Aeons
-
It occurred to me recently: wouldn't it be more Thelemically appropriate for the Aeons to be those of Nuit, Hadit, and Ra-Hoor-Khuit/Heru-Ra-Ha instead of Isis, Osiris, and Horus? The Mother-Father-Child dynamic is still there, and the only disadvantage I can see is that Hadit doesn't have the same 'dying-god' association as Osiris does. Thoughts?
-
My two cents:
Until the Aeon of Horus, we didn't have Nuit, Hadit, and Heru-Ra-Ha in the forms we have now; it would be like attributing Jesus to anything during the Aeon of Isis, where Jesus hadn't happened yet!
Then again, the Isis-Osiris-Horus progression is a predominantly Thelemic construct itself...
-
That's a good point! I'm still learning about all this myself but I'd like to have a go at it while my studies are still fresh in my head.
It is interesting that new Aeon magickians would use old Aeon concepts to explain these three paradigms. According to Lon Milo Duquette, "a formula is a statement of perceived cosmological fact or theory. It can be a set of symbols revealing the mechanism of natural law. It can be a single word that initiates an entire age." Some of the examples he uses are "as above so below", "an apple a day keeps the doctor way!", "E=MC2." My guess would be that New Aeon use of an Old Aeon formula is for the purpose of comparing and contrasting these very different ways of perceiving reality.
During the Aeon of Isis, there was a strong focus on the divine feminine, the mother earth, and mysteries of birth. Our New Aeon idea of Nuit is "the infinitely-expanded circle whose circumference is unmeasurable and whose center is everywhere."
During the Aeon of Osiris, there was a strong focus on the divine masculine, our father the sun, and the mysteries of death and resurrection. Our New Aeon idea of Hadit is "the infinitely small point within the core of every single thing."
We have now entered the Aeon of Horus -- the formula of the Crowned and Conquering Child. The product of both it's parents, symbolizing the reconciliation of opposites. "It is the interaction between these two cosmic principles that creates the manifested universe similar to the gnostic syzygy."
Nuit and Hadit to not adequately capture the mentality Old Aeon ways of perceiving. Better to use Isis and Osiris for that.
-
@veritas_in_nox said
"It occurred to me recently: wouldn't it be more Thelemically appropriate for the Aeons to be those of Nuit, Hadit, and Ra-Hoor-Khuit/Heru-Ra-Ha instead of Isis, Osiris, and Horus? The Mother-Father-Child dynamic is still there, and the only disadvantage I can see is that Hadit doesn't have the same 'dying-god' association as Osiris does. Thoughts?"
At best, you're concerning yourself with labelling issues. Anytime we want to change something just for labelling purposes, I think we have to think twice or thrice.
I think you've presented some of the better arguments against it on your own. Additionally, these higher, abstract ideas are pretty hard to link to the exact steps of consciousness evolution of the stages. They also don't have the distinctive relationships to Earth-Moon and to Sun of Isis and Osiris. (It's not just Mom, Pop, and Kid; that's a small part of it.)
-
Thanks everyone; just a point of curiosity.