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


  Milestones of the Aeon
General Thelema Posted by Xnoubis on July 27, 2001 @ 08:03 PM
from the these-be-grave-histories dept.

From previous discussions, it's clear that Thelemites have many different opinions as to the meaning of the Aeon of Horus. But within Thelema, the inaugural event of the Aeon isn't in dispute: the reception of The Book of the Law in 1904. What other key events has the Aeon seen since then?

From my perspective, these would include the two World Wars, as illustrative of the martial aspect of Horus, particularly the invention and deployment of the Atomic Bomb, a candidate for the war engine of Liber AL. Then there's the sexual revolution, as a manifestation of Babalon, and the advent of AIDS as its tragic shadow. The popularity of psychedelics has played an important role in the"strange drugs" category. Lastly, computers and the Internet have greatly expanded our ability to cause change in conformity with will.

What's on your list?



<  |  >

 

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


    Re: Milestones of the Aeon
    by Anthony on Saturday July 28, @12:17AM
    The only other important event since 1904 is me being born & doing my work.

    Everything between was gibberish, including drugs & the internet.

    And I'm better than Crowley because he was basically a horrible person in spite of all his genius & I'm a nice guy - he couldn't leave his wand alone for a second & I'm very very chaste in the Parcival sense.

    Go figure when you're life's a mess.

    • Re: Milestones of the Aeon
      by Anthony on Saturday July 28, @12:19AM
      I was born in 74 if that has any significance - I don't know -

      I'm the child mightier than all the kings of the earth. Who are you?

      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law - can't be bothered with the capitals.


      • Re: Milestones of the Aeon
        by Anthony on Saturday July 28, @12:20AM
        Whoever has a problem with that might want to work out why they're listening to a guy claims to be THE BEAST 666.


        • Re: Milestones of the Aeon
          by Anthony on Saturday July 28, @12:23AM
          And I'd also recommend a lot of people here - no names mentioned - brushing up on "invocation of the Christ force" or whatever you want to call it or however you do it

          "When you are suffering, know that I have betrayed you".


    Re: Milestones of the Aeon
    by Nekial on Saturday July 28, @01:00AM
    93

    This is a good time to follow up on an earlier thread regarding the length of the aeons. In my pocket edition of the BOTL, which I believe is from the 1938 edition privately issued by the OTO, there is an introduction in which Fra. "O.M." [Crowley] says this:

    "It [Part III] explains that certain vast 'stars' (or aggregates of experience) may be described as Gods. One of these is in charge of the destinies of this planet for periods of 2,000 years.
    [and later:]He [Horus] rules the present period of 2,000 years, beginning in 1904."

    93 93/93

    ~N

    • Re: Milestones of the Aeon
      by Mordecai on Saturday July 28, @01:29PM
      My own attitude toward aeons (expounded on in Of Myths and Maths) leads me to put more importance on the quote from AC's comment on verse III:34, "Following him [that is, Horus] will arise the Equinox of Ma, the Goddess of Justice, it may be a hundred or ten thousand years from now; for the Computation of Time is not here as There". The Aeon of Horus which began on March 20, 1904 is still at present historically insignificant. If it should ever become important then the most significant milestones after the Prophet's own career are most probably yet to come.


    Re: Milestones of the Aeon
    by nexist on Saturday July 28, @08:39AM
    Jazz, Flappers & the Roaring 20's.

    Beatniks (& its shadow the Hippies)

    Punk Rock (the Shadow of the Hippies, & its shadow New Wave)

    Hmm, most of my list is Music & the related socio-political movements...

    Add Women's Suffrage (tho I know it started before 1904) & it's shadow (modern) Feminism.

    [...]

    There are more, but I need to get to work :)

    • Re: Musical list
      by woof on Saturday July 28, @12:19PM
      Put in more Jazz and treat New Wave as a bigger thang (and its shadows techno and industrial) and that list isn't too bad.

      Then put in how it was the start of the Computer Age.


    Re: Milestones of the Aeon
    by Anthony on Saturday July 28, @12:09PM
    Being a bit more serious, everything was fine as far as it went but it was transitory and broke and lacking in consistency and with stupid periods where nothing was worth very much at all.

    What's the point in trying to create or manifest an Aeon like that. We need a continual link, we need more people like Marilyn Manson and myself.

    And not silly people hiding in lodges playing with white light.

    • Re: Milestones of the Aeon
      by woof on Wednesday August 01, @05:53PM
      >We need a continual link, we need more people like Marilyn Manson and myself.
      great comment. :-) brian warner & me & Mass = gotta happen some day.


    Re: Milestones of the Aeon
    by GM on Saturday July 28, @03:42PM
    Si Valetis, Valeo

    I see the breaking down of the Berlin Wall as a manifestation or Ra-hoor-khuit in connection to the Battle for Freedom. It's shadow are battles fought in Middle Eastern countries to keep the price of oil reasonably priced for American consumers.

    Pax Profundus,
    GM

    Re: Milestones of the Aeon
    by Tim Maroney on Saturday July 28, @04:46PM
    I'm just sorry to be reminded that so many students of Crowley uncritically embrace this silly concept of Aeonic history. It's things like this that make me think I've fallen in with the wrong group of people, and that the dogmatic requirements of belonging are probably driving the best and the brightest away from our subculture. If there were at least some internal debate on the subject I'd feel much more comfortable.

    Tim

    • Re: Milestones of the Aeon
      by Mordecai on Saturday July 28, @05:26PM
      >If there were at least some internal debate on the subject I'd feel much more comfortable.

      Let me renew my request for your critique of my article linked above in the reply to Nekial.


    • Re: Milestones of the Aeon
      by GM on Sunday July 29, @12:53AM
      Dear Tim:

      You:I'm just sorry to be reminded that so many students of Crowley uncritically embrace this silly concept of Aeonic history. It's things like this that make me think I've fallen in with the wrong group of people, and that the dogmatic requirements of belonging are probably driving the best and the brightest away from our subculture. If there were at least some internal debate on the subject I'd feel much more comfortable.

      Relax. It is only a paradigm. :)

      Pax Profundus,
      GM


      • Re: Milestones of the Aeon
        by Tim Maroney on Sunday July 29, @04:13AM
        It is only a paradigm

        The use of the word "paradigm" as an excuse-term for belief requirements is one of the more interesting linguistic aspects of modern occultism.

        One thing that makes it interesting is that the modern idea of "paradigm" derives from Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions in which the "paradigm" is described as a way of socially shutting down consideration of anomalies and avoiding inconvenient questions. In other words, the source of the term for the modern reader treats "paradigm" as a near-synonym for "dogma."

        Another thing that makes it interesting is that few occultists who use the term as an excuse for some seemingly dogmatic view seem to have any ability to define what a paradigm is. The term is used in a totemic or talismanic way.

        A third interesting issue is that while there is sometimes a fuzzy statement that a paradigm is meant as a non-literal or poetic engagement with an idea rather than a literal one, occultists who use the term frequently become distinctly moralistic in their insistence on the truth of what at other times they describe as "just a paradigm."

        In modern occultism, there is a basically incoherent mode of engaging the issue of dogma. It consists of dealing with socially required belief-assertions as if they were God's Unquestionable Truth 95% of the time, but falling back on claims that one is a non-literalist or "paradigmatic" interpreter when challenged. After the challenge has passed, one invariably falls back to the literalistic or preaching mode.

        Tim


        • Re: Milestones of the Aeon
          by Fra THA;M on Monday July 30, @11:36AM
          Kuhn's exposition of his idea of paradigm shifts in relation to science is far more profound than your brief introduction does justice to. When you say that 'paradigm' is a method for society to avoid inconvenient questions, this seems to infer a concious attempt to avoid obvious alternative hypothesi when explaining reality. This is not so. The paradigm exists not as an agenda to maintain the status quo, but is a result of a real inability by society to take into account varying accounts, or categorizations of reality. So a paradigm is less a 'dogma', as you propose, and more akin to a cultural world-view. It is this explanation that I am sure occultists refer to when using that term. Their paradigm is constituted by their adopted multi-vocal symbol sets, their perception and understanding of reality. I take exeption to the term because it has become a cliche, a word thrown about by pedants and pretenders.


          • Re: Milestones of the Aeon
            by Tim Maroney on Monday July 30, @12:43PM
            When you say that 'paradigm' is a method for society to avoid inconvenient questions, this seems to infer a concious attempt to avoid obvious alternative hypothesi when explaining reality. This is not so.

            That must be why I didn't say it. Kuhn is not a conspiracy theorist. The mental boxes into which he observes scientists putting themselves are not deliberately chosen or consciously maintained in most cases. Similarly, doctrinaire Thelemites rarely have any conscious recognition of their own dogmatism, and invariably deny it when challenged.

            So a paradigm is less a 'dogma', as you propose, and more akin to a cultural world-view.

            A cultural world-view which systematically excludes alternative viewpoints is a system of dogmas.

            Tim


    • Re: Milestones of the Aeon
      by nexist on Sunday July 29, @11:50AM
      Perhaps you could elaborate. Terming something silly or (gasp) dogmatic is typically a sign of not being able to coherently justify ones dislike for something.

      If nothing else, Aeons are labels. Labels (at their most basic) are tools to aid in the manipulation and utilization of data. Without labels to demarcate & catagorize information, one's mind resembles my file cabinet -- and is about as useful when trying to draw relevent facts.

      The Labels of the Aeons -- again, this is if you are willing to grant nothing else a priori (like my new term <g>) -- serve as convenient tools to classify various stages in the Socio-Political evolution (& the related Spiritual evolution) of the Human Species. These phases are loosely collected into 'Hunter-Gatherer', 'National/City-State' & 'now' (or if you really want to display dogmatic beliefs 'Matriarchy', 'Patriarchy' & 'now'). Admittedly the classifications for the Aeons is Euro-centric (or EurAsian-centric) and the various "Racial" groups have not had parallel development, however this is acknowledged in every presentation of Aeonic Progression I have encountered (usually with 'Cusps', 'Majority Progression' or by a belief that even those still in a 'Hunter-Gatherer' state have undergone some sort of 'paradigm re-alignment').

      As per our previous discussion on 'Paradigms' (oh, about 5 or so years ago), my usage of the term 'Paradigm' encompasses the classic description as given in Physics, as modified by its time in the Public Domain, such that it includes the gestalt, context &c of the individuals, societies, or whatever cohesive grouping you may wish to utilize.

      To hear me ramble some more on 'Aeonic Progression', go here.

      For more on my conception & use of the word 'Paradigm' , click here.

      Hopefully this made sense, I was up early this morning...


      • abuse of the term "paradigm"
        by Tim Maroney on Sunday July 29, @06:34PM
        Perhaps you could elaborate. Terming something silly or (gasp) dogmatic is typically a sign of not being able to coherently justify ones dislike for something.

        It hardly requires explanation to say that the doctrine of Aeons is silly. That is how almost anyone in the world would perceive it. If I said that the Era of Grumblefrotz started on November 12, 1869 when the spirit Foo-Foo dictated "The Ultimate Revelation" to a stoat, most of us would feel the same way about that peculiar claim that any non-believer would feel about Crowley's self-anointment as prophet and World-Teacher. The claim is absurd on the face of it, and the burden of proof falls on its adherents.

        The Labels of the Aeons ... serve as convenient tools to classify various stages in the Socio-Political evolution (& the related Spiritual evolution) of the Human Species.

        That particular label is only useful if you happen to believe that some particular transition happened in that year which would justify the demarcation. In my view there is no better justification for the Crowley date than for any randomly selected date, and there are days that have a much better claim for transition boundary status than April 8-10, 1904, such as August 6, 1945, or August 28, 1963. And even though these days created transitions that had a great effect on thought, feeling and life that followed them, I do not consider it useful to think of them as having created "aeons" or "ages." That whole category is very dubious. To say, for instance, that we live in the "Atomic Age" is to speak so loosely as to say almost nothing. There is an enormous diversity in human attitudes towards the atomic bomb -- they are disparate over time, geography, culture, religion, language, education, gender, ethnicity, class, and personality. To refer to an "Atomic Age" assigns a false unity to these diverse phenomena.

        My usage of the term 'Paradigm' encompasses the classic description as given in Physics...

        So far as I know, there is no such usage. You claim in the linked page that "paradigm" is a term from quantum physics, but I have not come across it in my readings in that field, and I do not find it in looking through one print and a dozen on-line physics dictionaries. The actual source of the term in modern use is, as already noted, Thomas Kuhn, in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Kuhn is no defender of the idea of paradigm, though -- he views it as a dogmatic structure which, while it enables the progress of "normal science," also leads to an excessive dismissal of alternative ideas and an undervaluing of the importance of theoretical anomalies. Scientists are forced into mental boxes by paradigms, where he wishes they would allow themselves more freedom of thought.

        It is galling to a see a term that was used to define and take a stance against dogmatism being used as a talisman to justify dogmatism. It reminds me of the Republicans' attempt to enlist Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. posthumously against affirmative action.

        Kuhn says, "my most fundamental objective is to urge a change in the perception and evaluation of familiar data." One wishes that occultists laying claim to the term "paradigm" would heed Kuhn's call to broaden their mental scope. Instead, we find in occultism that the term is used by those who do not understand what it means or why it is used in society today, who use it as an opaque talisman to ward off concerns about narrow boxes of belief, and who, when challenged, fall back to a literal assertion of the objective reality of the objects of their "paradigms." This kind of paradigmatic dogmatism is easily distinguishable from a genuinely non-literalistic or mythopoetic engagement of sacred material, such as we might find in, for instance, some of Mordecai's work.

        Tim


        • Re: abuse of the term "paradigm"
          by Fra THA;M on Monday July 30, @12:02PM
          The multi-vocality behind the symbolism of the Aeon of Horus, it's vagueness that defies any one specific arguement, is what gives it it's power. You are correct in asserting that the randomly choosen date is completely arbitrary, but it occured at the advent of what we would term the modern age, don't you agree? Very portentous. I would concurr that any deistic interpretation would be folly, but it is a term of convinience beautiful in it's simplicity, aesthetic and evocative power. When the idea of the Aeon of Horus is used by Thelemic thinkers, this particular phraseology corresponds to the particular zeitgiest of individuality that has risen in the West, and has led to the greatest advances, scientific and social, humanity has yet encountered. As well, you are misconstruing Kuhn. He doesn't veiwe science as a dogmatic entity that liberal free-thinkers come to smash. The scientific paradigm is simply a description of a culture based on it's locality in time, and the information it has regarding reality. Revolutions in science are natural occurances that are a result of more data being accumulated that doesn't fit into the existing, consensual veiw of reality. New theories come into existence to explain these discrepancies, which over time, come to be accepted (become paradigms) and to exert the same amount of influence over thought that the previous paradigm had. And the cycle again repeats itself. Ties in nicely to the concept of the progression of the Aeons.


          • Re: abuse of the term "paradigm"
            by Tim Maroney on Monday July 30, @12:54PM
            You are correct in asserting that the randomly choosen date is completely arbitrary, but it occured at the advent of what we would term the modern age, don't you agree? Very portentous.

            No, I don't agree at all. I don't know what this modern age you're referring to is, and I don't know why you think it began in 1904. Transitions are constantly occurring, and there have been many more significant transitions than any I know of from 1904. Human experience is so diverse as to defy any useful categorization into ages or aeons.

            I do thank you, however, for asserting that the 1904 date reflects an objective reality, "the advent of the modern age." I already noted, in previous messages here about the curious dance around the issue of dogmatism in modern occultism, that supposed non-literalists almost always come back around to insisting on the objective reality of their beliefs. I am glad to see a concrete example in this thread.

            When the idea of the Aeon of Horus is used by Thelemic thinkers, this particular phraseology corresponds to the particular zeitgiest of individuality that has risen in the West, and has led to the greatest advances, scientific and social, humanity has yet encountered.

            Which is a further statement of the objective reality of the Aeon of Horus. Thanks again.

            I won't go into your summary of Kuhn, except to note that anyone who has read him is well aware that he is presenting a critique of the rigidity of paradigms, not a naturalistic statement that 'twas ever thus and so shall it ever be. As already quoted, his "most fundamental objective is to urge a change in the perception and evaluation of familiar data." I really doubt that you have read the book, or even the Cliff's Notes version, based on your summary.

            Tim


            • Re: abuse of the term "paradigm"
              by Fra THA;M on Monday July 30, @01:36PM
              "No, I don't agree at all. I don't know what this modern age you're referring to is, and I don't know why you think it began in 1904."

              You rely on the common crutch of attempting to take peoples comments out of context to defend structuarally weak arguements. I stated clearly the date was arbitrary. Sigh...ok, I'll give you a brief history lesson, since you are unaware. Modernism was a movement which spanned the Arts, Humanities and Science during the latter years of the 19th, and first decades of the 20th centuries. It was characterized by reliance on individuality and a deep questioning of the place of the individual in a rapidly changing world. We saw the rise of the great modern movements in painting and sculpture, we read the groundbreaking words of Joyce, eurocentric anthropology and history were being re-evaluated, and Freud and Eistein were revolutionizing the way we perceived the world. I could go on and on. That is modernism, son. Hence Post-modernism and post-industrialism question modernism. Crowley by no means started Modernist thought, but he was one of the first to categorize it and predict where it would lead.

              "I do thank you, however, for asserting that the 1904 date reflects an objective reality, "the advent of the modern age."

              Again words in my mouth. I said it was arbitrary. 1904 falls in that formative crucible of two decades that really birthed modernist thought. And of course, any juvenile grade school child will tell you that 1904 reflects an objective reality, as does 1901 or 2001.

              "Which is a further statement of the objective reality of the Aeon of Horus. Thanks again."

              Gibberish. I have no idea what concept or idea you are trying to relate, beyond some muddied critique of Western History.

              "...not a naturalistic statement that 'twas ever thus and so shall it ever be"

              Again you construct fallacious intentions behind my words. I was condemning your vain-glorious moralizing by pointing out that under Kuhn's model (where science is subject to a dominant paradigm), the new paradigms that arise are as strict and rigid as the ones that replace them. Don't get defensive, Tim. Because you've been found out, it in no way reflects badly on your character.


              • Re: abuse of the term "paradigm"
                by Tim Maroney on Monday July 30, @05:53PM
                You referred to "the modern age," not modernism. "Modern age" can mean anything from "the time this was written" to "the period from the 16th century to the present". Its use in reference to modernism is only one of many. But let us assume that modernism in the 20th-century sense of the word is what you meant.

                Since modernism is a post facto critical category much more than it was a self-identified movement, no one agrees when it started, or even whether it is a useful category. Estimates of its origin date from the 1850's to after the end of World War I. For that reason, I do not agree that the advent of modernism coincides with the writing of the Book of the Law. By some estimates modernism had already been going for fifty years at that point; by others, it would not start for another fourteen. All one can say is that by some estimates, 1904 fell somewhere within the modernist era, though by others, it was not coincident with that movement at all.

                Despite the ambiguity in the start date, most agree that modernism had ended by World War II, which makes it a strange thing on which to pin the supposedly ongoing Aeon of Horus. And if we look at the Book of the Law we do not find much common ground with modernism there.

                Again, there is a basic incoherence in your defense of the Aeonic dogma. On one hand you say you do not believe in it literally. On the other you keep trying to say that it is a way of describing real historical events. When I point this out, you say that I am expressing "some muddled critique of Western history," again re-affirming that you believe the Aeon reflects a historical reality. I'm not criticizing history. I'm criticizing your claim that the Aeon of Horus is a label for an objective historical fact.

                Finally, you're still not addressing the question of whether you read Thomas Kuhn before giving your description of what he meant by "paradigm." Nor have you begun to engage the fact that Kuhn's book is a criticism of the rigidity of paradigms, not a defense of them. Once again, if the Thelemic dogma of Aeons were a "paradigm" in Kuhn's sense, it is something he would insist that we should try to free ourselves from, in favor of a less rigid and more fluid interpretation. That loosening of the girders of the soul is what Mordecai's essay encourages (as I understand him,. in any case), and that is also what I am encouraging. But being loose does not mean being slippery.

                Tim


                • Re: abuse of the term "paradigm"
                  by Fra THA;M on Tuesday July 31, @12:59PM
                  "On one hand you say you do not believe in it literally. On the other you keep trying to say that it is a way of describing real historical events...I'm criticizing your claim that the Aeon of Horus is a label for an objective historical fact."

                  Exactly. I in no way attempted to argue that Crowley was the catalyst for Modernist or Post-modernist thought, or that he played any kind of pivitol role in its progression. But he was one of the firt thinkers to recognize it's advent and prognosticate its implications. The Aeon of Horus isn't a label for an objective historical fact, but a label for an objective series of historical facts. Big difference. It isn't a thing in and of itself, but useful term of convinience, much like the label Modernism, which you have few problems using as a convinience.

                  "most agree that modernism had ended by World War II, which makes it a strange thing on which to pin the supposedly ongoing Aeon of Horus. And if we look at the Book of the Law we do not find much common ground with modernism there."

                  Oh Wo! My unimaginative and uninspired brother! That is exactly the point, my good man! The BOTL recognizes the hollowness of Modernisms strict egoism, and predicts it's fall. It then offers solutions to the now existing problems of post-modernism and post-industrialism (although anyone with an iota of erudition regarding Modernism will recognize in Crowley a stellar example of a modernist thinker, working through the problems it poses).


        • Re: abuse of the term "paradigm"
          by Nexist on Monday July 30, @06:39PM
          It hardly requires explanation to say that the doctrine of Aeons is silly.

          LOL! So I guess I am correct, you cannot coherently formulate a rational reason for your dislike of Aeonic Progression.

          Your assertion does require a justification, our entire calendar, our method for keeping time (in the Western world) is based upon Aeonic Progression -- or were you unaware that B.C. refers to the Aeon prior to the death of Christ, and that A.D. refers to the Aeon of Christ.

          You are correct that the 'silliness' is dependent upon belief, only those who do not believe find it silly -- however, silly or not even an atheist finds it convenient to use the BC/AD Aeonic demarcations.

          The claim is absurd on the face of it, and the burden of proof falls on its adherents

          Since a majority of the world believes in -- or utilizes to some degree -- the conception of Aeons, I disagree. Why is everyone but you messed up?

          That particular label is only useful if you happen to believe that some particular transition happened in that year which would justify the demarcation.

          On the surface, this looks so reasonable, but hey "80's" music started in 1976. Even those who deny that Jesus ever existed utilize the modern calendar. Belief is secondary to usefulness.

          It is galling to a see a term that was used to define and take a stance against dogmatism being used as a talisman to justify dogmatism.

          Amazingly convenient how those things you think are silly are so representative of Dogma.

          Anyway, rather than proceed anymore with the topic of 'Paradigm' I refer you to your nearest dictionary for its definition -- a definition still valid if you consider Magick to be "the Science & Art".

          As for Mordecai's work, how can I take seriously anything said by someone who thinks that enobling traits and behaviors are signs of idiocy (& yes I am paraphrasing).


          • Re: abuse of the term "paradigm"
            by Tim Maroney on Monday July 30, @08:02PM
            It hardly requires explanation to say that the doctrine of Aeons is silly.

            Your assertion does require a justification...

            I repeat. The assertions of religion are absurd on the face of them ("silly"), whether they are that Christ was born of a virgin, that flowers rained about the Buddha from the sky on his parades, or that Moses parted the Red Sea. The burden of proof is on the proponents of these claims. There is no burden of proof on those who disbelieve, any more than a burden of proof must be lifted in order to doubt the paradigmatic Revelation of Foo-Foo in 1869.

            our entire calendar, our method for keeping time (in the Western world) is based upon Aeonic Progression -- or were you unaware that B.C. refers to the Aeon prior to the death of Christ, and that A.D. refers to the Aeon of Christ.

            You are mistaken in your use of the word "aeon", which does not appear in these abbreviations. However, it is true that dogmatic Christians wrote a religious doctrine about the supposed importance of the coming of their Christ into their calendar. But what does Dionysius Exiguus have to do with me? In the English-speaking world, this is the calendar in use due to the dominance of Christianity, but it has become neutral terminology.

            You are correct that the 'silliness' is dependent upon belief, only those who do not believe find it silly -- however, silly or not even an atheist finds it convenient to use the BC/AD Aeonic demarcations.

            But what does that have to do with the accuracy of the Aeonic theory of history? If the claim were simply that "some people sometimes date years starting with the year Crowley received or wrote the Book of the Law," then I would have no argument with the theory, but there is much more to the Aeonic model of history than that.

            The claim is absurd on the face of it, and the burden of proof falls on its adherents.

            Since a majority of the world believes in -- or utilizes to some degree -- the conception of Aeons, I disagree. Why is everyone but you messed up?

            You appear to suffer under the misconception that the Christian form of the Julian calendar is universal. I can assure you that such is not the case, and that most people living in the world are not even aware of it. Christianity is a minority religion in the world. The Jewish calendar, for instance, purports to date from the beginning of the world, not from some historic event that changed the world. The Chinese calendar simply dates from the invention of the calendar; before that, years marked the reigns of particular emperors. Dozens of different calendars are used in India.

            Dating from a significant year in the life of a prophet also appears, for instance in the Christian calendar, the Islamic calendar, and the Thelemic calendar. In these cases the dating is meant to assert a particular religious doctrine about the importance of that prophet.

            That particular label is only useful if you happen to believe that some particular transition happened in that year which would justify the demarcation.

            On the surface, this looks so reasonable, but hey "80's" music started in 1976. Even those who deny that Jesus ever existed utilize the modern calendar. Belief is secondary to usefulness.

            Well, if the claim were just that adoption of the language of a certain dogmatic system is sometimes useful in getting along with adherents of that system, then again I would have no argument. But again, the claim is much more than that. Dating from 1904 is supposed to be useful because of some real change in the spiritual nature of the world that supposedly happened then.

            Anyway, rather than proceed anymore with the topic of 'Paradigm' I refer you to your nearest dictionary for its definition -- a definition still valid if you consider Magick to be "the Science & Art".

            I'm well aware of both traditional dictionary definitions of "paradigm" and post-Kuhnian definitions. You have not provided any evidence for your claim of a quantum physical definition.

            As for Mordecai's work, how can I take seriously anything said by someone who thinks that enobling traits and behaviors are signs of idiocy (& yes I am paraphrasing).

            Hie thee to the shells, knave.

            Tim


            • Re: abuse of the term "paradigm"
              by Xnoubis on Monday July 30, @08:35PM
              > yes I am paraphrasing

              Can you back up that paraphrase with real quotations? Sharks are standing by.


              • Re: abuse of the term "paradigm"
                by nexist on Tuesday July 31, @08:28AM
                Easily. Merely go to any of the Thelemic Knight Threads (Order of Thelemic Knights and Compassion is the Vice of Kings) and you will find many examples.

                In particular, the second thread, 'Compassion..." contains an exchange where Mordecai challenged myself with:

                Could you provide a single quote where I "poo-poo" the idea of honor, much less "consistenetly" which would require at least two examples?


                To this I responded:

                First, I quote from the dictionary, to be chivalrous is to be "marked by honor, generosity, and courtesy". On the question of Chivalry and Honor you have said (& this is only on this thread & not counting the prior Thelemic Knights article):

                "I find this socially regressive and incompatible with Thelemic principles"

                "If you need the chivalric pretenses in order to motivate yourself"

                "All in all, I find the whole thing laughable, even if lip service is being paid to a few vague priinciples that almost no one would fail to endorse"

                Three would count, by your definition, as "consistently".


                To which Mordecai responded by equating Honor & Chivalry with various amounts of bloodshed and deceit. Please, read it for yourself.


                • Re: abuse of the term "paradigm"
                  by Mordecai on Tuesday July 31, @11:55AM
                  >To which Mordecai responded by equating Honor & Chivalry with various amounts
                  >of bloodshed and deceit. Please, read it for yourself.

                  People, please do read it! You'll see that I never said anything of the sort. I pointed out that "Honor" can be ranted about by people who don't possess any honor at all (as I see it). Hitler and Nixon come to mind in this respect. Often it is the people who most use these sort of platitudes whose actions are least in line with their words. As for "Chivalry" I did indeed point out that the term has lots of unpleasant historical baggage which this particular person then called irrelevant (I guess it is, to him).

                  What is really happening here is that this fellow had his feelings hurt by me calling his chivalric affectations silly. If he really had any chivalry, as he himself defines it, he either would have forebearingly ignored my comments or he would have disagreed politely. Instead he launched, and continues to launch, unfair ad hominem attacks based on what he must know are dishonest distortions of what I've written. Once again I ask people to read the thread themselves.


                  • Re: abuse of the term "paradigm"
                    by nexist on Tuesday July 31, @12:17PM
                    [In the Shells]




                    • Re: abuse of the term "paradigm"
                      by Mordecai on Tuesday July 31, @04:44PM
                      Hoist on his own petard!


                      • Re: abuse of the term "paradigm"
                        by Nexist on Tuesday July 31, @06:42PM
                        Hardly, evidently my prose for stating that you are being held accountable for your prior statements (no matter your desire for them to be respun) was deemed too colorful (a variation on sleeping in the bed you make).

                        However, I will reiterate the important portion:

                        I did find statements such as "chivalric pretenses" annoying. However, it is no more annoying than someone who characterizes Chivalry as being an anachronistic throwback to a brutal age & without any redeeming or redeemable value to define what chivalry is. It is much like being asked to take a mans statements about the nature of the heavens as correct when he postulates that the night sky is merely a dome 3 miles aboveour heads with little white dots painted on it.

                        "Remember that unbalanced force is evil; that unbalanced severity is but cruelty and oppression; but that also unbalanced mercy is but weakness which would allow and abet Evil. Act passionately; think rationally; be Thyself."



                        • Re: abuse of the term "paradigm"
                          by Mordecai on Tuesday July 31, @07:32PM
                          You should read little further: "The sin which is unpardonable is knowingly and wilfully to reject truth, to fear knowledge lest that knowledge pander not to thy prejudices."


                          • Re: abuse of the term "paradigm"
                            by Nexist on Tuesday July 31, @08:06PM
                            That is true, however it is far from certain that your words are truth.

                            What is meat to one is a poison to another.

                            Normally, I would not look for the stars in the mud, nor pigs in the sky. That does not mean I am "rejecting truth", merely that I am following conclusions drawn from a variety of past experiences.

                            I used to search every peice of nonsense for a kernel of truth. After years of wasting time in this manner, I discovered that the truth is contained in many places, & that if it is indeed truth, it will be someplace that anyone on a close approximation of their path will find.

                            If your words are "truth" that I am in need of reading, it will end up in my hands. It will also appear in a manner such that I do not have to compromise my sense of honor, code of conduct or moral structures.

                            I would rather draw a line, make a stand & risk being wrong, then founder about in impotent futility.

                            C'est la vie.


                            • Re: abuse of the term "paradigm"
                              by me on Wednesday August 01, @12:26PM
                              [In the Shells]



                              • Re: abuse of the term "paradigm"
                                by nexist on Wednesday August 01, @12:53PM
                                I have. Why don't you get out of the mud before it becomes impossible to catch up.

                                Or can you not do more than one thing at once?


                        • Re: abuse of the term "chivalry"
                          by why on Thursday August 02, @08:29AM
                          hey, wasn't this a different topic then the OTK?
                          I just wanted post 61 for some reason today.


                          • Re: abuse of the term "chivalry"
                            by nexist on Thursday August 02, @09:24AM
                            It was, & still is. We aren't discussing OTK. It is just that I am unaware of any threads other than the OTK threads which deal with Chivalry & its attendent concepts of Honor, Justice & Compassion -- thus they are the only threads to pull relevent information regarding peoples ideas about these concepts.

                            If there are other threads, please, let me know.


                            • Re: abuse of the term "chivalry"
                              by woof on Thursday August 02, @07:37PM
                              its not got the label "chivalry" but then there is the discussion about how to handle "CHUDs". Seems to me that subject would be relevant to any Knights available.


                              • Re: abuse of the term "chivalry"
                                by Nexist on Thursday August 02, @07:54PM
                                "CHUDs"?


            • Re: abuse of the term "paradigm"
              by nexist on Tuesday July 31, @08:56AM
              I repeat.
              I know, you've been repeating for many a year now. Assertion does not make fact.

              Nor does it address the utilitarian nature of my argument. Sure, I believe it is more than that, but I have taken great pains to find justifications based on 'certainty, not faith'. Thus, even if it is silly, the individual components of my paradigm can remain intact. I don't have to believe in the "Absolute" nature of Aeonic Progression, as it is useful to utilize Aeons in the classification of Socio-Political evolution (as per my previour post).

              Evidently you aren't used to such responses, as you have avoided responding to this aspect, preferring instead to harp upon the unprovable spiritual aspects -- i.e. the logically irrelevent aspects.

              Bear this in mind Tim, this is something I learned in beginning Logic class: In the absence of proof, it is as illogical to disbelieve as to believe. So please, stop wasting everyones time by screaming "God does not exist" (or any of the related unprovable assertions) and instead address those elements which are relevent (i.e. capable of being proven or disproven).

              You appear to suffer under the misconception that the Christian form of the Julian calendar is universal

              Really? You appear to suffer under the misconception that I am under this misconception. For your conveneince, here is what I actually said (I even bolded the important parts):

              our entire calendar, our method for keeping time (in the Western world)[...]Since a majority of the world believes in...

              Unfortunately, this renders that whole paragraph specious.

              In these cases the dating is meant to assert a particular religious doctrine about the importance of that prophet

              That is true. In Thelema's case, this is the reception of the Book of the Law -- the most significant event to the prophet To Mega Therion, and to any Thelemite.

              But again, the claim is much more than that

              True, but the other elements of the claim are unprovable, thus to argue that they are or are not valid is purely an excercize for the illogical fanatic attemptig to force their opinion on another.

              You have not provided any evidence for your claim of a quantum physical definition.

              Nor will I. If I still have the book, it is packed. Instead I will modify the sentence so that the phrase 'quantum physics' is replaced by 'science' -- I'll even reference Kuhn. However, I shan't get to worked up over it, as Quantum Physics is a Science, and it is hardly that important.

              Hie thee to the shells, knave.

              Aaaiiieeeee! Oh wait, I would have to be making a baseless slander for that. Fortunately my place in the sun is secure.


              • Re: abuse of the term "paradigm"
                by Fra THA;M on Tuesday July 31, @01:17PM
                A nice summation of Aeonics by equating it with socio-political evolution. It is a usefull and intelligent model. It must be frustrating to try and 'dumn it down' for puerile pedants with intellectual myopia.


                • Re: abuse of the term "paradigm"
                  by Nexist on Tuesday July 31, @07:00PM
                  Thank you. I truly appreciate the kind words.

                  If you liked that part, please feel free to read the rest and provide feedback, it is at http://www.thelema.drak.net/nexist/lam/index.html.

                  And again, thank you.


              • Re: abuse of the term "paradigm"
                by Tim Maroney on Tuesday July 31, @09:40PM
                Bear this in mind Tim, this is something I learned in beginning Logic class: In the absence of proof, it is as illogical to disbelieve as to believe.

                Well, if you got through a logic class without learning that the burden of proof is on the claimant, more power to you, I guess. I'm certainly not going to do better here than your teacher could.

                In these cases the dating is meant to assert a particular religious doctrine about the importance of that prophet.

                That is true. In Thelema's case, this is the reception of the Book of the Law -- the most significant event to the prophet To Mega Therion, and to any Thelemite.

                Your message doesn't say much else, but as I thanked the other poster, I'd like to thank you for saying this. You've both demonstrated that there exist false claimants to non-literalism who revert to the objective truth of the religious dogma when challenged.

                As for what is the most significant thing for any Thelemite, I would have to say that under any understanding I have of what it means to be a Thelemite, no one could determine that for another.

                (Besides, that must have been an awfully difficult prioritization for Thelemites living from 1532 to 1903!)

                Tim


                • Re: abuse of the term "paradigm"
                  by nexist on Wednesday August 01, @09:20AM
                  Well, if you got through a logic class without learning that the burden of proof is on the claimant

                  Perhaps you should reread those books on logic.

                  First, all items can be placed in one of too categories, provable & unprovable. The first catagory contains those items which are relevent to logical debate. The second, those which are irrelevent. Obviously the supra-rational (and even sub-rational) falls into the second catagory. This includes such things as God, the objective nature of Angels & Spirits, etc. No proof can be provided either for its existence or not. This does not render the assertion "True" or "False" (which are meaningless terms in Logic anyway -- logic prefers 'correct' & 'incorrect', it cannot establish truth, only what is logical). While it may feel good to browbeat others who have a different spiritual, ethical or moral understanding than yourself, ultimately your position is no more tenable than theirs.

                  Second, assuming that a debate on the non-logical aspects of the progression of Aeons is worth pursuing (that "something more" you mentioned), I have provided my "proof". It is now your turn to discount them -- unfortunately, you can't which is why you keep pretending that I haven't provided any reasons -- the nature ot the topics moves them out of any kind of logical discourse.

                  Third, this is also why I provided a rational basis for the utilization of Aeons as a colloquial structure. Unfortunately, that isn't as much fun as denouncing those of different beliefs, so you have steadfastly refused to discuss those points. C'est la vie, anyone familiar with your online persona should be more than used to such behaviors, behaviors pretty consistent for the past decade.

                  You've both demonstrated that there exist false claimants to non-literalism who revert to the objective truth of the religious dogma when challenged

                  You need to look no further than the mirror to find such.

                  How could we but demonstrate exactly that which you insist on seeing.

                  As for what is the most significant thing for any Thelemite, I would have to say that under any understanding I have of what it means to be a Thelemite, no one could determine that for another

                  Simply put,
                  Thelemite == One who has accepted the Law of Thelema

                  Law of Thelema == Doctrines, beliefs and even Dogmas arising from the work of Aleister Crowley, specifically Liber AL vel legis and the other Holy Books of Thelema.

                  I do differentiate between a Thelemite & one who is Thelemic. If you really care, I discuss this briefly in What is Thelema?

                  Besides, that must have been an awfully difficult prioritization for Thelemites living from 1532 to 1903

                  Fictional characters tend to not have problems with prioritization.


                • to slaves of the qlippoth...
                  by Fra THA;M on Wednesday August 01, @12:09PM
                  "but as I thanked the other poster, I'd like to thank you for saying this. You've both demonstrated that there exist false claimants to non-literalism who revert to the objective truth of the religious dogma"

                  In trying to wade through the foetid miasma I personally find your ponderous writings to be, I can only assume this refers to me. Desit putting blatantly false words in my mouth. I loudly object to you professing any knowledge of philosophy or claims to learned insight, when you possess a deficit of knowledge regarding both of these subjects. I seem always forced to chastise and correct you, rather than enter a productive dialogue. One, your knowledge of philosophy isn't sound. You continually rely on rhetoric and sophistry, you present 'a priori' assumptions as factual, and mistake lack of evidence presented by opposing views as a proof for your view. You constantly take peoples words out of context, and make poor reconstructions of their intents in an attempt and fortify your impotent arguements. I don't know who you beleive that you are, but it isn't impressive to read fallatious and inflated pseudo-intellectual drivel.


            • Re: abuse of the term "paradigm"
              by Cameron on Wednesday August 01, @04:39PM
              Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law,

              There is no burden of proof on those who disbelieve

              As far as I understand this is only true within *some* normative frameworks of dialectic. Disbelief is as much an assertion of truth as belief is and must also be supported by sound inference. There is a third option, however (and this may be what you are referring to), that does not need sustain a burden of proof: ignorance.


              Love is the law, love under will,
              Cameron


              • Re: abuse of the term "paradigm"
                by Mordecai on Wednesday August 01, @07:36PM
                >There is a third option, however (and this may be what you are referring to),
                >that does not need sustain a burden of proof: ignorance.

                There is another option as well, suspension of judgment. But I don't suppose that would occur to most "Thelemites".


          • Re: abuse of the term "paradigm"
            by Mordecai on Monday July 30, @11:30PM
            >As for Mordecai's work, how can I take seriously anything said by someone who thinks
            >that enobling traits and behaviors are signs of idiocy (& yes I am paraphrasing).

            If by "paraphrasing" you mean dishonorably misrepresenting I'd have to agree. Do you always use your disagreement with one thing someone said as an excuse for not taking anything they say seriously? That's seems like incredible intellectual dishonesty to me.


            • Re: abuse of the term "paradigm"
              by nexist on Tuesday July 31, @09:30AM
              Actually, by paraphrasing I meant not quoting the specific examples because they are spread out over several paragraphs. I have pulled my previous response to this issue in my response to Xnoubis.

              Since I equate Honor with Spiritual understanding, people who despise Honor -- to the point of vehemently attacking those who are working to be honorable -- are thus spiritually void. Their work on the nature of the spirit or the soul is worthless -- the incomprehensible & worthless mewlings of the spiritually stunted. All to often, their work is merely a method for stunting the growth of those around them so as to allow them to pretend some stature.

              Your exact rating on theis scale is undetermined, but currently I am in no great desire to expose myself to your work.


              • Re: abuse of the term "paradigm"
                by Mordecai on Tuesday July 31, @12:01PM
                And I have no great desire to have my work exposed to your egregious misreading. It would be nice, however, if you avoided criticizing what you haven't even read.


                • Re: abuse of the term "paradigm"
                  by nexist on Tuesday July 31, @12:20PM
                  When did I criticize your "work"?

                  I specifically state that I have not read you work. All criticism has been directed toward publicly revealed statements and dialogues.

                  Therefore I am more than glad to be nice, since it is a continuation of prior behavior.


                  • Re: abuse of the term "paradigm"
                    by Mordecai on Tuesday July 31, @04:42PM
                    In this very thread you say "As for Mordecai's work, how can I take seriously anything said by someone ... " If saying you can't take something you haven't read seriously isn't a criticism I don't know what is. It's also blind prejudice unworthy of someone who has presumably studied "The Book of the Balance".


                    • Re: abuse of the term "paradigm"
                      by Nexist on Tuesday July 31, @07:06PM
                      No, it is a criticism of you, not your work. With your work I am unfamiliar. With you I am becoming all too familiar.

                      As for the bait at the end, it hardly warrants any more comment than I am providing.

                      Since the Librae teaches methods of improvement, thus methods of living & interacting honorably, I am afraid that I must also dismiss your statements regarding that.

                      To continue further would be to engage in "flaming", even though I could back it all up with quotes from your various posts, so I will drop it for now.


                      • Re: abuse of the term "paradigm"
                        by Xnoubis on Tuesday July 31, @07:27PM
                        Critique every semicolon, if you like. Just lay off the insults.


                        • Re: abuse of the term "paradigm"
                          by Mordecai on Tuesday July 31, @07:39PM
                          As he is able to say. "Assertion does not make fact." to someone else, but never tires of claiming his own assertions as fact, it seems that engaging with him directly is pointless.


                          • Re: abuse of the term "paradigm"
                            by Nexist on Tuesday July 31, @08:11PM
                            Actually I tend to say "mere assertion does not make it fact". If you assert something & provide details supporting said assertion, then I would address those details. That statement usually occurs due to the dearth of facts accompanying the statements, making a rebuttal difficult.

                            <sigh>


                        • Re: abuse of the term "paradigm"
                          by Nexist on Tuesday July 31, @07:58PM
                          I did. I just thought that it sounded incomplete. However, I am unsure that I actually have engaged in insults.


        • Re: abuse of the term "paradigm"
          by nexist on Wednesday August 01, @09:58AM
          You claim in the linked page that "paradigm" is a term from quantum physics [...] The actual source of the term in modern use is, as already noted, Thomas Kuhn, in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

          Actually, the 'modern usage' is not some radical redefinition of its original. Rather the usage in the 15th century was that of a "Pattern or Example" (Merriam-Webster).


          • Re: abuse of the term "paradigm"
            by nexist on Wednesday August 01, @10:04AM
            Whoops, I meant to hit cancel. As I read more on Kuhn, the more I realize how he is being manipulated.

            Kuhn is responsible for the current usage of Paradigm as "which he described as essentially a collection of beliefs shared by scientists, a set of agreements about how problems are to be understood".


    • Re: Milestones of the Aeon
      by Xnoubis on Monday July 30, @08:23PM
      If there were at least some internal debate on the subject I'd feel much more comfortable.

      It seems to me like we've had an enormous amount of debate on the subject in previous articles about the Aeons. I had thought that by leaving the definition of the Aeon open, we could express a variety of views on it. If for some the doctrine is gospel, how do they see it operating in history? If it's a guiding mythology, how can events be framed in the myth's context? If it seems like Santa Claus -- and one doesn't believe in Santa Claus -- one could still discuss what the names of his elves might be.

      I think I'm seeing it roughly from GM's view, without the use of the word "paradigm": it is only a perspective.

      I use the term "Aeon" a lot because I value the aspect of Thelema as a collective mission. I know not everyone does; I believe that's one of the differences between Mordecai's take on Thelema and my own, for example. But I'm not a literalist on the subject at all. My current model, as I wrote in Crowley and Spiral Dynamics and Shades of Aeons, is that the shifting of Aeons represents the shifting of value-systems. This separates the Aeons from the calendar, makes the sequence of the Aeons different for each individual, and implies that the sequence can go out of order or backwards, although there tends to be a specific developmental sequence.

      I've noticed that I haven't persuaded many people by this model, but that's okay. It's still working for me so far.


      • Re: Milestones of the Aeon
        by Fra THA;M on Tuesday July 31, @01:23PM
        "the shifting of Aeons represents the shifting of value-systems"

        Couldn't have said it better. The shifting of value systems, the shifting of political thought, the shifting of aesthetic though, it's all connected.


    • Re: Milestones of the Aeon
      by Cameron on Wednesday August 01, @03:44PM
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law,

      I have to agree. The concept of Aeon as a finite period of time is a complete bastardization (and may I say inversion) of the original (Hermetic) concept of Aeon as 'eternity' defined by the founding document of the Hermetic tradition, 'The Corpus Hermeticum' (part XI in particular). In fact I think that Horus as Aeon proper may merely be a reformulation (and a redundant one) of the Mithraic cult of Aeon (the lion-headed, eagle-winged figure with a human body entwined by a serpent). The only possible change in time or 'Aeonic' paradigm that I am aware of is that at one point the vernal equinox took place in Taurus while it now takes place in Ares (due to the alternation of the poles, something Crowley was well aware of). This is interesting considering the word 'Abraxas' may have been derived from 'Abir' (bull) and 'Axis' (pole). Also, according to GRS Mead, Abraxas (the 'year' God) is none other than the lion-headed Aeon (though he is often portrayed with the head of a rooster or hawk). Abraxas, of course, is intimately connected with the word 'abrasadabra'. Otherwise, does not Mind say unto Heremes "Trancend all time; become Aeon and shalt thou know God"?


      Love is the law, love under will,
      Cameron


    Re: Milestones of the Aeon
    by jazzcat goodshiplollypop on Saturday July 28, @11:12PM
    ...as per the above withering reflection, on Aeonic efluviums, or shapeshifer historical accordians, or dis-discourse, or folding
    philosophical floating moveable feasts, or
    paranoid critical hyperobject hyper-text
    or the crytstal ball at the end of it all
    that Madamn Blavatsky ushered in the kali-kitsche
    shelf of oval-avatars and gibbering jehovas
    and portable medium knocks knocks, and various
    kafkaesque metamorphosis disnyland Machiavelian
    Lovecraftian new world orders of big mac autonomous
    psychic objects, that appear suddenly and anounce
    aeon automatic apparitions anarchy, and the creator sharks of Maldoror, as per the
    antideluvian floods of Rimdaud,

    or the serpentine sewer symphonys that taost ghosty. of our blue print for underground hells
    where DeSade deflowers a hand maiden head
    every hour on the hour to celebrate the
    progression of the idea of personal revolution
    unfolding scrolls in delerious dungeons of marvels
    alchemic coronation of the apprearance of the
    bleeding virgen, and the unidentified flying
    dildo, accompanied by the rapacious rapscallion
    anti-self, the bouncing baby buddha, and Shiva
    the destroyer, on a good day, Om Shamana,
    I am the AEon through the two-way mirror
    for i dare compare a peach to a plum, MUM

    Re: Milestones of the Aeon
    by John on Saturday August 11, @05:50AM
    Hi!

    The 'War Machine' seems to have been the German Wehrmacht.

    What great things have happened? The fall of the Iron Curtain, the establishment of the EU, people living it up in the north, people starving it down in the south, erm, a few wars, a few massacres, the spectre of 'ethnic cleansing', the establishment of a virtual reality ('The Media'), etc.

    And the fact I have to go crap.

    Re: Milestones of the Aeon
    by Lurelurken on Thursday August 16, @06:59AM
    Everyone who have sincerely believed themselves to be the re-incarnation of Aleister Crowley, please raise your hands!

    • Re: Milestones of the Aeon
      by Parlertriks on Thursday August 16, @08:59AM
      ain't we all?



     
    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 ]