"I'm a Thelemite, not a Crowleyite." Thoughts?
-
"I'm a Thelemite, not a Crowleyite."
I see this here now and then. I tend to agree with it.
Here's the problem. Liber Legis itself says, "My scribe Ankh-af-na-khonsu, the priest of the princes, shall not in one letter change this book; but lest there be folly, he shall comment thereupon by the wisdom of Ra-Hoor-Khu-it."
Then Crowley says that all question of the Law should be decided by reference to his comment, each for himself.
But I read the New Comment, and I hate it. It's self-contradictory and sociopathic.
So what gives? Do I just need to leave? 'Cause I'm about okay with that. That Liber Legis reflects a cosmology that I like, I'm good with. But Crowley and all his hate and his issues.. I'm about done with. So...
Thoughts?
My best answer is to consider each an extreme and opposing perspective. Each is an abyss of its own perspective.
The two are mediated between by one's True Will, which makes all the abstract perspective into concrete action that lies somewhere in neither extreme.
Anyway, best I got for now.
-
"I'm a Thelemite, not a Crowleyite."
I see this here now and then. I tend to agree with it.
Here's the problem. Liber Legis itself says, "My scribe Ankh-af-na-khonsu, the priest of the princes, shall not in one letter change this book; but lest there be folly, he shall comment thereupon by the wisdom of Ra-Hoor-Khu-it."
Then Crowley says that all question of the Law should be decided by reference to his comment, each for himself.
But I read the New Comment, and I hate it. It's self-contradictory and sociopathic.
So what gives? Do I just need to leave? 'Cause I'm about okay with that. That Liber Legis reflects a cosmology that I like, I'm good with. But Crowley and all his hate and his issues.. I'm about done with. So...
Thoughts?
It's so completely frustrating to me. You have two things that imply the Book of the Law isn't what it superficially seems:
". . . for who doth not understand these runes shall make a great miss. He shall fall down into the pit called Because, and there he shall perish with the dogs of Reason."
and
" . . . The Book of the Law is Written and Concealed."
Yet we look and there's the master himself interpreting the damned thing literally.
I just need to step away for a while.
...if possible.
-
"I'm a Thelemite, not a Crowleyite."
I see this here now and then. I tend to agree with it.
Here's the problem. Liber Legis itself says, "My scribe Ankh-af-na-khonsu, the priest of the princes, shall not in one letter change this book; but lest there be folly, he shall comment thereupon by the wisdom of Ra-Hoor-Khu-it."
Then Crowley says that all question of the Law should be decided by reference to his comment, each for himself.
But I read the New Comment, and I hate it. It's self-contradictory and sociopathic.
So what gives? Do I just need to leave? 'Cause I'm about okay with that. That Liber Legis reflects a cosmology that I like, I'm good with. But Crowley and all his hate and his issues.. I'm about done with. So...
Thoughts?
These are important ideas you've uncovered and are grappling with.
I agree with you that dehumanizing (as Crowley appears to be doing in the new comment you quote) is harmful for the reasons you bring up.
We could simply say that (a) Crowley was wrong, and being over-literal or (b) Crowley was somehow right.
We could say (as many have already) that since the concept of self and other is a toddler's delusion, scriptures that talk about jihad can just as easily be interpreted as speaking of an inner, spiritual war.
But the struggle is important.
How can we think and talk about change and evolution and killing off the things that have outlived their usefulness, without engaging in atavistic barbarism ourselves?
-
"I'm a Thelemite, not a Crowleyite."
I see this here now and then. I tend to agree with it.
Here's the problem. Liber Legis itself says, "My scribe Ankh-af-na-khonsu, the priest of the princes, shall not in one letter change this book; but lest there be folly, he shall comment thereupon by the wisdom of Ra-Hoor-Khu-it."
Then Crowley says that all question of the Law should be decided by reference to his comment, each for himself.
But I read the New Comment, and I hate it. It's self-contradictory and sociopathic.
So what gives? Do I just need to leave? 'Cause I'm about okay with that. That Liber Legis reflects a cosmology that I like, I'm good with. But Crowley and all his hate and his issues.. I'm about done with. So...
Thoughts?
-
"I'm a Thelemite, not a Crowleyite."
I see this here now and then. I tend to agree with it.
Here's the problem. Liber Legis itself says, "My scribe Ankh-af-na-khonsu, the priest of the princes, shall not in one letter change this book; but lest there be folly, he shall comment thereupon by the wisdom of Ra-Hoor-Khu-it."
Then Crowley says that all question of the Law should be decided by reference to his comment, each for himself.
But I read the New Comment, and I hate it. It's self-contradictory and sociopathic.
So what gives? Do I just need to leave? 'Cause I'm about okay with that. That Liber Legis reflects a cosmology that I like, I'm good with. But Crowley and all his hate and his issues.. I'm about done with. So...
Thoughts?
I just think it a shame when so-called "Thelemites" can't swallow the hard medicines of life. I'm comforted only by knowing that Nature has her rules and will sort it out in the long term. Fortunately we don't have to dish welfare checks to Neanderthals, and someday again we'll see the validity of certain "unpopular" points of view and the OTO will republish MWT.
-
"I'm a Thelemite, not a Crowleyite."
I see this here now and then. I tend to agree with it.
Here's the problem. Liber Legis itself says, "My scribe Ankh-af-na-khonsu, the priest of the princes, shall not in one letter change this book; but lest there be folly, he shall comment thereupon by the wisdom of Ra-Hoor-Khu-it."
Then Crowley says that all question of the Law should be decided by reference to his comment, each for himself.
But I read the New Comment, and I hate it. It's self-contradictory and sociopathic.
So what gives? Do I just need to leave? 'Cause I'm about okay with that. That Liber Legis reflects a cosmology that I like, I'm good with. But Crowley and all his hate and his issues.. I'm about done with. So...
Thoughts?
-
"I'm a Thelemite, not a Crowleyite."
I see this here now and then. I tend to agree with it.
Here's the problem. Liber Legis itself says, "My scribe Ankh-af-na-khonsu, the priest of the princes, shall not in one letter change this book; but lest there be folly, he shall comment thereupon by the wisdom of Ra-Hoor-Khu-it."
Then Crowley says that all question of the Law should be decided by reference to his comment, each for himself.
But I read the New Comment, and I hate it. It's self-contradictory and sociopathic.
So what gives? Do I just need to leave? 'Cause I'm about okay with that. That Liber Legis reflects a cosmology that I like, I'm good with. But Crowley and all his hate and his issues.. I'm about done with. So...
Thoughts?
-
"I'm a Thelemite, not a Crowleyite."
I see this here now and then. I tend to agree with it.
Here's the problem. Liber Legis itself says, "My scribe Ankh-af-na-khonsu, the priest of the princes, shall not in one letter change this book; but lest there be folly, he shall comment thereupon by the wisdom of Ra-Hoor-Khu-it."
Then Crowley says that all question of the Law should be decided by reference to his comment, each for himself.
But I read the New Comment, and I hate it. It's self-contradictory and sociopathic.
So what gives? Do I just need to leave? 'Cause I'm about okay with that. That Liber Legis reflects a cosmology that I like, I'm good with. But Crowley and all his hate and his issues.. I'm about done with. So...
Thoughts?
news flash...
It is neither final, nor is it the whole truth.
One day, this precious mythos will be demonstrated to be just as insubstantial and transitory as the currently reviled Osirian mythos.
It is a teaching tool. Do you think the goal is really to make blind, obsequious followers of a religion who treat these "runes" as irrefutable fact? More slaves to dogma?
"Memento: Sequor."
-
"I'm a Thelemite, not a Crowleyite."
I see this here now and then. I tend to agree with it.
Here's the problem. Liber Legis itself says, "My scribe Ankh-af-na-khonsu, the priest of the princes, shall not in one letter change this book; but lest there be folly, he shall comment thereupon by the wisdom of Ra-Hoor-Khu-it."
Then Crowley says that all question of the Law should be decided by reference to his comment, each for himself.
But I read the New Comment, and I hate it. It's self-contradictory and sociopathic.
So what gives? Do I just need to leave? 'Cause I'm about okay with that. That Liber Legis reflects a cosmology that I like, I'm good with. But Crowley and all his hate and his issues.. I'm about done with. So...
Thoughts?
@Hermitas said
"news flash...
It is neither final, nor is it the whole truth.
One day, this precious mythos will be demonstrated to be just as insubstantial and transitory as the currently reviled Osirian mythos.
It is a teaching tool. Do you think the goal is really to make blind, obsequious followers of a religion who treat these "runes" as irrefutable fact? More slaves to dogma?
"Memento: Sequor.""
This would be the neither opinion. If you find these, and are so driven by your dogma of fear and loathing in Los Libers, you are neither also.
Of course it is transitory, but it isn't going away any generation soon. It's still in infancy. "It's all about the Babe."
-
"I'm a Thelemite, not a Crowleyite."
I see this here now and then. I tend to agree with it.
Here's the problem. Liber Legis itself says, "My scribe Ankh-af-na-khonsu, the priest of the princes, shall not in one letter change this book; but lest there be folly, he shall comment thereupon by the wisdom of Ra-Hoor-Khu-it."
Then Crowley says that all question of the Law should be decided by reference to his comment, each for himself.
But I read the New Comment, and I hate it. It's self-contradictory and sociopathic.
So what gives? Do I just need to leave? 'Cause I'm about okay with that. That Liber Legis reflects a cosmology that I like, I'm good with. But Crowley and all his hate and his issues.. I'm about done with. So...
Thoughts?
-
"I'm a Thelemite, not a Crowleyite."
I see this here now and then. I tend to agree with it.
Here's the problem. Liber Legis itself says, "My scribe Ankh-af-na-khonsu, the priest of the princes, shall not in one letter change this book; but lest there be folly, he shall comment thereupon by the wisdom of Ra-Hoor-Khu-it."
Then Crowley says that all question of the Law should be decided by reference to his comment, each for himself.
But I read the New Comment, and I hate it. It's self-contradictory and sociopathic.
So what gives? Do I just need to leave? 'Cause I'm about okay with that. That Liber Legis reflects a cosmology that I like, I'm good with. But Crowley and all his hate and his issues.. I'm about done with. So...
Thoughts?
Whatever, Takamba.
I can't help but see the bigger picture.
Tamas, Rajas, and a double-natured Sattva. IAO.
That's what doesn't change. The rest is passing and based more on what most people need rather than absolute reality.
Remember? Like you say: All meaning is ascribed meaning.
-
"I'm a Thelemite, not a Crowleyite."
I see this here now and then. I tend to agree with it.
Here's the problem. Liber Legis itself says, "My scribe Ankh-af-na-khonsu, the priest of the princes, shall not in one letter change this book; but lest there be folly, he shall comment thereupon by the wisdom of Ra-Hoor-Khu-it."
Then Crowley says that all question of the Law should be decided by reference to his comment, each for himself.
But I read the New Comment, and I hate it. It's self-contradictory and sociopathic.
So what gives? Do I just need to leave? 'Cause I'm about okay with that. That Liber Legis reflects a cosmology that I like, I'm good with. But Crowley and all his hate and his issues.. I'm about done with. So...
Thoughts?
Part of me want to give Takamba what he wants and say, "Who even cares if I'm not a Thelemite? See ya!"
But there's some stuff I'm greatly attached to.
First...
"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
Love is the law, love under will."The above is a perfect expression, yielding incredible fruit upon meditation. It's a part of me.
Second, probably actually first of all...
I'm sold on the romance between Hadit and Nuit.
And I'm sold on the concept of the child, Heru-Ra-Ha, double-natured (though for some reason the passive side is hidden like a dark secret or something).
So, you know, Takamba, I like you an everything. Sometimes you say some awesome s***. But, you know, fuck off for now. I'm gonna live it like it suits me, under the authority of my own HGA.
And I agree with other great occult minds like Regardie, who describes Crowley in The Eye in the Triangle as sometimes just being an incredibly self-important, self-inflated asshat.
-
"I'm a Thelemite, not a Crowleyite."
I see this here now and then. I tend to agree with it.
Here's the problem. Liber Legis itself says, "My scribe Ankh-af-na-khonsu, the priest of the princes, shall not in one letter change this book; but lest there be folly, he shall comment thereupon by the wisdom of Ra-Hoor-Khu-it."
Then Crowley says that all question of the Law should be decided by reference to his comment, each for himself.
But I read the New Comment, and I hate it. It's self-contradictory and sociopathic.
So what gives? Do I just need to leave? 'Cause I'm about okay with that. That Liber Legis reflects a cosmology that I like, I'm good with. But Crowley and all his hate and his issues.. I'm about done with. So...
Thoughts?
-
"I'm a Thelemite, not a Crowleyite."
I see this here now and then. I tend to agree with it.
Here's the problem. Liber Legis itself says, "My scribe Ankh-af-na-khonsu, the priest of the princes, shall not in one letter change this book; but lest there be folly, he shall comment thereupon by the wisdom of Ra-Hoor-Khu-it."
Then Crowley says that all question of the Law should be decided by reference to his comment, each for himself.
But I read the New Comment, and I hate it. It's self-contradictory and sociopathic.
So what gives? Do I just need to leave? 'Cause I'm about okay with that. That Liber Legis reflects a cosmology that I like, I'm good with. But Crowley and all his hate and his issues.. I'm about done with. So...
Thoughts?
-
"I'm a Thelemite, not a Crowleyite."
I see this here now and then. I tend to agree with it.
Here's the problem. Liber Legis itself says, "My scribe Ankh-af-na-khonsu, the priest of the princes, shall not in one letter change this book; but lest there be folly, he shall comment thereupon by the wisdom of Ra-Hoor-Khu-it."
Then Crowley says that all question of the Law should be decided by reference to his comment, each for himself.
But I read the New Comment, and I hate it. It's self-contradictory and sociopathic.
So what gives? Do I just need to leave? 'Cause I'm about okay with that. That Liber Legis reflects a cosmology that I like, I'm good with. But Crowley and all his hate and his issues.. I'm about done with. So...
Thoughts?
-
"I'm a Thelemite, not a Crowleyite."
I see this here now and then. I tend to agree with it.
Here's the problem. Liber Legis itself says, "My scribe Ankh-af-na-khonsu, the priest of the princes, shall not in one letter change this book; but lest there be folly, he shall comment thereupon by the wisdom of Ra-Hoor-Khu-it."
Then Crowley says that all question of the Law should be decided by reference to his comment, each for himself.
But I read the New Comment, and I hate it. It's self-contradictory and sociopathic.
So what gives? Do I just need to leave? 'Cause I'm about okay with that. That Liber Legis reflects a cosmology that I like, I'm good with. But Crowley and all his hate and his issues.. I'm about done with. So...
Thoughts?
-
"I'm a Thelemite, not a Crowleyite."
I see this here now and then. I tend to agree with it.
Here's the problem. Liber Legis itself says, "My scribe Ankh-af-na-khonsu, the priest of the princes, shall not in one letter change this book; but lest there be folly, he shall comment thereupon by the wisdom of Ra-Hoor-Khu-it."
Then Crowley says that all question of the Law should be decided by reference to his comment, each for himself.
But I read the New Comment, and I hate it. It's self-contradictory and sociopathic.
So what gives? Do I just need to leave? 'Cause I'm about okay with that. That Liber Legis reflects a cosmology that I like, I'm good with. But Crowley and all his hate and his issues.. I'm about done with. So...
Thoughts?
@Hermitas said
""I'm a Thelemite, not a Crowleyite."
I see this here now and then. I tend to agree with it.
Here's the problem. Liber Legis itself says, "My scribe Ankh-af-na-khonsu, the priest of the princes, shall not in one letter change this book; but lest there be folly, he shall comment thereupon by the wisdom of Ra-Hoor-Khu-it."
Then Crowley says that all question of the Law should be decided by reference to his comment, each for himself.
But I read the New Comment, and I hate it. It's self-contradictory and sociopathic.
So what gives? Do I just need to leave? 'Cause I'm about okay with that. That Liber Legis reflects a cosmology that I like, I'm good with. But Crowley and all his hate and his issues.. I'm about done with. So...
Thoughts?"
the Only sin is restriction.
when I hear things like this It makes me think of back in the 80s when I was a teen and my peers would say I wasn't a Metal Head, or a DeadHead, or a DiscoQueen.
I like Heavy Metal but Nine inch Nails Trent Resner is some one I am glad I don't know.
I like the Dead but gosh those drum solos can really bum me out
I like Disco but bell bottoms trip me up.one sure way to fire me up is to chain me down.
keep your shackles unless they are pink and fuzzy and you give me the key and you understand its just for fun.why would you want to limit yourself by saying your are one of those or another. You are so much more then either one of those limited words.
-
"I'm a Thelemite, not a Crowleyite."
I see this here now and then. I tend to agree with it.
Here's the problem. Liber Legis itself says, "My scribe Ankh-af-na-khonsu, the priest of the princes, shall not in one letter change this book; but lest there be folly, he shall comment thereupon by the wisdom of Ra-Hoor-Khu-it."
Then Crowley says that all question of the Law should be decided by reference to his comment, each for himself.
But I read the New Comment, and I hate it. It's self-contradictory and sociopathic.
So what gives? Do I just need to leave? 'Cause I'm about okay with that. That Liber Legis reflects a cosmology that I like, I'm good with. But Crowley and all his hate and his issues.. I'm about done with. So...
Thoughts?
-
"I'm a Thelemite, not a Crowleyite."
I see this here now and then. I tend to agree with it.
Here's the problem. Liber Legis itself says, "My scribe Ankh-af-na-khonsu, the priest of the princes, shall not in one letter change this book; but lest there be folly, he shall comment thereupon by the wisdom of Ra-Hoor-Khu-it."
Then Crowley says that all question of the Law should be decided by reference to his comment, each for himself.
But I read the New Comment, and I hate it. It's self-contradictory and sociopathic.
So what gives? Do I just need to leave? 'Cause I'm about okay with that. That Liber Legis reflects a cosmology that I like, I'm good with. But Crowley and all his hate and his issues.. I'm about done with. So...
Thoughts?
" Where is there a hearth and warmth? "
every man and every woman is a star.
you are so much more then a bridge, you are all the space in between as well.
FWIW others are a mirror, showing you the lovely cha cha dance of life. two steps forward, one step back, one step forward two steps back, or something like that.
be happy that you dance.