Main Page | Recent changes | Edit this page | Page history Printable version | #REDIRECT [[Thelemapedia:Disclaimers]] | Current revision

Not logged in Log in | Help

Talk:Thelema

(Difference between revisions)

Revision as of 16:28, 27 Feb 2005 Ash (Talk | contribs) agree		Current revision Ash (Talk | contribs)
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	Since this solution is looking do-able, I simply copied it up top.	+	''Clearing page. Last version, 12 Jun 2005, [http://www.thelemapedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Thelema&oldid=4302 archived here].''
-		+
-	===Paradoxos Alpha's Solution===	+
-	(reasoning provided in other replies throughout discussion)	+
-	*Move the religious/non-religious contention to [[Thelema & Religion]].	+
-	*Eliminate [[Alternative Views of Thelema]]	+
-	*Replace "Theology" in [[Thelema]] with a "Doctrines" section, listing various, explicitly non-obligatory doctrines with links to pertinent articles, e.g.: [[Holy Guardian Angel]], [[body of light]], [[True Will]].	+
-	*Eliminate "Thelemic Canon" in [[Thelema]], in favor of a "Doctrine" item mentioning the scriptural canon established through A.'.A.'. Class A, and cross-referencing [[Holy Books of Thelema]].	+
-	Editors assuming my ideological bias on these issues may also note that it was I who recently changed "religion" to "philosophical school and religious matrix" in the initial characterization of "Thelema."--[[User:Paradoxosalpha|Paradoxosalpha]] 00:45, 27 Feb 2005 (CST)	+
-		+
-	::I am in favor of this solution 100%. It is in many respects the kind of thing I was thinking, but more elegantly than I could have done. --[[User:Thiebes|Thiebes]] 01:18, 27 Feb 2005 (CST)	+
-		+
-	::I agree with this partially. While I think the title of [[Alternative Views of Thelema]] could be improved. I think it highly important to have two pages, if only for the reduction of disagreement. The maximal reduction of argument and contention would come from allowing [[Thelema & Religion]] or perhaps better [[Thelema (religion)]] to address the religious point of view without dissenting views. Similarly, perhaps [[Thelema (non-religious)]] or [[Philosophical Views of Thelema]] or something else mutally agreeable would not have to take into account or discuss religious views of Thelema at all.	+
-		+
-	::Therefore I think the division should be mentioned in [[Thelema]] in a way that leads naturally to the two separate articles. We really don't want to have a discussion like this every time someone puts something in [[Thelema & Religion]]. Keeping the pages separate is more of a ''practical'' matter than a question of ''form'' or ''style''. [[User:Aleph|Aleph]]	+
-		+
-	::[[User:Ash|Fr. Ash]] : '''Agree'''. I like this solution, too. However, since we have a "Thelema and Religion" article, we should simply have a "Thelema and Philosophy" article as well. Am I right in assuming that these are the two major branches or viewpoints of Thelemic thought?	+
-		+
-		+
-	==DISCUSSION: Different views of Thelema==	+
-		+
-	'''To all editors:''' this discussion surrounds the following paragraph currently in Thelema:	+
-		+
-	:'''Different views of Thelema'''	+
-		+
-	:'''Not all adherents of Thelema consider it a religion or subscribe to the philosophy of True Will as outlined in Aleister Crowley's writings. Thelemites may or may not believe in the necessity of Canon or Theology as outlined in this article. Many require nothing more than an acceptance of the message of The Book of the Law as interpreted by the individual, each for him or herself.'''	+
-		+
-	There is debate over the appropriateness of this paragraph. Thelemapedia is inviting you to share your opinion and offer solutions. Please put your comments in a sub-header: e.g. <nowiki>===My Solution===</nowiki>	+
-		+
-	:One thing I really don't understand is why on October 17, you said ""Different views" a good entry...just simplified the grammar." Why isn't different views a good entry anymore? What changed? [[User:Aleph|Aleph]]	+
-		+
-	===Ash's solution===	+
-		+
-	I believe this statement is subtractive, rather than additive, and provides no substantive information from the knowedge base. However, I agree with the principle of including alternative points of view, which is why I added the link to the new article, [[Alternative Views of Thelema]]. I think the paragraph in Thelema article should be more generic, such as:	+
-		+
-	:'''Thelema is many things to many people, and no single definition can encapsulate it for every Thelemite. It can be experienced and manifested as (but not limited to) religion, philosophy, a set of practices, a system of magick, ethical guidelines, lifestyle, culture, or political viewpoint. Even the requirements for being a Thelemite are not clear, and are often defined by the individual herself. There are also Thelemic movements that have serious differences in opinion from Aleister Crowley and his interpretations of Liber Legis. '''	+
-		+
-	:'''For a more complete review on these differences, see [[Alternative Views of Thelema]].'''	+
-		+
-	What do you think?	+
-		+
-	===Thiebes' solution===	+
-		+
-	Since Crowley himself has written some things which would appear to support the nonreligious view of Thelema, and since I myself know personally several adherents to this view, it seems obvious to me that this view should be included, along with the various ways that people reconcile (or reduce) Crowley's apparent self-contradiction on the topic.	+
-		+
-	I notice there is an entry for "Thelema and Religion." This seems to be the most appropriate place, to me, to discuss the question of whether Thelema is or is not a religion. Indeed, that is where quotes from Crowley ''supporting'' the religious view are found (rather than in the article on Thelema).	+
-		+
-	Ash, your paragraph beginning with "Thelema is many things to many people" minimizes the important fact that Crowley himself wrote contradictory things on the question of whether Thelema is a religion. I find it a rather condescending approach.	+
-		+
-	My solution is as follows. I don't actually have time to write the final text as I'm imagining it, but basically add a couple of sentences in the article on "Thelema" about this controversy. Refer to the "Thelema and Religion" article. Then move the "Different views" paragraph to the latter article, add quotes from Crowley to support the position (as in MWT), and describe the relationship of Thelema to Religion as one which draws continued controversy. Finally remove the "Alternative views" article since the very title suggests that the views are not to be found in the literature.	+
-		+
-	=== Isomeme's revision to Ash's solution ===	+
-		+
-	I think the key problem is that all religion (or mysticism, or whatever label you choose) is in the end subjective, so to say that Thelema is a matter of interpretation and opinion verges on tautology. Here's my proposed rewrite of Ash's first paragraph above:	+
-		+
-	:'''Thelema, like any religious or mystical system, is in the end a matter of personal experience. There is no objective standard to determine who is or is not a Thelemite, nor what beliefs, practices, interpretations, or goals are compatible or incompatible with Thelema. Unlike some religious systems, there is no single authority which claims jurisdiction over Thelemic orthodoxy, leaving the field open to a variety of organizations, movements, and individuals, each approaching Thelema differently.'''	+
-		+
-	:'''The only seemingly unequivocal instruction Thelema provides in this matter is this line from the Class A Comment on Liber AL: "All questions of the Law are to be decided only by appeal to my writings, each for himself."'''	+
-		+
-	::I think this is a very good improvement on my paragraph. You got closer to what I was trying to say. [[User:Ash|Fr. Ash]]	+
-		+
-	Thiebes, I'm not sure I follow your argument re "Alternate Views". These alternatives are very much to be found in "the literature", taking that to mean the work of modern self-identified Thelemites. Can you clarify, please?	+
-		+
-	[[User:Isomeme|Isomeme]]	+
-		+
-	:The "Alternative Views" (such as the one that Thelema is not a religion) are also found ''in Crowley'' and calling them "Alternative" gives the impression that they are not. --[[User:Thiebes|Thiebes]]	+
-		+
-	::"Alternative" in no way should mean "not in the literature." This should be backed up by editors using Crowley (and others, hopefully) to support their entries. Further, this article shouldn't focus only on the "religion-ness" of Thelema, and should also present ideas on culture, ethics, politics, etc. I think the article "Thelema and Religion" should stick to how Thelema ''does'' manifest as a religion, rather than being a page for debate on religion. [[User:Ash|Fr. Ash]]	+
-		+
-	:::But I think "Alternative" implies not mainstream (and that it's a minority view) and I'm not sure that's the case.	+
-		+
-	::::Would you be more comfortable if the article were called "Views on Thelema"? Do you have any other suggestions? It's not too late to rename the article. [[User:Ash|Fr. Ash]]	+
-		+
-	:::::If "alternative" should not be read to mean, "alternative to Crowley," then what is it alternative to? In any case, if the article is renamed "Views on Thelema," then there is no meaningful difference between this article and the main one, I think. Personally I think that "Thelema & Religion" is the perfect place to describe the different views on "Thelema & Religion" -- the relationship of Thelema to religion, including the view that Thelema is a religion, and the view that Thelema is not a religion. I also agree with Aleph about the various sections that should logically be put elsewhere. I'll work on the text of my proposed solution and post it as soon as I can. --[[User:Thiebes|Thiebes]]	+
-		+
-	::::::[[User:Ash|Fr. Ash]]: This article discusses the central components of Thelema, and presents a picture of its overall structure as reflected in the knowledge base. The "Views" article (or whatever it is called) refers to how various groups use, interpret, and modify those central components. Some of those uses, interpretations, and modifications will be overtly religious, and some won't.	+
-		+
-	::::::To take out the core holy books would be a serious omission—they are called The Holy Books of Thelema after all, and formed the backbone of everything Crowley developed for Thelema. If we are going to reduce the article to what every Thelemite can agree upon, then there will be no article. That's why Isomeme's paragraph is so good...it acknowedges that the use (or lack thereof) and interpretation of these components is up to the individual Thelemite. To deny that the Holy Books play a central role in Thelema just because they have a religious tone is akin to denial.	+
-		+
-	:::::::I'd like to point out that the list of Holy Books is a duplication. They are already listed in [[Holy Books of Thelema]]. That being the case, the encyclopedic way would be to refer to the article, not relist them. [[User:Aleph|Aleph]]	+
-		+
-	::::::::I agree; Thelemapedia seems a bit heavy on redundant catalog lists at the moment.--[[User:Paradoxosalpha|Paradoxosalpha]] 23:59, 26 Feb 2005 (CST)	+
-		+
-	:::That said, I like Isomeme's proposal. [[User:z111|z111]]	+
-		+
-	===Aleph's Solution===	+
-		+
-	I don't think there is anything here that needs to be solved. While I originated this paragraph, it was added to by one other person, and rewritten in its current form by Ash. I have to say, none of the rewrites proposed address the actual issues in the current paragraph, but rather try to gloss over the existance of non-religious Thelemites who ''specifically'' reject religious elements such as Church, Canon, Creed & Mass.	+
-		+
-	:[[User:Ash|Fr. Ash]]: It is the rejection part that is the problem here. Under this rule, we should mention that some Thelemites reject Crowley, the Law as it's stated, Liber Legis in it's present form, and every thing else on the page. By putting it all under one banner that says "there are many interpretation of Thelema", we don't get bogged down in specifics on the main page, while providing a link to them elsewhere.	+
-		+
-	::Why is it bogging down? I think the rest of the article gets bogged down with an implicit acceptance of the religious view. Shall I start a debate on the use of the word "Theology" and start a debate that the list of the "Canon" should be moved into [[Thelema & Religion]]? I don't think so. I think the correct approach is to say up front that the issue of "Religion" is one that divides Thelemites into two camps. That is simply the truth, and glossing over it does not accurately represent the issue. [[User:Aleph|Aleph]]	+
-		+
-	:::I also dislike the term "Theology," even if it is a simple extrapolation from the fact that such figures as the Speakers of Liber AL are called "gods." Instead of that section as it stands, I would prefer to see a section on "Typical Doctrines" that would give quick summaries and references to articles on such things as reincarnation, the body of light, the Holy Guardian Angel, etc. Furthermore, I don't see the need for the superposition of the term "Canon" on the existing nomenclature of the "Holy Books." --[[User:Paradoxosalpha|Paradoxosalpha]] 23:59, 26 Feb 2005 (CST)	+
-		+
-	:::::Yes, I don't think that "Theology" was ever used by Crowley. He did use "Doctrines", for example in the Magick w/o Tears quote about religion being an enthusiastic putting together of doctrines. Similarly, I don't believe Crowley ever used Canon with respect to the "Holy Books"; in fact, I am uncertain whether he even used "Holy Books" - isn't that a recent editorial decision with respect to the title of a book? I think when Crowley published the collection of books now known as the "Holy Books of Thelema" that the title was simply "Thelema". Can you think of a place where he explicitly referred to them as the "Holy Books of Thelema"? [[User:Aleph|Aleph]]	+
-		+
-	I have to severely disagree with moving it to the [[Thelema & Religion]] page. The whole point is that this is a view about [[Thelema]] and should be in the [[Thelema]] article. Then the religious camp can explain their position further in [[Thelema & Religion]] and the alternative view camp can elaborate on their views in [[Alternative Views of Thelema]].	+
-		+
-	:[[User:Ash|Fr. Ash]]: I agree here completely.	+
-		+
-	:I disagree completely. Which is to say, I agree with Thiebes (for the reasons amply detailed in my other entries on this discussion page) that the religious/non-religious contention belongs in the [[Thelema & Religion]] article. I would also like to see the "Theology" replaced with a "Doctrines" section, where one of the various, explicitly non-obligatory doctrines would reference the Holy Books as a scriptural canon, with a link to the proper article (dropping the "Thelemic Canon" section in [[Thelema]] altogether). That's my proposed solution. --[[User:Paradoxosalpha|Paradoxosalpha]] 00:31, 27 Feb 2005 (CST)	+
-		+
-	I have to ask - does anyone here proposing solutions propose to move the stuff about the "Theology of Thelema" and "The Thelemic Canon", and any other religious elements out of this article? If not, this is where the section "Different views of Thelema" belongs - as a disclaimer before the religious elaborate on their creed.	+
-		+
-	:[[User:Ash|Fr. Ash]]: Those things are central to Thelema...they are constantly referred to in Thelemic literature, and provide much of its backbone. Just because one doesn't like them doesn't mean they don't exist or play a major role in defining what Thelema is. Also, there is nothing in those sections about religion, other than the term "holy books" which is how the author described them.	+
-		+
-	:::The point here is that there are Thelemites who accept ''only'' the Book of the Law. What is an is not "Thelemic" literature depends on the Thelemite. The Canon is ''not'' referred to in the Book of the Law. This has nothing to do with whether or not one accepts Crowley. This has to do with how an individual interprets the BotL. Some interpretations do not get into any of the additional stuff that Crowley piled on above and beyond the BoL. Your insistence that the Canon is "central" to Thelema is simply your own opinion. What is being rejected here is the projection of that opinion onto all Thelemites. [[User:Aleph|Aleph]]	+
-		+
-	::::[[User:Ash|Fr. Ash]]Yes, there are Thelemites who only accept the Book of the Law...that doesn't make the rest of the Holy Books go away...they are all part of one collection, and Crowley said that AL was the chief of them, not seperate from them. In fact, in one place he said that he thought V&V might be as important as AL. The rest of your point is covered in Isomeme's paragraph...there is no central source of orthodoxy, and how someone accepts Thelema into their life is completely up to that individual.	+
-		+
-	The religious/non-religious dicotomy is the whole ''point'' of the paragraph. What this boils down to is that I am trying to make a point, and you and others would prefer that this point not be brought up here. I don't want my point watered down - it is the ''essence'' of the issue. As you say, some reject Crowley, the Book of the Law, etc., but that can be discussed on the alternative views page. There is and does exist a division of Thelemites into religious and non-religious. That is why one page is called [[Thelema & Religion]] in the first place. It doesn't make sense to say that things are to be divided between [[Thelema & Religion]] and [[Alternative Views of Thelema]], but then say that the ''basis'' of that distinction cannot be mentioned in the paragraph that provides the introduction to the [[Alternative Views of Thelema]] article. [[User:Aleph|Aleph]]	+
-		+
-	:[[User:Ash|Fr. Ash]]: I understand you want the idea of the religious/non-religious dictomy up front, but I would argue that that dichotomy is, in itself, not a defining aspect of the system of Thelema, but rather of modern Thelemic culture. In other words, there is nothing within the structure of Thelema itself that requires a split between those who see Thelema as a religion and those who don't. If you wanted to discuss the various cultural aspects of Thelema, one of which being a section that denies its more religious components, then that discussion could fit under a "Thelemic Culture" sub-section. As a comparison, Isomeme's paragraph actually discusses ideas that are (arguably) intergral aspects built into the structure of Thelema itself. Can you think of a way to include your more specific point into his paragraph? Let's try to find a compromise.	+
-		+
-	::I propose we wait and see what text Thiebes proposes. He seems to understand that Crowley's writings themselves contain the dichotomy, and seems to have more understanding for both sides. Quite frankly, I don't like either your take on it or Isomeme's revision thereof. Also, we should let some time pass to allow other editors who may not log in daily to chip in. [[User:Aleph|Aleph]]	+
-		+
-	::Ash says, "the religious/non-religious dictomy ... is, in itself, not a defining aspect of the system of Thelema, but rather of modern Thelemic culture." I disagree. It is instead an aspect of '''modern religious culture''' generally (see my "Different Views" discussion subhead, below). Here then, is the crowning irony of the insistence on "non-religious" Thelema. It springs axiomatically from the dynamic of "religion" in modern "secular" society. --[[User:Paradoxosalpha|Paradoxosalpha]] 00:20, 27 Feb 2005 (CST)	+
-		+
-	:::[[User:Ash|Fr. Ash]]I challenge anyone to find a quote from Crowley that says Thelemites should ignore the Holy Books, or that they play a minor, secondary, or otherwise optional role in the system of Thelema. They must stay in the article or the article becomes neutered, and a major (and I argue central) component of Thelema will be missing.	+
-		+
-	:::So, with that said, here are three more compromises:	+
-		+
-	:::1. sub-section such as "Views on Religion", where a general range could be identified.	+
-	:::2. sub-section called "Aspects of Thelema" where we can have sub-sub-sections on Religion, Philosophy, and anything else you think might go there.	+
-	:::3. sub-section called "The Religion/Philosophy Dichotomy in Thelemic Culture", and describe the two viewpoints in brief.	+
-		+
-	::::Well, hey, you chose to open up this can 'o worms. I still want to know why on Oct. 17, you stated that the "Different Views of Thelema" paragraph was a "good entry", and now suddenly it is not. What changed? Why not just let the paragraph stand, along with the rest of the article. Seems like not all the editors agree that this is the most appropriate place for the list of the "Canon". That could go into [[Holy Books of Thelema]] (hey, look it already is. can you say duplication??), which would simply be mentioned in this article. I have no objection to Canon, Creed, etc. being ''mentioned'' in this article, or even statements about their importance. I simply do not believe that the complete ''lists'' of all the details belong here. The details belong in their own articles. [[User:Aleph|Aleph]]	+
-		+
-	:::::[[User:Ash|Fr. Ash]] : Although I would keep the details under AL (those things really need to be spelled out, and some duplication is acceptable), the idea of describing the other Holy Books and providing a link to the full list is acceptable to me.	+
-		+
-	:::::So, with that in mind, how does this sound...Under the Theology section, we have three sub-sections: (1) the current AL entry, (2) Description of Holy Books and link, (3) a brief description of interpretations of these items, such as:	+
-		+
-	::::::'''Not all Thelemites agree on the importance of all of the "Holy Books", Crowley's interpretations of them, or their theological nature. Some Thelemites use these writings as the backbone of a religion of Thelema, while others consider Thelema to be more of a philosophy or ethical system, and not a religion at all. Crowley himself had contradictory views on Thelema as a religion. However one regards them, he did consider them important to the system of Thelema, especially as manifested in his order, the A.'.A.'.''''	+
-		+
-	:::::Are we getting any closer?	+
-		+
-	::::::Oh yes, that is much better. As long as the idea that some Thelemites consider Thelema a religion and some consider it more of a philosophy is explicitly mentioned, the original intent of the paragraph is preserved. Though I would also like to see something like the sentence about acceptance of the BoL from the original paragraph. I believe that originated with your rewrite, actually. [[User:Aleph|Aleph]]	+
-		+
-	===Paradoxos Alpha's Solution===	+
-	(reasoning provided in other replies throughout discussion)	+
-	*Move the religious/non-religious contention to [[Thelema & Religion]].	+
-	*Eliminate [[Alternative Views of Thelema]]	+
-	*Replace "Theology" in [[Thelema]] with a "Doctrines" section, listing various, explicitly non-obligatory doctrines with links to pertinent articles, e.g.: [[Holy Guardian Angel]], [[body of light]], [[True Will]].	+
-	*Eliminate "Thelemic Canon" in [[Thelema]], in favor of a "Doctrine" item mentioning the scriptural canon established through A.'.A.'. Class A, and cross-referencing [[Holy Books of Thelema]].	+
-	Editors assuming my ideological bias on these issues may also note that it was I who recently changed "religion" to "philosophical school and religious matrix" in the initial characterization of "Thelema."--[[User:Paradoxosalpha|Paradoxosalpha]] 00:45, 27 Feb 2005 (CST)	+
-		+
-	::I am in favor of this solution 100%. It is in many respects the kind of thing I was thinking, but more elegantly than I could have done. --[[User:Thiebes|Thiebes]] 01:18, 27 Feb 2005 (CST)	+
-		+
-		+
-	::I agree with this partially. While I think the title of [[Alternative Views of Thelema]] could be improved. I think it highly important to have two pages, if only for the reduction of disagreement. The maximal reduction of argument and contention would come from allowing [[Thelema & Religion]] or perhaps better [[Thelema (religion)]] to address the religious point of view without dissenting views. Similarly, perhaps [[Thelema (non-religious)]] or [[Philosophical Views of Thelema]] or something else mutally agreeable would not have to take into account or discuss religious views of Thelema at all.	+
-		+
-	::Therefore I think the division should be mentioned in [[Thelema]] in a way that leads naturally to the two separate articles. We really don't want to have a discussion like this every time someone puts something in [[Thelema & Religion]]. Keeping the pages separate is more of a ''practical'' matter than a question of ''form'' or ''style''. [[User:Aleph|Aleph]]	+
-		+
-	==DISCUSSION: Scope of article too broad==	+
-	This article seems to go beyond its topic. For example, the section entitled "The Speakers of Liber AL" logically belongs in the article on the [[Book of the Law]].	+
-		+
-	The section entitled "Other personalities presented in Liber Legis" logically belongs in [[Thelemic Godforms]].	+
-		+
-	The section entitled "The Thelemic Canon" logically belongs in [[Holy Books of Thelema]]. In fact, it is already there and has been for some time. The encyclopedic way of doing things dictates that this information should not be reproduced in two places. The [[Thelema]] article should simply reference [[Holy Books of Thelema]] in a summary paragraph about their place in and importance to Thelema.	+
-		+
-	Why not simply present a shorter summary here, and move the detailed expositions to the articles where they actually belong? IMO, a short sweet overview of the basics of Thelema is what should be in this article. If these changes were made, the other issue being discussed should prove easier to resolve. [[User:Aleph|Aleph]]	+
-		+
-	:I agree with all of these points wrt limiting scope and offloading to more targeted articles. After all, ''all of Thelemapedia'' is about "Thelema." This article should give only the broadest of outlines, with specific details regarding the history and application of the term itself. --[[User:Paradoxosalpha|Paradoxosalpha]] 00:23, 27 Feb 2005 (CST)	+
-		+
-	== Other Personalities in Liber Legis, edits ==	+
-		+
-	I edited the '''Hrumachis''' summary, because it reflected an inaccurate reading of Liber AL. Hrumachis ''is'' RHK, who will "arise" (i.e. vacate the Throne of the Aeon) at the future Equinox of the Gods. "The double-wanded one" is Thmaist (Maat), who is '''not''' Hrumachis. But see how quickly this sort of thing gets pestilential?	+
-		+
-	:Thanks for the technical corrections. [[User:Ash|Fr. Ash]]	+
-		+
-	:I'm not sure this is correct. Doesn't Hru-machis mean "Horus of the Star" while RHK means "Horus of the Two Horizons"? I have always thought that they are two different forms of Horus. What you say about ''arise'' is ''attractive'', but not convincing unless there is something that shows that the Egyptians considered the two identical. Neither the old nor new comment mentions this identity... [[User:Aleph|Aleph]]	+
-		+
-	::"Two different forms of Horus" is fine. I wasn't trying to establish any more precise equivalence than that. In the Extenuation ("New Comment," so-called by Regardie), Crowley takes a somewhat different tack, vaguely identifiying Hrumachis with "any new course of events." Still it was expressly as "Harmachis" (among others) that Crowley invoked Horus--who then revealed himself as the Lord of the Aeon--in the Cairo working; see the Great Invocation, section Beta II Beth.	+
-	::Also, I am in turn skeptical of your implied assertion that Egyptological data are final arbiters regarding the "personalities" (as the present article has it) who wear their names and attributes in Thelemic literature and doctrine.--[[User:Paradoxosalpha|Paradoxosalpha]] 21:46, 24 Feb 2005 (CST)	+
-		+
-	Also, how did '''Chaos''' get into this list? Where does that name appear in Liber Legis? --[[User:Paradoxosalpha|Paradoxosalpha]] 16:36, 22 Feb 2005 (CST)	+
-		+
-	:RIght you are. However, the list was intended to reflect "dieties" that are promenant in Thelema, not just Liber AL. Perhaps the header should change to include all Thelemic holy books? [[User:Ash|Fr. Ash]]	+
-	::I certainly prefer the present "personalities" to "deities," in terms of avoiding metaphysical recklessness. As it stands, every entry on the list can be found in Liber Legis ''except'' for Chaos. If you open it up to all the Holy Books, it's a real can of worms: Adonai from Liber LXV? Iacchus and Al A'ain the Priest from Liber VII? All 44 spirits from CCXXXII?--[[User:Paradoxosalpha|Paradoxosalpha]] 21:46, 24 Feb 2005 (CST)	+
-		+
-	While "deities" is problematic as a term, I'm not convinced that "personalities" as a designator really works either - its absence in the literature doesn't lend a lot of support for its use. Personally, I think the differentiations are important and should be delineated where possible. For example: "Archangels" could include Ithuriel, as "Genii" could include Malkunofat from Liber 231.	+
-	- aishmlchmh	+
-		+
-	:I do have to say that it is very strange that those who insist that Thelema is a Religion get all mamby-pamby when they have to talk about "Gods" or "Deities" and end up with "Personalities" instead. If Thelema is indeed a Religion, shouldn't one take the Bull by the Horns and at least call them Deities, if not Gods? [[User:Aleph|Aleph]]	+
-		+
-	== Different Views of Thelema ==	+
-		+
-	It's silly to make a big deal out of the insistence of some professed Thelemites that Thelema is not a religion. This issue does not pertain specifically to Thelema, but rather to '''religion''' generally. It is very common (as Google will show) to find Christians who say that Christianity is not a religion ("It's a personal relationship with Jesus!"), Muslims who say that Islam is not a religion ("It's a way of life!"), Jews who say that Judaism is not religion ("It's a heritage!"), etc. etc. In virtually all cases, this rhetorical trope appears to be an attempt to priviledge the "non-religion" of the adherent above all of the other mere religions. As an aspiring source of "academic" information on Thelema, Thelemapedia shouldn't capitulate to such gambits. If we must take note of them, we should properly contextualize them as a feature of ''religious discourse'' that transcends creed and tradition. [http://www.islamfortoday.com/islamisareligion.htm Here] is a fairly articulate essay on this topic from the perpective of an American convert to Islam.--[[User:Paradoxosalpha|Paradoxosalpha]] 22:14, 24 Feb 2005 (CST)	+
-		+
-	:You're right. It's silly to make such a big deal out if it as you are doing. Also, by implying that the inclusion of a single paragraph is silly, you are dismissing the views of actual groups of people and their beliefs, and implying that their beliefs are silly. Is this an attempt to marginalize a subset of Thelemites? Is the front page claim of Thelemapedia, "Everyone from every corner of the Thelemic universe is welcome to add knowledge to the encyclopedia by becoming an editor," simply a falsehood, a gambit to attract more editors for this Wiki, perhaps with the intent to quietly edit out non-orthodox views at a later date when those editors are no longer actively paying attention? [[User:Aleph|Aleph]]	+
-		+
-	::There's no "quietly edit" on my part! You will note that I made no edits to the paragraph in question, preferring to address the issue ''in discussion'' with editors who should be presumed to know their own minds about this material. If you feel "marginalized" by my observations, oh well. I don't believe that the object of scholarship is to provide personal validation for all possible readers. The fact is, that even a "Liber AL Only" Thelema, with its revealed scripture, gods, rituals, invocations, prophet/prince-priest, etc. etc., can only be considered "non-religious" on two possible bases: 1) personal animosity towards the category of religion ''per se'', or 2) an attempt to categorically priviledge Thelema among other religious forms and traditions by rhetorical fiat. Neither of these is a useful fulcrum for scholarship.--[[User:Paradoxosalpha|Paradoxosalpha]] 00:08, 27 Feb 2005 (CST)	+
-		+
-	:::My apologies. The "quietly edit" remark was not directed at you personly. Another editor did, however, remove this paragraph without discussion.	+
-		+
-	:::I must disagree, though, on the religious/non-religious issue. Those who take to heart Crowley's comment in Liber O, "In this book it is spoken of the Sephiroth and the Paths; of Spirits and Conjurations; of Gods, Spheres, Planes, and many other things which may or may not exist... students are most earnestly warned against attributing objective reality or philosophic validity to any of them", there is no reason whatsover to take these things at face value. Most people, when they think of this passage simply remember the idea that the "Gods" may not be real, but note that he also mentions "Conjurations" which covers both rituals and invocations in your list. Combined wtih his remarks in Magick w/o Tears, it is completely reasonable to take all the religious elements as code or metaphor, leaving Liber AL simply as an instruction book in Magick. [[User:Aleph|Aleph]]	+

---

Current revision

Clearing page. Last version, 12 Jun 2005, archived here (http://www.thelemapedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Thelema&oldid=4302).

Edit this page | View content page | Page history | What links here | Related changes Main Page | About Thelemapedia | Recent changes |