The Book of The Law Study Group 3.68
ravenest
I say it is beautiful to me .
'It's enemies' (now, I wonder who they might be ??? ) can say it is not beautiful to them ... fine"
But if they say it is not beautiful at all (including my perceptions) then they are mere liars.
....
But here it says that it is beautiful to ALL (and that must include the enemies) therefore ; they are lying as they see it as beautiful but must for some reason speak out against it ???
So then I have to ask what is the faculty in ALL of us that sees inherent and relevant truth and what is the faculty in some that have to deny that truth as it makes them uncomfortable ?
If it IS a universal truth then it must be about a 'process' and not an interpretation of dogma and man-made ( i.e. 'divorced' from nature ... as opposed to a 'man discovered' aspect of natural process ?
Edit: I equate truth and beauty as in (one of ) Crowley's initiatory systems one is taught to seek after beauty because eternal truth is revealed in beauty.
The classical Greek noun for "beauty" was κάλλος, kallos, and the adjective for "beautiful" was καλός, kalos. The Koine Greek word for beautiful was ὡραῖος, hōraios, an adjective etymologically coming from the word ὥρα, hōra, meaning "hour".
In Koine Greek, beauty was thus associated with "being of one's hour". Thus, a ripe fruit (of its time) was considered beautiful, whereas a young woman trying to appear older or an older woman trying to appear younger would not be considered beautiful. In Attic Greek, hōraios had many meanings, including "youthful" and "ripe old age".
A study published in 2008 suggests that symmetry is also important because it suggests the absence of genetic or acquired defects.
The Pythagorean school saw a strong connection between mathematics and beauty. In particular, they noted that objects proportioned according to the golden ratio seemed more attractive. Ancient Greek architecture is based on this view of symmetry and proportion.
Plato considered beauty to be the Idea (Form) above all other Ideas. Aristotle saw a relationship between the beautiful (to kalon) and virtue, arguing that "Virtue aims at the beautiful."
During the Gothic era, the classical aesthetical canon of beauty was rejected as sinful. Later, the Renaissance and Humanism rejected this view, and considered beauty as a product of rational order and harmony of proportions.
The Age of Reason saw a rise in an interest in beauty as a philosophical subject. For example, Scottish philosopher Francis Hutcheson argued that beauty is "unity in variety and variety in unity".
John Keats arguing in "Ode on a Grecian Urn" that
“Beauty is truth, truth beauty ,—that is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.”
In the aftermath of postmodernism's rejection of beauty, thinkers have returned to beauty as an important value. American analytic philosopher Guy Sircello proposed his New Theory of Beauty as an effort to reaffirm the status of beauty as an important philosophical concept. [Wiki]
'It's enemies' (now, I wonder who they might be ??? ) can say it is not beautiful to them ... fine"
But if they say it is not beautiful at all (including my perceptions) then they are mere liars.
....
But here it says that it is beautiful to ALL (and that must include the enemies) therefore ; they are lying as they see it as beautiful but must for some reason speak out against it ???
So then I have to ask what is the faculty in ALL of us that sees inherent and relevant truth and what is the faculty in some that have to deny that truth as it makes them uncomfortable ?
If it IS a universal truth then it must be about a 'process' and not an interpretation of dogma and man-made ( i.e. 'divorced' from nature ... as opposed to a 'man discovered' aspect of natural process ?
Edit: I equate truth and beauty as in (one of ) Crowley's initiatory systems one is taught to seek after beauty because eternal truth is revealed in beauty.
The classical Greek noun for "beauty" was κάλλος, kallos, and the adjective for "beautiful" was καλός, kalos. The Koine Greek word for beautiful was ὡραῖος, hōraios, an adjective etymologically coming from the word ὥρα, hōra, meaning "hour".
In Koine Greek, beauty was thus associated with "being of one's hour". Thus, a ripe fruit (of its time) was considered beautiful, whereas a young woman trying to appear older or an older woman trying to appear younger would not be considered beautiful. In Attic Greek, hōraios had many meanings, including "youthful" and "ripe old age".
A study published in 2008 suggests that symmetry is also important because it suggests the absence of genetic or acquired defects.
The Pythagorean school saw a strong connection between mathematics and beauty. In particular, they noted that objects proportioned according to the golden ratio seemed more attractive. Ancient Greek architecture is based on this view of symmetry and proportion.
Plato considered beauty to be the Idea (Form) above all other Ideas. Aristotle saw a relationship between the beautiful (to kalon) and virtue, arguing that "Virtue aims at the beautiful."
During the Gothic era, the classical aesthetical canon of beauty was rejected as sinful. Later, the Renaissance and Humanism rejected this view, and considered beauty as a product of rational order and harmony of proportions.
The Age of Reason saw a rise in an interest in beauty as a philosophical subject. For example, Scottish philosopher Francis Hutcheson argued that beauty is "unity in variety and variety in unity".
John Keats arguing in "Ode on a Grecian Urn" that
“Beauty is truth, truth beauty ,—that is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.”
In the aftermath of postmodernism's rejection of beauty, thinkers have returned to beauty as an important value. American analytic philosopher Guy Sircello proposed his New Theory of Beauty as an effort to reaffirm the status of beauty as an important philosophical concept. [Wiki]
Grigori
I'm curious about the word 'beautiful' being chosen here, it seems an odd choice. Is that really the best word to describe the value of something like the BoL? Is it enough for a revealed text to be 'beautiful', should it not also be 'useful' or 'valuable' or 'transformative'?
If we accept that everyone will call this book 'beautiful', perhaps they mean only the language is beautiful, it's well written despite it's other 'flaws'. Perhaps the same way a piece of poetry or a painting could be beautiful, even if we reject or abhor it's subject matter. Perhaps it is like a painting of rotting corpses suffering in hell, we can see the artistry of the brushstrokes even if we want to look away from the image. Maybe we lie and deny the beauty of the painting because its subject matter is so challenging to us, and so its easier to dismiss Picasso's work as childish and ugly, because of it's different from our preferred Botticelli. Maybe the BoL is like pornography, and some say the body is not beautiful because we cannot accept to say out loud that it is (even if we do rather like the look of that blonde actor). Or is it the content itself that should be beautiful, it's impact on the reader, its entirety?
Is beauty not something that is always in the eye of the beholder? Why are we frightened to admit beauty? Perhaps Keats was write and beauty is truth and so we cannot say something is beautiful unless we agree with it.
If we accept that everyone will call this book 'beautiful', perhaps they mean only the language is beautiful, it's well written despite it's other 'flaws'. Perhaps the same way a piece of poetry or a painting could be beautiful, even if we reject or abhor it's subject matter. Perhaps it is like a painting of rotting corpses suffering in hell, we can see the artistry of the brushstrokes even if we want to look away from the image. Maybe we lie and deny the beauty of the painting because its subject matter is so challenging to us, and so its easier to dismiss Picasso's work as childish and ugly, because of it's different from our preferred Botticelli. Maybe the BoL is like pornography, and some say the body is not beautiful because we cannot accept to say out loud that it is (even if we do rather like the look of that blonde actor). Or is it the content itself that should be beautiful, it's impact on the reader, its entirety?
Is beauty not something that is always in the eye of the beholder? Why are we frightened to admit beauty? Perhaps Keats was write and beauty is truth and so we cannot say something is beautiful unless we agree with it.
Aeon418
III x 68 = DR - Dar, a Pearl. A Pearl of Great Price?
Tiphareth is Beauty.
Maybe what is being said here is that the book says 'something' to all who read it. In a sense it is a direct communication with the soul that everyone 'gets' no matter what their level of spiritual attainment may be. But not everyone is ready or willing to listen to such deep Truth. Instead they view the book at the superficial level of Ruach - the intellect - which tries to pick it to pieces. "I like this verse. I don't like that verse."
But the intellect does no 'get it'. Without any hint of higher/deeper Understanding it's 'opinions' are nothing more than hot air - mere liars.
I'm reminded of a passage from the 6th Aethyr:
On a different note it's interesting that this verse contains 61 letters. We've been tracing a path up the Middle Pillar so far. But now we've reached the ALL(61), the Ain(61).
I wonder if there is a connection on a lower level. On the path between Hod and Tiphareth is the card of PAN (All), Atu XV The Devil. The intellect of Hod 'cherry picks'. But the Path of Ayin requires that All be accepted to reach Tiphareth - Beauty.
Tiphareth is Beauty.
Maybe what is being said here is that the book says 'something' to all who read it. In a sense it is a direct communication with the soul that everyone 'gets' no matter what their level of spiritual attainment may be. But not everyone is ready or willing to listen to such deep Truth. Instead they view the book at the superficial level of Ruach - the intellect - which tries to pick it to pieces. "I like this verse. I don't like that verse."
But the intellect does no 'get it'. Without any hint of higher/deeper Understanding it's 'opinions' are nothing more than hot air - mere liars.
I'm reminded of a passage from the 6th Aethyr:
Liber 418 said:
On a different note it's interesting that this verse contains 61 letters. We've been tracing a path up the Middle Pillar so far. But now we've reached the ALL(61), the Ain(61).
I wonder if there is a connection on a lower level. On the path between Hod and Tiphareth is the card of PAN (All), Atu XV The Devil. The intellect of Hod 'cherry picks'. But the Path of Ayin requires that All be accepted to reach Tiphareth - Beauty.
Zephyros
Could it be that lying denotes a conscious choice, while appreciation of beauty is an inner thing? To say that something isn't beautiful means that you aren't there, at Tiphareth which is in itself beauty, enjoyment of transparency, etc.
Aeon418
If by 'conscious choice' you mean a value judgement and decision originating at the level of the personality, then yes. The personality-self is attracted towards things it finds pleasing, but rejects things that threaten it's sense of security or make it feel uncomfortable. But beauty transcends that kind of discrimination.
A bit of free association here. But the verse contains 16 words. Is it too much of a stretch to think of Atu XVI The Tower and ask the question: is this image of destruction beautiful?
Zephyros
Yes, that's what I meant, but described it clumsily.
Ecpyrosis usually is.
Aeon418
But would your ego share that opinion if it were subjected to it?
Speaking of lightening flashes I just had a thought! (Wonders never cease.
)The chapter and verse number have been bugging me. 3 - 6 - 8. For some reason I keep thinking Binah(3), Tiphareth(6), and Hod(8). Maybe...
Yet to all it shall seem beautiful. Binah to Tiphareth via the Path of Zain. Supernal Truth communicated to the Self by the Spiritual Intuition of Neshamah.
Its enemies who say not so, are mere liars. Tiphareth to Hod via the Path of Ayin. The trans-rational and intuitive is 'clothed' in forms perceptible to the rational mind. But the result is dualistic (enemies) oppositions and contradictions being perceived in Hod - Mercury - the god of Lies.
The Paths are OZ. But I can't see a connection beyond the obvious Goat. IO PAN!
