Duality and Thelema
-
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?
-
@Dar es Alrah said
"
@Takamba said
"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?"Takamba - there is a whole body of Buddhist literature on the subject of Anicca. I suggest you read some of it, and then post your question on the Knights of the East and West on another thread."
I asked my question in cross examination. You opened the door with your question: "Do you go up a grade when you can add this abstraction to the tree?" We are not talking about Buddhism.
-
It is immensely warming to see a tedious, intellectually-rigid, intensely polarized see-saw of ideas here that was not started by a man.
(Without a trace of sarcasm, I should add that the above is not a comment on the virtue of any of the individual points of view expressed here. Indeed, laissez le bon temps rouler.)
-
Honestly, I just regret attempting to participate in your highly emotionally charged pet topic once again while you once again berate us for taking egoic postures.
That sucked.
I'm going back to being passive/active now.
You tell me what that communicates...
