The Book of the Law Study Group 2.33
thorhammer
Verses 19, 27, 33 and 45 mention dogs or a dog. The overall theme of the "dog" verses is that a God (me, you, having realised our divine potential and nature) is asynchronous with the notion of "Because", which implies Reason.
There's something terminal about Reason. It has a start, and a finish, a logical progression. But because it ends, it is death (II:45).
Musings, don't mind me.
\m/ Kat
There's something terminal about Reason. It has a start, and a finish, a logical progression. But because it ends, it is death (II:45).
Musings, don't mind me.
\m/ Kat
Grigori
Hmm, so it would seem that God is unreasonable. Or would ireasonable be better?
thorhammer
I think irreasonable (though it's not a word it damn well should be!) is a good way to put it, G.
And not necessarily "God" - or not as I see it, anyway - but rather, a God
A god has no reason to be godlike; it just *is* so. The Will has no reason to express itself; it just does so.
\m/ Kat
And not necessarily "God" - or not as I see it, anyway - but rather, a God
A god has no reason to be godlike; it just *is* so. The Will has no reason to express itself; it just does so.
\m/ Kat
Yygdrasilian
What the Tortoise said to Achilles
Ataraxia (ἀταραξία), according to some skeptics, is the pleasure attained through sincere ambivalence regarding dogmatic concerns - a way of making peace with the impossibility of Knowledge without denying the applicability of knowledge. One may appreciate the utility of such an approach when immersed within a culturally diverse environment, but is this merely blissful ignorance predicated on suspending the act of judgment in perpetuity? If the only other option were intolerance (ethnic, religious, intellectual or otherwise) then we might make a case for remaining stupid and happy. Yet, to truly attain a sincere ambivalence demands more than burying one’s head in the sand - an approach more akin to apathy than ataraxia - it requires direct experience of those trances which ‘destroy all sense of duality.’
To attempt description of such dissolution runs contrary to the experience itself as the act of description struggles to rationalize a mode of awareness where Reason breaks down - besieged by all contradictions inherent in each proposition to such degree that every effort to maintain a logical grip on the phenomenal world produces the very thing best suited to undermine it with greatest immediacy. To suffer this is the greatest challenge anyOne ever faces for it risks their very hold upon self-identity should, falling down into the pit called Because, they perish with dogs of Reason.
Where a11 sephirot are One, Knowledge cannot exist. Truth, perhaps, but not of a sort that could ever convince another who has not yet beheld it themselves - a Truth which allows for ataraxia with an ambivalence most sincere.
My own impression is of Light being projected into Time from its’ point of contact with a hyper-dimensional PortaL coinciding with the Eye of our mutual Illumination...
...but that’s impossible, isn’t it?
127 : 73
As an activity humans engage in, defining ‘knowledge’ tends toward infinite regress, as there is always someone who requires further precepts before accepting given conclusions. We may choose to agree upon Practical Criterion for knowledge proven by its applicability, but this is of an order different than that of Knowledge composed on a cosmological scale. The former demonstrates its use in day-to-day activities, while the latter imbues One’s universe with meanings obtained from the formulation of broader context: cognitive maps whose inspiration run the gamut from applied science to mytho-poesis, reason to imagination.To Mega Therion said:
Ataraxia (ἀταραξία), according to some skeptics, is the pleasure attained through sincere ambivalence regarding dogmatic concerns - a way of making peace with the impossibility of Knowledge without denying the applicability of knowledge. One may appreciate the utility of such an approach when immersed within a culturally diverse environment, but is this merely blissful ignorance predicated on suspending the act of judgment in perpetuity? If the only other option were intolerance (ethnic, religious, intellectual or otherwise) then we might make a case for remaining stupid and happy. Yet, to truly attain a sincere ambivalence demands more than burying one’s head in the sand - an approach more akin to apathy than ataraxia - it requires direct experience of those trances which ‘destroy all sense of duality.’
To attempt description of such dissolution runs contrary to the experience itself as the act of description struggles to rationalize a mode of awareness where Reason breaks down - besieged by all contradictions inherent in each proposition to such degree that every effort to maintain a logical grip on the phenomenal world produces the very thing best suited to undermine it with greatest immediacy. To suffer this is the greatest challenge anyOne ever faces for it risks their very hold upon self-identity should, falling down into the pit called Because, they perish with dogs of Reason.
Where a11 sephirot are One, Knowledge cannot exist. Truth, perhaps, but not of a sort that could ever convince another who has not yet beheld it themselves - a Truth which allows for ataraxia with an ambivalence most sincere.
My own impression is of Light being projected into Time from its’ point of contact with a hyper-dimensional PortaL coinciding with the Eye of our mutual Illumination...
...but that’s impossible, isn’t it?
127 : 73
Probie
Okay, quick off-subject but didn't want to make a thread over this. Reading Liber Al for first time in bound, red, 2004 copy by Weiser. Intro part, page 17 Crowley says "Magick". Is that short for his work on "Practical Magick & Theory" (or something close to that)?
Grigori
Probie said:
I would assume so, "Magick in Theory and Practice", also known as Part 3 of Book Four (Liber ABA).
Probie
Grigori said:
Cool, got that big book like Monday or Tuesday in the mail. What others do you suggest? I got a rash of them, but not sure if I missed any?
Probie
I see that "Because" is capitalized before this (2.33) like a proper noun (i.e., a name). Before all these series of one-liner verses, some were pretty lengthy paragraphs. Kind of gives the feel that the explanation has happened and now action is being taken (cursing or dismissing or a call to action to ignore) - something like that?
In 2.27, Because is a pit where the dogs of Reason dwell. Then it seems more like a pit like Chronos' mouth (right name? one of those early Greek gods who'd eat the children so they went down into the abyss). Maybe a danger of being swallowed up by Reason?
In 2.30 it seems Will stops short of doing what is necessary "Because" and then there's no "doing" of "what thou wilt." So Reason/Because can become a barrier to Will.
Just some thoughts. Wanted to look at near context for clues.
In 2.27, Because is a pit where the dogs of Reason dwell. Then it seems more like a pit like Chronos' mouth (right name? one of those early Greek gods who'd eat the children so they went down into the abyss). Maybe a danger of being swallowed up by Reason?
In 2.30 it seems Will stops short of doing what is necessary "Because" and then there's no "doing" of "what thou wilt." So Reason/Because can become a barrier to Will.
Just some thoughts. Wanted to look at near context for clues.
RaySusilo
According to the New Comment by Crowley:
http://hermetic.com/legis/new-comment/
Well, reason is inferior to knowledge by personal experience. Any reasonable language is eventually impossible. Connecting the dot with another verse, which is I.4, I find that because every number can be made infinitely complex by adding a dot and an infinite number of zero, then I guess Math also had their irrational side. The way this is so, language eventually cannot be rational without implying the existence of another concept that are already known in the mind.
New Comment said:
http://hermetic.com/legis/new-comment/
Well, reason is inferior to knowledge by personal experience. Any reasonable language is eventually impossible. Connecting the dot with another verse, which is I.4, I find that because every number can be made infinitely complex by adding a dot and an infinite number of zero, then I guess Math also had their irrational side. The way this is so, language eventually cannot be rational without implying the existence of another concept that are already known in the mind.
