In short, I do not value self-valuing in terms of anything else, I value everything else in terms of self-valuing.
Thus, Crowley, Jung, the ancient Hebrews, or whoever, have no fundamental significance - they are merely grain on my mill.
Nietzsche, Heraclitus and Thales are men I consider akin to my ethics of logic, and these three do hold for me a fundamental significance.
Homers works are no less fundamental, for the same reasons.
I truly see most of what has been thought since Athens became too civilized and produced Socrates who could never be imagined in war or in the wild, as abject nonsense. And that is because Socrates introduced the practice of indirect, referential virtue. Virtue that can be inferred using tricks of reason. But real virtue is alway splendidly palpable, radiantly healthy and straight-forward. So to me Sokrates represents a klippotic shell of virtue empty of self-valuing, wanting only death (being un-death).
On women: they possess the will to be willing. But it takes a man of will to allow her to be that. So she wills for a man of will; she is austere, severe, judgmental, before she can be willing.
Thus she scorns unwillful, hesitant and self-doubting men - it stands in the way of her will to be willing.
This is why criminals always find women, it is easy with a criminal life to be willing, as everything moves unpredictably. Still these are lowly woman because a criminal will always have furtive status and the child will have a difficult life and might not be able to be a sun - especially as the criminal father will tend to be jealous, or at the very least overly manipulative.
For a housewife in a mediocre economic situation there is very little opportunity to be willful, so she will indulge in sexual games of submission and/or when she is frigid she will seek to use her willfulness toward other objects than her own willingness, she wil seek to dominate aggressively, rather than from the heights - she wil seek “equal opportunity” and destroy the chemistry that pushes men to be outwardly strong and inwardly deep, she will draw men closer to what she thinks they are - an imagination I don’t care to indulge, first of all because I am not a woman, second because it is per-verted - turned-through; twisted.
It removes her from her height. A real woman authoritatively prods men and selects the specimen she allows to… will her being forth.
Men certainly are livestock to women. Until she selects her Man - allows a mans will to possess her spirit and emotions, whereby his body comes to serve her will. A mans power must serve the woman. Surely the woman serves the man. But she serves her own judgment, her valuing. A man becomes part of her self-valuing, the moon to her Earth, causing the emotional tides and what lies beneath them. The Child as it is conceived of is from there on the Sun to the whirling pair.
Well, I certainly went on to do so after saying that stuff in the beginning. Definitely starting from when I reposted this quote:
“To attain the Grade of Magister Templi, he must perform two tasks; the emancipation from thought by putting each idea against its opposite, and refusing to prefer either; and the consecration of himself as a pure vehicle for the influence of the order to which he aspires.”
I’m aware that this is inconsistent. The thing is that it’s easy for me to “relapse” into all those associations, as I was confronted with the Qabalistic Tree of Life at an impressionable age or time or whatever. In fact, same time as you, of course.
Now I’ve come back to these matters, after having gladly been able not to dwell on them for quite a few years, from the angle of my Heraclitus revelation, that “subtle ecstasy”. More on this below, I think.
Not sure I can accept this. I mean, wasn’t the Hebrew alphabet originally a collection of 22 “runes”? If this sounds insulting, that’s just due to ignorance; I have no special relationship with the runes, though I do find some, maybe all, of them beautiful.
The Qabalistic Tree of Life (henceforth QToL) is supposed to be the Tree of Life, encompassing everything. The temptation for me has been to give it the benefit, not the “malefit”, of the doubt: the doubt as to whether it’s really universal, or at least universally Western, or at least applicable to me.
The same goes for Jungian archetypes and the like. I’ve always found such ideas tempting. We could say that the “archetype-archetype” really exists in me… Again, more below.
What I meant has to do with the notion/fact that psychedelics “dissolve the ego” at high doses, something I read repeatedly when I browsed Wikipedia on them recently (can’t readily find it again; it may have been on the Dutch or German Wikipedia). To me that seems something to avoid, or at least to approach carefully; my trips have usually been a case of trying and mitigating the effects of the substances in question. In fact, the last time, last week, was the only time I didn’t have (somewhat of) a bad trip before the good stuff began. Next time, which I intend to be kind of soon, I think I’ll get a greater amount of the same species. I think the only difference between species is the ratio of the active substances they contain, and I guess this species’ ratio agreed with me. Depending on next time’s outcome, I may try a different, stronger species the time after that.
Yeah, I’m not sure if we saw each other a lot back then. I do remember coming by now and then, including when you were living in your attic. I don’t think it was necessarily obvious that you were in such a bad way. And it wasn’t such a good time for myself, either.
This is good stuff.
That’s the thing: psychedelics (including marijuana) can easily enlighten one prematurely. And I shaved my head even though I felt it was in no way necessary (and, for the record, I definitely didn’t get the idea from some “authority”–it was entirely my own). It was probably a mistake.
Anyway, you may well be right. “Krishna-dancing” was really my mitigation of my “Shiva-dancing”, which was not unlike my experience with Daäth, less than a year later: I distinctly felt that it would be self-destructive to Shiva-dance too much. Unfortunately, since I moved house a few months later, I’ve never really had the possibility to go all-out at it again. I’d probably need a really quiet floor for it.
Well, in that form (“this=that”), I do think it does justice. E.g.:
this : right eye
= : third eye
that : left eye
Yesterday, before I fell asleep, I reflected some more on the QToL, and mused that maybe I was so “naturally” close to Hod that it’s kind of my blind spot: it’s certainly the Sephira I find least interesting and have studied the least. Also, I think I’m “naturally” closer to the Pillar of Severity than that of Mercy, anyway. Chesed–after which the latter Pillar is named, I suppose–has always been my least favourite Sephira. Your video on it made me more favourably disposed toward it, though.
Well, “not the will to power” would technically be the opposite. Nietzsche speaks at one point of “the impotence to power”, in deliberate contrast with the will to power. And we might think of the will to the recurrence as the sublation of the will to power. But in the first place, I’m reminded of Strauss when he says the doctrine of the will to power, though it will seem obviously the supreme world-denial, is actually the opposite of this, the supreme world-affirmation. The opposite is indeed a mere negative, “not the will to power”–nothingness.
I’m not so sure duality is a construct. Duality is the simplest form of plurality (difference). And, by way of the concept “not”, all difference can be conceived as a duality.
Alistair Crowley was head of the Ordo Templi Orientis and during this time rewrote many O.T.O. rituals which were based on Freemasonry. He devised a magical working (whatever that means) on anal sex and incorporated it into the syllabus for those O.T.O. members who had been initiated into the eleventh degree.
He was a depraved human being.
There was nothing “good” about this man, of course that is only my opinion, no doubt you will disagree.
HA! Well now that I have your attention let me add, he was a hedonistic egomaniac, bent on acquiring power over others and addicted to sex and a multitude of mind-altering drugs.
No doubt you have read his comment, “Before Hitler was, I am”. Such a comment reduced him to a pathetic, jealous, disturbed man.
Yes, it was trolling and at that so stupid it made me laugh. I don’t know what you’re thinking about your posting, but from where Im standing you’ve very rarely if ever been able or willing to respond to a point directly, accurately or even just respectfully, and never to submit your own theses for discussion. Here again you are like a teenage girl in a convent who has read something in a forbidden gossip magazine, and you think your overexcited yelping constitutes an angle to the discussion - perhaps even a philosophical angle. It goes very far with you. All we can see is a neurotic wetting her panties, trust me. Its unclean to behave like that in a thread like this, which is directly emerging from someones soul, so Im telling you how it is. Please clean up your act and learn to respect men when they do what woman can not.
By the way, as a British spy writing in character for a nazi-sympathic American paper, (one of many) Crowley managed to point the thick headed Americans to the reality in Europe and caused the Americans to not take Hitlers side. Until then they were leaning to just join Hitler. You can see with the Democrats now where that impulse came from.
Anyway Crowley had an interesting life that shaped the course of history. Good lad.
As for taking a punch, Ive been taking punches from powerful online thinkers with very different views since 2001. The first years I hardly did anything but take punches.
If you had the slightest respect for philosophy you’d have seen how fucking well I take punches, and adapt my position if a strong perspective overrules an aspect of it.
That just doesn’t happen a lot anymore — precisely because I am unafraid to get hurt.
In terms of philosophy I am a Marine, no one has taken more punches than me.
Just don’t think spitting in my general direction amounts to a punch.
Its Aleister, by the way, not Alistair. But I assume that was jest.
About your next two posts, FC, I can only say again, “good stuff”!
Plato depicts Socrates in war: retreating, to be sure, but fighting or at least scaring off pursuers, while carrying wounded Alcibiades on his back.
As for women: that’s a great complement to aphorism 68 of The Merry Science (as I recently translated it). The reason I translated and posted that, by the way, is the whole #MeToo virus. My point is that a well brought up man is not just one who can control his urges, but moreover one who disdains women wearing skimpy clothes in public. If enough men were brought up well enough, a lot more would change than men regularly groping women in clubs and the like…
My misspelling of his name was not in jest, but it brought to my attention that his birth name was Edward Alexander Crowley, I presume the name Aleister was an affectation of his.
My chief objection to Crowley was his obvious lack of self discipline. His mantra was if it feels good, do it, which fits in well with the rule of today’s philosophy of hedonism, in that pleasure is the sole chief good in life and that the material world is all there is and Crowley was a fine example of unrestrained hedonism as throughout his life he ‘gorged’ himself.
The one attribute that perhaps he could genuinely claim to have…he was one of the smoothest con men in history.
“I am patient with stupidity but not with those who are proud of it.”
Curious am I; did you read any of his works? If so, which?
You seem to have simplified his “do what thou wilt” into “do as thou liketh” or whatever way that would get spelled in neo-retro style.
What about the Trance of Sorrow? Does he say to engage that because … sorrow feels good?
Indeed, for just who do we find perched atop the tree of life but those men of knowledge for whom life is no longer a question, no longer a raison boue.
That is a very complex metaphor slated to conflicting interpretations to the extent that both diverge simultaniously slated to diverge into a widely gaping , abysmal hole.
The question of effective or affective divergence leaves the question of will appearently blank as well, so, direction and signal moves along according to an interior/ exterior excercise.
Can the program change, it be changed, in any other way then a call to purpose? Then the transcending power of darkness will reach it’s limit as does that of illumination, as the ages in the middle try to emulate
There is a reason that tries to configure that configures that below and above those limits, but result in odious, ever recurring mixes of the same.
Crowley, over and under the blocking mist of either Nietzsche or the Christ; is put out of the fire of either hell & redemption by scholastic illumination.
Either will suffer the brackets of desire by the pulsating excircise of that , which only certain situations can determine.
That is, the externity will compress the internal force that pushes against it, and the lights that illuminate them will nearly flicker and die, loosing all meaning, almost.
But the slightest, most subtle whisper of the most distant allusion imaginable, will,
by some incredible compresdive transcendence of power, will, at the closest imaginable distance away from the limits, will crack open the egg of this primal minnature open, to reassert the grand revolution.that connects the most abhorred , the least significant , with the least admired yet most desired.
All in a twinkling, as it is happening in this very now of recollection.
