Runes? Eihwaz/Aiwaz

Q&A and discussion on ceremonial magick

Moderator: Moderators - Public

Runes? Eihwaz/Aiwaz

Postby redd fezz » Tue Jul 04, 2006 11:34 am

It seems like Crowley had almost nothing to do with runes, which I find somewhat surprising. Is there anything he ever wrote in reference to runes?
Last edited by redd fezz on Tue Jul 04, 2006 1:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
redd fezz
Ultimate Spark of the Intimate Fire
Ultimate Spark of the Intimate Fire
 
Posts: 531
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 9:25 pm
Location: ah, feels good be back home again

Postby redd fezz » Tue Jul 04, 2006 1:10 pm

I know I've read his mention of Thor's hammer (swastika) and probably the cross, but that's about it.

He may have mentioned the similarity in sound of eihwaz to Aiwaz, but that might be my imagination.

However, something really interesting I just realized. The 60's were obviously Crowley's predictions in The Book of The Law manifesting into reality (drugs, freedom of the individual, free sex, etc.).

The most popular symbol of that time was the peace symbol. And notice the similarity to alternate forms of <b>eihwaz</b> and elhaz:

Image
Image

According to Edred Thorrson/Stephen Flowers (who some claim is an authority, others claim is full of it), Eihwaz means "tree of life and death" and Elhaz means "protection from harm." All in all, not a bad symbol for peace during a period of war and social unrest.
Last edited by redd fezz on Wed Jul 05, 2006 3:58 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
redd fezz
Ultimate Spark of the Intimate Fire
Ultimate Spark of the Intimate Fire
 
Posts: 531
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 9:25 pm
Location: ah, feels good be back home again

Postby redd fezz » Tue Jul 04, 2006 2:04 pm

Here is some of the ideas I just posted to Thelema93-I yahoogroup (in case any of you belong to this group, you know it's me)... but I have edited it ever-so-slightly here:

--- In thelema93-l@yahoogroups.com, KDetal@... wrote:
>
> So was Aiwass really the Eihwaz and Ehwaz of the germanic runes?

(someone else noticed the similarity, too!)

Well, the peace sign of the 60's looks remarkably like both Rune variants and the 60's were definitely the predictions of the Book of The Law manifesting into reality: freedom of the individual, drugs, sex, not to mention religious, familial and political revolution...

Crowley advocated in his commentary "The Law is For All" the destruction of Jew, Protestant and Catholic. It seems possible that the Pagan Runes might be a natural Thelemic form of magick, since the history of the Runes implies ACTION and WILLPOWER not "spelling" and, as Crowley states also in "the Law is For All," the New Aeon is a time for action, the old ways of spells-spelling-words are now DEFUNCT. Runes were primarily incommunicable ideas before they were eventually turned into letter forms representing sounds and eventually words, due to Latin influence around 2 C.E. or thereabouts which developed into "galdrar". So, they were not as much letters, like the Hebrew and Greek alphabets, as much as hieroglyphs of inexpressable ideas only realized in Hel/Death.

Crowley also was for a time eagerly taking meetings with Hitler and one of his students tried to get Hitler to accept Liber Legis. Hitler of course attempted to "purify" his land and people with a reconstruction of Pagan ideas using primarily the magic of the Runes and even went so far as to teach Nazi soldiers the meaning of each Rune in special classes. It was not only a political movement, but a religious movement.

I am new to this group (this is my first post), but it is interesting that this group is currently discussing Crowley and racism, which is a topic I came here precisely to learn more about! I look forward to learning from people more experienced with Thelemic research than me. I am not a racist and I understand that Crowley was in many ways LESS bigoted than a great many people in his time.

As interesting as these ideas are to me, I notice Crowley rarely talked about Runes at all. His magick was based around Egyptian culture, Hebrew and Greek Qabalah and Eastern mysticism. But, perhaps he saw the future of magick a return to the sort of Pagan magic found in the Runes, since, as he stated, he was quite sick of the Jews and the Christians (or, at least, their beliefs and morals).
Last edited by redd fezz on Wed Jul 05, 2006 4:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
redd fezz
Ultimate Spark of the Intimate Fire
Ultimate Spark of the Intimate Fire
 
Posts: 531
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 9:25 pm
Location: ah, feels good be back home again

Postby jmiller » Tue Jul 04, 2006 4:24 pm

Redd Fezz wrote:The most popular symbol of that time was the peace symbol. And notice the similarity to alternate forms of <b>eihwaz</b> and elwaz:


I can't see the images you tried to post. However, Algiz (your Elwaz?), not Eihwaz, looks like an upside peace sign.

Redd Fezz wrote:According to Edred Thorrson/Stephen Flowers (who some claim is an authority, others claim is full of it), Eihwaz means "tree of life and death" and Elwaz means "protection from harm." All in all, not a bad symbol for peace during a period of war and social unrest.


Crowley, if he knew anything about runes might only have known something like the following about Eihwaz:

"Yew (Eihwaz) is a rough tree on the outside, firm and fast in the earth, the guardian of fire, supported by its roots joyously on the estate."
- a probably not so good translation from the Anglo-Saxon rune poem

But who knows what sorts of ideas he could've gotten from the German pagan psuedo-revivalists at the time... if he knew about them at all. But I don't think they included Eihwaz in their "Armanen" runes that Guido von List came up with. He wrote about a racialized version of Germanic paganism infused with Theosophical ideas. He came up with a modified rune alphabet while in a trance, supposedly.
jmiller
Gold Member
Gold Member
 
Posts: 149
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:06 am

Postby redd fezz » Tue Jul 04, 2006 4:36 pm

sasha wrote:I can't see the images you tried to post. However, Algiz (your Elwaz?), not Eihwaz, looks like an upside peace sign.


I messed up on the spelling of that one: Elhaz is the upside down peace sign (your Algiz), but Eihwaz (also, iwaz or eiwas) is a rightside-up peace sign! Other variants are an "s" looking symbol, a vertical slash and a 3-line asterisk as seen on the side of ambulances. This is from the research of Flowers/Thorsson who seems to be the modern-day authority on this stuff.

If Aleister wasn't familiar with the Runes, I wonder how familiar Aiwaz was with them.
User avatar
redd fezz
Ultimate Spark of the Intimate Fire
Ultimate Spark of the Intimate Fire
 
Posts: 531
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 9:25 pm
Location: ah, feels good be back home again

Postby jmiller » Tue Jul 04, 2006 5:05 pm

Redd Fezz wrote:but Eihwaz (also, iwaz or eiwas) is a rightside-up peace sign! Other variants are an "s" looking symbol, a vertical slash and a 3-line asterisk as seen on the side of ambulances.


I looked up my sources on that, including Flowers, but I don't see your variant of Eihwaz. But I did then recall the use of the right-side-up peace sing looking rune, but it appears as an added letter to the Anglo-Saxon runes and as an R-sound (I think) in the Younger Futhark. Where did you see this as the symbol of Eihwaz?

Redd Fezz wrote:This is from the research of Flowers/Thorsson who seems to be the modern-day authority on this stuff.


What is? The interpretation of Eihwaz that you gave? I don't know exactly what you intended with the use of that link, but, even if Flowers, or anyone else, could travel back in time and ask the ancient Germans what the symbols meant, that wouldn't mean that Crowley would have had access to that particular meaning. And, regardless, so little text exists about the runes, so Flowers had to develop much of the interpretation on his own. Either way, Crowley wouldn't have had access to those meanings, unless I am mistaken in my understanding that List did not include this rune in his system, thus possibly providing interpretations (certainly ahistorical ones) that Crowley could have accessed.
jmiller
Gold Member
Gold Member
 
Posts: 149
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:06 am

Postby redd fezz » Tue Jul 04, 2006 6:09 pm

Sorry for any confusion due to my brevity, Sasha. For some reason, my computer is acting anything BUT hi-speed and it's interfering with my ability to post coherently because everything is going so slow, I'm rushing to respond.

sasha wrote:I looked up my sources on that, including Flowers, but I don't see your variant of Eihwaz.


I am referring to "Futhark" by Edred Thorsson (which is a pen name of Stephen Flowers), pg. 6 (last paragraph) and pg. 44, #13, Eihwaz. Look at the Alternate forms. However, pg. 9 confirms you are correct: the upside-down "peace sign" is the only version in the Elder Futhark. The right-side up "peace sign" first appears in the Younger Futhark. This alternate only applies to Eiwaz and Elhaz while the upside-down "peace sign" also applies to Mannaz, which Thorsson indicates as "divine ancestor" or "sky father."

sasha wrote:
Redd Fezz wrote:This is from the research of Flowers/Thorsson who seems to be the modern-day authority on this stuff.


What is? The interpretation of Eihwaz that you gave? I don't know exactly what you intended with the use of that link, but, even if Flowers, or anyone else, could travel back in time and ask the ancient Germans what the symbols meant, that wouldn't mean that Crowley would have had access to that particular meaning. And, regardless, so little text exists about the runes, so Flowers had to develop much of the interpretation on his own. Either way, Crowley wouldn't have had access to those meanings, unless I am mistaken in my understanding that List did not include this rune in his system, thus possibly providing interpretations (certainly ahistorical ones) that Crowley could have accessed.


Yes, I suppose I was referring to the interpretation, although it is a very brief one, but primarily I was just referring to the Rune itself, "Eihwaz," which is phonetically the same as Aiwaz as far as I can tell.

Since the idea of the Runes is that they are transpersonal and beyond words, received by conceptual flashes of inspiration or through an experience I am tempted to call "gnosis," despite perhaps anachronistic or improper use of the term (no doubt "Asatru purists" would object), these symbols represent ideas of form and energy, therefore, it wouldn't matter whether or not Flowers or List had expressed these interpretations of Eihwaz, but only if Aleister glimpsed them himself. Or if they were communicated to him by Aiwaz. I think the whole point of Thorsson's book is to work with the Runes and receive the knowledge first-hand by experience. You'll notice all his interpretations are one-liners and the commentary is very bare-bones. Not a lot of meat there!
User avatar
redd fezz
Ultimate Spark of the Intimate Fire
Ultimate Spark of the Intimate Fire
 
Posts: 531
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 9:25 pm
Location: ah, feels good be back home again

Postby redd fezz » Thu Jul 06, 2006 9:43 am

I have just discovered that Stephen Flowers is not a reliable source, his PhD is a sham, basically, and most of his ideas can only be traced back to about the 1800's Germany.

This includes his guessed at "proto-Germanic" preferred names of the Elder Futhark.

In other words, "Eihwaz" is not the real name of this rune and I wouldn't trust a thing Flowers/Thorsson says at this point. Jan Fries is an author that deliberately gives a Thelemic bent to the runes -- his book, "helrunar" opens with "Do what thout wilt," etc. But, for all I know, he got his ideas from this "authority, " Mr. Stephen Flowers/Edred Thorsson.

In conclusion: lock/delete thread (your call). This is a waste of brainpower.
User avatar
redd fezz
Ultimate Spark of the Intimate Fire
Ultimate Spark of the Intimate Fire
 
Posts: 531
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 9:25 pm
Location: ah, feels good be back home again

Postby jmiller » Thu Jul 06, 2006 10:02 am

Redd Fezz wrote:I have just discovered that Stephen Flowers is not a reliable source, his PhD is a sham, basically, and most of his ideas can only be traced back to about the 1800's Germany.


Do have any reason to view your source about the "sham" as anymore reliable than your previous source? Even if not, you still have to deal with the limitations of his interpretations.

If you want a "real" interpretation of the runes, then you only have one thing to do. Get some decent translations of the various Norse and Anglo-Saxon rune poems and use them as the basis for you interpretations. Also, read the Norse Eddas. Some of them might give some hints about the use of runes.

I also highly recommend that you read The Well and the Tree: World and Time in Early Germanic Culture by Paul C. Bauschatz. It's out of print, but you can probably find it in a university library or through interlibrary loan. He gives a great explanation of the very distinct way in which ancient Germans understood time and space. Mind blowing.
jmiller
Gold Member
Gold Member
 
Posts: 149
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:06 am

Postby DavidH » Thu Jul 06, 2006 10:06 am

Redd Fezz wrote:I have just discovered that Stephen Flowers is not a reliable source, his PhD is a sham, basically, and most of his ideas can only be traced back to about the 1800's Germany.



In case you didn't know, Flower's primary esoteric training is from his decades in Aquino's Temple of Set where he is a "magus." If there ever was a school of black brothers in the making, it is them.
In LVX,
David

"Remember all ye that existence is pure joy; that all the sorrows are but as shadows; they pass & are done; but there is that which remains."
Liber L - II, 9
93 93/93
User avatar
DavidH
Stone of Precious Water
Stone of Precious Water
 
Posts: 329
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 8:16 am
Location: CA

Postby redd fezz » Thu Jul 06, 2006 10:28 am

sasha wrote:
Redd Fezz wrote:I have just discovered that Stephen Flowers is not a reliable source, his PhD is a sham, basically, and most of his ideas can only be traced back to about the 1800's Germany.


Do have any reason to view your source about the "sham" as anymore reliable than your previous source?


Yes, big reason.
User avatar
redd fezz
Ultimate Spark of the Intimate Fire
Ultimate Spark of the Intimate Fire
 
Posts: 531
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 9:25 pm
Location: ah, feels good be back home again

Postby redd fezz » Thu Jul 06, 2006 10:30 am

DavidH wrote:
Redd Fezz wrote:I have just discovered that Stephen Flowers is not a reliable source, his PhD is a sham, basically, and most of his ideas can only be traced back to about the 1800's Germany.



In case you didn't know, Flower's primary esoteric training is from his decades in Aquino's Temple of Set where he is a "magus." If there ever was a school of black brothers in the making, it is them.


Haha, one of Edred's old housemates and still a current friend of his told me he thinks "lying is a part of their religion."
User avatar
redd fezz
Ultimate Spark of the Intimate Fire
Ultimate Spark of the Intimate Fire
 
Posts: 531
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 9:25 pm
Location: ah, feels good be back home again

Postby DavidH » Thu Jul 06, 2006 11:41 am

Yes, and they practice something they term "Lesser Black Magic" which is the manipulation of another's will to serve their purposes. Basically Brain washing long term, or mental manipulation for short term. Aquino was a psyops specialist in the Army, specializing in control of foreign countries by psycholgical warfare. But maybe this is off topic now! :shock:
In LVX,
David

"Remember all ye that existence is pure joy; that all the sorrows are but as shadows; they pass & are done; but there is that which remains."
Liber L - II, 9
93 93/93
User avatar
DavidH
Stone of Precious Water
Stone of Precious Water
 
Posts: 329
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 8:16 am
Location: CA

REBORN TOPIC

Postby redd fezz » Fri Jul 07, 2006 4:12 am

Well, now, the moderator at Thelema93-list has brought up a good point:

T93-L Moderator wrote:
Redd Fezz wrote:"I guess there's not enough evidence to really suggest
# Aiwaz = Eihwaz
# (especially since I just recently found out "Eihwaz" is
# from
# a reconstructed proto-Germanic language and not
# authentic).


like Hadit? exhibit 666? unedited scripture?
all very excellent topic focus in-list should
you desire to broach them.


He brings up some interesting points about Hadit and the 666 exhibit. I guess maybe I was vaguely thinking along these lines initially and lost track of it... Aiwaz was a master manipulator and he DID seem to indicate the birthing of the New Aeon would be bloody... and both WWII and the 60's could be considered the "bloody beginnings."

I wish I knew where to begin with that one. I'm not the only one to have made the connection, obviously, since I was responding to an old post on the the Thelema93 List where someone asked, "So, is Aiwaz really Eihwaz?" An author named Jan Fries has taken a very Thelemic attitude toward the Runes. If Crowley was so against the attitudes and morals of the Abrahamic religions, it does seem logical that the Rune culture, notoriously self-reliant, bold and people-based, WILL power-based, and absolutely Heathen and Anti-Christ would make a natural "fit" for Crowley's vision of Thelema.

What do you think? Jim?
User avatar
redd fezz
Ultimate Spark of the Intimate Fire
Ultimate Spark of the Intimate Fire
 
Posts: 531
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 9:25 pm
Location: ah, feels good be back home again

Postby redd fezz » Fri Jul 07, 2006 6:57 am

Why not?
User avatar
redd fezz
Ultimate Spark of the Intimate Fire
Ultimate Spark of the Intimate Fire
 
Posts: 531
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 9:25 pm
Location: ah, feels good be back home again

Postby redd fezz » Fri Jul 07, 2006 8:01 am

OK, just thought there might be a reason because the disinterest you expressed with such finality struck me as repulsion due to previous experience/understanding of the runes.

There's a lot of things I'm not interested in, too. So, I understand your feeling. You're just... not interested!
User avatar
redd fezz
Ultimate Spark of the Intimate Fire
Ultimate Spark of the Intimate Fire
 
Posts: 531
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 9:25 pm
Location: ah, feels good be back home again

Postby BlackSun9 » Mon Jul 10, 2006 7:24 am

Redd Fezz wrote:I have just discovered that Stephen Flowers is not a reliable source, his PhD is a sham, basically, and most of his ideas can only be traced back to about the 1800's Germany.


Not true. He earned his PhD for a study titled _Runes and Magic_ from the Germanic Studies Department at the University of Texas at Austin, which was and is still one of the top Germanic Studies deparmtents in the US. As you are in NYC, you can find a copy of his dissertation in the Columbia Library if you're interested. The section on the so-called "Semiotic Theory of Magic" is most interesting even if you aren't terribly interested in Runes.

This includes his guessed at "proto-Germanic" preferred names of the Elder Futhark.


Those aren't his guesses but rather the common reconstruction used by Linguists for determining the hypothesised "Proto-Germanic" language from which all alter Germanic languages descend.


In conclusion: lock/delete thread (your call). This is a waste of brainpower.


No reason to lock or delete it.

To answer your original question, no Crowley never wrote on the topic of the Runes, either any of the three traditions or the late 19th Century syncratic Armanen tradition. His exposure to the Runes was likely minimal as he had no connections with the Ariosophic groups influences by Guido von List active in Germany during his life time nor was he much of a reader in German by his own admission.

There is no connection between Aiwass and the rune known as Eihwaz, either factually or magically. Speculation along those lines will yeild only subjective interpretations of little transpersonal value.
BlackSun9
Copper Member
Copper Member
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 12:53 pm
Location: NYC

Postby redd fezz » Mon Jul 10, 2006 7:51 am

BlackSun9 wrote:
Redd Fezz wrote:I have just discovered that Stephen Flowers is not a reliable source, his PhD is a sham, basically, and most of his ideas can only be traced back to about the 1800's Germany.


Not true. He earned his PhD for a study titled _Runes and Magic_ from the Germanic Studies Department at the University of Texas at Austin, which was and is still one of the top Germanic Studies deparmtents in the US.


His work is not accepted by scholars and established experts in the field. You may find a copy of his study, but he has declined to publish his PhD. This is because, I've been told by a friend of his, when he obtained that PhD in "Germanic Philology" there were no experts. His professor awarded it on the "strength of its depth" alone. Not it's content (which he didn't understand).

BlackSun9 wrote:
This includes his guessed at "proto-Germanic" preferred names of the Elder Futhark.


Those aren't his guesses but rather the common reconstruction used by Linguists for determining the hypothesised "Proto-Germanic" language from which all alter Germanic languages descend.


First appeared in a 1930-something book and have no official authority other than it became common to use these names. Just because it's commonly accepted "knowledge", doesn't mean it's true, as the case of Paul Revere shows. ;)


BlackSun9 wrote:To answer your original question, no Crowley never wrote on the topic of the Runes, either any of the three traditions or the late 19th Century syncratic Armanen tradition. His exposure to the Runes was likely minimal as he had no connections with the Ariosophic groups influences by Guido von List active in Germany during his life time nor was he much of a reader in German by his own admission.

There is no connection between Aiwass and the rune known as Eihwaz, either factually or magically. Speculation along those lines will yeild only subjective interpretations of little transpersonal value.


As the moderator of Thelema93-list said, when I mentioned "Eihwaz" was not "authentic,":

"like Hadit? exhibit 666? unedited scripture?"

He makes a good point. Have you bothered to speculate, meditate or anything else along these lines or might you be jumping the gun about "transpersonal value?"
User avatar
redd fezz
Ultimate Spark of the Intimate Fire
Ultimate Spark of the Intimate Fire
 
Posts: 531
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 9:25 pm
Location: ah, feels good be back home again


Return to Magick

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

cron