Book of the Law Study Group 1.42
Always Wondering
Manyhood seems strange to me. Is it a stretch to transliterate hood to Hod? I see one definition in my encyclopedia for Hod is Material World. I could see this as meaning resentful of the conditions of life.
AW
AW
Grigori
Always Wondering said:
Me also, I'm still wondering what it means. Dictionary says the word doesn't exist....
Aeon418
To me "manyhood bound" suggests something like being pulled in different directions at the same time. It's a trap. It' may look and taste like freedom, but it's not. The "chariot" never seems to go very far when the four elemental creatures pull in any old direction that they want to.
Will requires control over the elements of self. Then you can get them to pull as a team.
Will requires control over the elements of self. Then you can get them to pull as a team.
Grigori
Dictionary.com said:
Dictionary.com said:
Decided to try braking the word up and found some interesting things. Many being the multitude, or the common class, Hood = belonging to. So manyhood could be the state of belonging to the common class. This reminds me of the previous line "Let my servants be few & secret: they shall rule the many & the known."
Connecting this line to the previous, I read it as saying the state of restriction (sin) is the curse of the many who are bound and loathing. The escape this bondage, you need to do your will, which you have no right to do anything but.
This is quite applicable to me at the moment, especially in the example Aeon gave. I'm struggling with the fact that I'm doing a bazillion different things in my working career, none of which are exactly what I want to be doing. They are close enough to keep me content (if you use the word loosely
) and pay the bills, but they also mean that I'm fractured in several different directions with not enough energy left to focus on the thing I wish I was doing. Do I do the safe thing and continue to divide my time and energy and know that the bills will be paid and I'm doing well with the reality of the industry, or do I take a plunge and sacrifice some money and comfort to push more energy in one direction that I really want to go quickly? In the meantime, I'm feeling bound and loathing 
Always Wondering
I was wondering if I should have been looking at forest "manyhood" or the tree "hood". Then Similia and Aeon418 brought it all together doing one each. 
It really brought home to me the fact, as above, so below, which lately means to me as internal, so external.
Sorry about your wayward elementals Similia Did you look up loathing? It helped me with mine.
More LBRPs for me.
I had a more enlightened response but I thought it death. I think I know now which element is not a team player. 
AW
It really brought home to me the fact, as above, so below, which lately means to me as internal, so external. Sorry about your wayward elementals Similia
Did you look up loathing? It helped me with mine. Marriam-Webster said:
More LBRPs for me.
I had a more enlightened response but I thought it death. I think I know now which element is not a team player. AW
Grigori
Always Wondering said:Sorry about your wayward elementals Similia
The funny thing is, I don't really hate any of the parts. I think what I really dislike is that there are so many parts and they overlap. I'd be happier if just traveling in one direction, if I only knew which direction
The one pointedness of "Will" is very attractive to me. Though I'm known for whinging about being bored with too much of a good thing Always Wondering said:More LBRPs for me.
Ah, this is my problem with making changes. It requires you to actually make changes, which is scary.
It would be much easier if some great wopping angel would come tell me that it would turn out alright. But in the meantime I'm stuck as one of the masses. I'm "plebeian" Always Wondering
Similia said:
Oh well, I'm worse. I didn't want my job anymore so I was just about to give notice when my boss told me she was selling the business. Now I want to whine that I am lossing my job.
I got the change I wanted without even trying, and I'm tempted to whine. I thought to loath meant to hate also, but look, it says "unwilling to do something contrary to one's thinking".
That's me all right, contrary.
AW
Walter
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law!
Hello everybody,
I thought it wise to put the commentary of Aleister Crowley on the word manyhood and the rest of the verse here.
So here you go:
`Manyhood bound and loathing.' An organized state is a
free association for the common weal. My personal will to
cross the Atlantic, for example, is made effective by
co-operation with others on agreed terms. But the forced
association of slaves is another thing. A man who is not
doing his will is like a man with cancer, an independent
growth in him, yet one from which he cannot get free. The
idea of self-sacrifice is a moral cancer in exactly this
sense. Similarly, one may say that not to do one's will is
evidence of mental or moral insanity. When `duty points one
way, and inclination the other', it is proof that you are not
one, but two. You have not centralized your control. This
dichotomy is the beginning of conflict, which may result in a
Jekyll-Hyde effect. Stevenson suggests that man may be
discovered to be a `mere polity' of many individuals. The
sages knew it long since. But the name of this polity is
Choronzon, mob rule, unless every individual is absolutely
disciplined to serve his own, and the common, purpose without
friction. It is of course better to expel or destroy an
irreconcilable. `If thine eye offend thee, cut it out.' The
error in the interpretation of this doctrine has been that it
has not been taken as it stands. It has been read: If thine
eye offend some artificial standard of right, cut it out. The
curse of society has been Procrustean morality, the ethics of
the herd-men. One would have thought that a mere glance at
Nature would have sufficed to disclose Her scheme of
Individuality made possible by Order.
Love is the law, love under will.
Walter
Hello everybody,
I thought it wise to put the commentary of Aleister Crowley on the word manyhood and the rest of the verse here.
So here you go:
`Manyhood bound and loathing.' An organized state is a
free association for the common weal. My personal will to
cross the Atlantic, for example, is made effective by
co-operation with others on agreed terms. But the forced
association of slaves is another thing. A man who is not
doing his will is like a man with cancer, an independent
growth in him, yet one from which he cannot get free. The
idea of self-sacrifice is a moral cancer in exactly this
sense. Similarly, one may say that not to do one's will is
evidence of mental or moral insanity. When `duty points one
way, and inclination the other', it is proof that you are not
one, but two. You have not centralized your control. This
dichotomy is the beginning of conflict, which may result in a
Jekyll-Hyde effect. Stevenson suggests that man may be
discovered to be a `mere polity' of many individuals. The
sages knew it long since. But the name of this polity is
Choronzon, mob rule, unless every individual is absolutely
disciplined to serve his own, and the common, purpose without
friction. It is of course better to expel or destroy an
irreconcilable. `If thine eye offend thee, cut it out.' The
error in the interpretation of this doctrine has been that it
has not been taken as it stands. It has been read: If thine
eye offend some artificial standard of right, cut it out. The
curse of society has been Procrustean morality, the ethics of
the herd-men. One would have thought that a mere glance at
Nature would have sufficed to disclose Her scheme of
Individuality made possible by Order.
Love is the law, love under will.
Walter
Always Wondering
Thanks, I supose I was getting off track.
Easy.
In theory.
AW
Easy.
In theory.
AW
