--- james john vandenbusch
> the o.t.o and the e.g.c. our the last
> aeon's institution's and should be left
there,they've served there purposes in many way's and
did quite well at it,but why should we bound too the
honorific and chivalric rites of memphis and
miziriam,or too rites of swedenborgianism and strict
observance free-masonry,the e.g.c is a good example of
the old usurping the young.the cult of osiris and isis
over powering and corrupting the aeon of the crowned
and conquering child.why my fellow thelemites also
can't we disagree on any mattter, without casting
aspersion's and slander's too eacxh other's motives.i
say as only one star in the body of nu,as brothers
fight ye,you don't like my opinion's so what,the
universe is vast enough for us too never agree and not
change one whit of it,
I believe that what the Nazarine said of himself
also applies to Therion (and to all Magi): "I have
not come to destroy the Law, but to complete it."
The formula of the New Aeon contains the old.
For example, Crowley's V.I.A.O.V. or F.I.A.O.F as an
expansion and completion of I.A.O. The old formula is
not destroyed, but completed. It is understood in
the greater context of the New Aeon.
To put it another way: The Sun does not truly
die, it is only an illusion. So too does the True
Self (Nechemah) not die - but the Rauch does. The
formula of the Rose Cross is still valid, when
understood within the greater context of the New Aeon.
The vulgar ego does die, and it is reborn. The fact
that in a sense it does not exist doesn't change that.
An orgasm is a hallucination, but does that mean it
isn't real? The love-death-union of
subject/object-self/other may only be a consolidation
of ones hallucinations about oneself and the World,
but recognizing that doesn't invalidate that
union/transendance. Learning Shakespear doesn't
invalidate the "formula" of your ABCs.
As to "agreeing to disagree": Crowley recomended
the practice of disagreeing with every statement,
whether one felt sympathy with it or not, as a method
of trancending the duality of mind. He actually
recomended starting arguments with everyone! Of
course, getting emotional in an argument is a
disturbance of the Mind/Rauch by the lower Nephesh
(animal ego-territoriality, "safe-zone" attatchments
to certain ideas). These lower kinds of emotion must
be kept in their proper place as a part of the Mind,
rather than subverting it. Buroughs wrote in Naked
Lunch about a man whose asshole took over his entire
being, a poetic representation of this diabolical
usurpation by lower elements of their superiors'
"Agreeing to disagree" means laying down your
sword, accepting that one position is true and it's
opposite false, rather than using the sword to
destroy both positions as ultimatly false. It means
you've become emotionally upset because of an
attatchment to a position, and you take all attacks
on that position as an attack on your self. This
attatchment is a form of possesion. You've probably
heard the saying: "Do you have your thoughts, or do
your thoughts have you?"
I would also have to agree with Julianus'
response to your post. While you manage to get your
point across through the medium of your garbled prose,
it shows you have an undisciplined mind, an unruly
servent who may rebel against you unexpectedly (or
I have found the practice of thinking out loud
usefull. It forces me to put all of my thoughts into
words. Some thoughts are of course unspeakable, but
the practice enhances my ability to communicate those
that are. I am also in the practice of imediatly
attacking any thought I express, dissagreeing with my
own position. This is the rational dialectic of the
"moral triad," or thesis, anti-thesis, and
synthesis. As a Master once said "Nothing is true."
"As brothers fight ye!"
-Liber AL 3:59
Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news and more. Check it out!