New Thoth Tarot book.

I know many of you have dismissed this book for compelling reasons I'll keep in mind, but I just bought the Kindle version. I'm hoping that a brash 20-something guy's Thoth-for-Dummies might be just the thing to help me finally begin to wrap my brain around the Qabalah and Tree of Life. Then I'll move on to the real stuff. Thank you to those of you who mentioned you got something out of it.

(I know, I know, I need to read The Chicken Qabalah. I also have the comics that everyone recommends.)

Just the other day I asked about Scion (in a post here), and his wonderful sounding course on magick that he taught to gifted teenagers which had them reading the Thoth by the end of it. No one responded there, so I'll try again here. If anyone is in touch with him, tell him he needs to write THAT up into a book or course! I know I'd buy it.

kalliope said:

.....(I know, I know, I need to read The Chicken Qabalah. I also have the comics that everyone recommends.)......

Click to expand...

Don't be put off by the title. The book has considerable depth. It just approaches Qabalah in a somewhat non reverential fashion.

LRichard said:

Don't be put off by the title. The book has considerable depth. It just approaches Qabalah in a somewhat non reverential fashion.

Click to expand...

Oh, the title itself hasn't put me off. I think I tried to read the sample on my Kindle once or twice and couldn't get past the silliness of the preface (the story from the "initiate").

I like his irreverent style and humor just fine, and enjoyed his Low Magick, so after I read the Henry Ho book I'll trust in it and give it a shot. I just read the sample again (and got through it!) and chuckled at the dedication: "expressly for dilettantes with really short attention spans..." Heheh.

I gave Mr. Ho's book another read the other day...it's just sort of sitting on my Kindle now. I have to say that it welcomes you to jump into all of the complicated stuff that Crowley wanted you to learn, something that Duquette also does, but to a much lesser extent. This is why I probably enjoyed this book more when I first read it. When I read Duquette's book I feel like he's hiding something from me...maybe it's just me though.

But upon reading it the second time, with a larger grasp of Thelema...the sadistic and apathetic tone of this book is very disturbing. These ideas of forsaking the weak, enjoying bloodshed, and stomping all over the poor are NOT what Thelema is about, and those ideas certainly have no place in the Thoth's philosophy.

The author's general tone toward violence and bloodshed goes directly against the idea of the Aeon of Horus in general; in this Aeon humanity is to seek knowledge for its own sake, we're to raise ourselves out of the self destructive tendencies of the past by realizing our true relationship to each other and the universe. The militant nature of Horus is in fighting against moral judgements; he's not bloodthirsty just because he's bloodthirsty, he's the part of ourselves that refuses to give in to a society/religions ideas of right/wrong. At least that's what I get from it so far.

That doesn't mean we need to become bloodthirsty killers in the name of finding ourselves.

Equally disturbed

sworm09 said:

But upon reading it the second time, with a larger grasp of Thelema...the sadistic and apathetic tone of this book is very disturbing. These ideas of forsaking the weak, enjoying bloodshed, and stomping all over the poor are NOT what Thelema is about, and those ideas certainly have no place in the Thoth's philosophy.

Click to expand...

Henry Ho's understanding of Thelema is seriously wrong-headed and mixed up. His penchant for violence creeps in all over the place and ruins the whole book in my opinion. In fact I regret raising awareness of it via this thread. The thought that this book might be someone's introduction to Thelema leaves me with a sour taste in my mouth. Ho's interpretation of Thelema is what you might expect from an intelligent but angry teenager who has been bullied a lot. The results are both sad and disturbing.

I think his whole warped outlook can be traced back to his misunderstanding of the Aeon of Horus. On page 98 he says:

Henry Ho said:

In the current Aeon of Horus, which some call the Age of Aquarius, we have the rise of individualism. The feudal clan or family system is breaking down. Everyone in this age is on a search to find themselves. No longer do we identify ourselves strongly to our clan name, or any other group or society we are a member of. We are constantly trying to be individuals, to be different, to be special from other humans.
"Every man and woman is a star."

Click to expand...

Leaving to one side the misquote from The Book of the Law which is repeated several times (sloppy editing*), Ho's definition of the Aeon of Horus is actually classic Aeon of Osiris. Ego distinction and the striving for individuality are hallmarks of the previous masculine centered stage of development. As has been noted in previous posts, Ho's blind spot is the Feminine aspect of the Aeon Horus. "Everyman and every* woman is a star" does not signify rampant individualism. Rather it is the realization of 'right relationship' between the individual and the greater whole. Each star is only one star in the company of stars in the Body of Nuit. It's that feminine holistic wholeness, the context within which each star exists, that is sadly missing from Ho's horribly lop-sided (mis)interpretation.

Aeon418 said:

Leaving to one side the misquote from The Book of the Law which is repeated several times (sloppy editing*), Ho's definition of the Aeon of Horus is actually classic Aeon of Osiris. Ego distinction and the striving for individuality are hallmarks of the previous masculine centered stage of development. As has been noted in previous posts, Ho's blind spot is the Feminine aspect of the Aeon Horus. "Everyman and every* woman is a star" does not signify rampant individualism. Rather it is the realization of 'right relationship' between the individual and the greater whole. Each star is only one star in the company of stars in the Body of Nuit. It's that feminine holistic wholeness, the context within which each star exists, that is sadly missing from Ho's horribly lop-sided (mis)interpretation.

Click to expand...

That's a nice way of putting it. You can't ignore the whole "orbit" thing, since that's the ingredient that differentiates Thelema from simple hedonism, and is in some ways the key to not understanding the third chapter of the BoL literally. Simply put, the non-"as-brother-fight-ye" type of violence interferes with another's orbit, thus interfering with yours. The "clannishness" is implied.

This even goes back to what I said before, maybe in another thread, that you shouldn't write a book about the Thoth unless you really "get" it, and to ignore that is simple hubris, Angeles Arrien style. The "good" books about the Thoth, by people who know what they're doing, stand out when compared to books written by people who don't. Even I, as a raw student, can easily tell the difference.

closrapexa said:

This even goes back to what I said before, maybe in another thread, that you shouldn't write a book about the Thoth unless you really "get" it, and to ignore that is simple hubris, Angeles Arrien style. The "good" books about the Thoth, by people who know what they're doing, stand out when compared to books written by people who don't. Even I, as a raw student, can easily tell the difference.

Click to expand...

One of the frustrating things about Henry Ho's book is it's iconsistency. At times he really does seem to 'get it'. But a little later he loses sight of the wider context and goes off on an angry foot stamping rant and he can't see the contradiction. It's very strange. There's a real Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde quality to it.

Yes, and that made me as a reader lose faith in him. If he bombards me with his immature views of life and the world and the political system and the beauty of tyranny, goes off on a rant about how "most people" (excepting Henry Ho obviously...) are "dead bores" before they're 30.......... then I lose my ability to take him seriously. That's adolescent grandiosity, and I have met quite a lot of it over the years.

It seems to me that as long as Ho followed exactly what he was told by his (unnamed?) teacher, he did well and gave good explanations of the sephiroth, decans and other tricky but basic things. But as soon as he let himself loose and interpreted what he had learnt and applied it to the world - things became acutely embarrassing.

Aeon418 said:

One of the frustrating things about Henry Ho's book is it's iconsistency. At times he really does seem to 'get it'. But a little later he loses sight of the wider context and goes off on an angry foot stamping rant and he can't see the contradiction. It's very strange. There's a real Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde quality to it.

Click to expand...

Yeah. That's the reason I liked the book when I first read it. Sometimes his explanations are so clear and down to earth, that it makes the deck seem a great deal more approachable.....and then he dovetails into...political rants. A good example of this is his commentary on the Knight of Disks:

Henry Ho said:

The Knight of Disks is the worker, farmer, craftsman or engineer of the Court cards. He is the builder [who] keeps the world running with the skill of his own hands. He is the Fiery part of Earth, thus he is pragmatic action, the act of construction and creation on the physical or material plane.

Click to expand...

Things like this are the things that I love from this book. It's a tangible symbol of what the Knight of Disks is about, something that anyone new to the Thoth deck can latch onto and "chew on". He even goes on to defend the Knight of Disks against those (like Crowley and others) that see him as base, lowly, dull, and unintelligent.

But then he does a full 180. He brings up Crowley's seeming disdain for these folks, and then he switches perspectives and begins to lash out at them as well....contradicting himself.

Henry Ho said:

However he does have a point in that they have a tendency to cry injustice and demand equality rather than "try to better themselves" as Crowley sees it. The Knight of Disk personalities have a tendency to support socialist ideals. No matter how much you believe in socialism he does have a point...I have no idea what people are complaining about (in the UK) when they have council housing, free healthcare and student loans. They speak of these things in ignorance as though these are human rights, when they are in fact privileges of the Western world that many humans aren't privy to.

Click to expand...

I remember getting extremely uncomfortable reading this. This level of ignorance and black and white thinking goes against anything that Thelema is about. He talks about workers having a false sense of entitlement, while looking down on them and effectively flaunting his own imagined superiority. He judges an entire group of people. I didn't even post the most disgusting part of his little "commentary".

It's really immature.

Yikes! I'm definitely going to take it with a grain of salt and will keep my eye out for his fascination with violence and his unbalanced masculine/feminine perspective. I've already noticed the immaturity and ranting that you're all talking about, and I haven't even gotten to the cards yet. But I'm going to wait until I do get to that section before I decide if I want to continue, just to see if I get something out of those times when he explains something well.