Atu XX- The Aeon, flame on!

Aeon418

According to this excerpt, each Thelemic Aeon has a duration of approximately 2000 years - which ties in rather well with the astrological outlook.
This was Crowley's idea, based on other ideas and theories popular in his day. But things have moved on since then. (Anthropology in particular.)

The Aeonic model that Crowley invented can be applied to the development of religious ideas, astronomy, procreation, and human consciousness, etc. But linking in to astrological ages and using it to cut history into neat segments is simply wrong headed.

If 1904 marks the beginning of the Aeon of Horus, and you stick with Crowley's idea of 2000 year aeons, then the Aeon of Osiris began in approximately 100BC, and the Aeon of Isis began in approximately 2100BC. Try matching that up with history...... if you can. :confused:
Also, 1904 as the beginning of the Aeon of Horus is well in keeping with the astrological theory. An exact date for the transition from Pisces to Aquarius cannot be given, however, "Nicholas Campion in The Book of World Horoscopes lists various references from mainly astrological sources for the start of the Age of Aquarius.
Since the boundaries between signs are better established these days (and we're not using tropical astrology either, but actual astronomy), we can safely say that we still be in the astrological age of Pisces until the year 2376 AD. That's rather inconvenient, huh?
 

Zephyros

It would suggest perhaps the period of strife Crowley talks about, the old vestiges of the fish-gods making an ever greater attempt to hold fast to the status quo. These would eventually pass as the birth pains of Horus with the advent of a new astrological age. Maybe there's some "cosmic dischord" between ill-fitting Ages and Aeons.
 

ravenest

Obviously, another manifestation of the 3+1 law that we have talked about before.

Yep. And another demonstration that without a firm foundation of the first three, the resultant 4th will be unmanifest .... or unbalanced in its manifestation.

A bit like AC's claim that one has to understand the old Aeon formula ( that most of us have been indoctrinated by ) to fully comprehend how we to the new one. To that end, he constructed his first OTO triad initiations around the 'dying God' theme.

Also, in 'social evolution' ; a stable survival strategy needs to be set up first, when that happens other aspects of culture begin to form ; artistic, creative, 'exploratory' . Eventually we get to the stage (if you are at the top of the pyramid ;) ) to sit around in robes on marble architecture and ponder philosophy :) .

BTW ; Did you have any luck converting that file on it I sent you to readable English ? (between jousting with out of line would be daoists ;) )
 

ravenest

This was Crowley's idea, based on other ideas and theories popular in his day. But things have moved on since then. (Anthropology in particular.)

The Aeonic model that Crowley invented can be applied to the development of religious ideas, astronomy, procreation, and human consciousness, etc. But linking in to astrological ages and using it to cut history into neat segments is simply wrong headed.

Ummmm .... but isnt that what Crowley precisely did ? Michael is following along with AC.

I agree a lot of his stuff is dated, but often when I put my new take on it ..... I am admonished for not being accurate in what Crowley said .

Maybe if Crowley later retracted and corrected it. I dont know if he did or not.

If we are using constellational astrology, a fixed point is made with a star, usually on or near the zodiac .... precession doesnt enter into it, so there is no 'moving fixed point ( the EP) hence no 'astrological ages'.

Conversely; if one does use tropic .... why even consider the EP points position constellational anyway ? .... That doesnt make sense.

Unless one somehow uses both .

If 1904 marks the beginning of the Aeon of Horus, and you stick with Crowley's idea of 2000 year aeons, then the Aeon of Osiris began in approximately 100BC, and the Aeon of Isis began in approximately 2100BC. Try matching that up with history...... if you can. :confused:

Since the boundaries between signs are better established these days (and we're not using tropical astrology either, but actual astronomy), we can safely say that we still be in the astrological age of Pisces until the year 2376 AD. That's rather inconvenient, huh?

What ?

If you are not using tropical astrology here , what has the " boundaries between signs are better established these days " comment got to do with non-tropical astrology ? :confused:

How can we safely say that Pisces doesnt occur until 2376AD .... and be so specific within a certain year ???
 

Zephyros

I don't recall where Crowley discusses the precession of the Aeon, but I just fished out what DuQuette says, and we both seem to agree with Aeon. DuQuette writes that it is impossible to tell when the Age of Isis began but that there is evidence of goddess-worship as far back as 11,000 B.C.E. I would argue that the Osirian Aeon found its fullest flower during the Piscean Age but that it was not restricted to it.
 

Aeon418

Ummmm .... but isnt that what Crowley precisely did ? Michael is following along with AC.
Yes he is. But the Aeon model isn't necessarily Thelemic, and that's why I was trying to make the distinction by stressing the point that it is an invention of Crowley's. (It's not present in any Class A text.) It's a very useful invention and can be used to map all sorts of things. But when it is used in the same narrow way that Crowley used it it contradicts well known historical evidence. By linking his concept of aeons to astrological ages a timeline is added that is irreconcilable with history. On that basis alone it surely needs to be reconsidered.

How can we safely say that Pisces doesnt occur until 2376AD .... and be so specific within a certain year ???
I didn't say that. I said the age of Pisces lasts until 2376. We've still got another 360 years to go until the age of Aquarius begins.
If your intersted, Jim Eshelman gives the date 4th July 2376 (based on current calculations) as the date when Pisces will end and Aquarius begin.

Don't forget to make a note in your diary. :laugh:
 

Zephyros

I'm interested. Wikipedia gives a wide variety of years for the end of this Age, ranging from now until the twenty six hundreds.
 

Michael Sternbach

This was Crowley's idea, based on other ideas and theories popular in his day. But things have moved on since then. (Anthropology in particular.)

The Aeonic model that Crowley invented can be applied to the development of religious ideas, astronomy, procreation, and human consciousness, etc. But linking in to astrological ages and using it to cut history into neat segments is simply wrong headed.

If 1904 marks the beginning of the Aeon of Horus, and you stick with Crowley's idea of 2000 year aeons, then the Aeon of Osiris began in approximately 100BC, and the Aeon of Isis began in approximately 2100BC. Try matching that up with history...... if you can. :confused:

Since the boundaries between signs are better established these days (and we're not using tropical astrology either, but actual astronomy), we can safely say that we still be in the astrological age of Pisces until the year 2376 AD. That's rather inconvenient, huh?

Actually, calculations based on the boundaries of the constellations as set by the IAU in 1928 even lead to 2600 AD.

The question however remains if astrological Ages are of variable or equal length. In the latter case, they would be in accordance with the motion of the Vernal Point through the sidereal (NOT the tropical) signs, which - unlike the constellations - measure exactly 30° each.

This Wikipedia article is fairly comprehensive, and also talks about the historical character of the time periods in question:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrological_age
 

Michael Sternbach

Yep. And another demonstration that without a firm foundation of the first three, the resultant 4th will be unmanifest .... or unbalanced in its manifestation.

The three as the foundation of the fourth... Yes, I can think of some further examples for that.

A bit like AC's claim that one has to understand the old Aeon formula ( that most of us have been indoctrinated by ) to fully comprehend how we to the new one. To that end, he constructed his first OTO triad initiations around the 'dying God' theme.

Also, in 'social evolution' ; a stable survival strategy needs to be set up first, when that happens other aspects of culture begin to form ; artistic, creative, 'exploratory' . Eventually we get to the stage (if you are at the top of the pyramid ;) ) to sit around in robes on marble architecture and ponder philosophy :)

Or to do so while sitting in front of our computers. :)

BTW ; Did you have any luck converting that file on it I sent you to readable English ? (between jousting with out of line would be daoists ;) )

LOL! I just sent out another email to you. Contact me if you don't find it in your spam order. No, contact me anyway...
 

ravenest

Yes he is. But the Aeon model isn't necessarily Thelemic, and that's why I was trying to make the distinction by stressing the point that it is an invention of Crowley's. (It's not present in any Class A text.) It's a very useful invention and can be used to map all sorts of things. But when it is used in the same narrow way that Crowley used it it contradicts well known historical evidence. By linking his concept of aeons to astrological ages a timeline is added that is irreconcilable with history. On that basis alone it surely needs to be reconsidered.

Okay, I get that . Both systems are not actually backed up by evidence either. And one can make all sorts of juggling fit. By I see the new application of 'aeons' being so flexible that they do fit better .... generally ;)

I didn't say that. I said the age of Pisces lasts until 2376. We've still got another 360 years to go until the age of Aquarius begins.

Doh ! My bad. Yeah I meant that . But my question still stands ( to you ) how can one tell when the change over is ? I asked you, as you bought it up and I wanted your explanation as it was something you said .

If you are deferring to Jim ... okay . But I cant discuss the subject with Jim can I ?

If your intersted, Jim Eshelman gives the date 4th July 2376 (based on current calculations) as the date when Pisces will end and Aquarius begin.

4th of July ... right ! ( bloody yanks ! :laugh: )

I wont put the date in my diary, I have my own system worked out thanks .... and of course, being a 'siderealist ' and 'down here' .... I am heading into the Age of Leo !


You must have missed this bit I asked you about ( again if I read you right ) , I would really like to know :

You ; " Since the boundaries between signs are better established these days (and we're not using tropical astrology either, but actual astronomy) ..... "

Me; " What ?

If you are not using tropical astrology here , what has the " boundaries between signs are better established these days " comment got to do with non-tropical astrology ? "