Welcome to The Beast Bay General Thelema Science Art Scholarship The Beast Bay website
 up a level
 search
 main


  Of Humans & Monsters
General Thelema Posted by Mordecai Shapiro on May 10, 2000 @ 10:27 AM
from the shun-of-a-gun dept.

Exegesis may be defined as the critical analysis and interpretation of a holy book (or books). The word's Indo-European roots convey the sense of searching out, and the implication is that perhaps the actual meaning of a scripture is not what it first appears. The holy books of every major world religion have exegetical traditions, in some cases many centuries old. Can we as Thelemites benefit from their experience, or must we abandon their philosophical insights as tainted with the outlook of slavery?

Perhaps it is possible to ignore the dogma and self justifications, yet still learn something from the recognitions of a deeper level of meaning in revelation. As Thelemites, we ought not hesitate if we can utilize to our advantage any of the methods that humanity has ever employed. In any case, it is inevitable that Thelemites will produce an exegetical literature based upon studies of the various Holy Books. Crowley himself set the example by commenting, sometimes exhaustively, on most of them. As this body of work continues to develop we may as well profit by an examination of some earlier exegetical philosophies; in that way we may avoid some of the obvious mistakes of our predecessors and sharpen the focus of our own concepts while avoiding the outworn hypocrisies of the past.


Beside The Book of the Law itself the most widely accepted foundation of all Thelemite exegesis is a work entitled simply, "The Comment," and signed by Crowley as "The priest of the princes, Ankh-f-n-khonsu". It was first published in Tunis in 1926. It is quoted here in its entirety:

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
The study of this Book is forbidden. It is wise to destroy this copy after the first reading.
Whosoever disregards this does so at his own risk and peril. These are most dire.
Those who discuss the contents of this Book are to be shunned by all, as centres of pestilence.
All questions of the Law are to be decided only by appeal to my writings, each for himself.
There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt.
Love is the law, love under will.

Crowley considered this the comment that is mentioned several times in The Book of the Law itself:

My scribe Ankh-af-na-khonsu, the priest of the princes, shall not in one letter change this book; but lest there be folly, he shall comment thereupon by the wisdom of Ra-Hoor-Khu-it. (I:36)

All this and a book to say how thou didst come hither and a reproduction of this ink and paper for ever -- for in it is the word secret & not only in the English -- and thy comment upon this the Book of the Law shall be printed beautifully in red ink and black upon beautiful paper made by hand; and to each man and woman that thou meetest, were it but to dine or drink at them, it is the Law to give. Then they shall chance to abide in this bliss or no; it is no odds. Do this quickly! But the work of the comment? That is easy; and Hadit burning in thy heart shall make swift and secure thy pen. (III:39-40)

The fool readeth this Book of the Law, and its comment; & he understandeth it not. (III:63)

A possible implication is that the words of this brief -- even whimsical -- comment are inspired by the wisdom of Ra-Hoor-Khu-it and enabled by the inner flame of Hadit. Like any holy book, this Class A comment is open to interpretation, but the paradox in this case is that the subject of this holy book is in fact the interpretation of a holy book. Add to that the ambiguities of the text: is it joking or serious? or both in parts? The study of the book is forbidden, discussion of its contents to be shunned, yet there is ample evidence that Crowley supported and encouraged both. Nonetheless he seems earnest enough in his desire that "All questions of the Law are to be decided only by appeal to my writings, each for himself." In his essay on the reception of The Book of the Law, "Genesis Libri AL," he writes in much the same vein,

I lay claim to be the sole authority competent to decide disputed points with regard to The Book of the Law, seeing that its Author, Aiwaz, is none other than mine own Holy Guardian Angel, to Whose Knowledge and Conversation I have attained, so that I have exclusive access to Him. I have duly referred every difficulty to Him directly, and received His answer; my award is therefore absolute without appeal.

Now that Crowley is dead, however, he can no longer answer our questions directly. Inevitably, we must interpret the writings he has left behind, even when attempting to come to an understanding of issues which he himself explicitly addressed. When we are dealing with the questions which he never even tried to answer, we are even more dependent upon our own resources.

The lesson I take from all this is that one's own judgment must be the ultimate arbiter in all Thelemic exegesis. Our attitudes toward the study and comprehension of our Holy Books must be shaped by our own personal interactions with those scriptures. What "The Comment" itself suggests to me are these two fundamentals for a Thelemite approach to exegesis:

  1. There are no final interpretations. If one is unprepared to take the advice of III:16, "Deem not too eagerly to catch the promises; fear not to undergo the curses. Ye, even ye, know not this meaning all", then one is probably not ready for the spiritual consequences of a personal relationship to The Book of the Law. Healthy personal relationships are based on acceptance of change within a framework of mutual support; when applied to The Book of the Law this usually means an ever evolving understanding, and -- for most Thelemites -- an ever expanding reverence. The novice student comes to the Law as a fool, understanding little and misunderstanding much, but "Let him come through the first ordeal, & it will be to him as silver. Through the second, gold. Through the third, stones of precious water. Through the fourth, ultimate sparks of the intimate fire." (III:64-67). In this process we face no deadlier dogmas than those we call our own. It's a very short step from "finally knowing" what the Book means to telling everyone else what it means. Truly it would be better to tell everyone what it means when you still haven't the slightest insight as to what you're actually talking about! That way at least people can take it as a joke and laugh at you.
  2. There are no correct or incorrect interpretations. We can find clues to understanding The Book of the Law in the Prophet's writings, but the deadly hand of Orthodoxy must never be allowed to intrude upon any individual's understanding of the Book. In the hands of an extremist this moral principle becomes that demon called the Dogma of No Dogmas, which is actually among the most insidious of all possible dogmas; it can only be combated by the freedom of each person to accept and/or reject at any time any dogma which pleases them. We ought not to let dogma itself distract us from the real crime, which is the imposition of one person's dogma upon another. No person has a valid basis on which to decide that another's particular understandings of the Book of the Law are correct or incorrect, but if any understanding should lead its adherents to try to thwart my right to do my will then I, under the provisions of the Thelemic charter of rights, Liber OZ, have the right to kill them, even though I may choose to exercise it only in the most extreme of cases. We must not tolerate Orthodoxy, but we needn't for that reason excuse folly just because it wraps itself in Thelema. What happens to those fools who egregiously misunderstand The Book of the Law is described in II:27, "There is great danger in me; for who doth not understand these runes shall make a great miss. He shall fall down into the pit called Because, and there he shall perish with the dogs of Reason." Nevertheless we must be careful to hold them responsible only for their actions, not for what we might consider their misinterpretations.

Using these ground rules Thelemite exegesis must by definition be intensely personal; however, it is not therefore necessary that it be entirely private. In fact, there are times when at least some interpretations must be made public in order to prevent the misconceptions of fools from endangering our very physical existences! Of particular importance in this regard is the interpretation of the third chapter of The Book of the Law. We all know what could result from taking the word of Heru-ra-ha as a literal blueprint for action on the physical plane. "Trample down the Heathen; be upon them, o warrior, I will give you of their flesh to eat!" (III:11) / "Mercy let be off: damn them who pity! Kill and torture; spare not; be upon them!" (III:18) / "I will be at your arms in battle & ye shall delight to slay." (III:46) are just three of many passages that taken as a literal license to kill would doubtless engender horrific consequences. Thus, Thelemite literalists are every bit as dangerous to the other members of our species as Christian literalists, Hindu and Moslem literalists, or any other slaves of "The Word". And -- in addition to the threat they pose to individuals -- the actions of Thelemite literalists are weapons in the hands of our enemies, who seek to slander, libel, and persecute us all. Being literalists themselves our enemies cannot conceive of a religious movement based on spiritual rather than semantic values. Here, I think, is where some of the medieval concepts of Qabalist exegesis may serve us especially well, in both our defense and our communal progress. One such concept in particular is a focus of this presentation. [For more on some of these concepts in general, see G.G. Scholem, On the Kabbalah and Its Symbolism (1965).]

There is a story in the Talmud about four great rabbis who entered paradise. One saw and died, the second saw and lost his reason, the third became an apostate and misled the youth. Only Rabbi Akiba entered in peace and came out in peace. In the hands of Moses de Leon, rabbi and revealer of the illuminating Zohar, this story is used as the basis for an understanding of holy writ. The Hebrew word for paradise (literally, garden or orchard) is pardes, spelt peh-resh-daleth-samekh. These four letters were employed by de Leon to represent four levels of meaning. Peh stands for peshat, the plain or literal meaning; this is the predominant -- and often obsessive -- attitude of those (like some fundamentalist Christians and Muslims) who insist that every word of their scripture is factually accurate. Resh begins the word remez, the hinted or allegorical meaning, though one of de Leon's anonymous heirs here substitutes reiyoth, insights; this is the predominant attitude of those (like some Unitarians and Reform Jews) who use their scripture as a repository of symbols for human psychological processes like guilt, self-sacrifice, and spiritual renewal. Daleth represents derasha, homiletic or legalistic interpretation: this is the predominant attitude of those (like some Orthodox Jews and Sunni Muslims) who see their scripture as a guide to wise and judicious decision-making, in both public and private life; an instructive mixture of history, legend, and parable, suitable for teaching long-term values and practical ethics to each new generation. Finally Samekh, the last letter of pardes, is the initial letter of the word sod, the secret or mystical meaning; this is the predominant attitude of those (like the mystics of every scriptural tradition) who value their scripture not because it is divinely inspired, but because it inspires them with the Divine.

This system of four levels of meaning is a common method of interpreting the Torah, and is also conformable to the Qabalistic concept of the Four Worlds. But in that case how are we to attribute the correspondences of level of meaning to Qabalistic World? There is the story, told by the same anonymous heir of Rabbi Moses de Leon mentioned above, which connects the four levels of scriptural interpretation with the four rivers of Eden as well as with the four rabbis who entered paradise. De Leon's successor tells us that the first rabbi went into the river Pishon, which name is taken to mean "the mouth that learns exactly" and hence the literal level of meaning. The second rabbi went into the river Gihon, which is referred to allegory and symbolism. The third rabbi went into the river Hiddekel, from "sharp, deft," which refers to the drawing of a moral lesson or legal precedent from scripture. The fourth rabbi went into the Euphrates, which name is connected to the innermost kernel; this rabbi, who achieved mystical understanding of the Torah, was the only one to enter and return without harm. This story then allows us to use the 777 correspondences between the Four Worlds and the four rivers, and thus attribute the Four Worlds to the four levels of meaning. Using this method, our Peh-Resh-Daleth-Samekh can be respectively identified with the Four Worlds: Atziluth, Briah, Yetzirah, and Assiah.

What are some of the implications of this identification for Thelemitic exegesis? In the Tree of Life arrangement labeled 'The Constitution of Man' (reproduced in Regardie's edition of Magick Without Tears) both Atziluth (the archetypal World from which all the others emanate) and Briah (the creative World which interfaces between pure archetype and actual existence) are placed above the Abyss by Crowley; Yetzirah (the World of formation, peopled by the Angels and Divine Principles) he corresponds to the six central sephiroth which make up Ruach, and Assiah (the World of action, home for both matter and the Qlipoth) to the sephira Malkuth. If we substitute the four levels of interpretation for the Four Worlds in this arrangement we find that both the literal and the allegorical levels of meaning are above the Abyss. Does this mean that a literal understanding of scripture is possible only above the Abyss? I think yes: to comprehend the contradictions of a sepher ha-Torah ("book of the Law") requires, as the Buddhist sutra says, reaching "the far side of the river;" in Thelemite terms, achieving passage across the Abyss. This may at first seem contrary to common sense, which tells us that a literal interpretation should correspond with the material plane while the esoteric meaning is inherently of the archetypal plane. But this sort of common sense is misleading when it comes to exegesis, just as it is in the cases of post-Copernican astronomy and post-Einsteinian physics. In remarkably many of the most important areas of human thought, we find that both strict logical analysis and sweet poetic imagination conspire to overthrow our everyday assumptions and the mundane conclusions we draw from them.

Does this also mean that we may never take literally any of The Book of the Law's commands? Well, if by "never" you mean "sometimes," then my answer again is yes. Once more, the framework of the Four Worlds is instructive. Within each World there are another Four Worlds; therefore, in Atziluth's sphere of Assiah one might suppose a literal/mystic meaning must be apparent. Consider II:36-44,

There are rituals of the elements and feasts of the times. A feast for the first night of the Prophet and his Bride! A feast for the three days of the writing of the Book of the Law. A feast for Tahuti and the child of the Prophet -- secret, O Prophet! A feast for the Supreme Ritual, and a feast for the Equinox of the Gods. A feast for fire and a feast for water; a feast for life and a greater feast for death! A feast every day in your hearts in the joy of my rapture! A feast every night unto Nu, and the pleasure of uttermost delight! Aye! feast! rejoice! there is no dread hereafter. There is the dissolution, and eternal ecstasy in the kisses of Nu.

Now, the literal act of feasting according to this passage might perhaps in some way help to bring you to that quite mystical understanding of Aiwass' revelation which is proper to Assiah. But to miss the deeper meaning of these words and see instead a mere catalogue of holidays and an invitation to non-stop partying would be a terrible mistake; just as it is a mistake to think that a literal enaction of the Law is necessarily effective or even desirable on the physical plane. Overeating, even in the name of Thelema, can still cause indigestion. Ritually sacrificing a human child, no matter to what god, can still cause execution for murder. The seekers who live with any scripture in real peace, who survive their studies with their integrity and reason intact are those who are able to use primarily the most hidden scriptural meanings as a basis for actual behavior in Malkuth. Still, the mystic's apprehension of holy writ must also include moral and mental precepts, allegories which operate on imagination, and even, where called for, literal obedience (try this experiment: obtain a copy of the Book of the Law in an edition which includes "The Comment;" read this particular copy aloud in its entirety once, and then burn it up completely; how does it make you feel? foolish? frightened? fescennine? or free?).

As might be expected when the understanding of revelation is susceptible to such subtle manipulation, a common feature of saints' lives throughout history has been the inexplicability of some of their actions. A number, of course, have lost their reason, but others may have had reasons aplenty. After all, if the words of scripture are only to be truly understood mystically in this World of action, then, on an archetypal level, those very same words must be literally true! We ought to avoid mixing up our understandings of the planes, but there are still, inevitably, natural interactions between the planes. In such cases you might say that the only proof is success, but then we must ask, whose success? For Ra Hoor Khuit, "There is success." For us, well, we do the best we can, and -- ultimately -- are forced to let it go at that. Service to Ra Hoor Khuit is rather fully described in III:62, "To Me do ye reverence! to me come ye through tribulation of ordeal, which is bliss." The founders and true practitioners of most religions, even the most unwarlike, have had to face battle and prove their bravery, albeit in a multitude of ways. The saint of meekness draws strength from the sufferings of Jesus; the saint of obedience finds inspiration in Allah's conquests as performed through Muhammed. The measure of these respective saints' success is in how well they emulate their exemplars. Should we not rightly expect much greater trials for those who would be the saints of freedom, when they seek to serve the Crowned & Conquering Child, All Victorious, "Supreme and terrible God, Who makest the gods and death to tremble before Thee"? And if the tribulation of their ordeal is truly bliss then He may indeed grant triumph to their wills, but only so long as there is no difference between their wills and His. Nothing succeeds like success; everything fails in each failure.

What I have tried to show in this brief essay is the possible relevance for Thelemites of the concept of exegesis, and to detail a single example of Qabalist exegetical technique. I have tried to use this one technique as a tool for understanding The Book of the Law. Many other like tools exist; I hope that this one example inspires others (and myself once again) to pick them up and use them.



<  |  >

 

  Related Links
  • Articles on General Thelema
  • Also by Mordecai Shapiro
  • Contact author
  • The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.


    Re: Of Humans & Monsters
    by Geoffrey Baldwin on Wednesday May 10, @11:11PM
    This is the type of discussion I can get into. I have run into a lot of people who just can't fathom the idea of daring to look beyond the "literal" interpretation. Indeed, even a lot of the "allegorical" interpretations get taken literally by some. I have been working on my own interpretations, based on
    a)personal experiences that give meaning to the Scriptures themselves (i.e., the Holy Books, that is), and
    b) investigations into the meanings of words and ideas expressed therein.
    While I won't comment on them here, some of it has stoked the "literalists'" ire. I hate to see the day when we find ourselves referring to some of these as Fundamentalist Thelemites... But really, it is crucial to strive for excellence in the area of Thelemic Scholarship, and always forge ahead, and be open to new insights that may actually lead somewhere useful to us all. If they are merely self-obsessive streams of nonsense, that is something else altogether. I've enough of that of my own consigned to the boxes in the shed.
    I too look at things from several levels of meaning. We can find magical techniques, mystical insight, philosophical interpretations, even political and historical interps. in these Holy Books. I don't think any of us will ever have the last word on it all! I applaud your brilliance.

    Re: Of Humans & Monsters
    by Frank on Friday May 12, @10:07PM
    Once while fishin' in the Pishon, I has a flash- forward deep into our Aeon. What we cannot fathom NOW, is that a thousand years hence,all things written in the Book of the Law will come to pass in the Literal sense of the word. When the Xians finally decide to rid the world of Thelema by physical force around the time of the actual Procession of the Equinox into Aquarius things will get real ugly. The canabalism is distasteful to us NOW, but remeber the fierce spirituality of the Aztec Warrior-Priests,who feasted on the hearts of their enemies less than 500 years ago. Things change! I dont recommend practicing this NOW, but offer this interpretation as a rational way to interpret our Law literally and remind everyone our Aeon is yet young.

    Frank by the Bay

    • Re: Of Humans & Monsters
      by Mordecai Shapiro on Sunday May 14, @08:19PM
      Too bad you'll be dead by then, huh?


    Re: Of Humans & Monsters
    by Michael Sanborn on Saturday May 13, @05:52PM

    I have to say starting out that I am generally in favor of the spirit of "The Comment," although it seems most of my friends disagree. There's a line in "The Rite of Mercury," something to the effect of, "Alas, brother! Is the speech greater than the silence?" I am attracted to "The Comment" on an aesthetic level, as speech seems to me to be easy, in a certain way, and silence seems to me to be powerful -- and too seldom explored. Of course, I have to open my trap in order to point this out!

    In any case, it is inevitable that Thelemites will produce an exegetical literature based upon studies of the various Holy Books. Crowley himself set the example by commenting, sometimes exhaustively, on most of them.

    If we attempt to stop the commentary with Crowley, exegesis is not entirely inevitable. In the case of The Book of the Law, I think that Crowley would have done well to have stopped before he began. The Law is for All, in whatever edition, for example, I find to be just about the least appealing of his works. I think he saw most clearly what was required in "The Comment," but couldn't sustain that level of insight throughout his life.

    Like any holy book, this Class A comment is open to interpretation, but the paradox in this case is that the subject of this holy book is in fact the interpretation of a holy book. Add to that the ambiguities of the text: is it joking or serious? or both in parts?

    Where is the paradox here? And if it is serious, it isn't ambiguous, even if it is also joking. Only if it is joking without being serious does it introduce ambiguity, and I don't see how the text suggests that -- unless ambiguity is what you want.

    In the excerpt that you quote from "Genesis Libri AL," we see Crowley again not at his best. "The Comment" is a way to get around the ego, including Crowley's, not a way to enthrone Crowley's ego above everyone else's for the rest of the Aeon.

    I can agree with your "two fundamentals," as derivatives of "The Comment," but you go on to say, "however, it is not therefore necessary that it be entirely private." True, if we use your two fundamentals as our starting place rather than "The Comment" as a whole. But if we do use the whole Comment (and keep our exegesis private), your two fundamentals are fulfilled without needing to use Liber AL to shore up a particular position. If we do need to fix a position, surely we can find other tools for this than Liber AL?

    Ultimately, there is nothing in Mordecai's position here that can be completely refuted. It just concerns me that the easy response to this is, "Oh what a relief! I want to talk about everything, and now I am finally rid of that dreadful restriction against talking about The Book of the Law!" I only want to point out that one could take an alternative response to "The Comment," namely, that it is meaningful, and that there are advantages in attempting to respect it.



    • Re: Of Humans & Monsters
      by Mordecai Shapiro on Wednesday May 31, @06:32PM
      I'm sorry I haven't replied before this. Your comments were greatly appreciated.
      I have to say starting out that I am generally in favor of the spirit of "The Comment," although it seems most of my friends disagree.
      Part of the issue is what exactly is the spirit of "The Comment". I respect your take on it, but I don't think it is as self-evident as you seem to believe.
      I am attracted to "The Comment" on an aesthetic level, as speech seems to me to be easy, in a certain way, and silence seems to me to be powerful -- and too seldom explored. Of course, I have to open my trap in order to point this out!
      This is just the sort of paradox that "The Comment" itself provokes in me. It seems to be doing exactly what it says should be shunned.
      If we attempt to stop the commentary with Crowley, exegesis is not entirely inevitable. In the case of The Book of the Law, I think that Crowley would have done well to have stopped before he began. The Law is for All, in whatever edition, for example, I find to be just about the least appealing of his works. I think he saw most clearly what was required in "The Comment," but couldn't sustain that level of insight throughout his life.
      Your use of the word "attempt" shows that even you realize (if only subconsciously) how futile such a wish must be. If Crowley himself could not refrain from articulating his understanding of The Book how could chatterboxes like me?
      "Like any holy book, this Class A comment is open to interpretation, but the paradox in this case is that the subject of this holy book is in fact the interpretation of a holy book. Add to that the ambiguities of the text: is it joking or serious? or both in parts?"

      Where is the paradox here? And if it is serious, it isn't ambiguous, even if it is also joking. Only if it is joking without being serious does it introduce ambiguity, and I don't see how the text suggests that -- unless ambiguity is what you want.
      Wanted or not, ambiguity is what you get. If it is serious and "also joking" isn't that the very epitome of ambiguous? If the study is forbidden, if the discussers should be shunned, if there is no irony intended in those statements, then why the hell would AC have continued to promote and republish the work instead of disavowing the whole Thelemite "experiment"?
      In the excerpt that you quote from "Genesis Libri AL," we see Crowley again not at his best. "The Comment" is a way to get around the ego, including Crowley's, not a way to enthrone Crowley's ego above everyone else's for the rest of the Aeon.
      I don't get this argument at all. Al is clearly intending to enthrone his interpretation when he tells us that we may only decide based upon his "writings".
      Ultimately, there is nothing in Mordecai's position here that can be completely refuted. It just concerns me that the easy response to this is, "Oh what a relief! I want to talk about everything, and now I am finally rid of that dreadful restriction against talking about The Book of the Law!" I only want to point out that one could take an alternative response to "The Comment," namely, that it is meaningful, and that there are advantages in attempting to respect it.
      I would hardly have written thousands of words on "The Comment" if I didn't find it meaningful. I just think that the meaning is not as obvious as you seem to believe. Some of my position that the first passages are meant ironically is bolstered by my knowledge of certain "secret" rituals which I may not discuss openly, but of which you are certainly aware. Knowing as I do that you study the Book, and that you do not "shun" me, I wonder what exactly you mean by 'respecting' "The Comment".


    Re: Of Humans & Monsters
    by Babalon on Monday May 22, @04:39AM
    Thanks for this depth analysis on the question of the creation of Thelemic theology. I think the points you have touched upon are vital. Thelema lends itself to a very rich theological tradition. At the same time, Thelema maintains uniqueness among other spiritual systems by its emphasis upon avoiding theological dogmatism and absolutism.

    Just one minor point: the word "exegesis" is actually Greek in origin. It means simply "to read out of" as opposed to "eisegesis," its opposite, which means "to read into". In classical (i.e., non-Qabalistic) theology, to "do exegesis" is to examine a text in its appropriate contexts: literary, historical, cultural, personal (i.e., via the 'messenger' thereof), etc. and to derive its meaning from critical examination of all these aspects. Eisegesis is to read one's own personal meaning into the text instead. In a flexible, gnosis-friendly theology, both are appropriate in their appropriate place, though exegesis approaches objectivity more readily and thus eisegetical associations should be confirmed thereby rather than vice versa.

    Finally we should always remember that theology is but the dry bones of a former conversation with the Divine -- usually somebody else's conversation -- and is only useful insofar as it aids us upon our journey to discovering and creating our own dialogue with the Divine. Theology must never become a substitute for genuine Gnosis, but employed wisely, may serve as a barometric reading upon Gnosis, and a communicable conveyance of its distillations.

    Love is the law, love under will.

    Shedona Chevalier
    http://www.babalon.net

    • Re: Of Humans & Monsters
      by Mordecai Shapiro on Monday May 22, @10:59AM
      Thanks for the thoughtful comments. I should note that I purposely referred to the Indo-European cognates of the word exegesis instead of the specific Greek definition because I wanted to pull it out of its largely Christian context. I did mean it, as I believe should be obvious from a close reading, in the sense of a critical analysis of the text, not in the sense of deriving purely personal meanings out of scripture.


    Re: Of Humans & Monsters
    by Javelin on Thursday February 08, @05:27AM
    This is a very lucid and full interpretation of interpretation. Is there also an 11' version available ? ;)

    Re: Of Humans & Monsters
    by stephanie on Saturday February 02, @09:27AM
    i thorght that it was realy good and brillint
    movie right.

    The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.


        "As St. Paul says, 'Without shedding of blood there is no remission,' and who are we to argue with St. Paul?" -- Aleister Crowley
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster.
    [ home | search ]