Heru-Ra-Ha, Ra-Hoor-Khuit, Hoor-Paar-Kraat, and Horus

Q&A and discussion on the world view encapsulating humanity's current stage of evolution

Moderator: Moderators - Public

Re: Heru-Ra-Ha, Ra-Hoor-Khuit, Hoor-Paar-Kraat, and Horus

Postby Los » Fri Aug 30, 2013 3:57 pm

Legis wrote:
Los wrote:What "questionable presupposition" do you think that I hold[?]

Demonstrate self-awareness and state your presuppositions yourself.

See? Even you don't know what you meant.
Los
Ultimate Spark of the Intimate Fire
Ultimate Spark of the Intimate Fire
 
Posts: 552
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2013 8:54 pm

Re: Heru-Ra-Ha, Ra-Hoor-Khuit, Hoor-Paar-Kraat, and Horus

Postby David S » Fri Aug 30, 2013 4:04 pm

*YAWN*
"But all we say and do, however casually, adds up to more, far more, than our most strenuous Operations. 'Take care of the pence, and the pounds will take care of themselves.'" - Commentaries of AL
User avatar
David S
Stone of Precious Water
Stone of Precious Water
 
Posts: 211
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 11:06 pm
Location: Redondo Beach, CA

Re: Heru-Ra-Ha, Ra-Hoor-Khuit, Hoor-Paar-Kraat, and Horus

Postby Frater 639 » Fri Aug 30, 2013 4:09 pm

Well, going back to the original topic, as discussed earlier:

Ra-Hoor-Khuit - the "active principle".
Hoor-Paar-Kraat - the "passive principle".

In my experience, these "principles" can be displayed as atavistic behavior when they become imbalanced (lacking adjustment). Does anybody agree with this? Does anybody want to discuss, from their own experience, what these behaviors may look like when there is an "active principle" imbalance?
Frater 639
Ultimate Spark of the Intimate Fire
Ultimate Spark of the Intimate Fire
 
Posts: 461
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 11:08 am

Re: Heru-Ra-Ha, Ra-Hoor-Khuit, Hoor-Paar-Kraat, and Horus

Postby Jim Eshelman » Fri Aug 30, 2013 4:13 pm

FWIW, I've tended, in recent years, to move away from "passive" as the description, and adopt "still."

IMHO the Twins are referenced in the phrase, "stir me or still me". They are movement (or stirring) and stillness. (And yes, of course, these both have atavistic expressions just as they can have inspired - and inspiring - expressions.)
Love is the law, love under will.
Yours in L.V.X.,
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com
"Success is thy proof: argue not; convert not; talk not overmuch!" - CCXX 3:42
User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Lost His Marbles
 
Posts: 9585
Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 1:41 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: Heru-Ra-Ha, Ra-Hoor-Khuit, Hoor-Paar-Kraat, and Horus

Postby Frater 639 » Fri Aug 30, 2013 4:16 pm

Jim Eshelman wrote:(And yes, of course, these both have atavistic expressions just as they can have inspired - and inspiring - expressions.)


:lol:

Thanks for the laugh, Jim. You knew exactly what I was trying to say.

I agree completely.
Frater 639
Ultimate Spark of the Intimate Fire
Ultimate Spark of the Intimate Fire
 
Posts: 461
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 11:08 am

Re: Heru-Ra-Ha, Ra-Hoor-Khuit, Hoor-Paar-Kraat, and Horus

Postby oldfriend56 » Fri Aug 30, 2013 4:35 pm

I kinda missed Los :)

Los wrote:I said that materialists don't have a belief that the material world is all there is. They lack certain kinds of beliefs.

Surely materialists believe that all phenomenon in the universe is explainable by physics and chemistry, no?

Surely materialists also believe that 'minds' are brains and minds are nothing more than brain activity, no?

Surely materialists believe that only humans, and perhaps some animals, have consciousness, and things like planets, stars, rocks, oceans have no consciousness, correct?


It's not beliefs that is holding this subject of materialists up, it's quite confusing it.

Materialists have *assumptions* about the material world that they dare not assume for anything else.
oldfriend56
Stone of Precious Water
Stone of Precious Water
 
Posts: 258
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 7:25 am

Re: Heru-Ra-Ha, Ra-Hoor-Khuit, Hoor-Paar-Kraat, and Horus

Postby Hermitas » Fri Aug 30, 2013 4:47 pm

Los wrote:
Legis wrote:
Los wrote:What "questionable presupposition" do you think that I hold[?]


Demonstrate self-awareness and state your presuppositions yourself.


See? Even you don't know what you meant.


How familiar is this game though...?

"You think [this]"
"I didn't say that."
"It's inherent to your thinking."
"That's the Los in your head."

I know you know how to defend yourself in debate, and I have no interest in playing "talking points" and going through those same moves with you again.

The question is - are you actually aware enough of your own presuppositions to attempt to consider them objectively and own them as choices instead of certainties?

I doubt that you are, otherwise you'd be a little more tolerant of other choices.

Well, either you aren't aware of your presuppositions, or you're hedging on them in order to maintain your debate position. Either way, I got no respect for it.

Anyway..., between the hypocritical Peanut Gallery (whom I've watched behave in this exact same manner on this day or that) and the falsely sincere Inquisitor (who likes to act all open for discussion while keeping his friends notified about all the supposed crazy talk), I'm just not feeling it anymore.
User avatar
Hermitas
Nothing
Nothing
 
Posts: 1167
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2013 1:49 am

Re: Heru-Ra-Ha, Ra-Hoor-Khuit, Hoor-Paar-Kraat, and Horus

Postby Takamba » Fri Aug 30, 2013 5:20 pm

Legis wrote:Anyway..., between the hypocritical Peanut Gallery (whom I've watched behave in this exact same manner on this day or that) and the falsely sincere Inquisitor (who likes to act all open for discussion while keeping his friends notified about all the supposed crazy talk), I'm just not feeling it anymore.

Perfectly stated. Neither you nor I require them to have understood it. It stands to reason and that is enough.
"If we are to have Beauty and Love, whether in begetting children or works of art, or what not, we must have perfect freedom to act, without fear or shame or any falsity."
User avatar
Takamba
Nothing
Nothing
 
Posts: 1496
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 1:19 pm

Re: Heru-Ra-Ha, Ra-Hoor-Khuit, Hoor-Paar-Kraat, and Horus

Postby Frater 639 » Fri Aug 30, 2013 5:41 pm

FWIW - I enjoy the posts from Los, Legis, and Takamba. Thanks guys.

I think most of them are pretty lively and entertaining. I do agree that some of them spin around in circles and it gets tired at times...

But, for the most part, many of the comments from the discussions are pretty thought-provoking, even though everyone may disagree here and there. And I think, generally, it is useful to see many POVs - there is a lot of learning going around here for me and many other people that browse...even if it's just from a social interaction perspective...

Man, that's why I like Thelema. The diversity is fun.
Frater 639
Ultimate Spark of the Intimate Fire
Ultimate Spark of the Intimate Fire
 
Posts: 461
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 11:08 am

Re: Heru-Ra-Ha, Ra-Hoor-Khuit, Hoor-Paar-Kraat, and Horus

Postby Los » Fri Aug 30, 2013 8:45 pm

oldfriend56 wrote:Surely materialists believe that all phenomenon in the universe is explainable by physics and chemistry, no?

I can't speak for all materialists, but I don't necessarily believe that that's the case. Perhaps there are things that humans will never be able to explain. I really don't have enough information to say.

At any rate, we were talking about what materialism is, not specific things that (many) materialists (might) believe, which is what your list of questions was trying to suggest. For example, I'm sure most materialists believe that the earth travels around the sun, but that belief isn't defining of what materialism is.

The thing that constitutes materialism is lacking belief in other worlds, on the basis of there being insufficient evidence for the existence of any other worlds. It's not a belief, not a dogma, not a doctrine, and certainly not a "religion." It's not on equal footing with supernatural beliefs.

Materialists have *assumptions* about the material world that they dare not assume for anything else.


Name one, then.

I believe the material world exists, of course, because I have tons of evidence to support that. Anything *extra* -- claims that there are other worlds -- needs to be supported with sufficient evidence, and without it, people are more than justified in not accepting those claims.

It's that lack of belief -- that not accepting the claims about other worlds -- that constitutes materialism.
Los
Ultimate Spark of the Intimate Fire
Ultimate Spark of the Intimate Fire
 
Posts: 552
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2013 8:54 pm

Re: Heru-Ra-Ha, Ra-Hoor-Khuit, Hoor-Paar-Kraat, and Horus

Postby oldfriend56 » Fri Aug 30, 2013 9:24 pm

Hey Los - thanks for engaging with me. I enjoy the sport of these sorts of discussions and learn from them.

Surely materialists believe that all phenomenon in the universe is explainable by physics and chemistry, no?

I can't speak for all materialists, but I don't necessarily believe that that's the case. Perhaps there are things that humans will never be able to explain.


hmmm, not sure how intellectually honest this response here is of yours, considering our last conversations and especially in a post or two above, you actually do speak for all materialists and suggest that they *lack* belief.

If you do not believe that physics and chemistry can explain all phenomena in the universe, you may have a very irregular definition of materialism because materialism by it's very nature is measurable. What things to you suppose that humans may never be able to explain? Spirits for example? Disincarnate intelligences? Consciousness?


At any rate, we were talking about what materialism is, not specific things that (many) materialists (might) believe, which is what your list of questions was trying to suggest. For example, I'm sure most materialists believe that the earth travels around the sun, but that belief isn't defining of what materialism is.


Materialism is the belief that all phenomenon is explainable in material measurements put forth by physics and chemistry. It is the opposite of dualism, which postulates that there is a realm of matter, governed by the laws of nature, and a realm of spirit, governed by unseen forces. Materialism is the *belief* that everything is physical and Materialism is a philosophical monism.

The thing that constitutes materialism is lacking belief in other worlds, on the basis of there being insufficient evidence for the existence of any other worlds. It's not a belief, not a dogma, not a doctrine, and certainly not a "religion."


It's a philosophy, with it's own context of things which it believes to be true just like any other belief system. What sets materialism apart is the authority of science which depends upon physics and chemistry to measure physical reality and postulate what is real.

I do think you are again not being intellectually honest when you say Materialism is a lack of belief in *other worlds*. I assume you mean other 'realms' of existence that are beyond the material existence. Atheists, the militant kind, are often quite guilty of making this claim, saying that they have no belief in God because there is no evidence of God, and therefore only believe what their senses and measurements tell them. It's only the Theists that believe in things, not them!

You can see how the belief that all phenomena in nature and the universe *must* be measurable in terms of physics or chemistry is a core component of your, and theirs, belief system here, so much so you are completely unconscious of the effect of this belief system has on your own arguments. It's implicit in your very words.


It's not on equal footing with supernatural beliefs.


Interesting metaphor, and of course a false idea. Any philosophy, world view or even just community or self view is a context of ideas that an adherent believes and accepts as true - hence, also by definition also a belief system. Of course you believe what you *know* to be true.

Materialists have *assumptions* about the material world that they dare not assume for anything else.

Name one, then.


How about the one I started with? that all phenomena in nature and the universe *must* be measurable in terms of physics or chemistry and all that we can say is real is that which is measurable in those terms.

Please don't try and irrationalize that you don't believe that, because you most certainly do believe that at a very deep level of your own psychology.

See - you shout it from the rooftops even more here. (lol on equal footing no doubt with religious evangelists )

I believe the material world exists, of course, because I have tons of evidence to support that. Anything *extra* -- claims that there are other worlds -- needs to be supported with sufficient evidence, and without it, people are more than justified in not accepting those claims.


Please, let's not get irrational even further. Love your materialism Los do not shun it :)


It's that lack of belief -- that not accepting the claims about other worlds -- that constitutes materialism.


Consider the non logic of this phrase -Your saying that what 'makes' materialism is what materialism contains, and what it contains is something that it does not have.

Clearly you see how that definition makes absolutely no sense whatsoever of materialism, yes?

:roll:
oldfriend56
Stone of Precious Water
Stone of Precious Water
 
Posts: 258
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 7:25 am

Re: Heru-Ra-Ha, Ra-Hoor-Khuit, Hoor-Paar-Kraat, and Horus

Postby Los » Fri Aug 30, 2013 10:46 pm

I realize that ideas like that ones I’m sharing are not always easy to grasp immediately – especially if you’ve spent years and years and years thinking that materialism and atheism are “beliefs” or positive positions – so I’ll try to be a little patient in explaining them.

The thing that qualifies a person for being a materialist – the one thing that all materialists share – is lacking a belief in any worlds besides the physical one.

In the same way, the one thing that qualifies a person for being an atheist – the one thing that all atheists share – is lacking a belief in any deities.

After that, all bets are off. An atheist or materialist can believe all sorts of things, whether for good reasons or bad ones.

Some materialists, for example, go a step further and believe (actively) that there are no worlds besides the physical one, just as some atheists go a step further and believe (actively) that there are no gods. But those beliefs are extra. The thing that makes those people materialists is their lack of belief.

So, as you can see, it’s not at all an assumption of materialism that “all things can be explained by physics and chemistry.” I’m sure there are materialists who might accept that claim, but that’s just some extra claim, over and on top of their lack of belief in any worlds besides the physical one.
Los
Ultimate Spark of the Intimate Fire
Ultimate Spark of the Intimate Fire
 
Posts: 552
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2013 8:54 pm

Re: Heru-Ra-Ha, Ra-Hoor-Khuit, Hoor-Paar-Kraat, and Horus

Postby oldfriend56 » Sat Aug 31, 2013 12:21 am

Los wrote:I realize that ideas like that ones I’m sharing are not always easy to grasp immediately – especially if you’ve spent years and years and years thinking that materialism and atheism are “beliefs” or positive positions – so I’ll try to be a little patient in explaining them.


Lol, well repeating what you wrote twice already is not really explaining anything new here and it may be a symptom of obsession rather than patience :)

If you want to have your own personal Idaho of Materialism that's fine, it's just not compatible with how Materialism is defined in the philosophy of science.
oldfriend56
Stone of Precious Water
Stone of Precious Water
 
Posts: 258
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 7:25 am

Re: Heru-Ra-Ha, Ra-Hoor-Khuit, Hoor-Paar-Kraat, and Horus

Postby Takamba » Sat Aug 31, 2013 2:43 am

Los wrote:The thing that constitutes materialism is lacking belief in other worlds, on the basis of there being insufficient evidence for the existence of any other worlds. It's not a belief, not a dogma, not a doctrine, and certainly not a "religion." It's not on equal footing with supernatural beliefs.


Then that's your particular definition, special to you. You can go about conveniently changing the meanings of words to suit your desires (this is not the first time I've watched you do it), but it doesn't change the reality that the philosophical definition of "Materialism" was exactly quoted to you and it is what everyone else calls.

Image
"If we are to have Beauty and Love, whether in begetting children or works of art, or what not, we must have perfect freedom to act, without fear or shame or any falsity."
User avatar
Takamba
Nothing
Nothing
 
Posts: 1496
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 1:19 pm

Re: Heru-Ra-Ha, Ra-Hoor-Khuit, Hoor-Paar-Kraat, and Horus

Postby Los » Sat Aug 31, 2013 6:21 am

kasper81 wrote:not a doctrine?


Not a doctrine.

People here seem not to realize that dictionaries don’t create meaning – they record usage. Entries in dictionaries may not reflect the way words are used by the actual people who hold specific positions. For example, many dictionaries still incorrectly give the definition of atheism as “the belief there is no God,” and some even still give the definition “immorality” as its second meaning.

When I’m explaining my position – and the position of substantially every materialist I’ve ever met – you can’t sensibly respond by telling me I’m wrong because my usage doesn’t line up to what some book says.

And if you want to insist I’m not a “real materialist,” then fine. Label me whatever you want: it doesn’t change the substance of my positions. The substantial issue, if you’ll recall, is that someone accused me of holding “assumptions about the material world,” and I wanted to know what that poster had in mind. But when pressed, he was unable to offer any. Another poster then claimed that I assume that “all things can be explained by physics and chemistry,” but not only do I not assume that, I don’t even accept it as true. It’s certainly not an assumption required by people who lack belief in worlds other than the physical (regardless of the label you would put on us).

Actually Los, in terms of (1) your views and (2) your interest in Thelema and Crowley how do you connect those two, seemingly opposing elements to the following quotes which are from Liber Al, which is central to Thelema?


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.

28. Now a curse upon Because and his kin!

29. May Because be accursed for ever!

32. Also reason is a lie; for there is a factor infinite & unknown; & all their words are skew-wise.

33. Enough of Because! Be he damned for a dog!

maybe these quoted sentences actually justify your views


Good question. And the answer is that most people misinterpret these verses as saying that reason shouldn’t be used to evaluate certain factual claims. However, these verses are not talking about evaluating factual claims: they’re talking about action.

You see, the primary thing that prevents most people from doing their Will is their own mind, and the rational faculty of the mind – while immensely useful for evaluating the world around us – tends to mislead a person into following its phantoms instead of paying attention to his Will.

For example, someone may not want to do X, but he’ll tell himself, “I ought to do X because it’s the right thing to do.” You see that because? It’s that (rational) act of talking oneself into taking an action – against one’s natural inclinations – that is anathema to Thelema.

If your actions are motivated by “reasons” generated in the mind, then you’re not acting out of the True Will, by definition. As Crowley says, it’s pointless to ask a dog why it barks. It just does because it’s the nature of a dog to bark. That’s the way it is with a True Will. There’s not a “reason” that one’s True Will is the way that it is: one just is a certain way.

The task of discovering the True Will, then, cannot be accomplished by means of the reason. A person cannot think his way to the Will. However, reason is a vitally necessary tool for helping to manifest the True Will, by evaluating the territory through which the Will is navigating.

To think of it another way, in all normal healthy uninitiated people, it is the mind – and not the Will – that runs the show. These people live in an imaginary world, where duties, obligations, morality, ideas about what “good people” should do, their conceptions of “what’s right,” etc., are real, substantial things for them. It’s these ideas that drive them, rather than their inclinations.

They are “slaves of Because.” They act because their minds tell them that such-and-such actions are the “right thing to do.”

The process of initiation – and I mean actual initiation, which is always self-initiation, not the joining of a club – entails ceasing to identify with these thoughts and shifting one’s attention more and more fully to the True Self and its inclinations.

Rather than the mind directing the show, the Will then runs the show, and the mind serves it by offering to the Will as accurate a picture of the territory as possible so that the Will can manifest in ways most pleasing to the True Self.

That’s about it in a nutshell. For more, see here: http://thelema-and-skepticism.blogspot. ... ng_10.html
Los
Ultimate Spark of the Intimate Fire
Ultimate Spark of the Intimate Fire
 
Posts: 552
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2013 8:54 pm

Re: Heru-Ra-Ha, Ra-Hoor-Khuit, Hoor-Paar-Kraat, and Horus

Postby oldfriend56 » Sat Aug 31, 2013 8:39 am

Los - what you're describing as a philosophy is more akin to Skepticism than Materialism proper, academically speaking. You're just misinformed as to the actual body that constitutes 'Materialism' and by trying to cover up your errors, 'falling into the pit of because' would be an apt metaphor of what is going on here.

Best of Luck of with your blog! Promoting one is tireless work but no doubt your presence here is providing wonderful promotional material and quality visits from curious fans none the less!
oldfriend56
Stone of Precious Water
Stone of Precious Water
 
Posts: 258
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 7:25 am

Re: Heru-Ra-Ha, Ra-Hoor-Khuit, Hoor-Paar-Kraat, and Horus

Postby oldfriend56 » Sat Aug 31, 2013 8:53 am

Image
oldfriend56
Stone of Precious Water
Stone of Precious Water
 
Posts: 258
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 7:25 am

Re: Heru-Ra-Ha, Ra-Hoor-Khuit, Hoor-Paar-Kraat, and Horus

Postby oldfriend56 » Sat Aug 31, 2013 8:59 am

Image
oldfriend56
Stone of Precious Water
Stone of Precious Water
 
Posts: 258
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 7:25 am

Re: Heru-Ra-Ha, Ra-Hoor-Khuit, Hoor-Paar-Kraat, and Horus

Postby oldfriend56 » Sat Aug 31, 2013 9:04 am

Image
oldfriend56
Stone of Precious Water
Stone of Precious Water
 
Posts: 258
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 7:25 am

Re: Heru-Ra-Ha, Ra-Hoor-Khuit, Hoor-Paar-Kraat, and Horus

Postby oldfriend56 » Sat Aug 31, 2013 9:05 am

Image
oldfriend56
Stone of Precious Water
Stone of Precious Water
 
Posts: 258
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 7:25 am

Re: Heru-Ra-Ha, Ra-Hoor-Khuit, Hoor-Paar-Kraat, and Horus

Postby oldfriend56 » Sat Aug 31, 2013 9:13 am

This is what you are 'expounding' lol

Image


You also may try and upgrading your skepticism to it's proper place :)

Image
oldfriend56
Stone of Precious Water
Stone of Precious Water
 
Posts: 258
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 7:25 am

Re: Heru-Ra-Ha, Ra-Hoor-Khuit, Hoor-Paar-Kraat, and Horus

Postby oldfriend56 » Sat Aug 31, 2013 9:23 am

I have fun with this guy, I really do :)

Los

When I’m explaining my position – and the position of substantially every materialist I’ve ever met – you can’t sensibly respond by telling me I’m wrong because my usage doesn’t line up to what some book says.


Lol - your usage does not even align with what Materialism says. It's not a matter (pardon the pun!) of some hot debate about what constitutes Materialism. It's a pretty clear understanding in philosophy and amongst materialists.

The problem with your usage in this thread is that

a.)it's contradicting to the actual tenets of materialism.

b.)Your definition of materialism is solely dependent upon defining what it does not believe, a rather odd way to define something. It's as if Thelema could be defined as a body of philosophy and religion that does not accept Jesus Christ as lord and savior. While true, it really doesn't tell us much of anything about Thelema that is not also true about Buddhists, or Hindus, or Raelians.
oldfriend56
Stone of Precious Water
Stone of Precious Water
 
Posts: 258
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 7:25 am

Re: Heru-Ra-Ha, Ra-Hoor-Khuit, Hoor-Paar-Kraat, and Horus

Postby Frater 639 » Sun Sep 01, 2013 1:06 pm

oldfriend56 wrote:It's not a matter (pardon the pun!) of some hot debate about what constitutes Materialism. It's a pretty clear understanding in philosophy and amongst materialists.


Now that we have the definition nailed down:

Can we talk about this idea in light of the gods, as referenced by Crowley in Magick without Tears? Specifically, the ones mentioned in the OT...

Crowley wrote:We see and hear them, usually (in my own experience) as the result of specific invocation. Less frequently we know them through the sense of touch as well; sometimes their presence is associated with a particular perfume. (This, by the way, is very striking, since it has to overcome that of the incense.) I must very strongly insist, at this point, on the difference between "gods" and "angels." Gods are macrocosmic, as we microcosmic: an incarnated (materialised) God is just as much a person, an individual animal, as we are; as such, he appeals to all our senses exactly as if he were "material."

But everything sensible is matter in some state or other; how then are we to regard an Angel, complete with robes, weapons, and other impedimenta? (I have never known a god thus encumbered, when he has been "materialised" at all. Of course, the mere apparition of a God is subject to laws similar to those govering the visions of angels.)


Specifically, what is Crowley saying when he says that Gods are "material?" That we can measure "gods" (like Horus) through physics and chemistry? Does that even sound plausible?
Frater 639
Ultimate Spark of the Intimate Fire
Ultimate Spark of the Intimate Fire
 
Posts: 461
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 11:08 am

Re: Heru-Ra-Ha, Ra-Hoor-Khuit, Hoor-Paar-Kraat, and Horus

Postby Jim Eshelman » Sun Sep 01, 2013 1:54 pm

Frater 639 wrote:
Crowley wrote:I must very strongly insist, at this point, on the difference between "gods" and "angels." Gods are macrocosmic, as we microcosmic: an incarnated (materialised) God is just as much a person, an individual animal, as we are; as such, he appeals to all our senses exactly as if he were "material."

But everything sensible is matter in some state or other; how then are we to regard an Angel, complete with robes, weapons, and other impedimenta? (I have never known a god thus encumbered, when he has been "materialised" at all. Of course, the mere apparition of a God is subject to laws similar to those govering the visions of angels.)

Specifically, what is Crowley saying when he says that Gods are "material?" That we can measure "gods" (like Horus) through physics and chemistry? Does that even sound plausible?

I don't read it that way. He speaks of gods having incarnated - which seems to mean, born as humans - and as otherwise materialized - sounds like a very "dense" invocation that, bringing the God down the planes, gives it attributes of the lower planes - and he distinguishes it from a "mere apparition."

I'm responding on the fly, before heading out the door. I just wanted to distinguish those three elements in the quotes.
Love is the law, love under will.
Yours in L.V.X.,
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com
"Success is thy proof: argue not; convert not; talk not overmuch!" - CCXX 3:42
User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Lost His Marbles
 
Posts: 9585
Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 1:41 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: Heru-Ra-Ha, Ra-Hoor-Khuit, Hoor-Paar-Kraat, and Horus

Postby oldfriend56 » Tue Sep 03, 2013 9:16 am

@Jim - Frater69


Interesting, I never looked at this very deeply before this.

My take away is that Crowley referenced *Gods* as becoming material because human beings are gods (or at the very least the potential of gods) as our role of inheritance in the body of nuit to her service, i.e. human or human like sentience, intelligence, creativity, and most importantly intention (true will) is (edit: a maybe to me) the creative component and organizing principle of the material (time and space) universe.

Actually a nice conclusion, at least for me personally, to this discussion :)

Thank you once again, truly - this forum has proven to be remarkably helpful in my inner processing
oldfriend56
Stone of Precious Water
Stone of Precious Water
 
Posts: 258
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 7:25 am

PreviousNext

Return to Thelema

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron