The Devil-Thoth

smw

Erm... Not quite following you here? My comment was just noticing the divine madness context of the devil card against the perhaps less wild idea of fulfillment.
 

Aeon418

Somehow, I can't quite see the forms of "madness" that Crowley proposes as being in any way perverse.

Pareidolia? :bugeyed:

This card's placement of the Tree of Life indicates the process whereby Being is clothed in the forms of the intellect.

Ayin - the Eye. Perception! Things may not be what they appear to be.
 

Barleywine

Pareidolia? :bugeyed:

This card's placement of the Tree of Life indicates the process whereby Being is clothed in the forms of the intellect.

Ayin - the Eye. Perception! Things may not be what they appear to be.

That's precisely my first impression of the Devil when I see it in a reading: "something may not be what it appears to be."
 

Barleywine

Erm... Not quite following you here? My comment was just noticing the divine madness context of the devil card against the perhaps less wild idea of fulfillment.

I hadn't thought about those things being perverse, thanks for bringing that up, I'll think on it :grin: After all doesn't Pan represent 'the All'

Yeah, I realized that from the way you phrased it. I was making a general comment about the customary reaction to the word "madness."
 

Aeon418

That's precisely my first impression of the Devil when I see it in a reading: "something may not be what it appears to be."

Yet at the same time it is a creative act. There may nothing in the "complex, and fantastic forms of madness" that make up the background to the card. But I'm sure anyone who looks hard enough will end up seeing something that's not really there. (Pareidolia)

One of the main features of the card looks like a cock & balls. Or is that just what we make it represent when we look at it?
 

Barleywine

Yet at the same time it is a creative act. There may nothing in the "complex, and fantastic forms of madness" that make up the background to the card. But I'm sure anyone who looks hard enough will end up seeing something that's not really there. (Pareidolia)

One of the main features of the card looks like a cock & balls. Or is that just what we make it represent when we look at it?

Hmm, I tend to think of it as not seeing something that is there but concealed by the usual exoteric assumptions: in other words, a "misapprehension." Regarding the phallic imagery, Crowley certainly helps it along through his innuendo: "the trunk of the Tree pierces the heavens; about it is indicated the ring of the body of Nuith," and the act of union: : "If I lift up my head, I and Nuit are one." Not to mention the "innumerable leapings of the sap" and the alternative to "shoot forth venom" onto the earth (masturbation?). Of course, all of this could just be meaningless hyperbole <couch, cough> but if so, he certainly fooled a lot of people (or they fooled themselves into believing it).
 

Zephyros

At the end of the day, it's all about sex, isn't it? I mean, sex as a metaphor for other things, the "rules" of it expressed in everything else. The alchemical marriage could have been expressed by means other than sex, but sex is primal, it's basic, and something everyone is a product of. I mean, obviously if we're talking about acts of creation, the single greatest "super power" we have is bringing forth new life.

As an aside, sometimes a different card can shed light on the one you're looking at. For example, the eye in the Tower may be the Eye of Shiva, but it certainly has connections with the Devil, fire forthing out, etc. Also I seem to remember it's written somewhere that the Devil is the Beast upon which Babalon, um, rides, in Lust.