Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [t93] WAR

Expand Messages
  • Jake Stratton-Kent
    ... these rules are the closest thing we have to the foundation of an exegetical system, and thus among the more valuable parts of his legacy. ... you may
    Message 1 of 21 , Sep 6, 2011
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      On 1 September 2011 21:39, richard stratton <pehrose@...> wrote:
      > Dear Jake,
      >    Thank you for your kind and considered response. Playing the D.A. is
      > often, if not always, of benefit to open discussion. I should simply like to
      > address your first point regarding the guidelines in E of G.
      >     In his conclusion to the principles of Exegesis #3 A.C. states: "Where
      > the text is simple, straightforward English, I shall not seek, or allow, any
      > interpretation at variance with it." Though the word "literal" is not used
      > here, "simple, straightforward English", is good enough for me. However, he
      > goes on to say: "I may admit a Qabalistic or cryptographic secondary meaning
      > when such confirms, amplifies, deepens, intensifies, or clarifies the
      > obvious common-sense significance; but only if it be part of the general
      > plan of the "latent light" and self-proven by abundant witness." This seems
      > to indicate A.C. is not *against* a secondary meaning, even for plainly
      > literal parts of the text. What do you think about this?

      these 'rules' are the closest thing we have to the foundation of an
      exegetical system, and thus among the more valuable parts of his
      legacy.


      >     As to what he will "admit"; under point 6. Wherever- a. "The words of
      > the text are obscure in themselves." This pretty much covers the phrase
      > "war-engine", at least for me. And f. "The use of capital letters present
      > peculiarities." It seem peculiar to me in III/3 both the word "War" and
      > "Vengeance" are capitalized! Of course VV is Vau spelled in full. I'm sure
      > you are quite aware of the significance of that letter in Qabalah.
      >    The above seems to pretty well support a secondary meaning of the word
      > "War", and the phrase "war-engine" in the text. I very much look forward to
      > you response.

      you may have more worked out than I have seen, and I shall assume that you do.
      Plainly "war-engine" might indicate 'qobel' (battering ram) and thus
      war-engine. War by itself however would require some other indicator.
      There remains the literal sense of a collective struggle, and of
      solidarity in the process.

      There is of course the possibility that the qabalistic 'war engine'
      implied is the order & value of the English alphabet et al. Indeed I
      recall a gematria calculator bearing this very name. This need not
      contradict measured interpretations obtained via Hebrew (or even
      bilingual wordplay like Nuit = night in French); quite the contrary,
      since the bottom line has to be indicators within the text where
      methods such as these are implied. A coherent exegetical standard is
      plainly a good thing for Thelema to evolve for itself.

      ALWays

      Jake

      http://www.underworld-apothecary.com/
    • richard stratton
      Dear Jake, Thanks again for responding. I agree with you regarding the exegetical rules A.C. lays down. Thus the reason I refer and quote them. Yes QBL,
      Message 2 of 21 , Sep 6, 2011
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Jake,

        Thanks again for responding. I agree with you regarding the exegetical
        rules A.C. lays down. Thus the reason I refer and quote them.

        Yes QBL, battering ram. I have also read considered speculations the machine
        in question is a catapult! I find both images of equal

        interest.

        Regarding the word "war" in L.L. If I am not mistaken, all instances of
        its occurrence are in Ch3, its appearance in v.3 is the only

        time it is capitalized; improperly . Following A.C.'s principals of exegesis
        this seems a logical invitation towards a deeper,

        secondary meaning. And, of course, as you've pointed out in your own
        examples, a straight-forward meaning need not be

        abandoned.

        Concerning III/47, I suspect there may be some real truth to that,
        especially if one stays within the perimeters of basic and

        established qabbalistic exegesis. That is, to me, the "war-engine". I guess
        I should mention my own working out of this key verse has

        nothing to do with the creation of an English qabbalah. Truthfully, not one
        of the gemutria like approaches I've seen is convincing.

        I know you are a busy man, so thank you again Jake, for your kind and
        thoughtful reply.


        My kindest regards . . .Richard Stratton.


        On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 2:04 AM, Jake Stratton-Kent <
        jakestrattonkent@...> wrote:

        > **
        >
        >
        > On 1 September 2011 21:39, richard stratton <pehrose@...> wrote:
        > > Dear Jake,
        > > Thank you for your kind and considered response. Playing the D.A. is
        > > often, if not always, of benefit to open discussion. I should simply like
        > to
        > > address your first point regarding the guidelines in E of G.
        > > In his conclusion to the principles of Exegesis #3 A.C. states:
        > "Where
        > > the text is simple, straightforward English, I shall not seek, or allow,
        > any
        > > interpretation at variance with it." Though the word "literal" is not
        > used
        > > here, "simple, straightforward English", is good enough for me. However,
        > he
        > > goes on to say: "I may admit a Qabalistic or cryptographic secondary
        > meaning
        > > when such confirms, amplifies, deepens, intensifies, or clarifies the
        > > obvious common-sense significance; but only if it be part of the general
        > > plan of the "latent light" and self-proven by abundant witness." This
        > seems
        > > to indicate A.C. is not *against* a secondary meaning, even for plainly
        > > literal parts of the text. What do you think about this?
        >
        > these 'rules' are the closest thing we have to the foundation of an
        > exegetical system, and thus among the more valuable parts of his
        > legacy.
        >
        >
        > > As to what he will "admit"; under point 6. Wherever- a. "The words of
        > > the text are obscure in themselves." This pretty much covers the phrase
        > > "war-engine", at least for me. And f. "The use of capital letters present
        > > peculiarities." It seem peculiar to me in III/3 both the word "War" and
        > > "Vengeance" are capitalized! Of course VV is Vau spelled in full. I'm
        > sure
        > > you are quite aware of the significance of that letter in Qabalah.
        > > The above seems to pretty well support a secondary meaning of the word
        > > "War", and the phrase "war-engine" in the text. I very much look forward
        > to
        > > you response.
        >
        > you may have more worked out than I have seen, and I shall assume that you
        > do.
        > Plainly "war-engine" might indicate 'qobel' (battering ram) and thus
        > war-engine. War by itself however would require some other indicator.
        > There remains the literal sense of a collective struggle, and of
        > solidarity in the process.
        >
        > There is of course the possibility that the qabalistic 'war engine'
        > implied is the order & value of the English alphabet et al. Indeed I
        > recall a gematria calculator bearing this very name. This need not
        > contradict measured interpretations obtained via Hebrew (or even
        > bilingual wordplay like Nuit = night in French); quite the contrary,
        > since the bottom line has to be indicators within the text where
        > methods such as these are implied. A coherent exegetical standard is
        > plainly a good thing for Thelema to evolve for itself.
        >
        > ALWays
        >
        >
        > Jake
        >
        > http://www.underworld-apothecary.com/
        >
        >


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Church of Gnostic Luminism
        ... As I see it Crowley s system can be understood as a Western equivalent to Yoga. It is a systematic method of attaining self realization. In order to do
        Message 3 of 21 , Sep 7, 2011
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In thelema93-l@yahoogroups.com, Jake Stratton-Kent <jakestrattonkent@...> wrote:

          > so, why not stick to Yoga?

          As I see it Crowley's system can be understood as a Western equivalent to Yoga. It is a systematic method of attaining self realization. In order to do what you will, you need to learn what your will truly is, which requires the perspective of Samadhi.


          > Why add Tarot, why add Enochian; why add Freemasonry etc. etc.?

          These are all mnemonic devices designed to aid this process.


          > Another point, why also do we have transparently clear
          > non-cryptic records of sex magic for hard cash?

          Works of thaumaturgy are lawful only to the extent that they are required to support the central theurgic task.
        • starc@
          FWIW, war-engine by eq11 = Scarlet Woman Crowned Child Baphomet Emperor the Beast hmmm...
          Message 4 of 21 , Oct 6, 2011
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            FWIW,

            war-engine by eq11 =

            Scarlet Woman
            Crowned Child
            Baphomet
            Emperor
            the Beast

            hmmm...


            On 09/06/2011 02:57 AM, richard stratton wrote:
            > Dear Jake,
            >
            > Thanks again for responding. I agree with you regarding the exegetical
            > rules A.C. lays down. Thus the reason I refer and quote them.
            >
            > Yes QBL, battering ram. I have also read considered speculations the machine
            > in question is a catapult! I find both images of equal
            >
            > interest.
            >
            > Regarding the word "war" in L.L. If I am not mistaken, all instances of
            > its occurrence are in Ch3, its appearance in v.3 is the only
            >
            > time it is capitalized; improperly . Following A.C.'s principals of exegesis
            > this seems a logical invitation towards a deeper,
            >
            > secondary meaning. And, of course, as you've pointed out in your own
            > examples, a straight-forward meaning need not be
            >
            > abandoned.
            >
            > Concerning III/47, I suspect there may be some real truth to that,
            > especially if one stays within the perimeters of basic and
            >
            > established qabbalistic exegesis. That is, to me, the "war-engine". I guess
            > I should mention my own working out of this key verse has
            >
            > nothing to do with the creation of an English qabbalah. Truthfully, not one
            > of the gemutria like approaches I've seen is convincing.
            >
            > I know you are a busy man, so thank you again Jake, for your kind and
            > thoughtful reply.
            >
            >
            > My kindest regards . . .Richard Stratton.
            >
            >
            > On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 2:04 AM, Jake Stratton-Kent<
            > jakestrattonkent@...> wrote:
            >
            >> **
            >>
            >>
            >> On 1 September 2011 21:39, richard stratton<pehrose@...> wrote:
            >>> Dear Jake,
            >>> Thank you for your kind and considered response. Playing the D.A. is
            >>> often, if not always, of benefit to open discussion. I should simply like
            >> to
            >>> address your first point regarding the guidelines in E of G.
            >>> In his conclusion to the principles of Exegesis #3 A.C. states:
            >> "Where
            >>> the text is simple, straightforward English, I shall not seek, or allow,
            >> any
            >>> interpretation at variance with it." Though the word "literal" is not
            >> used
            >>> here, "simple, straightforward English", is good enough for me. However,
            >> he
            >>> goes on to say: "I may admit a Qabalistic or cryptographic secondary
            >> meaning
            >>> when such confirms, amplifies, deepens, intensifies, or clarifies the
            >>> obvious common-sense significance; but only if it be part of the general
            >>> plan of the "latent light" and self-proven by abundant witness." This
            >> seems
            >>> to indicate A.C. is not *against* a secondary meaning, even for plainly
            >>> literal parts of the text. What do you think about this?
            >>
            >> these 'rules' are the closest thing we have to the foundation of an
            >> exegetical system, and thus among the more valuable parts of his
            >> legacy.
            >>
            >>
            >>> As to what he will "admit"; under point 6. Wherever- a. "The words of
            >>> the text are obscure in themselves." This pretty much covers the phrase
            >>> "war-engine", at least for me. And f. "The use of capital letters present
            >>> peculiarities." It seem peculiar to me in III/3 both the word "War" and
            >>> "Vengeance" are capitalized! Of course VV is Vau spelled in full. I'm
            >> sure
            >>> you are quite aware of the significance of that letter in Qabalah.
            >>> The above seems to pretty well support a secondary meaning of the word
            >>> "War", and the phrase "war-engine" in the text. I very much look forward
            >> to
            >>> you response.
            >>
            >> you may have more worked out than I have seen, and I shall assume that you
            >> do.
            >> Plainly "war-engine" might indicate 'qobel' (battering ram) and thus
            >> war-engine. War by itself however would require some other indicator.
            >> There remains the literal sense of a collective struggle, and of
            >> solidarity in the process.
            >>
            >> There is of course the possibility that the qabalistic 'war engine'
            >> implied is the order& value of the English alphabet et al. Indeed I
            >> recall a gematria calculator bearing this very name. This need not
            >> contradict measured interpretations obtained via Hebrew (or even
            >> bilingual wordplay like Nuit = night in French); quite the contrary,
            >> since the bottom line has to be indicators within the text where
            >> methods such as these are implied. A coherent exegetical standard is
            >> plainly a good thing for Thelema to evolve for itself.
            >>
            >> ALWays
            >>
            >>
            >> Jake
            >>
            >> http://www.underworld-apothecary.com/
            >>
            >>
            >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
            >
            >
            > --------------------------------
          • nigris (333)
            5011101911 e.v. KY ... TO: thesonofthebeast : I think pacifism and Thelema are perfectly compatible. once one specializes to the
            Message 5 of 21 , Oct 19, 2011
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              5011101911 e.v. KY
              --------------------
              TO: thesonofthebeast <thesonofthebeast@...>:

              I think pacifism and Thelema are perfectly compatible. once one specializes to the point of ridiculous cultism, one effectively self-disempowers and cannot be held accountable for anything any longer (opting out of society).

              your method of apology isn't intelligent. It duplicates all of the problems that extensive cults have from which those who are coming to Thelema are running away. it's interesting that you focussed so much on power while you are effectively disempowering yourself. there's a direct relationship here, i'm guessing.

              --------------------
              TO: Jake (Devils advocaat)

              Thelemic prophets are a big deal to themselves, and of variable intensity, celebrity, and notoriety elsewise. there is no necessary dictum in the content or implication of any Thelemite's scripture. you pull yourself up by your own bootstraps under the tutelage and superstructure of a prophet or you become one yourself and cease making futile generalizations about what any scribble means in some cosmic sense.

              as you yourself said ("The prophet's guidance in exegesis is discreetly ignored while he and his system remain iconic in other respects"), cultists ought to appeal to the writings of the Master (fetch the marrow of this), thus:

              "Fight! Fight like gentlemen, without malice, because fighting is the best game in the world, and love the second best! Don't slander your enemy, as the newspapers would have you do; just kill him, and then bury him with honour. Don't keep crying 'Foul' like a fifth-rate pugilist. Don't boast! Don't squeal! If you're down, get up and hit him again! Fights of that sort make fast friends.

              "There is perhaps a magical second-meaning in this verse, a reference to the Ritual of which we find hints in the legend of Cain and Abel, Esau and Jacob, Set and Osiris, et cetera. The "Elder Brother" within us, the Silent Self, must slay the younger brother, the conscious self, and he must be raised again incorruptible."

              -- http://www.luckymojo.com/crowley/220-commentaries.html

              > ...if the point {of Crowley's magical system} is only suppressing
              > undesired psychological tendencies, wouldn't it be cheaper to
              > take some tranquilisers?

              this and the next generalization are simply too blatant to be useful. for any particular aspirant the tool of the Lawbook might suffice to gain ground on the Great Work through the course of a particular stage or segment, and yet become a tomb or cul de sac from which she must crawl if she wants to continue to succeed (and suck eggs).

              as for whys and wherefores, there are more than 75 instances of the term 'because' in the Commentaries last i checked, despite the rumours of this word's untimely death. image, ecstasy, entertainment constitute obvious optional detours on the road to mystical glory. it wasn't what Baphomet left behind him but what fun he had on the road that constituted the import to the prophet. understanding? a big fat booby prize. he sat there holding his ball with a perplexed look.

              btw, he *was* anonymous, he just cloaked that in hubris and notoriety. ;)
              --------------------
              (3) TO: Jake

              arguments by design of composite universal kwablahblahs encased in the automatic writing from a Beast seem strained. let those of quick and shining brilliance delve the innards of the nearest orangutan if that be their wont, and they have the means whereby to best the ape and secure his gut.

              the reason why not to stick to yoga is because the Master didn't. the motivation for the addition of Tarot probably relates to Bohemians, Thoth, and the Comte de Melet, not to mention the contrivances of Constant. Enochian was the endearment of Dee and Mathers. its thematic Biblical placation not only suggest demonic enterprises but the ascendancy to the godhead. get out that Dee translation of the Necronomicon while you're at it. Freemasonry? Old Crowley put down that petard before he had himself hoist upon it in the wake of Reuss. it was enough to put on kilts and pretend to chieftainship.

              the span of sex magic is completely misinterpreted, though it was mapped by those such as i in the last decade or two in preparation for expository rhetoric. since the AEonic Word is FUCK, this explains the clarity of the records.

              alas, you have it aright when you speak of hip slogans and sciences dealing with New Age esoterix. Thelema is not alone in this, so don't fault it too heavily, as it may yet recover with but a few blows to the head(s) (e.g. use Olav('s) Hammer!). the warty Crowley never had it in him to be the face of a vanguard. he was always on the downslope looking up, and never quite legitimate enough to Pollitt off.

              --------------------
              (4) TO: Jake

              the best exegesis in the world is of no account without a sufficient target of analysis. it is an over-estimation that religious documents actually qualify for this, though mystics attempt to subject them to coarse analysis regardless. get something poetic and truly meaty and the confusion will become too daunting for most involved in the Work of the Occident. contrast this with ancient Chinese or the Fortunes of Faust, or Art of Memory, and you'll have pieces to master. abandon all hope ye Thelema who enter here. for ye shall never evolve, only reform to each individual taking you up. make your scripture and be thine own prophet. exegete be thou and brighter still the revelation out of thine own corpus. wallowing in the remains of others tends to produce disease.

              --------------------
              (5) TO: Church of Gnostic Luminism <luminist93@...>

              you do what you will in every moment, though you may not know of it at the time. no special perspectives are required to do that, other than to put oneself full-force into that herve and verve. requiring reductions of august mystical states like a rarefaction and specialty discloses no more quickly the significance of self-realization, even by assault.

              there is no central theurgic task outside certain opinionated and biased gods.

              Zazas Zazas Nasatanada Zazas!

              333
            • Jake Stratton-Kent
              On 19 October 2011 11:45, nigris (333) quoted Fat Eddie thusly: Fight! Fight like gentlemen, without malice, because fighting is the
              Message 6 of 21 , Oct 19, 2011
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                On 19 October 2011 11:45, nigris (333) <nagasiva@...> quoted
                Fat Eddie thusly:

                "Fight! Fight like gentlemen, without malice, because fighting is the
                best game in the world, and love the second best! Don't slander your
                enemy, as the newspapers would have you do; just kill him, and then
                bury him with honour. Don't keep crying 'Foul' like a fifth-rate
                pugilist. Don't boast! Don't squeal! If you're down, get up and hit
                him again! Fights of that sort make fast friends."

                aside from - allegedly - shooting some dacoits, Crowley's pugilistic
                record is rather slim.

                Its very doubtful AC had any relevant experience on which to base this
                'manly' statement, which has the ring of Victorian boys school BS.
                Perhaps he was having a Kipling moment?

                as for my priorities, I'd sooner fuck than fight, and sooner fight than run.

                ALWays

                Jake

                http://www.underworld-apothecary.com/
              • nigris (333)
                50111019 e.v. KY ... it is claimed that this is not Crowley s text, and therefore by this logic we should not expect him to have had anything to base it upon.
                Message 7 of 21 , Oct 19, 2011
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  50111019 e.v. KY

                  Jake Stratton-Kent responded to Fat Eddie thusly:
                  > aside from - allegedly - shooting some dacoits, Crowley's pugilistic
                  > record is rather slim.
                  >
                  > Its very doubtful AC had any relevant experience on which to base this
                  > 'manly' statement, which has the ring of Victorian boys school BS.
                  > Perhaps he was having a Kipling moment?

                  it is claimed that this is not Crowley's text, and therefore by this logic we should not expect him to have had anything to base it upon. at least this was how he crafted his description of it once deciding that it wasn't actually automatic writing after all and digging it out of his shunted notebooks.

                  secondarily, i think our original poster had something more relevant in mind for supporting his War effort: a very reasonable citation of the 3rd portion of Crowley's Lawbook. y'all covered some of the gematria with war-engine or its variants. I did appreciate the comment also from herupakraath regarding its publication timing. I have wondered whether there was some kind of millenarian streak to the Plymouth Brethren, though i gather they didn't go in for apocalyptics. a comparison and contrast between Plymouth Brethren cosmology and ideology and Crowleyan Thelema might prove illuminating.

                  > as for my priorities, I'd sooner fuck than fight, and sooner fight than run.

                  if tying it to the man, he did also make reference to the arts of drinking and whatever, and i am sure there was emphasis placed upon British gentlemanly pursuits (esp. of a poet, mountain climber, and rouguish inheritor with some actual breeding, by their assessment). these all are quite distant from me, so i hesitate to evaluate them too strongly.

                  my priorities in comparison are similar, though being of a physical character more suited to field or escape, and *not* for pugilistic pursuits (ouch!), i've chosen to flee and live to fuck another day. ;)

                  333
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.