Duality and Thelema
-
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...
-
@Dar es Alrah said
"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? "
Why yes, but I'm not so silly as to get into those personally things in this conversation that hasn't been about anything but providing our egos with yet another place to stand.
After all, my personal success is irrelevant to you...
-
Just to throw my two cents in:
Alrah, I have found particular use for the active/passive dichotomy in my life. I think of it more as initiator vs receiver, or force vs material. For example, when I type on these keys of my keyboard, I am the force, and this keyboard is the material. I am the "active" part of this union, and the keyboard is the "passive" part of this union. However, the keyboard is "active" in the sense that it takes the impulses of the keys being pressed and turns it into electrical energy, which it then sends down the cable into my computer, which registers it. The computer is then "passive" from that viewpoint. This "switching" of roles continues ad infinitum, all parts being both "active" and "passive" in relation to each other.
We can get even more specific, of course. We could say that the neural impulse that resulted in my typing any individual letter is "active", and the rest of my brain is "passive" and receives it, and translates it into a perception of the intention to type, etc.
For example, lets say I have an addiction, and I feel the craving of that addiction right now. I feel pushed by it to satisfy the craving. In this example, my ego-center is being passive in relation to the subconscious/physical signal that alerts me to the craving, because it receives that signal. If I mindlessly follow through with it, I have then allowed my ego-center, "I," to remain passive in relation to the drive, which was "active." I can resist this, of course, by refusing to take that "passive" approach - the choice is an active choice of mine, of course. These are nested layers, and are all relative. But I find this kind of thinking to be very fruitful for me. The passive can be active in remaining passive, and the active can be passive in allowing the force to flow through it without interference. Again, the layers are nested, and are relative.
I think the entire active/passive and male/female dichotomy hinges on the fact that the (typical) male has a penis, and it is inserted into the vagina, which the typical female has, which receives the penis. That doesn't mean the man is active or the woman is passive, as any experience with the cowgirl position will make clear. It means that it can be useful as a symbol that the subconscious can understand. Thing that gets inserted: active. Thing that receives the insertion: passive. This has nothing to do with the person that the reproductive organ is a part of, their gender identity, their personality, their socio-economic status in the predominantly patriarchy society they find themselves in, etc - it's just symbolism based on what goes into what.
Also, I can think of a clear example of active/passive in ordinary life (and please correct me if I am wrong, Alrah): If I go up to someone I dislike and I punch them in the face, I (or my fist) am active, and the person (or their face) is passive - it receives my impulse. It is active in the sense that it applies resistance to my fist (electromagnetic force keeping the atoms apart, IIRC), and it is active in its transmitting of the pain signal to that person's brain, but in the grand view of the situation, there is clearly an initiator and a receiver in any interaction, and this is visible on all levels. All things play both roles in relation to different things.
93, 93/93.
-
@Dar es Alrah said
"Nobody on this forum goes to sleep worrying about the personal success of the others here, and when we aren't reading each others words or trying to figure out something, I doubt we think of each other at all.
I love to see good people get on, but I don't get upset when they don't either. If I did then it would just make me a part of their problem in some fashion or other."
Agreed to an extent, but I do know that most of us wish each other well.
-
OK, I know this may be going further off topic, but I have to say it:
participating in the discussions here is not just 'reading & posting on some internet forum' etc. --- what we open our perception for, what we allow to enter into our span of attention, one way or another, creates what we are!
every single 'input from the outside' that we experience modifies our consciousness. some inputs are smaller, some we recognize as greater, etc. but every single one does it.
thus, so far, from my experience, chit-chatting here with all of you guys is changing my life
and I actively accept being thus passive
