
Moderator: Moderators - Public
Anyone else part of the alt/new/right on here?
Avshalom Binyamin wrote:Not me. White supremacy is incompatible with "Every man and every woman is a star"
Gnosomai Emauton wrote:Ditto on the male supremacy.
Gnosomai Emauton wrote:Avshalom Binyamin wrote:Not me. White supremacy is incompatible with "Every man and every woman is a star"
Ditto on the male supremacy.
gerry456 wrote:Supremacy exists.
Are you trying to deny that?
gerry456 wrote:From Nuit's perspective the colour of a person's skin or their gender is irrelevant when they take a magical oath. Right?
gerry456 wrote:The question is, why is Thelema Eurocentric?
gerry456 wrote:People are called to Nuit but many don't make it.
Crowley was Nietzschean.
gerry456 wrote:The question is, why is Thelema Eurocentric?
Avshalom Binyamin wrote:[No. Stupidity exists. Saying it's stupid isn't denying it exists. White (and male) supremacists exist, and they can eat my (****).
gerry456 wrote:The question is, why is Thelema Eurocentric?
Is it?
Gnosomai Emauton wrote:What does that even mean? Nuit just Is. We are a part of Her.?
Crowley was Nietzschean.
This comment is so reductive as to be nearly empty of meaning. One could equally well say Nietzsche was Schopenhauerian and mean just as little by it.
Mercurius wrote:Anyone else part of the alt/new/right on here? ]
gerry456 wrote:Why are you bringing "stupidity" into this?
gerry456 wrote:Hold it, what are we actually discussing here? What and who is a "white supremacist"?
gerry456 wrote:Are you visualizing an illiterate truck driver from Kentucky who has a whisky addiction, beats his girlfriend, snarls at the readers and listens to Lynnrd Skynnrd at the weekends?
gerry456 wrote:Well, Nuit is beyond 8=3.
If you're an ignoramus yes...
...but seeing as I'm assuming you've read the New Comment and the references to Nietzsche therein I wouldn't be bringing Schopenhauerian comparisons into this.
Gnosomai Emauton wrote:[
What are you talking about?.
.
Gnosomai Emauton wrote:[
Nuit is above us and in us. Her naked splendour is the gemmèd azure above. She is infinite space, and the infinite stars thereof, the omnipresent continuity of existence, the blue-lidded daughter of sunset, the naked brilliance of the voluptuous night-sky.
We are all of her, and She is everything and No Thing.
8=3 is a human grade of attainment.
.
Gnosomai Emauton wrote:
Nor am I particularly interested in parsing the words of a few lines in Liber Tzaddi that you believe are a call to Nietzsche the (****) out of all the oddballs and weirdos of society.
.
Should we not rather breed humanity for quality by killing off any tainted stock, as we do with other cattle? And exterminating the vermin which infect it, especially Jews and Protestant Christians? -Crowley in The Law Is for All, p. 37
Mercurius wrote:I sense a butt hurt in the force? No one wanted to read the article and have a discussion?
]
gerry456 wrote:Gnosomai, Nietzsche is actually unique amongst philosophers due to his total reevaluation of European philosophy. Anything Socratic and post-Socratic in fact so your attempt to keep on lumping him in with the others is totally missing it.
I'm talking about a thread where if i'm not mistaken Jim explained that Nuit is the ultimate identity or attainment.
Well yes Tzaddi is Crowley at his most Nietszchean.
He wrote, elsewhere if i'm not mistaken that Nietzsche was "almost an avatar of Thoth".
Gnosomai Emauton wrote:You're welcome to hold that opinion if it suits you, but you seem to be reading past what I said in order to put Nietzsche up on that pedestal. My comment was in response to you claiming that Crowley is Nietzschean. I was critiquing that bit of reduction by making the analogy "If Crowley can be reduced to Nietzsche, then Nietzsche can be reduced to Schopenhauer," both of which are obvious over-generalizations. Some of Crowley's writing can be seen to have derived from Nietzsche (or Burton, or Eckartshausen, or Swinburn, or Rabelais) in much the same way that some of Nietzsche's can be see to have derived from Schopenhauer (or Wagner, or Hegel, or Kant, or whomever you please, all the way back to Socrates if you like); but some of it most certainly does not. Reducing him with the label "Nietzschean" glosses over this in a most unhelpful way.
.
Gnosomai Emauton wrote:As I've demonstrated above, She is the ultimate, though I might not use the word "identity". I'd have to see the actual wording to know what you (or he) mean by ultimate attainment. I would presume he's speaking of the ultimate unification of the individual with the All which is Not: i.e. the Union of Hadit and Nuit.
.
Gnosomai Emauton wrote:]Well yes Tzaddi is Crowley at his most Nietszchean.
Gnosomai Emauton wrote:Yes, in his Confessions. He also wrote that Eckenstein was an Ipsissimus, that Agustus John was a "supreme genus", that Burton was his "hero", etc. etc... None of these do anything to define the man, in toto. They are all notes in the symphony, some louder at times than at others.
Hitting one note over and over doesn't make for very interesting music.
gerry456 wrote:Anyway "seek me only" 1:32 and "to me to me" 1:62 to 1:65 alludes to the Hierophantic task and means work to scale yourself up the sephirothic grades, that was my point.
gerry456 wrote:Yeah the statement "Crowley is Nietzschean" is limiting but , as I keep saying, he doesn't repeatedly refer to Eckenstein et al in The Old and New Comment but he does namecheck Nietzsche a fair bit. The Liber Al commentaries is where Thelema is defined. The Confessions were just a general hagiography so y'see this isn't one of mu hobby horses, i'm looking at it in The Liber Al comments. It's there for all to see.
Gnosomai Emauton wrote:[
Huh... I wouldn't have connected either of those verses to the Hierophantic task or the sephirothic grades. Where do you see that connection?
.
Gnosomai Emauton wrote:[My copy of the Old and New Comment only namechecks him twice (II.21 & III.57). I'll grant you that in the first of those he specifically says "There is a good deal of the Nietzschean standpoint in this verse," but he doesn't extend that viewpoint beyond the verse to the other 219 of the book. Nor did he ever waver in his claim that Aiwass wrote the book, not him.
gerry456 wrote:When I say Nietzschean this includes harsh critiques of Christianity.
Ok I appreciate that you're criticising my logical expression and reductionism in defining A as B i.e. Crowley as Nietzchean I..e in the great span of the aeons these are merely two modern thinkers and nothing under the sun is original however, once again you're not appreciating the revolutionary impact of Nietzsche's work.
Gnosomai Emauton wrote:gerry456 wrote:When I say Nietzschean this includes harsh critiques of Christianity.
So, when you said "he does namecheck Nietzsche a fair bit," what you meant was not that he actually references Nietzsche but that he's regularly anti-Christian and occasionally chauvinist? OK, if that's what you and the alt-right hack are calling "pedantic", I'll take it. To me, clarifying that level of over-generalization is just the basic critical thinking necessary for rational discourse.
gerry456 wrote:Gnosomai Emauton wrote:Avshalom Binyamin wrote:Not me. White supremacy is incompatible with "Every man and every woman is a star"
Ditto on the male supremacy.
Supremacy exists. Are you trying to deny that?
People are called to Nuit but many don't make it.
The question is, why is Thelema Eurocentric?
gerry456 wrote:Crowley was Nietzschean.
This comment is so reductive as to be nearly empty of meaning. One could equally well say Nietzsche was Schopenhauerian and mean just as little by it.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests