Talk:Thelema
(Difference between revisions)
Revision as of 14:29, 25 Feb 2005 Aleph (Talk | contribs) Different Views of Thelema |
Revision as of 19:25, 26 Feb 2005 Ash (Talk | contribs) ***IMPORTANT DISCUSSION: all editors please read and join in*** |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
- | == Disambiguation == | + | ==DISCUSSION: Different views of Thelema== |
- | I think this should be split into several different articles to disambiguate usage. I'd suggest: | + | '''To all editors:''' this discussion surrounds the following paragraph currently in Thelema: |
- | *[[Thelema]] - overview article | + | :'''Different views of Thelema''' |
- | *[[Thelema (formula)]] | + | |
- | *[[Thelema (system)]] (the practical system) | + | |
- | *[[Thelema & Religion|Thelema (religion)]] (the religious aspect) | + | |
- | I would add [[Thelema (history)]], but that should simply redirect to [[History]]. | + | :'''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.''' |
- | [[User:Adityanath|Adityanath]] | + | There is debate over the appropriateness of this article. 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> |
- | :I don't think it needs to be a full disambiguation page...a section on "See Also" should suffice if someone wants to write more detailed articles. —[[User:Ash|Ash]] | + | ===Ash's solution=== |
- | :: Done, wrt Religion. I'm unconvinced that Thelema has a ''single'' "practical system": the systems of A.'.A.'. and OTO differ in important respects, and other systems are possible (and extant) under the general aegis of Thelema. To the extent that an overview of Thelemic practices (systematized or not) is useful and possible, the "Practices" subsection of the current article goes a long way in that direction. --[[User:Paradoxosalpha|Paradoxosalpha]] 16:36, 22 Feb 2005 (CST) | + | 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]]. | ||
== Other Personalities in Liber Legis, edits == | == Other Personalities in Liber Legis, edits == |
Revision as of 19:25, 26 Feb 2005
Table of contents |
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 article. Thelemapedia is inviting you to share your opinion and offer solutions. Please put your comments in a sub-header: e.g. ===My Solution===
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.
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. 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... 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.--Paradoxosalpha 21:46, 24 Feb 2005 (CST)
Also, how did Chaos get into this list? Where does that name appear in Liber Legis? --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? 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?--Paradoxosalpha 21:46, 24 Feb 2005 (CST)
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. Here (http://www.islamfortoday.com/islamisareligion.htm) is a fairly articulate essay on this topic from the perpective of an American convert to Islam.--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? Aleph