>Bill'> New forms, new traditions, but new ideas? Not many. Crowley's seemed
>> be the "formulae of the words". It certainly wasn't the notion of the
>> Aeons -- that belongs to Joachim of Flora as much as anybody.
>Regarding Aeons, that takes us way off this track, but a quick tangent may
>not hurt: AL *never* mentions ACs Aeon system (Isis, Osiris, Horus). Indeed,
>when it does say Aeons - which it mentions only once - it may not be what
>Crowley meant at all.
Not what he meant later, perhaps. We always hit a dual mode, when we
discuss Liber AL and Crowley's awareness of what was written there. Was it
literally dictation from a discarnate entity or was it Crowley indulging
one of his multiple personae? Frankly, I don't think it matters much.
Revelations have to filter through the mind of the scribe. Personae have
modes of portent, as you remark below concerning my present style. No
Babalon in AL either, and was the Lady pre-existent or a product of
>For all we know from the context 'accursed unto the aeons' might just as
>easily mean 'accursed unto the Archons' (devilish personifications of the
>Gnostic aeons, which were emanations and/or, planetary energies etc.) rather
>than 'accursed for multiples of 2000 years').
Or even just an ornamental way of saying "forever"...
>Indeed, since the very next
>word is 'hell' this interpretation is more likely rather than less.
"Hell" also is multiply ambiguous. Xtian? Maybe. Greek, something of
oblivion indicated. Hebrew, either Gehenna or the word done about the
Scorpion on a talesman of Mars in the Greater Key -- the brightness of
fire, phonetically "Hell" and remarking both on the versicle about walking
on vermin in the Bible as well as the legend that a scorpion will sting
itself to death when surrounded by fire. Could be just a vernacular
>leave interpreting Crowley to the OTO,
That won't happen, for Liber AL. OTO doesn't promulgate interpretations of
Liber AL, outside Crowley's commentaries. If I hadn't retired from the
office of TG, I wouldn't be going on about these things. Being retired,
there's less chance that my pestilential insights will taint OTO's public
>if it ain't in AL it requires
>justification by other means before it matters to me.
In the context of discussing the Holy Books, I can see that.
>AL and indeed Thelema may not involve 'new' ideas to any great degree, but
>most certainly involve new emphases.
>Perhaps to a Kabbalist with their
>linear and static hierarchy it is easy to say 'these ideas aren't new' when
>the arrangement and emphases most certainly are. ;-)
Perhaps not a new arrangement either, but the emphasis is important now.
>To an initiated astrologer - who is used to a flexible hierarchy where there
>is no permanent top, bottom or intermediate position for any one sphere,
>since all are mobile - the change of emphasis may be more apparent, and
With Astrology, there are roving orientations. It's not simply that there
>> >But the key to the biblical dungeon doesn't fit the lock we're
>> >considering, or even resemble the key that does.
>> I'm not convinced of that.
>nor do you need to be for others to find what they want elsewhere than
Boring obsessions aside, that's a good thing.
>As said, there may be different keys, and it depends what door you're trying
>to open. I for one don't require a qabalah from AL that applies to anything
>much besides AL (and - to a lesser degree possibly, if at all, the other
>Holy Books of Thelema, and ritual uses). What it admits me and others to
>need only be appropriate to those it concerns.
Again, I don't agree. If it is to be a qabalah, it should be a flexable
mind map. Fitting one genre is not enough for me.
>As it happens the Greek, Hebrew, Latin and other systems do interest me.
>That needn't necessarily involve them in exegesis of AL, it may merely mean
>I have historical interests, and can talk to you and others about them. ;-)
Without that diversity, the primary object of study becomes too parochial.
>> Only if we first go back and catch the question.
>so there is one? make your mind up! ;-)
There are many.
>Respectfully and affectionately as I can Bill, on occasion your portentous
>language in this conversation don't strike me as Zen koans or educated
>objections, more a smokescreen after the fact.
As you like. That style is a compound chosen for compound reasons. We are
having a public discussion in a place of considerable diversity of
auditori. Some folks here want "short attention span theater". Some want
clarity. Some want winged fancy. Some want salon bon mots that lead to
other things. Beside all that, I find that over the years my e-style has
moved from bab'ling on like a Vogon toward hitching to Vorlon terseness.
Since we are more or less discussing AC's Holy Books, why not a little
cryptic blank verse to set the old boy rotating at high speed beneath his
>> Ordinal and Cardinal. It's too general, as is. There are fundamental
>> differences in thought, based on language. The "Romance" languages,
>> derived from Latin in sentence structure, lead to a different way of the
>> mind than that from languages like English. The English sentence has an
>> actor, a verb and an object acted upon. The Latin sentence is like a play:
>> Introduce subject and object, modify them as though in costumes and only
>> then, when the stage is set, call the action. Such a difference in casting
>> a simple sentence is reflected in the mind of the native speaker, in the
>> ways of thinking. What is there in that Latinate set of letters, adopted
>> by English, that reflects English?
>You might as easily ask what is there in the Hebrew language that reflects
>proto-Canaanite or Phoenician?
I could, but that's Jewish Kabbalah. Here we are in English.
>Which might have been one of the questions
>Sheba asked Solomon 'what's so hot about your 'Kabbalah' we've been doing
>that for years?' ;-) And please don't bother pointing out that the real
>historical Kabbalah came later than Solomon! ;-)
Later than Christ too, although one might question his ever having come for
reasons too rude to enunciate here....
>She might also have asked, with considerable justiification from her
>perspective, 'why change the woman into a window and the serpent into a
Another chance to be oblique and dis the adulterated, accepted version of
Genesis in the process: Bad book, edited to eliminate the merit of the
feminine... Eve being created of Adam's rib has recently been disputed on
the Internet. The new and perhaps original account goes this way: Eve was
created first, endowed with three breasts. She objected to Jehovah that
the middle one was getting in the way of doing things. God cast a sleep
upon her and did a mastectomy of the offending part. The next day, Eve
stood before Him, holding the excised 3rd breast in her left hand: "What do
we do with this useless boob?" ... And God created man.....
>All these millenia later some don't question the Hebrew systems validity to
>us but say 'oh it's tradition, we haven't got one of our own, theirs will
>have to do'.
This comes from Britain, where US cuisine is now espoused far and wide ...
perhaps the only place under heaven where American cooking can be
considered an improvement? ;-)
>But we needn't necessarily be dependent on the past, and the fact it is old
>is not an absolute and immutable justification for preferring it.
If it's old and still here, it has the merit of survival. We can at least
make rags of it in cleaning up the mess we find about us.
>> Otherwise, the injunction would be to
>> find the order and value of the Neo-Latin Alphabet, not the English
>> Alphabet. Gematria doesn't provide a solution to this issue, since any
>> arrangement of number to letter will always produce a plethora of
>> correspondences. The trick needs to go deeper.
>A chariot involves leatherwork, woodwork, bronzework, not to mention
>horsebreeding &c. While you - like modern car drivers - might refer to it as
>'wheels' in reality there is much more involved. Which is not to say that
>the art of the wheelwright alone is unsophisticated, whatever folks may not
>know of it.
Horse-drawn-basketry-trampolines -- apt for what we'r at. :-)
>So similarly, EQ (there, I've mentioned it by name) involves more than
>gematria, Which is not to say that the art of gematria alone is
>unsophisticated whatever the limitations in some folks appreciation of it...
I have to get back to my Hebrew gematria web pages one of these days...only
3,000 odd entries now and more than twice that to go before it's really
useful enough. Yes, gematria is sophisticated, but you need so much of it
to cross wire enough synapses to get anywhere. I favor the mental function
modeling in Kabballah/Qabala more.
>But it is no odds to the chariot rider that folks imagine otherwise.
A funny thing happened on the way to the forum.....