders succeeded in securing power under the new line of kings, and Zeus, but when the people could still remember the old days when the Goddess was supreme and the political and religious power was primarily carried by the queen and the female succession. The role of the man in the production of children was totally played down, and even seen as unnecessary, because the creative power of the universe was vested wholly in the goddess.
The invaders took control and instigated reforms by killing the old kings and forcing the now widowed queens to marry them, and then asserting their sovereignty by the simple fact that they controlled the army!
Clearly these are echoes of the struggle between the old order and the new one. The assumption is, that not long before the time the play was written, about 500 BCE, women were in control of the important sources of power in the culture. When this changed the status of women suffered, predictably. For this reason I doubt we can simply excuse the sexism of the period as being just a product of primitive, uneducated people. It reflected a world view that tended to marginalize the role of the woman, just as the previous period had marginalized the role of the man.
Robert
-
Yes... but is the fact of its having existed malignant to our Work today? Or necessary? Or both? Or is it perhaps conducive to our work today, since it gives us something to proceed from?
Think of it as a time of death. Osiris slain, a dark time for a dark god, but now in the time of the Child we can arise from death and take our places in the west (and east). If not death, then proceed from what? From life to death... but that's formulaic of the old Aeon.
-Cody 93 93/93
-
@poor+blind+misfi said
"93.
Yes... but is the fact of its having existed malignant to our Work today? Or necessary? Or both? Or is it perhaps conducive to our work today, since it gives us something to proceed from?
Think of it as a time of death. Osiris slain, a dark time for a dark god, but now in the time of the Child we can arise from death and take our places in the west (and east). If not death, then proceed from what? From life to death... but that's formulaic of the old Aeon.
-Cody 93 93/93"
My point in my last post is just that Aristotle was a heavy hitter for the last Aeon. He literally told the entire Western world how to think for a little over two thousand years. Also that these cosmic points of view are political in nature. They are not simply the result of the times. Quite the opposite, the time is a result of the spiritual politics of the Aeon.
Your point that the last Aeon was necessary is an interesting idea. It certainly was part of a progression. But apart from this fairly mundane observation on my part I can't really say what it means, if it was good, necessary, or what...
peace and 93
Robert
-
@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.