@Ioaness said
"
"I think you are confusing "accept The Book of the Law" with "believe what The Book of the Law says." It doesn't mean that. But it does mean to accept it for what it is without any desire to make it into something else. It is also used mcuh as postulates are used in mathematics: This is our philosophical foundation, and working from these premises, such and so occurs. You don't actually have to believe anything. Instead, you are undertaking a years-long experiment of acting in a fashion consistent with a set of postulates. Nonetheless..."
Interesting. So are you saying that you could accept The Book of the Law as bieng false, yet still be considered a Thelemite? Any concept within mathematics could (and most likely would) be changed if deemed false. While this might is extreamly unlikely, if the founding mathematical principals were found to be wrong they would be changed. The idea that even if The Book of the Law is well established, the fact that it can't be changed under any circumstances seems to me to be ridiculous."
Ioaness, you and Jim are using Mathematics examples to respond to each other so I will also use a Mathematics example to respond to you but my Mathematics example will be an example related to Calculus.
Isaac Newton was sitting underneath an apple tree with his back against the trunk. Looking up at the moon, he saw an apple fall from the tree towards the earth and he thought, "Is the same force that pulls the apple towards the earth the same force that causes the moon to circle the earth?" So, he set out to try to prove his hypothesis and, in 1666, Isaac Newton formulated his theory of Calculus.
After formulating his theory, Isaac wrote up a paper summarizing his findings. From then on, the science known as Calculus has been studied and tested countless times by numerous Mathemeticians and every one of them have been able to reproduce his results. As the years passed, some Calculus experts attempted to write their own papers and books about Calculus and, nowadays, when learning Calculus, Isaac's original paper isn't even mentioned. But it still exists; it's history. It's still accepted by the scientific community.
Think about accepting the Book of the Law like you're accepting Isaac Newton's first thesis of Calculus before embarking off to take your first Calculus course. The only difference between the Calculus class and the Thelemic class is that Calculus has been around longer and it has been studied and proven by more people. Those people who have studied it more have written books on the subject which are easier to learn from than Isaac's original paper.
Accepting the Book of the Law in our present day would be similar to those Mathematicians accepting Isaac's original Calculus paper before setting off to learn what knowledge the paper contained; before it had been tested and proven countless times by numerous Mathematicians; and before any new books had been written on the subject.
@Ioaness said
"
"...we're back at the point from the beginning: Scientific Illuminism is not a Thelemic matter per se. It's an A.'.A.'. guiding principle; but you won't find anything about it anywhere in The Book of the Law."
Perhaps Scientific Illuminism isn't technically a Thelemic principle. Still I don't understand why anyone wouldn't attempt to test the theories of Thelema, as this would make them simply mindless sheep. This to me doesn't seem like an A.'.A.'. idea as much as a common sence one. By making people accept a book without being able to make any changes, makes scientific testing useless. If the Book of the Law needs no changes why not let people come to this conclusion themselves rather than dictating it as a requirement of Thelema?"
So, in light of my response above, you're putting the theories of Thelema to the test simply by setting out to learn them. Someday, if you learn everything the Thelemic philosophy has to teach, you may want to change the Book of the Law and write your own book. And, if you do a good enough job, the Thelemic community might accept your new book. But the Book of the Law will still exist; it's history.