ilumairen

Interesting, as in this, our timing and conclusions correspond. Although mine was tempered with a further understanding I could really mess myself up with incorrect understanding of what I'd read.

As the book was written in 1904, you are correct. The prophetic aspects are believed to have already come to pass. And no, the individuals you've come gunning for in this thread are not ignorant of this. We're also pointing to a more subtle internal and individual mapping of the process layed out in the book - coupled with the larger external societal structuring it highlights, delineates, and gives name to.

So, once again The Book of the Law was quoted, and yet any further discussion of it was thwarted and derailed. There's so much subtlety, nuance, and context missing in what's been presented and how it's been presented. And there are soo many different lose strings which could be pulled to unravel what's been woven together.

Perhaps, as I certainly can't see what you're getting on about. Would you care to explain?

Could somebody translate the above for me..

First I thought to award "points" for using a word I didn't know and had to look up. Then I looked it up, and realized I was good with not knowing. Damn my curiosity.

Yeah, it was the era... I do rather like the imagery of the dropping veils though, to me it's a bit like the painting sacred and profane love...

And apparently to some she has not yet revealed herself.. so they cling to words they don't understand with (false) claims of understanding - falling to the damnable realms of "Because" with the yoke of erroneous reasoning holding them fast. This is kinda fun.

I was curious how we went from "yay innovative white folks" to technological comparisons with "non war faring people." Seems the goal post has shifted..

Thus echoed the mulititudinous voice of the second Aeon...

Did you really just tell ralis to read history??? He's the only one here I could assuredly say has read more history than myself... "Led the charge in [...] civilization." Yes, by determining "others" were "barbarians," "heathens," or whatever other euphimism enabled them to be viewed as "lesser" and treated accordingly - for "their own good" of course.

"Deliver us from the evil and the good," to me is transcendent - not permissive. If one is still contemplating defilement and ruin then they have not transcended, and the words are no more than empty excuse.

Nungali has pointed out something of importance which manitou also alluded to.. this "law" applies when a certain point in one's spiritual path has been reached. Prior to this point it's still the following of an external law, and a bit of a parody (and in this falls into the second Aeon [patriarchal ruling structure] and hasn't yet reached the third [self-actualized] Aeon) imo.

In the light spectrum white exhibits the wave lengths of "all" color, and black is simply the absence of light. This "group" was created by men/ women giving name (with meaning to themselves) to a hierarchy they created and claimed to speak for, and have connection to. It was simply self elevation imo, and is completely unnecessary, and anathema to some here. Oh my stars!!

"Do what thou wilt" can be understood without the need of an outside divine force having decreed it so. And, given what you quote in this post, imo, this very idea goes against what is being pointed towards, and it's toppling of religious iconography, elevation, structure, rule and law. I've no desire to "take on Crowley." And this falls into the logical fallacy of appeal to authority, as your interpretation is not necessarily the author's intent. It certainly is. Sin is a charged word used to get the masses to police each other and themselves. "Deliver us from the evil and the good", brings to mind both Blake and Jung, and seems to be part of the self-actualization process. Crowley also had difficulties with this third book. You are right, it isn't the goal, and this isn't communal. The first Aeons were more communal in nature - first the matriarchal, then the patriarchal. This third Aeon, and third book, is about individualization and self-actualization - the toppling of inhibiting structures. And it was even shocking and troubling to Crowley himself from what I've read. Internally "mighty," yes.. No! The "merciless kings" you refer to are of the second Aeon and patriarchal structure. Prior to this was the matriarchal Aeon. Your timeline is way off...

:Flashback to the early '90's and a teenage ilumairen working the drive-thru window of a Burger King restaurant, when a drunk patron tries to pull her through the window and obscond with her. The cook hears the ruckus and runs to her aid, and upon seeing him the drunk patron flees.: Creepy!!! Just creepy! Edit to add: no donation necessary for this sagely advice, some things are just wrong.

^^^ ewww

Did anyone else get the visual of one of those old fortune teller machines you sometimes see in horror movies? Put a coin in the slot and some wise sounding words will be printed for you..

What determines which options are available? Isn't this "available options" simply short hand for limited choices? And wouldn't this limitation of choices then negate the idea of "complete freedom to choose"?

If you believe you have complete freedom of choice you haven't gone far enough with the "peeling of the onion"... Complete Freedom of Choice is the fairy tale people who don't wish to understand the suffering of others tell themselves as they curl up under their down comforters with their heads resting on their feather pillows in their heated homes.

Thanks for the recommendation. It is now added to my reading list.

(bold mine) Have you ever been legitimately dominated? Whenever I determine to be conversational with you (because you touch upon subjects I find interesting) you throw something such as the above out there, and I'm left with a "wtf? Can he really be this ignorant?" Please educate yourself - especially if you're going to start threads entitled "knowledge is very simple".

I don't think he's gotten to the point of recognizing this aspect of the proposed understanding. Sometimes it takes awhile to get there, and some never do - comfortable with a view which enables a sense of their own power.

Never read the book you refer to, but it sounds a bit entertaining. Fortuna really came home for me as I studied the life of Borgia - a real life example of the influence of chance/fate, and it's juxtaposition with will.

And who is to say this supposed "taking of control" isn't simply a natural progression of life understandings and experience? Thereby making it simply another indicator of "fate" and also beyond one's actual control, in spite of the "illusion" control exists. Written conversationally and as considerations - not argumentation.