Thelemapedia - User contributions [en]

Thelemapedia talk:Community Portal

2004-11-08T14:07:25Z

Ibisis: /* Suggestion for new topic */

<div style="float:right; width:500px;background-color: #EDEEEF;padding:4px;border: 1px solid #B6B5C1;">'''Hit the "Edit" tab above to start a new topic on this page....it is better to start a new topic at the TOP of the page. To indent your entries, just put a colon in front of the first line of ''every'' paragraph. The more colons you type, the more indented the paragraph will be. Please sign all your entries with triple squiglies: <nowiki>~~~</nowiki>.'''</div>

==Editorial Principles==

The little debate with m1thr0s below has given me an opportunity to think about what principle should guide our editorial policies. This is what I have come up with:

The '''prime editorial principle''' could be: ''the promotion of clarity, understanding, and accuracy.'' Any other reasonable principle, such as "the promotion of personal expression", is acceptable in practice until it violates the prime editorial principle. As I mentioned to m1thr0s, an example would be the issue of spelling variants of "magick" also with a "k", like "magickal" and "magickian". Allowing this spelling violates the PEP, because it might confuse people who see "magician" in one article and "magickian" in another. Add to this the fact that the variant spelling is not used by Crowley or any other major Thelemic writer, such as DuQuette, Regardie, Sabazius, etc., lending support to the argument that the varient spelling is based not on technical reasons, but on personal expression. "Personal expression" is a principle that, as a Thelemite, I strongly support. However, as managing editor of Thelemapedia, I believe that the PEP trumps it.

I would be very interested in other people's thoughts on this.
—[[User:Ash|Ash]]

UPDATE: for anyone interested, I have created the [[Thelemapedia:Editorial Policy|Primary Editorial Principles]]:

:''Whenever executive editorial decisions have to be made on Thelemapedia, they will be based on the following primary principles:

:#Articles should be sympathetic with the principles, culture, practices, and beliefs of Thelema whenever possible.
:#Articles should promote clarity, accuracy, and the will to inform without distortion or fabrication.
:#Articles should reflect knowledge that is generally accepted in the Thelemic community, drawing from expert sources or common knowledge.

This is open to comments...please give feedback. —[[User:Ash|Ash]]
:: I feel that articles may contain knowledge which is NOT generally accepted, or is contentious, as well, though such should be presented in the form of hypotheses linked to the names of those who hold them. Obviously, points of view presented ought to be indexed to their origins, proponents etc. otherwise we run the risk of constraining the discourse to 'orthodox' points of view. I feel that using reference to established authors is key for supporting points of view, but that as a limitation to discourse (ie; if a major author doesn't mention it then it's not valid) it is problematic. Who knows, perhaps some of us will become 'major thelemic thinkers'.-[[User:ibisis|ibisis]]

:::Allow me to be more precise with the general editorial principles in this regard. You can present any viewpoint you want on any topic you want as long as it is a part of the general knowledge base. In other words, Thelemapedia is not the place to offer personal theories that are beyond the bounds of common knowledge, orthodox sources (i.e. Crowley, Levi, Regardie, etc.), or recorded academia (Starr, DuQuette, DeCampo, Dionysos Thriambos, Sabazius, etc.). I cannot stress this enough...this is not the place for personal opinion, personal expression, or personal agendas...there are other sites well suited to that purpose. If a topic presents some information that has alternative viewpoints, please add them. However, it will get edited out unless you can back up that information. I am not shy about saying that this is indeed an orthodox position...this site is not intended to be an experimental playground of new ideas. If everyone can come here and present any opinion they want, with no other qualifier than that they have an opinion, then this site will become useless.

:::On the flipside, if you see information here that you believe is seriously in error, you have the right and the ability to edit it. Even with the presentation of orthodox positions, there is lots of room for bias. You have complete control over this and can change how an entry reads, changing that bias completely even if the fundamental facts remain the same. —[[User:Ash|Ash]]

==Added "Using Images" to Help page==

For those of you who would like to use images in your articles, this is a good page to learn how...'''[[Thelemapedia:Using Images]]'''. —[[User:Ash|Ash]]

==Thelemapedia comments==
This is a great idea!

[[User:Frater C.U.G.|Frater C.U.G.]]

This is fantastic!! Thank you Scarlet Woman Lodge! :)

:'''Glad you like it!'''

:...of course, it will be as good as we all make it. I am hoping that over the next couple of years, we will make Thelemapedia the single best source of information on Thelema anywhere! The world will be ours! Muwahahaha! —[[User:Ash|Ash]]
----
Indeed ! This is an outstanding venture and excellent execution. At lease from what I see so far. I am sure I'll get a good deal of milage at of this in my office as PIO. Thank you my brothers, and please let me know if I can be of assistance with this project.

93/93

In L.V.X.,

Frater Hrumachis

:Well, of course you can be of assistance...write an article! :) —[[User:Ash|Ash]]
----

I especially appreciate you allowing us young'uns (Thelemically speaking) to add to the corpus of Thelemic knowledge.

[[User:Frater DVV|DVV]]

:There's no age limit for the ability to write a good article! Thanks for contributing. --[[User:Ash|Ash]] 19:12, 21 Sep 2004 (EDT)

:---Okay, read your profile...sorry, that was presumptuous of me. I should have said, "there's no limits on Thelemic newbies of whatever age to write a good article." My apologies. —[[User:Ash|Ash]], the insensitive dope

::Actually, this is a good vehicle for someone who is "just learning" to research topics of interest. --[[User:Frater DVV|DVV]] the old fart.

== style issues ==

Can we get a standard on spelling? I am ''extremely averse'' to the spelling '''magickal'''. Now, for those who must have a K, the word '''magick''' is a perfectly proper adjective, as in "magick wand." But Crowley never used the word "magickal," and I recommend that we also stick to '''magical''' when the three-syllable adjective is in order. -[[User:paradoxosalpha|paradoxosalpha]]

:I agree 100%, Nix on magickian also. -- [[User:Frater C.U.G.|Frater C.U.G.]]

:"Magickal" and "magickian: are not words, as far as I'm concerned. —[[User:Ash|Ash]]

:To hear is to obey, effendi. "Magickal" shall be magickally removed from my posts henceforth. [[User:Frater DVV|DVV]]

Ok, here's a trickier one: '''qabalah'''? That's Crowley's spelling, approximating transliteration, but it's usual to spell it '''Kabbalah''' in reference to Hebrew mysticism, and '''cabala''' in reference to Christian esotery and systems of word calculation and symbolism. Should we have a standard? --[[User:Paradoxosalpha|Paradoxosalpha]] 19:31, 24 Sep 2004 (EDT)

: I made some redirect pages last night Kabbalah and cabala both go to qabalah now. [[User:Frater C.U.G.|Frater C.U.G.]]

: In my original entry, I used "qabalah" to refer to Hermetic Qabalah, and "Kabbalah" to refer to Jewish Kabbalah. Purely arbitrary and any modifications are welcome. [[User:Frater DVV|DVV]]

: I can't agree that "magickian" is not a word since it is the logical extension of the term "magick" and has the same advantage over "magician" that "magick" has over "magic". Moreover, I should think that Thelemites have infinitely more important matters to attend to than this kind of thing though. If we cannot excercise a little tolerance against little things that might happen to irk us, how on earth can we expect to overcome the really important issues in life? Censorship is a poor way to begin any project involving the free expression of ideas towards a greater exploration of Higher Self and Will. Unless it can be demonstrated that the use of these terms is patently wrong, any call to banish them is fundamentally pushy, if not a bit selfish. Words evolve constantly...that is in their nature. If these words have caught on for some reason, isn't it possible that they have done so because they feel right to a lot of people? And if this trend continues as I suspect it will, aren't we making mountains out of molehills to make a big thing of it? I submit that a person's intent is much more important than the spelling they may choose and unless there is a definite problem of some kind, whether a person says magic or majik or magick, magical, majikal or magickal is all about the same thing really and should not be fussed over but simply accepted in lieu of natural human differences...m1thr0s

::You use the word "censorship", but incorrectly in this case. Censorship is defined as the banning of information or ideas. Instituting an editorial policy for spelling does not ban any idea or piece of information. Do you see the dictionary as a tool of censorship? Ultimately, this particular spelling policy is based on three things:
:::#the words "magickian" and "magickal" do not appear in any Thelemic holy book or work of Crowley,
:::#the invariant spelling is less commonly used in modern Thelemic writings, and
:::#if articles are using both forms, it could cause confusion about assumed differences in meaning between the two spellings.
::Please note, we do not take the position that using these words are somehow wrong, or that we want to stop its use everywhere. We have no opinion about other people adding the "k" anywhere else they want. However, using the variant spelling is largely a matter of personal expression, like some feminists using the spelling "womyn". Personal expression is obviously a central value of Thelema, but Thelemapedia is not a forum for personal expression...it is an encyclopedia, and as such it is here to reflect the general body of existing knowledge and substantial works of Thelema. If you quote a published work, for example, that uses the variant spelling, then that is of course acceptable. However, in all other cases, we want to have a single, standardized, consistent term for Thelemapedia articles, and using the traditional form makes more sense at this time.
::—[[User:Ash|Ash]]

:::I see. Good luck with your project then. I certainly will not be contributing any articles that force adherence to such an arbitrary standards which - as you have clearly stated - are primarily based upon your own personal sensabilities. I don't know that these words do NOT show up anywhere in the holy books as you have stated and I don't believe it really matters. Nevertheless, it's your project so good luck with that...m1thr0s

::::Curious...the reasons I mentioned are not arbitrary at all, and are based more on logic than "personal sensabilities". However, this little debate has given me an opportunity to think about the general principles guiding our editorial policies. See "editorial Principles" above...

:::::'Magick' defined Thelemicaly is distinct from 'Magic' defined as a performance art. This is a technical spelling which, though not in use by everyone, has been helpfull to distinguish Thelemic practice and Will based Magick from Magic as it is commonly understood (usually by the public as a performance art). So this is a matter of taxonomic distinction. Similarly 'magical', and 'magician', would be extentions of the word 'magic', just as 'magickal' and 'magickian' would be extentions of the word 'magick'. I think that this goes beyond the personal and into the realm of skillful means. I use 'magickian' and 'magician', both, and they have a technical difference. I think it's helpful to have recourse to that expression in this Encyclopedia, just as it is helpful to be able to evolve language along divergent lines of thought... Ibisis

::::::Crowley didn't think so...he never used the spellings "magickal" or "magickian". Considering he was the originator of the term "magick", I will defer to his taxonomic expertise (for the purposes of this site). I won't ban anyone for using the alternative spellings, or anything drastic like that, I will simply edit the entries. I realize that some people will find this unreasonable...however, I have given my reasons above, and I believe they are, in fact, perfectly reasonable. Ultimately, it is about clarity, and my opinion is backed by the fact that no major Thelemic author has ever used the alternative spellings, putting those words outside the bounds of "technical terms". The words "magician" and "magical" are technically aligned with the term "magick"—based on their usage as such by Crowley, Regardie, DuQuette, Rodney Orpheus, Martin Starr, Dionysos Thriambos, Sabazius, Hymenaeus Beta, Tim Maroney, etc., etc. You mention the alternatives as "expressions" and I agree...they are personal expressions, not academically accepted technical terms. As an illustration, I know lots of people who refer to Aleister Crowley as "Uncle Al", but that doesn't make it an acceptable reference on this site. —[[User:Ash|Ash]]

I appreciate your concerns here Ash but I cannot agree with your reasonings thus far. It may be true that Crowley did not use the words in question but this does not make their usage incorrect. These are conventional english extensions of the word "magick" and no more or less than that. Their usage is inherently correct within the confines of English itself. If these terms have not caught on more - give it a little time...and not much time either I'll wager. As near as 3 or so years ago to my best recollection these terms were hardly ever used anywhere at all and now their usage is becoming much more widespread. I think that the truth is that there was a certain amount of discomfort associated to using conventional terms to express a New Aeon concept, but since no one "in authority" had breached the topic, people were hesitant to be the first to take the plunge. But language evolves of necessity and the reliance upon these words today is born of that same necessity. There are always more than one way to approach the idea of "correct usage" in language. Arguing that Crowley may not have used these terms in his writings doesn't mean he would have been opposed to their usage. It's a circumstantial argument at best in my opinion. I will continuwe to use these terms as they are correct of English itself, and I suspect others will continue for the same reason. Now if you can show some good reason that it should NOT be correct English - I will be glad to consider it...m1thr0s

:I do not have to show reason that they are or are not "correct english", because that is not the issue. The issue is one of accepted knowledge. This is a conservative project, and the primary source of expertise that I accept comes from the Master Therion, who did not use the alternative spellings. His example is followed by every other person who has seriously added to the knowledge base of Thelema, such as Regardie, DuQuette, Sabazius, and the other usual suspects. It doesn't make sense to allow the spelling "magickal" when you can't find that word in any of their books! When and if the alternative spellings take hold in a majority of new serious literature, then there will be a reasonable argument that it has become accepted as legitimate spellings. Until then, Thelemapedia is sticking with Uncle Al.

:As a final point, you talk about the evolution of language. That is indeed something that happens, and that's a good thing. But this is not a place to experiment with that. Encyclopedias, by their very nature, are conservative, orthodox creatures—as opposed to, say, journals or books on theory. If you want to write an entire article on the evolution of the spelling of "magickian", if it's pretty good I'll publish it in the ''[http://www.scarletwoman.org/scarletletter/index.html Scarlet Letter]'', our Lodge's journal (of which I am the editor). That is a great forum for presenting new and groundbreaking ideas...this encyclopedia is not. —[[User:Ash|Ash]]

Dictionaries are fairly conservative as well yet they do their best to keep pace with advances in language either in the form of slang or newly introduced words of merit. Crowley never used the term "Hexagramology" either and yet at least one major University in the US (UCB I believe) has granted degrees in this area. So it's not just a matter of attempting to be trendy, but rather correct within the moment. Nevertheless, it is your project as I have agreed and there is no point belaboring the subject ''en ad nauseam''. I believe you are limiting yourself and others unnecessarily in this position and that there may be some more judicious approach to the matter than simply editing out these terms upon usage - something I would not be able to accept as a serious writer and philosophical thinker. It's entirely your call and I wish you all the best in future...m1thr0s

:''sigh''...This site has a very liberal attitude...you can edit entries to your heart's content. You can write over existing material, you can present alternative viewpoints, you can format, invent categories, add images, create links, and on and on. The price for all this freedom is an adherence to the existing knowledge base. Let me say this for the last time: '''All material on Thelemapedia must reflect the EXISTING knowledge base''', not the current trends and fads that might or might not become a part of the knowledge base in the future. The "knowledge base" consists of those materials that exist in the "literature"—that is, published works by people who are considered experts within the realm of Thelema (or writers who have excellent research skills who themselves use the existing knowledge base). When dealing with non-Thelemic topics, like Hindu godforms, this can be relaxed a bit, since Thelemic writers have only written so much on those topics (for example, Crowley spelled "Hindu" as "Hindoo" at times, but the proper spelling should be used, except in quotes). But when it comes to those topics that are central to Thelema, such as magick, then this site insists on a strict adherence to the knowledge base.

:<div style="background-color: #EDEEEF;padding:4px;border: 1px solid #B6B5C1;">This is my last comment on this issue: the words "magickian" and "magickal" DO NOT, at this time, appear in the existing knowledge base as this site defines it. If this feels limiting to anyone, then they can take it up with the writers of those texts that make up the current knowledge base. If someone wants to challenge this editorial policy (which is always acceptable to do by anyone), then they must show that the alternative spellings ''have become'' (not ''will become'') a significant part of the ''existing'' knowledge base—personal journals, blogs, and non-acadmeic articles do not count, sorry. <BR>So mote it be. —[[User:Ash|Fr. Ash]], the cruel dictator</div>

::As a linguist, I happen to agree that ''magickal'' and ''magickian'' are not valid English and the word ''magickian'' is highly unlikely to ever be incorporated into English. There was a time when ''magickal'' would have been correct. During this period, it was common for ''heretic'' to be spelled ''heretick'' and ''-al'' could be added to this because the consonant was still pronounced with a ''k'' sound. Thus, both ''heretickal'' and ''magickal'' could be valid in pre-modern English. On the other hand, ''magickian'' would never have been used unless it were pronounced ma.ji.ki.an, which I do not believe that even advocates of the alternate spelling use in speech. The use of ''ck'' in English is highly restricted. It can only be used where it is pronouced ''hard'', i.e. as ''k'' and never where it would be pronounced ''sh''. Thus, linguistically, ''magickal'' is nearly acceptable, but considered an archaic form, while ''magickian'' is simply a misspelling. [[User:Adityanath|Adityanath]]

== kinda new to all this ==

kinda new to this. This site, I'm sure will be invaluable.

:Welcome! You'll catch on. It took me 10 minutes to get writing; a week to get all the basics; and a month or two to really "get it". Now that I'm an admin and watching the site grow, I'm having to learn a whole new set of skills. If this site has done nothing but that for me, it's been more than worth it. —[[User:Ash|Ash]]

== Suggestion for new topic ==

In Lieu of the recent debate about how to ground legitimate entries in respect of the editorial policy, I propose the following:
Why don't we create a section which could be called either 'unorthodox thelema', or 'contemporary thelema', or something similar to this? Also 'debates within Thelema','Heretical Thelema' or' Pre-Crowlian Thelema'. Here we could actually host an artical on the differences between "Magician and Magickian", so as to at least reflect the proposal of the argument for this term itself whilst indicating that it is under debate. As well, we could then have a forum for showcasing the newer inovations in Thelemic thinking, providing links to contemporary work etc... Additionally, it should be noted that Thelema pre-existed Crowley as a philosophy; It is present in the writtings of Francios Rabelais, and others, thus we could show with accuracy the continuum which is Thelema. My major concern with this site is that by 'restricting' it to certain accepted sources, it will present an innacurate portrait of what is really going on here. Thelema is very much alive, and growing; it is essential to accomodate this fact. While Dictionaries are inherently conservative in nature, the Wiki format alters this terrain a bit, and if we agree on a mode by which we can develop the evolutionary side of thelema without at the same time opening the encyclopedia to an anarchic free-for all, we will be better off. This is not an ordinary 'dictionary'. It is bounded by it's technological form, which is inherently evolutionary. I'd like to see this project be a living reflection of Thelema; both retaining form AND pushing boundaries. I have no desire to participate in a cannonization process; we've all seen how ugly that can be. So in short; Ibisis' Proposal is:Create a new category or categories to accommadate the debate rather than stifle it. Shall we?

-Ibisis-

:The accepted method for this is simply to add a ''Alternate views'' or ''Differing views'' section to an article. For example, if someone wanted to add an ''Alternative spellings'' section to the article on [[Magick]] simply presenting in a matter-of-fact way that some Thelemites use alternate spellings for the terms and presenting these spellings and their distinctions, I doubt that anyone would remove it. One could also add redirect pages for [[Magickal]] and [[Magickian]]. Similarly, I have already begun a ''Different views of Thelema'' under the article on [[Thelema]]. This could simply be expanded or additional sections added to the main article to accomplish what you are suggesting. Also, you might consider a [[History of Thelema]] article for the Rabalaisian precedent to Thelema.

:[[User:Adityanath|Adityanath]]

:I pretty much agree with Adityanath on this one. Keep in mind, the issue is not one of orthodox vs. alternative or traditional vs. contemporary. It is about existing lines of knowledge. If you want to present an alternative or contemporary viewpoint in an article, by all means do so. But they need to reflect expert sources that you can reference or opinions that are accepted by a great bulk of the Thelemic community so to be considered "common knowledge". If we try to present every individual opinion on a topic (aspecially one like "Thelema" or "Magick") then they will be 20 pages long and so varied as to be useless. The object is to provide fundamental information, not an exhaustive range of individual viewpoints. That is the use of the "Links of Interest" sections, where you can link to any relevant info you want (see [[OTO]] for a good example of this). I understand that you want to use Thelemapedia to push boundaries, but that is just not the purpose of this site. If you want to explore the evolutionary aspects of Thelema, join Lashtal.com or present your ideas on LiveJournal.com or in a Thelemic print publication.

:I will give an example to illustrate what I am trying to say. Crowley believed that the squiggle in AL is a tzaddi. Many Thelemites do not—enough to consider the opinion "common knowledge". Within the AL article, it would be acceptable to state both viewpoints, because they both fundamentally change the nature of the meaning, and each can be backed up with solid reasons. You use the difference between "Magician" and "Magickian"...the problem here is that there is no difference in meaning...within the canon of Thelemic literature (even "alternative" literature), they mean the exact same thing. If there were two camps—one of magicians and one of magickians—who had significantly different philosophies and practices, then it would be proper, even necessary, to point out the difference. However, such is not the case. Therefore, insisting on their mutual use muddies the waters and dilutes understanding (violating the 2nd editorial principle).

:[[User:Ash|Fr. Ash]]

I find the arrangement suggested by Adityanath to be completely satisfactory. Thank you. If you re- read my comments, I think you will find reason to see that I am not trying to force you to convert to spelling "Magickian" as such, nor am I trying to use this site to push boundaries. I am simply calling it as I see it, perhaps contributing debate and new ideas where I see them to be pertinent. I think you will find that I can contribute helpful perspectives. In the interest of an open debate, please be careful that you do not make a 'straw man' out of my perspectives. Don't interpret the surface issues which I mention as iconic of my persepective. My suggestion was that we ought to create a forum for diverging views, as Adityanath has picked up on completely. Your response seems to me to suggest that the main content of my post was the proposition of "Magickian" and the opening up of a limitless dhiarea of unqualified discourse, and it is not. Principle of Charity of Interpretation, please.

I'll give you an example of what I'm talking about in terms of unreferenced, contemporary views as being valid. I contributed an article on IAO in English. The concept is entirely self supporting, coherent, and works within the body of Thelemic research (rather than opinion). As far as I know, having never read that before, I 'discovered' that one (Mabye others too, but who knows..." Independent research which is not inter-textually referenced but which is nevertheless a coherent and obvious feature of Thelema is what I'd like to see admitted, NOT wild opinion, thank you.

-Ibisis-

:What you are talking about enters into the vague arena of self-supported knowledge. I can offer no editorial policy on that one. It is certainly a valid strategy to put something up the flag pole and see who salutes. There is an equal chance that people will rip it to shreds, of course. No one "owns" the information in any of these articles, so it's prefectly "legal" to take a presented theory, and mangle it, perfect it, or delete it. That's why there is no need for a seperate forum on this site, which would only serve to confuse people looking for clear information. If someone can't make an idea fit within an existing article, then either the original article is flawed, or the new information is.

:The one area that I still resist strongly is the idea of using Thelemapedia as a forum for presenting "independent research". That idea is fundamentally at odds with the nature and goals of this site. Contributors need to think of the end user, first and foremost. Writers should essentially be invisible to those who are using the site learn about Thelema. This site cannot work when the writers are using Thelemapedia as a forum for discussion, experimentation, and debate for their personal theories.

:Is this limiting? Yes, of course it is. Thelemapedia is not going to try to be all things to all people. If you want to add information to an article, by all means do so...but please try to use info that can be backed up in the existing literature (whether orthodox or alternative, I don't care).

[[User:Ash|Fr. Ash]]

Cool.
-Ibisis-

==Godforms?==
I see that we have a whole list of "godforms" but no entry under "godform" itself. Maybe an entry as to what a "godform" is?

I'd write it myself if I knew how to define "godform" (as opposed to "deity," "god," or "grand wazoo."). -- [[User:Frater DVV|DVV]]

:I'd say that the principal differences are 1) relationship with a lack of invested belief in the objective existence of the godform (Liber O I:1), 2) the option for the magician to ''identify'' with the godform through invocation (Liber O II:1-2). See also '''Magick Without Tears''' pp. 145-6; and the use of godforms in GD initiation. The most important godform, often mentioned by Crowley for its utility, is that of [http://www.livejournal.com/users/paradoxosalpha/34059.html Harpocrates].

::For that matter, is there a clean way to link a plural to a singular? I was writing an article earlier where I wanted to refer to the word "Thelemite" (which should have an article) but the word in my text was "Thelemites". Any trick for this? -- [[User:Craig Berry|isomeme]]

:::Yes there is! You just open double brackets and type the name of the article that you want to link ("Thelemite"), then a vertical line | followed by the word that you want to actually appear ("Thelemites") and close the double brackets. You can see an example right here in the Community Portal if you look at the way that the earlier signatures are scripted. --[[User:Paradoxosalpha|Paradoxosalpha]] 11:35, 27 Sep 2004 (EDT)

==T-shirts==

Okay, when do we get Thelemapedia T-shirts? You can't have a community project like this without T-shirts. :D [[User:Frater DVV|DVV]]

:This idea is too good! I will look into it... :) —[[User:Ash|Ash]]

::Consider a CaféPress store. [[User:Thiebes|Thiebes]]

== Linking to Wikipedia ==

You can link to the original Wikipedia for mundane things such as countries, cities, etc. For example, use <nowiki>[[Wikipedia:London|]]</nowiki> to produce [[Wikipedia:London|London]] - note that the final '|' is needed or the link will appear as [[Wikipedia:London]].

I would recommend that we hack the code to put some kind of inidication on these links, perhaps something like [[Wikipedia:London|London]] <font color=lightblue>'''W'''</font> and I also think it would be a good idea to make such links open a new browser window so people don't get confused about where they are...

Also, we have to be careful ''not'' to do this for entries of a spritual nature, in order to encourage article to be written from a Thelemic pov in the Thelemapedia.

[[User:Adityanath|Adityanath]]

::To tell the truth, I really don't think we should worry about linking "mundane" things like London at all.
[[User:Frater C.U.G.|Frater C.U.G.]]

:::Well, articles imported from the Wikipedia may have references that we don't want to duplicate in the Thelemapedia. I see no reason to remove them when the Wikipedia is available. Sure, everybody knows where London is, but the are many more obscure places and references in Crowley's life. Why ''not'' link to Wikipedia for completeness? Is is a great convenience for the user to be able to click through to say, [[Wikipedia:Kangchenjunga]] from Crowley's bio than not, don't you think?
[[User:Adityanath|Adityanath]]

Thelemapedia talk:Community Portal

2004-11-08T09:52:15Z

Ibisis: /*okay, let's agree */

<div style="float:right; width:500px;background-color: #EDEEEF;padding:4px;border: 1px solid #B6B5C1;">'''Hit the "Edit" tab above to start a new topic on this page....it is better to start a new topic at the TOP of the page. To indent your entries, just put a colon in front of the first line of ''every'' paragraph. The more colons you type, the more indented the paragraph will be. Please sign all your entries with triple squiglies: <nowiki>~~~</nowiki>.'''</div>

==Editorial Principles==

The little debate with m1thr0s below has given me an opportunity to think about what principle should guide our editorial policies. This is what I have come up with:

The '''prime editorial principle''' could be: ''the promotion of clarity, understanding, and accuracy.'' Any other reasonable principle, such as "the promotion of personal expression", is acceptable in practice until it violates the prime editorial principle. As I mentioned to m1thr0s, an example would be the issue of spelling variants of "magick" also with a "k", like "magickal" and "magickian". Allowing this spelling violates the PEP, because it might confuse people who see "magician" in one article and "magickian" in another. Add to this the fact that the variant spelling is not used by Crowley or any other major Thelemic writer, such as DuQuette, Regardie, Sabazius, etc., lending support to the argument that the varient spelling is based not on technical reasons, but on personal expression. "Personal expression" is a principle that, as a Thelemite, I strongly support. However, as managing editor of Thelemapedia, I believe that the PEP trumps it.

I would be very interested in other people's thoughts on this.
—[[User:Ash|Ash]]

UPDATE: for anyone interested, I have created the [[Thelemapedia:Editorial Policy|Primary Editorial Principles]]:

:''Whenever executive editorial decisions have to be made on Thelemapedia, they will be based on the following primary principles:

:#Articles should be sympathetic with the principles, culture, practices, and beliefs of Thelema whenever possible.
:#Articles should promote clarity, accuracy, and the will to inform without distortion or fabrication.
:#Articles should reflect knowledge that is generally accepted in the Thelemic community, drawing from expert sources or common knowledge.

This is open to comments...please give feedback. —[[User:Ash|Ash]]
:: I feel that articles may contain knowledge which is NOT generally accepted, or is contentious, as well, though such should be presented in the form of hypotheses linked to the names of those who hold them. Obviously, points of view presented ought to be indexed to their origins, proponents etc. otherwise we run the risk of constraining the discourse to 'orthodox' points of view. I feel that using reference to established authors is key for supporting points of view, but that as a limitation to discourse (ie; if a major author doesn't mention it then it's not valid) it is problematic. Who knows, perhaps some of us will become 'major thelemic thinkers'.-[[User:ibisis|ibisis]]

:::Allow me to be more precise with the general editorial principles in this regard. You can present any viewpoint you want on any topic you want as long as it is a part of the general knowledge base. In other words, Thelemapedia is not the place to offer personal theories that are beyond the bounds of common knowledge, orthodox sources (i.e. Crowley, Levi, Regardie, etc.), or recorded academia (Starr, DuQuette, DeCampo, Dionysos Thriambos, Sabazius, etc.). I cannot stress this enough...this is not the place for personal opinion, personal expression, or personal agendas...there are other sites well suited to that purpose. If a topic presents some information that has alternative viewpoints, please add them. However, it will get edited out unless you can back up that information. I am not shy about saying that this is indeed an orthodox position...this site is not intended to be an experimental playground of new ideas. If everyone can come here and present any opinion they want, with no other qualifier than that they have an opinion, then this site will become useless.

:::On the flipside, if you see information here that you believe is seriously in error, you have the right and the ability to edit it. Even with the presentation of orthodox positions, there is lots of room for bias. You have complete control over this and can change how an entry reads, changing that bias completely even if the fundamental facts remain the same. —[[User:Ash|Ash]]

==Added "Using Images" to Help page==

For those of you who would like to use images in your articles, this is a good page to learn how...'''[[Thelemapedia:Using Images]]'''. —[[User:Ash|Ash]]

==Thelemapedia comments==
This is a great idea!

[[User:Frater C.U.G.|Frater C.U.G.]]

This is fantastic!! Thank you Scarlet Woman Lodge! :)

:'''Glad you like it!'''

:...of course, it will be as good as we all make it. I am hoping that over the next couple of years, we will make Thelemapedia the single best source of information on Thelema anywhere! The world will be ours! Muwahahaha! —[[User:Ash|Ash]]
----
Indeed ! This is an outstanding venture and excellent execution. At lease from what I see so far. I am sure I'll get a good deal of milage at of this in my office as PIO. Thank you my brothers, and please let me know if I can be of assistance with this project.

93/93

In L.V.X.,

Frater Hrumachis

:Well, of course you can be of assistance...write an article! :) —[[User:Ash|Ash]]
----

I especially appreciate you allowing us young'uns (Thelemically speaking) to add to the corpus of Thelemic knowledge.

[[User:Frater DVV|DVV]]

:There's no age limit for the ability to write a good article! Thanks for contributing. --[[User:Ash|Ash]] 19:12, 21 Sep 2004 (EDT)

:---Okay, read your profile...sorry, that was presumptuous of me. I should have said, "there's no limits on Thelemic newbies of whatever age to write a good article." My apologies. —[[User:Ash|Ash]], the insensitive dope

::Actually, this is a good vehicle for someone who is "just learning" to research topics of interest. --[[User:Frater DVV|DVV]] the old fart.

== style issues ==

Can we get a standard on spelling? I am ''extremely averse'' to the spelling '''magickal'''. Now, for those who must have a K, the word '''magick''' is a perfectly proper adjective, as in "magick wand." But Crowley never used the word "magickal," and I recommend that we also stick to '''magical''' when the three-syllable adjective is in order. -[[User:paradoxosalpha|paradoxosalpha]]

:I agree 100%, Nix on magickian also. -- [[User:Frater C.U.G.|Frater C.U.G.]]

:"Magickal" and "magickian: are not words, as far as I'm concerned. —[[User:Ash|Ash]]

:To hear is to obey, effendi. "Magickal" shall be magickally removed from my posts henceforth. [[User:Frater DVV|DVV]]

Ok, here's a trickier one: '''qabalah'''? That's Crowley's spelling, approximating transliteration, but it's usual to spell it '''Kabbalah''' in reference to Hebrew mysticism, and '''cabala''' in reference to Christian esotery and systems of word calculation and symbolism. Should we have a standard? --[[User:Paradoxosalpha|Paradoxosalpha]] 19:31, 24 Sep 2004 (EDT)

: I made some redirect pages last night Kabbalah and cabala both go to qabalah now. [[User:Frater C.U.G.|Frater C.U.G.]]

: In my original entry, I used "qabalah" to refer to Hermetic Qabalah, and "Kabbalah" to refer to Jewish Kabbalah. Purely arbitrary and any modifications are welcome. [[User:Frater DVV|DVV]]

: I can't agree that "magickian" is not a word since it is the logical extension of the term "magick" and has the same advantage over "magician" that "magick" has over "magic". Moreover, I should think that Thelemites have infinitely more important matters to attend to than this kind of thing though. If we cannot excercise a little tolerance against little things that might happen to irk us, how on earth can we expect to overcome the really important issues in life? Censorship is a poor way to begin any project involving the free expression of ideas towards a greater exploration of Higher Self and Will. Unless it can be demonstrated that the use of these terms is patently wrong, any call to banish them is fundamentally pushy, if not a bit selfish. Words evolve constantly...that is in their nature. If these words have caught on for some reason, isn't it possible that they have done so because they feel right to a lot of people? And if this trend continues as I suspect it will, aren't we making mountains out of molehills to make a big thing of it? I submit that a person's intent is much more important than the spelling they may choose and unless there is a definite problem of some kind, whether a person says magic or majik or magick, magical, majikal or magickal is all about the same thing really and should not be fussed over but simply accepted in lieu of natural human differences...m1thr0s

::You use the word "censorship", but incorrectly in this case. Censorship is defined as the banning of information or ideas. Instituting an editorial policy for spelling does not ban any idea or piece of information. Do you see the dictionary as a tool of censorship? Ultimately, this particular spelling policy is based on three things:
:::#the words "magickian" and "magickal" do not appear in any Thelemic holy book or work of Crowley,
:::#the invariant spelling is less commonly used in modern Thelemic writings, and
:::#if articles are using both forms, it could cause confusion about assumed differences in meaning between the two spellings.
::Please note, we do not take the position that using these words are somehow wrong, or that we want to stop its use everywhere. We have no opinion about other people adding the "k" anywhere else they want. However, using the variant spelling is largely a matter of personal expression, like some feminists using the spelling "womyn". Personal expression is obviously a central value of Thelema, but Thelemapedia is not a forum for personal expression...it is an encyclopedia, and as such it is here to reflect the general body of existing knowledge and substantial works of Thelema. If you quote a published work, for example, that uses the variant spelling, then that is of course acceptable. However, in all other cases, we want to have a single, standardized, consistent term for Thelemapedia articles, and using the traditional form makes more sense at this time.
::—[[User:Ash|Ash]]

:::I see. Good luck with your project then. I certainly will not be contributing any articles that force adherence to such an arbitrary standards which - as you have clearly stated - are primarily based upon your own personal sensabilities. I don't know that these words do NOT show up anywhere in the holy books as you have stated and I don't believe it really matters. Nevertheless, it's your project so good luck with that...m1thr0s

::::Curious...the reasons I mentioned are not arbitrary at all, and are based more on logic than "personal sensabilities". However, this little debate has given me an opportunity to think about the general principles guiding our editorial policies. See "editorial Principles" above...

:::::'Magick' defined Thelemicaly is distinct from 'Magic' defined as a performance art. This is a technical spelling which, though not in use by everyone, has been helpfull to distinguish Thelemic practice and Will based Magick from Magic as it is commonly understood (usually by the public as a performance art). So this is a matter of taxonomic distinction. Similarly 'magical', and 'magician', would be extentions of the word 'magic', just as 'magickal' and 'magickian' would be extentions of the word 'magick'. I think that this goes beyond the personal and into the realm of skillful means. I use 'magickian' and 'magician', both, and they have a technical difference. I think it's helpful to have recourse to that expression in this Encyclopedia, just as it is helpful to be able to evolve language along divergent lines of thought... Ibisis

::::::Crowley didn't think so...he never used the spellings "magickal" or "magickian". Considering he was the originator of the term "magick", I will defer to his taxonomic expertise (for the purposes of this site). I won't ban anyone for using the alternative spellings, or anything drastic like that, I will simply edit the entries. I realize that some people will find this unreasonable...however, I have given my reasons above, and I believe they are, in fact, perfectly reasonable. Ultimately, it is about clarity, and my opinion is backed by the fact that no major Thelemic author has ever used the alternative spellings, putting those words outside the bounds of "technical terms". The words "magician" and "magical" are technically aligned with the term "magick"—based on their usage as such by Crowley, Regardie, DuQuette, Rodney Orpheus, Martin Starr, Dionysos Thriambos, Sabazius, Hymenaeus Beta, Tim Maroney, etc., etc. You mention the alternatives as "expressions" and I agree...they are personal expressions, not academically accepted technical terms. As an illustration, I know lots of people who refer to Aleister Crowley as "Uncle Al", but that doesn't make it an acceptable reference on this site. —[[User:Ash|Ash]]

I appreciate your concerns here Ash but I cannot agree with your reasonings thus far. It may be true that Crowley did not use the words in question but this does not make their usage incorrect. These are conventional english extensions of the word "magick" and no more or less than that. Their usage is inherently correct within the confines of English itself. If these terms have not caught on more - give it a little time...and not much time either I'll wager. As near as 3 or so years ago to my best recollection these terms were hardly ever used anywhere at all and now their usage is becoming much more widespread. I think that the truth is that there was a certain amount of discomfort associated to using conventional terms to express a New Aeon concept, but since no one "in authority" had breached the topic, people were hesitant to be the first to take the plunge. But language evolves of necessity and the reliance upon these words today is born of that same necessity. There are always more than one way to approach the idea of "correct usage" in language. Arguing that Crowley may not have used these terms in his writings doesn't mean he would have been opposed to their usage. It's a circumstantial argument at best in my opinion. I will continuwe to use these terms as they are correct of English itself, and I suspect others will continue for the same reason. Now if you can show some good reason that it should NOT be correct English - I will be glad to consider it...m1thr0s

:I do not have to show reason that they are or are not "correct english", because that is not the issue. The issue is one of accepted knowledge. This is a conservative project, and the primary source of expertise that I accept comes from the Master Therion, who did not use the alternative spellings. His example is followed by every other person who has seriously added to the knowledge base of Thelema, such as Regardie, DuQuette, Sabazius, and the other usual suspects. It doesn't make sense to allow the spelling "magickal" when you can't find that word in any of their books! When and if the alternative spellings take hold in a majority of new serious literature, then there will be a reasonable argument that it has become accepted as legitimate spellings. Until then, Thelemapedia is sticking with Uncle Al.

:As a final point, you talk about the evolution of language. That is indeed something that happens, and that's a good thing. But this is not a place to experiment with that. Encyclopedias, by their very nature, are conservative, orthodox creatures—as opposed to, say, journals or books on theory. If you want to write an entire article on the evolution of the spelling of "magickian", if it's pretty good I'll publish it in the ''[http://www.scarletwoman.org/scarletletter/index.html Scarlet Letter]'', our Lodge's journal (of which I am the editor). That is a great forum for presenting new and groundbreaking ideas...this encyclopedia is not. —[[User:Ash|Ash]]

Dictionaries are fairly conservative as well yet they do their best to keep pace with advances in language either in the form of slang or newly introduced words of merit. Crowley never used the term "Hexagramology" either and yet at least one major University in the US (UCB I believe) has granted degrees in this area. So it's not just a matter of attempting to be trendy, but rather correct within the moment. Nevertheless, it is your project as I have agreed and there is no point belaboring the subject ''en ad nauseam''. I believe you are limiting yourself and others unnecessarily in this position and that there may be some more judicious approach to the matter than simply editing out these terms upon usage - something I would not be able to accept as a serious writer and philosophical thinker. It's entirely your call and I wish you all the best in future...m1thr0s

:''sigh''...This site has a very liberal attitude...you can edit entries to your heart's content. You can write over existing material, you can present alternative viewpoints, you can format, invent categories, add images, create links, and on and on. The price for all this freedom is an adherence to the existing knowledge base. Let me say this for the last time: '''All material on Thelemapedia must reflect the EXISTING knowledge base''', not the current trends and fads that might or might not become a part of the knowledge base in the future. The "knowledge base" consists of those materials that exist in the "literature"—that is, published works by people who are considered experts within the realm of Thelema (or writers who have excellent research skills who themselves use the existing knowledge base). When dealing with non-Thelemic topics, like Hindu godforms, this can be relaxed a bit, since Thelemic writers have only written so much on those topics (for example, Crowley spelled "Hindu" as "Hindoo" at times, but the proper spelling should be used, except in quotes). But when it comes to those topics that are central to Thelema, such as magick, then this site insists on a strict adherence to the knowledge base.

:<div style="background-color: #EDEEEF;padding:4px;border: 1px solid #B6B5C1;">This is my last comment on this issue: the words "magickian" and "magickal" DO NOT, at this time, appear in the existing knowledge base as this site defines it. If this feels limiting to anyone, then they can take it up with the writers of those texts that make up the current knowledge base. If someone wants to challenge this editorial policy (which is always acceptable to do by anyone), then they must show that the alternative spellings ''have become'' (not ''will become'') a significant part of the ''existing'' knowledge base—personal journals, blogs, and non-acadmeic articles do not count, sorry. <BR>So mote it be. —[[User:Ash|Fr. Ash]], the cruel dictator</div>

::As a linguist, I happen to agree that ''magickal'' and ''magickian'' are not valid English and the word ''magickian'' is highly unlikely to ever be incorporated into English. There was a time when ''magickal'' would have been correct. During this period, it was common for ''heretic'' to be spelled ''heretick'' and ''-al'' could be added to this because the consonant was still pronounced with a ''k'' sound. Thus, both ''heretickal'' and ''magickal'' could be valid in pre-modern English. On the other hand, ''magickian'' would never have been used unless it were pronounced ma.ji.ki.an, which I do not believe that even advocates of the alternate spelling use in speech. The use of ''ck'' in English is highly restricted. It can only be used where it is pronouced ''hard'', i.e. as ''k'' and never where it would be pronounced ''sh''. Thus, linguistically, ''magickal'' is nearly acceptable, but considered an archaic form, while ''magickian'' is simply a misspelling. [[User:Adityanath|Adityanath]]

== kinda new to all this ==

kinda new to this. This site, I'm sure will be invaluable.

:Welcome! You'll catch on. It took me 10 minutes to get writing; a week to get all the basics; and a month or two to really "get it". Now that I'm an admin and watching the site grow, I'm having to learn a whole new set of skills. If this site has done nothing but that for me, it's been more than worth it. —[[User:Ash|Ash]]

== Suggestion for new topic ==

In Lieu of the recent debate about how to ground legitimate entries in respect of the editorial policy, I propose the following:
Why don't we create a section which could be called either 'unorthodox thelema', or 'contemporary thelema', or something similar to this? Also 'debates within Thelema','Heretical Thelema' or' Pre-Crowlian Thelema'. Here we could actually host an artical on the differences between "Magician and Magickian", so as to at least reflect the proposal of the argument for this term itself whilst indicating that it is under debate. As well, we could then have a forum for showcasing the newer inovations in Thelemic thinking, providing links to contemporary work etc... Additionally, it should be noted that Thelema pre-existed Crowley as a philosophy; It is present in the writtings of Francios Rabelais, and others, thus we could show with accuracy the continuum which is Thelema. My major concern with this site is that by 'restricting' it to certain accepted sources, it will present an innacurate portrait of what is really going on here. Thelema is very much alive, and growing; it is essential to accomodate this fact. While Dictionaries are inherently conservative in nature, the Wiki format alters this terrain a bit, and if we agree on a mode by which we can develop the evolutionary side of thelema without at the same time opening the encyclopedia to an anarchic free-for all, we will be better off. This is not an ordinary 'dictionary'. It is bounded by it's technological form, which is inherently evolutionary. I'd like to see this project be a living reflection of Thelema; both retaining form AND pushing boundaries. I have no desire to participate in a cannonization process; we've all seen how ugly that can be. So in short; Ibisis' Proposal is:Create a new category or categories to accommadate the debate rather than stifle it. Shall we?

-Ibisis-

:The accepted method for this is simply to add a ''Alternate views'' or ''Differing views'' section to an article. For example, if someone wanted to add an ''Alternative spellings'' section to the article on [[Magick]] simply presenting in a matter-of-fact way that some Thelemites use alternate spellings for the terms and presenting these spellings and their distinctions, I doubt that anyone would remove it. One could also add redirect pages for [[Magickal]] and [[Magickian]]. Similarly, I have already begun a ''Different views of Thelema'' under the article on [[Thelema]]. This could simply be expanded or additional sections added to the main article to accomplish what you are suggesting. Also, you might consider a [[History of Thelema]] article for the Rabalaisian precedent to Thelema.

:[[User:Adityanath|Adityanath]]

:I pretty much agree with Adityanath on this one. Keep in mind, the issue is not one of orthodox vs. alternative or traditional vs. contemporary. It is about existing lines of knowledge. If you want to present an alternative or contemporary viewpoint in an article, by all means do so. But they need to reflect expert sources that you can reference or opinions that are accepted by a great bulk of the Thelemic community so to be considered "common knowledge". If we try to present every individual opinion on a topic (aspecially one like "Thelema" or "Magick") then they will be 20 pages long and so varied as to be useless. The object is to provide fundamental information, not an exhaustive range of individual viewpoints. That is the use of the "Links of Interest" sections, where you can link to any relevant info you want (see [[OTO]] for a good example of this). I understand that you want to use Thelemapedia to push boundaries, but that is just not the purpose of this site. If you want to explore the evolutionary aspects of Thelema, join Lashtal.com or present your ideas on LiveJournal.com or in a Thelemic print publication.

:I will give an example to illustrate what I am trying to say. Crowley believed that the squiggle in AL is a tzaddi. Many Thelemites do not—enough to consider the opinion "common knowledge". Within the AL article, it would be acceptable to state both viewpoints, because they both fundamentally change the nature of the meaning, and each can be backed up with solid reasons. You use the difference between "Magician" and "Magickian"...the problem here is that there is no difference in meaning...within the canon of Thelemic literature (even "alternative" literature), they mean the exact same thing. If there were two camps—one of magicians and one of magickians—who had significantly different philosophies and practices, then it would be proper, even necessary, to point out the difference. However, such is not the case. Therefore, insisting on their mutual use muddies the waters and dilutes understanding (violating the 2nd editorial principle).

:[[User:Ash|Fr. Ash]]

I find the arrangement suggested by Adityanath to be completely satisfactory. Thank you. If you re- read my comments, I think you will find reason to see that I am not trying to force you to convert to spelling "Magickian" as such, nor am I trying to use this site to push boundaries. I am simply calling it as I see it, perhaps contributing debate and new ideas where I see them to be pertinent. I think you will find that I can contribute helpful perspectives. In the interest of an open debate, please be careful that you do not make a 'straw man' out of my perspectives. Don't interpret the surface issues which I mention as iconic of my persepective. My suggestion was that we ought to create a forum for diverging views, as Adityanath has picked up on completely. Your response seems to me to suggest that the main content of my post was the proposition of "Magickian" and the opening up of a limitless dhiarea of unqualified discourse, and it is not. Principle of Charity of Interpretation, please.

I'll give you an example of what I'm talking about in terms of unreferenced, contemporary views as being valid. I contributed an article on IAO in English. The concept is entirely self supporting, coherent, and works within the body of Thelemic research (rather than opinion). As far as I know, having never read that before, I 'discovered' that one (Mabye others too, but who knows..." Independent research which is not inter-textually referenced but which is nevertheless a coherent and obvious feature of Thelema is what I'd like to see admitted, NOT wild opinion, thank you.

-Ibisis-

==Godforms?==
I see that we have a whole list of "godforms" but no entry under "godform" itself. Maybe an entry as to what a "godform" is?

I'd write it myself if I knew how to define "godform" (as opposed to "deity," "god," or "grand wazoo."). -- [[User:Frater DVV|DVV]]

:I'd say that the principal differences are 1) relationship with a lack of invested belief in the objective existence of the godform (Liber O I:1), 2) the option for the magician to ''identify'' with the godform through invocation (Liber O II:1-2). See also '''Magick Without Tears''' pp. 145-6; and the use of godforms in GD initiation. The most important godform, often mentioned by Crowley for its utility, is that of [http://www.livejournal.com/users/paradoxosalpha/34059.html Harpocrates].

::For that matter, is there a clean way to link a plural to a singular? I was writing an article earlier where I wanted to refer to the word "Thelemite" (which should have an article) but the word in my text was "Thelemites". Any trick for this? -- [[User:Craig Berry|isomeme]]

:::Yes there is! You just open double brackets and type the name of the article that you want to link ("Thelemite"), then a vertical line | followed by the word that you want to actually appear ("Thelemites") and close the double brackets. You can see an example right here in the Community Portal if you look at the way that the earlier signatures are scripted. --[[User:Paradoxosalpha|Paradoxosalpha]] 11:35, 27 Sep 2004 (EDT)

==T-shirts==

Okay, when do we get Thelemapedia T-shirts? You can't have a community project like this without T-shirts. :D [[User:Frater DVV|DVV]]

:This idea is too good! I will look into it... :) —[[User:Ash|Ash]]

::Consider a CaféPress store. [[User:Thiebes|Thiebes]]

== Linking to Wikipedia ==

You can link to the original Wikipedia for mundane things such as countries, cities, etc. For example, use <nowiki>[[Wikipedia:London|]]</nowiki> to produce [[Wikipedia:London|London]] - note that the final '|' is needed or the link will appear as [[Wikipedia:London]].

I would recommend that we hack the code to put some kind of inidication on these links, perhaps something like [[Wikipedia:London|London]] <font color=lightblue>'''W'''</font> and I also think it would be a good idea to make such links open a new browser window so people don't get confused about where they are...

Also, we have to be careful ''not'' to do this for entries of a spritual nature, in order to encourage article to be written from a Thelemic pov in the Thelemapedia.

[[User:Adityanath|Adityanath]]

::To tell the truth, I really don't think we should worry about linking "mundane" things like London at all.
[[User:Frater C.U.G.|Frater C.U.G.]]

:::Well, articles imported from the Wikipedia may have references that we don't want to duplicate in the Thelemapedia. I see no reason to remove them when the Wikipedia is available. Sure, everybody knows where London is, but the are many more obscure places and references in Crowley's life. Why ''not'' link to Wikipedia for completeness? Is is a great convenience for the user to be able to click through to say, [[Wikipedia:Kangchenjunga]] from Crowley's bio than not, don't you think?
[[User:Adityanath|Adityanath]]

Thelemapedia talk:Community Portal

2004-11-08T03:13:44Z

Ibisis: /* Suggestion for new topic/category */

'''Hit the tab above with the + sign to start a new topic on this page. If you want to answer someone's topic on this page, click on the "edit" link next to the topic title (not the one at the top of the page). To indent your entries, just put a colon in front of the first line of every paragraph. The more colons you type, the more indented the paragraph will be. Please sign all your entries.'''

==Editorial Principles==

The little debate with m1thr0s below has given me an opportunity to think about what principle should guide our editorial policies. This is what I have come up with:

The '''prime editorial principle''' could be: ''the promotion of clarity, understanding, and accuracy.'' Any other reasonable principle, such as "the promotion of personal expression", is acceptable in practice until it violates the prime editorial principle. As I mentioned to m1thr0s, an example would be the issue of spelling variants of "magick" also with a "k", like "magickal" and "magickian". Allowing this spelling violates the PEP, because it might confuse people who see "magician" in one article and "magickian" in another. Add to this the fact that the variant spelling is not used by Crowley or any other major Thelemic writer, such as DuQuette, Regardie, Sabazius, etc., lending support to the argument that the varient spelling is based not on technical reasons, but on personal expression. "Personal expression" is a principle that, as a Thelemite, I strongly support. However, as managing editor of Thelemapedia, I believe that the PEP trumps it.

I would be very interested in other people's thoughts on this.
—[[User:Ash|Ash]]

UPDATE: for anyone interested, I have created the [[Thelemapedia Editorial Policy|Primary Editorial Principles]]:

:''Whenever executive editorial decisions have to be made on Thelemapedia, they will be based on the following primary principles:

:#Articles should be sympathetic with the principles, culture, practices, and beliefs of Thelema whenever possible.
:#Articles should promote clarity, accuracy, and the will to inform without distortion or fabrication.
:#Articles should reflect knowledge that is generally accepted in the Thelemic community, drawing from expert sources or common knowledge.

This is open to comments...please give feedback. —[[User:Ash|Ash]]
:: I feel that articles may contain knowledge which is NOT generally accepted, or is contentious, as well, though such should be presented in the form of hypotheses linked to the names of those who hold them. Obviously, points of view presented ought to be indexed to their origins, proponents etc. otherwise we run the risk of constraining the discourse to 'orthodox' points of view. I feel that using reference to established authors is key for supporting points of view, but that as a limitation to discourse (ie; if a major author doesn't mention it then it's not valid) it is problematic. Who knows, perhaps some of us will become 'major thelemic thinkers'.-[[User:ibisis|ibisis]]

:::Allow me to be more precise with the general editorial principles in this regard. You can present any viewpoint you want on any topic you want as long as it is a part of the general knowledge base. In other words, Thelemapedia is not the place to offer personal theories that are beyond the bounds of common knowledge, orthodox sources (i.e. Crowley, Levi, Regardie, etc.), or recorded academia (Starr, DuQuette, DeCampo, Dionysos Thriambos, Sabazius, etc.). I cannot stress this enough...this is not the place for personal opinion, personal expression, or personal agendas...there are other sites well suited to that purpose. If a topic presents some information that has alternative viewpoints, please add them. However, it will get edited out unless you can back up that information. I am not shy about saying that this is indeed an orthodox position...this site is not intended to be an experimental playground of new ideas. If everyone can come here and present any opinion they want, with no other qualifier than that they have an opinion, then this site will become useless.

:::On the flipside, if you see information here that you believe is seriously in error, you have the right and the ability to edit it. Even with the presentation of orthodox positions, there is lots of room for bias. You have complete control over this and can change how an entry reads, changing that bias completely even if the fundamental facts remain the same. —[[User:Ash|Ash]]

==Added "Using Images" to Help page==

For those of you who would like to use images in your articles, this is a good page to learn how...'''[[Thelemapedia:Using Images]]'''. —[[User:Ash|Ash]]

==Thelemapedia comments==
This is a great idea!

[[User:Frater C.U.G.|Frater C.U.G.]]

This is fantastic!! Thank you Scarlet Woman Lodge! :)

:'''Glad you like it!'''

:...of course, it will be as good as we all make it. I am hoping that over the next couple of years, we will make Thelemapedia the single best source of information on Thelema anywhere! The world will be ours! Muwahahaha! —[[User:Ash|Ash]]
----
Indeed ! This is an outstanding venture and excellent execution. At lease from what I see so far. I am sure I'll get a good deal of milage at of this in my office as PIO. Thank you my brothers, and please let me know if I can be of assistance with this project.

93/93

In L.V.X.,

Frater Hrumachis

:Well, of course you can be of assistance...write an article! :) —[[User:Ash|Ash]]
----

I especially appreciate you allowing us young'uns (Thelemically speaking) to add to the corpus of Thelemic knowledge.

[[User:Frater DVV|DVV]]

:There's no age limit for the ability to write a good article! Thanks for contributing. --[[User:Ash|Ash]] 19:12, 21 Sep 2004 (EDT)

:---Okay, read your profile...sorry, that was presumptuous of me. I should have said, "there's no limits on Thelemic newbies of whatever age to write a good article." My apologies. —[[User:Ash|Ash]], the insensitive dope

::Actually, this is a good vehicle for someone who is "just learning" to research topics of interest. --[[User:Frater DVV|DVV]] the old fart.

== style issues ==

Can we get a standard on spelling? I am ''extremely averse'' to the spelling '''magickal'''. Now, for those who must have a K, the word '''magick''' is a perfectly proper adjective, as in "magick wand." But Crowley never used the word "magickal," and I recommend that we also stick to '''magical''' when the three-syllable adjective is in order. -[[User:paradoxosalpha|paradoxosalpha]]

:I agree 100%, Nix on magickian also. -- [[User:Frater C.U.G.|Frater C.U.G.]]

:"Magickal" and "magickian: are not words, as far as I'm concerned. —[[User:Ash|Ash]]

:To hear is to obey, effendi. "Magickal" shall be magickally removed from my posts henceforth. [[User:Frater DVV|DVV]]

Ok, here's a trickier one: '''qabalah'''? That's Crowley's spelling, approximating transliteration, but it's usual to spell it '''Kabbalah''' in reference to Hebrew mysticism, and '''cabala''' in reference to Christian esotery and systems of word calculation and symbolism. Should we have a standard? --[[User:Paradoxosalpha|Paradoxosalpha]] 19:31, 24 Sep 2004 (EDT)

: I made some redirect pages last night Kabbalah and cabala both go to qabalah now. [[User:Frater C.U.G.|Frater C.U.G.]]

: In my original entry, I used "qabalah" to refer to Hermetic Qabalah, and "Kabbalah" to refer to Jewish Kabbalah. Purely arbitrary and any modifications are welcome. [[User:Frater DVV|DVV]]

: I can't agree that "magickian" is not a word since it is the logical extension of the term "magick" and has the same advantage over "magician" that "magick" has over "magic". Moreover, I should think that Thelemites have infinitely more important matters to attend to than this kind of thing though. If we cannot excercise a little tolerance against little things that might happen to irk us, how on earth can we expect to overcome the really important issues in life? Censorship is a poor way to begin any project involving the free expression of ideas towards a greater exploration of Higher Self and Will. Unless it can be demonstrated that the use of these terms is patently wrong, any call to banish them is fundamentally pushy, if not a bit selfish. Words evolve constantly...that is in their nature. If these words have caught on for some reason, isn't it possible that they have done so because they feel right to a lot of people? And if this trend continues as I suspect it will, aren't we making mountains out of molehills to make a big thing of it? I submit that a person's intent is much more important than the spelling they may choose and unless there is a definite problem of some kind, whether a person says magic or majik or magick, magical, majikal or magickal is all about the same thing really and should not be fussed over but simply accepted in lieu of natural human differences...m1thr0s

::You use the word "censorship", but incorrectly in this case. Censorship is defined as the banning of information or ideas. Instituting an editorial policy for spelling does not ban any idea or piece of information. Do you see the dictionary as a tool of censorship? Ultimately, this particular spelling policy is based on three things:
:::#the words "magickian" and "magickal" do not appear in any Thelemic holy book or work of Crowley,
:::#the invariant spelling is less commonly used in modern Thelemic writings, and
:::#if articles are using both forms, it could cause confusion about assumed differences in meaning between the two spellings.
::Please note, we do not take the position that using these words are somehow wrong, or that we want to stop its use everywhere. We have no opinion about other people adding the "k" anywhere else they want. However, using the variant spelling is largely a matter of personal expression, like some feminists using the spelling "womyn". Personal expression is obviously a central value of Thelema, but Thelemapedia is not a forum for personal expression...it is an encyclopedia, and as such it is here to reflect the general body of existing knowledge and substantial works of Thelema. If you quote a published work, for example, that uses the variant spelling, then that is of course acceptable. However, in all other cases, we want to have a single, standardized, consistent term for Thelemapedia articles, and using the traditional form makes more sense at this time.
::—[[User:Ash|Ash]]

:::I see. Good luck with your project then. I certainly will not be contributing any articles that force adherence to such an arbitrary standards which - as you have clearly stated - are primarily based upon your own personal sensabilities. I don't know that these words do NOT show up anywhere in the holy books as you have stated and I don't believe it really matters. Nevertheless, it's your project so good luck with that...m1thr0s

::::Curious...the reasons I mentioned are not arbitrary at all, and are based more on logic than "personal sensabilities". However, this little debate has given me an opportunity to think about the general principles guiding our editorial policies. See "editorial Principles" above...

:::::'Magick' defined Thelemicaly is distinct from 'Magic' defined as a performance art. This is a technical spelling which, though not in use by everyone, has been helpfull to distinguish Thelemic practice and Will based Magick from Magic as it is commonly understood (usually by the public as a performance art). So this is a matter of taxonomic distinction. Similarly 'magical', and 'magician', would be extentions of the word 'magic', just as 'magickal' and 'magickian' would be extentions of the word 'magick'. I think that this goes beyond the personal and into the realm of skillful means. I use 'magickian' and 'magician', both, and they have a technical difference. I think it's helpful to have recourse to that expression in this Encyclopedia, just as it is helpful to be able to evolve language along divergent lines of thought... Ibisis

::::::Crowley didn't think so...he never used the spellings "magickal" or "magickian". Considering he was the originator of the term "magick", I will defer to his taxonomic expertise (for the purposes of this site). I won't ban anyone for using the alternative spellings, or anything drastic like that, I will simply edit the entries. I realize that some people will find this unreasonable...however, I have given my reasons above, and I believe they are, in fact, perfectly reasonable. Ultimately, it is about clarity, and my opinion is backed by the fact that no major Thelemic author has ever used the alternative spellings, putting those words outside the bounds of "technical terms". The words "magician" and "magical" are technically aligned with the term "magick"—based on their usage as such by Crowley, Regardie, DuQuette, Rodney Orpheus, Martin Starr, Dionysos Thriambos, Sabazius, Hymenaeus Beta, Tim Maroney, etc., etc. You mention the alternatives as "expressions" and I agree...they are personal expressions, not academically accepted technical terms. As an illustration, I know lots of people who refer to Aleister Crowley as "Uncle Al", but that doesn't make it an acceptable reference on this site. —[[User:Ash|Ash]]

I appreciate your concerns here Ash but I cannot agree with your reasonings thus far. It may be true that Crowley did not use the words in question but this does not make their usage incorrect. These are conventional english extensions of the word "magick" and no more or less than that. Their usage is inherently correct within the confines of English itself. If these terms have not caught on more - give it a little time...and not much time either I'll wager. As near as 3 or so years ago to my best recollection these terms were hardly ever used anywhere at all and now their usage is becoming much more widespread. I think that the truth is that there was a certain amount of discomfort associated to using conventional terms to express a New Aeon concept, but since no one "in authority" had breached the topic, people were hesitant to be the first to take the plunge. But language evolves of necessity and the reliance upon these words today is born of that same necessity. There are always more than one way to approach the idea of "correct usage" in language. Arguing that Crowley may not have used these terms in his writings doesn't mean he would have been opposed to their usage. It's a circumstantial argument at best in my opinion. I will continuwe to use these terms as they are correct of English itself, and I suspect others will continue for the same reason. Now if you can show some good reason that it should NOT be correct English - I will be glad to consider it...m1thr0s

:I do not have to show reason that they are or are not "correct english", because that is not the issue. The issue is one of accepted knowledge. This is a conservative project, and the primary source of expertise that I accept comes from the Master Therion, who did not use the alternative spellings. His example is followed by every other person who has seriously added to the knowledge base of Thelema, such as Regardie, DuQuette, Sabazius, and the other usual suspects. It doesn't make sense to allow the spelling "magickal" when you can't find that word in any of their books! When and if the alternative spellings take hold in a majority of new serious literature, then there will be a reasonable argument that it has become accepted as legitimate spellings. Until then, Thelemapedia is sticking with Uncle Al.

:As a final point, you talk about the evolution of language. That is indeed something that happens, and that's a good thing. But this is not a place to experiment with that. Encyclopedias, by their very nature, are conservative, orthodox creatures—as opposed to, say, journals or books on theory. If you want to write an entire article on the evolution of the spelling of "magickian", if it's pretty good I'll publish it in the ''[http://www.scarletwoman.org/scarletletter/index.html Scarlet Letter]'', our Lodge's journal (of which I am the editor). That is a great forum for presenting new and groundbreaking ideas...this encyclopedia is not. —[[User:Ash|Ash]]

Dictionaries are fairly conservative as well yet they do their best to keep pace with advances in language either in the form of slang or newly introduced words of merit. Crowley never used the term "Hexagramology" either and yet at least one major University in the US (UCB I believe) has granted degrees in this area. So it's not just a matter of attempting to be trendy, but rather correct within the moment. Nevertheless, it is your project as I have agreed and there is no point belaboring the subject ''en ad nauseam''. I believe you are limiting yourself and others unnecessarily in this position and that there may be some more judicious approach to the matter than simply editing out these terms upon usage - something I would not be able to accept as a serious writer and philosophical thinker. It's entirely your call and I wish you all the best in future...m1thr0s

== kinda new to all this ==

kinda new to this. This site, I'm sure will be invaluable.

:Welcome! You'll catch on. It took me 10 minutes to get writing; a week to get all the basics; and a month or two to really "get it". Now that I'm an admin and watching the site grow, I'm having to learn a whole new set of skills. If this site has done nothing but that for me, it's been more than worth it. —[[User:Ash|Ash]]

== Suggestion for new topic ==

In Lieu of the recent debate about how to ground legitimate entries in respect of the editorial policy, I propose the following:
Why don't we create a section which could be called either 'unorthodox thelema', or 'contemporary thelema', or something similar to this? Also 'debates within Thelema','Heretical Thelema' or' Pre-Crowlian Thelema'. Here we could actually host an artical on the differences between "Magician and Magickian", so as to at least reflect the proposal of the argument for this term itself whilst indicating that it is under debate. As well, we could then have a forum for showcasing the newer inovations in Thelemic thinking, providing links to contemporary work etc... Additionally, it should be noted that Thelema pre-existed Crowley as a philosophy; It is present in the writtings of Francios Rabelais, and others, thus we could show with accuracy the continuum which is Thelema. My major concern with this site is that by 'restricting' it to certain accepted sources, it will present an innacurate portrait of what is really going on here. Thelema is very much alive, and growing; it is essential to accomodate this fact. While Dictionaries are inherently conservative in nature, the Wiki format alters this terrain a bit, and if we agree on a mode by which we can develop the evolutionary side of thelema without at the same time opening the encyclopedia to an anarchic free-for all, we will be better off. This is not an ordinary 'dictionary'. It is bounded by it's technological form, which is inherently evolutionary. I'd like to see this project be a living reflection of Thelema; both retaining form AND pushing boundaries. I have no desire to participate in a cannonization process; we've all seen how ugly that can be. So in short; Ibisis' Proposal is:Create a new category or categories to accommadate the debate rather than stifle it. Shall we?

-Ibisis-

==Godforms?==
I see that we have a whole list of "godforms" but no entry under "godform" itself. Maybe an entry as to what a "godform" is?

I'd write it myself if I knew how to define "godform" (as opposed to "deity," "god," or "grand wazoo."). -- [[User:Frater DVV|DVV]]

:I'd say that the principal differences are 1) relationship with a lack of invested belief in the objective existence of the godform (Liber O I:1), 2) the option for the magician to ''identify'' with the godform through invocation (Liber O II:1-2). See also '''Magick Without Tears''' pp. 145-6; and the use of godforms in GD initiation. The most important godform, often mentioned by Crowley for its utility, is that of [http://www.livejournal.com/users/paradoxosalpha/34059.html Harpocrates].

::For that matter, is there a clean way to link a plural to a singular? I was writing an article earlier where I wanted to refer to the word "Thelemite" (which should have an article) but the word in my text was "Thelemites". Any trick for this? -- [[User:Craig Berry|isomeme]]

:::Yes there is! You just open double brackets and type the name of the article that you want to link ("Thelemite"), then a vertical line | followed by the word that you want to actually appear ("Thelemites") and close the double brackets. You can see an example right here in the Community Portal if you look at the way that the earlier signatures are scripted. --[[User:Paradoxosalpha|Paradoxosalpha]] 11:35, 27 Sep 2004 (EDT)

==T-shirts==

Okay, when do we get Thelemapedia T-shirts? You can't have a community project like this without T-shirts. :D [[User:Frater DVV|DVV]]

:This idea is too good! I will look into it... :) —[[User:Ash|Ash]]

::Consider a CaféPress store. [[User:Thiebes|Thiebes]]

== Linking to Wikipedia ==

You can link to the original Wikipedia for mundane things such as countries, cities, etc. For example, use <nowiki>[[Wikipedia:London|]]</nowiki> to produce [[Wikipedia:London|London]] - note that the final '|' is needed or the link will appear as [[Wikipedia:London]].

I would recommend that we hack the code to put some kind of inidication on these links, perhaps something like [[Wikipedia:London|London]] <font color=lightblue>'''W'''</font> and I also think it would be a good idea to make such links open a new browser window so people don't get confused about where they are...

Also, we have to be careful ''not'' to do this for entries of a spritual nature, in order to encourage article to be written from a Thelemic pov in the Thelemapedia.

[[User:Adityanath|Adityanath]]

::To tell the truth, I really don't think we should worry about linking "mundane" things like London at all.
[[User:Frater C.U.G.|Frater C.U.G.]]

:::Well, articles imported from the Wikipedia may have references that we don't want to duplicate in the Thelemapedia. I see no reason to remove them when the Wikipedia is available. Sure, everybody knows where London is, but the are many more obscure places and references in Crowley's life. Why ''not'' link to Wikipedia for completeness? Is is a great convenience for the user to be able to click through to say, [[Wikipedia:Kangchenjunga]] from Crowley's bio than not, don't you think?
[[User:Adityanath|Adityanath]]

IAO

2004-11-07T09:46:13Z

Ibisis: /* IAO in English */

'''IAO''' is considered to be both a [[gnosticism|gnostic]] [[godform]] and a [[magical formulae|magical formula]].

==IAO as a godform of gnosticism==

IAO (iota, alpha, omega) was the Greek form of the [[Tetragrammaton]], IHVH (Yod-He-Vau-He, or Jehova, the “Bringer of Light”), the Hebrew divine name for God. Although a reference to Jahova (or Yahweh), IAO was also widely associated with both [[Hermes]] and [[Bacchus]] (Iacchus), especially in ancient magical texts and amulets.

As a gnostic godform, IAO is both a sun-god and mystery-god.

==IAO as a magical formula==

The basic formula of IAO is one of life, death, and rebirth.

In ''Magick'' (1997, Ch. 5), [[Aleister Crowley]] states that IAO is
:''the principal and most characteristic formula of [[Osiris]], of the Redemption of Mankind. "I" is [[Isis]], Nature, ruined by "A", [[Apophis]] the Destroyer, and restored to life by the Redeemer Osiris.''

He also refers to it as the formula of [[yoga]], as illustrated by the initial pleasure of this practice, followed by the inevitable agony, and finally resulting in a new, superior state, perhaps similar to, yet fundamentally different from the initial state.

Crowley draws many parallels—namely the formula [[LVX]], [[alchemy]], [[Jesus Christ]], and [[Prometheus]].

In yet another example, Crowley says that IAO is the formula of all learning:
:''You begin with a delightful feeling as of a child with a new toy; you get bored, and you attempt to smash it. But if you are a wise child, you have had a scientific attitude towards it, and you do not smash it. You pass through the stage of boredom, and arise from the inferno of torture towards the stage of resurrection, when the toy has become a god, declared to you its inmost secrets, and become a living part of your life. There are no longer these crude, savage reactions of pleasure and pain. The new knowledge is assimilated.'' (Eight Lectures On Yoga, Fourth Lecture)

Ceremonially, IAO can be illustrated by the act of “robing yourself as a king, then stripping and slaying yourself, and rising from that death to the Knowledge and Conversation of the [[Holy Guardian Angel]]” (Crowley, 1997).

It is important to note that Crowley (1997) believed that the formula of IAO had been replaced by that of [[Horus]], who gave us his two formulae, [[Thelema]] and [[Abrahadabra]].

===Transformation into VIAOV===

Crowley, wanting to make IAO fit within the new [[Aeon]], added the Hebrew letter ''Vau'' to both ends, which he then called the “proper hieroglyph of the Ritual of Self-Initiation in this Aeon of Horus” (Crowley, 1997). The new word, [[VIAOV]] (also FIAOF), enumerates to [[93]], just as ''[[Thelema]]'' and ''[[Agape]]'' do. Of the person who travels through this new process, Crowley writes,

:''Thus, he is Man made God, exalted, eager; he has come consciously to his full stature, and so is ready to set out on his journey to redeem the world. But he may not appear in this true form; the Vision of [[Pan]] would drive men mad with fear. He must conceal Himself in his original guise.''

:''He therefore becomes apparently the man that he was at the beginning; he lives the life of a man; indeed, he is wholly man. But his [[initiation]] has made him master of the Event by giving him the understanding that whatever happens to him is the execution of this true will.''

==IAO in English==

IAO has a special status in English. "I" and "A" are the most commonly known single letter words. "I" is singular subjective term, while "A" is a singular objective term. "O" is a lesser known English word. It appears in poetry, for example Colerige's Kubla Khan;

:"O that deep romantic chasm,
: which slanted down the green hill athwart a cedarn cover.
:A savage place; as holy and Enchanted,
:as E're beneath the waning Moon was haunted,
:by woman wailing for her demon lover."

"O" suggests ecstacy, and the union of Self with Other. It brings the in-animate forms of our objective world to life in the divine.

"IAO" as a whole, comprises the three possible single letter words in English.
It suggests: "Self. Other. Self/Other", and acts as a primary sematic formulation,
underlying the structure of the dynamics of consciousness in interrelation with itself.

==Links of interest==
*''[http://www.hermetic.com/crowley/aba/chap5.html The Formula of I.A.O.]'' in "Magick, Book 4"

[[Category:Formulæ]]
[[Category:Gnosticism]]
[[Category:Gnostic Godforms]]

User talk:Ibisis

2004-11-06T04:37:05Z

Ibisis:

Thought I'd say hello;
-Ib

Greetings and welcome! I know I'm kinda digging into you on the editorial policy thing, but I really am glad to have users here to add material. By all means, challenge me on the editorial stuff. And there is still a TON of very ordinary topics left to write about. If you are interested in the technical aspects of magick, there are hundreds of potential entries waiting to be filled. [[Magick in Theory & Practice]] is a good starting place. —[[User:Ash|Ash]], managing editor.

:I get where you are coming from, but as you suggest, I will continue to be challenging where I see it to be necessary. Within a ballanced perspective, you can expect me to write as I see fit and relevant, while respecting the fact that this is an encylcopedia rather than a soap box for my own theories. As such anything I submit may be edited, no problem. I'd just like that this encyclopedia reflect a living, just as much as a dead Thelema (I know, contentious) The thing I like about Thelema is it's insistent urge to evolve beyond it's current form. Thanks for the welcome, also thanks for the good job in delineating the Aeon section as you have, I think it is fine.
-Ibisis

Talk:Aeon

2004-11-06T04:31:33Z

Ibisis: talk, aeon.

Are "Aeons" as they are descibed here aspects of traditional astrology? In other words, if I was to read ten major books on astrology, would they mention aeons as used within Thelema? Honestly, I don't know... —[[User:Ash|Ash]]
*Doubtful; they would be likely to talk about the procession of the Equinoxes, though, and depending on your stance, that fits in. --[[User:Ibisis|Ibisis]]

Thelemapedia talk:Community Portal

2004-11-05T09:27:57Z

Ibisis: /* Editorial Principles */

Thelemapedia talk:Community Portal

2004-11-05T09:25:05Z

Ibisis: Unorthodox inclusion

User talk:Ibisis

2004-11-05T09:12:26Z

Ibisis: ola

Thought I'd say hello;
-Ib

User:Ibisis

2004-11-05T04:28:13Z

Ibisis: Personal Summary

Ibisis is a freelance Magickal thinker who has been involved in formally Magickal work since 1995. Before that he learned and practiced performance magic. He is a Juggler and Circus performer living in St. John's Newfoundland, where he is pursuing a Masters degree in Humanities, focusing on the figures of the Fool, the Magician, and the Juggler in performance, as well as in myth. He takes a somewhat mathematical/philosophic view of Magick, and though has been privy to a thelemic gnosis, does not consider himself bound by formal dogmatic adherence to Crowley or anyone else. He is currently writing in the third person.

Thelemapedia talk:Community Portal

2004-11-05T02:57:46Z

Ibisis: /* style issues */

Aeon

2004-11-04T11:48:47Z

Ibisis: /* The Aeons in Thelema */

{{stub}}

An '''Aeon''' in [[Thelemic]] philosophy is a period of history during which the [[Vernal Equinox]] precesses through a sign of the [[zodiac]], a process which takes approximately 2000 years.

==The Aeons in Thelema==
History is taken and broken down into a series of "Aeons", each with its own dominant concept of divinity and its own "formula" of redemption and advancement. The last three Aeons have been: The Aeon of Isis, The Aeon of Osiris, and The Aeon we are currently in, The Aeon of Horus or Conquering Child. During Neolithic times, the Aeon of Isis, the female aspect of the Godhead was revered due to a mostly matriarchal society and the fact that "Mother Earth" nourished, clothed and housed man. The Classical/Medieval Aeon of Osiris is considered to be dominated by the Paternal Principle, with a society based mainly on martial principals. We see in this Aeon many wars fought in the name of "God" as well as a rapidly advancing technological structure. This Aeons formula was that of self-sacrifice and submission to the Father God. The modern Aeon of Horus, with our times of self-realization as well as a growing interest in all things spiritual, is considered to be dominated by the Principle of the Child. Individuality and finding the "True Will" are the dominant aspects; its formula is that of growth, in consciousness and love, toward self-realization. The future Aeon, which is seen to eventually replace the present one is the Aeon of Ma'at. According to some, for example, Charles Standfield Jones (Frater Achad) The Aeon of Maat has already arrived. For others, (among them Nema, and the Horus Maat lodge) it is present as a backwards-flowing current grounded in the future. There is a debate as to the temporal span of an Aeon. On the one hand it is argued that an Aeon lasts 2000 years in accordance with the astrological ages generated by the procession cycles of the earth's axis (ie; the 26000 year 'platonic year'), while on the other, Crowley himself suggested that the Horus Age may last as little as 100 years, and that the Aeons might not be uniformly defined in terms of duration. Still another point of view suggests that an Aeon is better interpreted in light of the Gnostic model in which Aeons(or Aions) are considered as stages or spheres of influence in terms of the development of an energy. As such, in this view an Aeon is not Chronological at all, and it is possible for several Aeons to co-exist on the Earth at one time. Contemporary earthly existence of 'prehistoric' cultures, patriarchal structures, and Horus-influenced bastions of individualism, are cited as support for this hypothesis of heterogeneous Aeonics.

[[Category:Astrology]]
[[Category:Astrological terms]]
[[Category:Thelema]]
[[Category:Thelemic terms]]

Abrahadabra

2004-11-01T04:14:54Z

Ibisis: /* Contemporary Research on Abrahadabra (links) */

'''Abrahadabra!''' the [[reward]] of [[Ra Hoor Khut]]. (AL III,1)
-----

==Abrahadabra in Thelema==
'''Abrahadabra''' is a word that appears in ''[[The Book of the Law]]'', and is described by [[Aleister Crowley]] as the "Word of the [[Aeon]]" and that it “represents the [[The Great Work|Great Work]] complete, and it is therefore an archetype of all lesser magical operations” (Crowley, 1997). It is not to be confused with the Word of the Law of the Aeon, which is [[Thelema]].

Abrahadabra is also referred to as the Word of Double Power. More specifically, it represents the uniting of the Microcosm with the Macrocosm—represented by the pentagram and the hexagram, the rose and the cross, the circle and the square, the 5 and the 6, etc.—also called the attainment of the Knowledge and Conversation of one's [[Holy Guardian Angel]]. In ''Commentaries'' (1996), Crowley says that the word is a symbol of the “establishment of the pillar or phallus of the Macrocosm...in the void of the Microcosm.” The sexual analogy here is obvious.

==Gematria==
*ABRAHADABRA = 418
*ABRAHADABRA has 11 letters
*ABRAHADABRA = 1+2+2+1+5+1+4+1+2+2+1 = 22
*The five letters in the word are: A, the Crown; B, the Wand; D, the Cup; H, the Sword; R, the Rosy Cross; and refer further to Amoun the Father, Thoth His messenger, and Isis, Horus, Osiris, the divine-human triad.
*Also 418 = ATh IAV, the Essence of IAO
*418= BVLShKIN, or [[Boleskine]]
*418= RA HVVR, or Ra Hoor
*418= ∑(13-31)

==Quotes from Liber Legis==
*"Abrahadabra; the reward of Ra Hoor Khut." (AL III:1)
*"This book shall be translated into all tongues: but always with the original in the writing of the Beast; for in the chance shape of the letters and their position to one another: in these are mysteries that no Beast shall divine. Let him not seek to try: but one cometh after him, whence I say not, who shall discover the Key of it all. Then this line drawn is a key: then this circle squared in its failure is a key also. And Abrahadabra. It shall be his child & that strangely. Let him not seek after this; for thereby alone can he fall from it." (AL III:47)
*"The ending of the words is the Word Abrahadabra." (AL III:75)

==Contemporary Research on Abrahadabra (links)==
*[http://www.abrahadabra.com] Abrahadabra Foundation (an alchemical perspective on Abrahadabra).
*[http://www.horusmaat.com/silverstar/SILVERSTAR2-PG28.htm]"The Abrahadabra Key". An essay by Ibisis.
*[http://www.hermetic.com/stavish/essays/abrahadabra.html#_ftn2] "Abrahadabra; some thoughts on the word". An essay by Mark Stavish.

==References==
*Crowley, Aleister. (1997). ''Magick: Book 4.'' York Beach, Me. : S. Weiser.
*Crowley, Aleister. (1996). ''Commentaries on the Holy Books and Other Papers : the Equinox,IV(1).'' York Beach, Me. : S. Weiser.
*Crowley, Aleister. (1982). ''777 and Other Qabalistic Writings.'' York Beach, Me. : S. Weiser.

[[Category:Thelema]]
[[Category:Formulæ]]
[[Category:Thelemic terms]]

Abrahadabra

2004-11-01T04:09:22Z

Ibisis: /* Contemporary Research on Abrahadabra (links) */

'''Abrahadabra!''' the [[reward]] of [[Ra Hoor Khut]]. (AL III,1)
-----

==Abrahadabra in Thelema==
'''Abrahadabra''' is a word that appears in ''[[The Book of the Law]]'', and is described by [[Aleister Crowley]] as the "Word of the [[Aeon]]" and that it “represents the [[The Great Work|Great Work]] complete, and it is therefore an archetype of all lesser magical operations” (Crowley, 1997). It is not to be confused with the Word of the Law of the Aeon, which is [[Thelema]].

Abrahadabra is also referred to as the Word of Double Power. More specifically, it represents the uniting of the Microcosm with the Macrocosm—represented by the pentagram and the hexagram, the rose and the cross, the circle and the square, the 5 and the 6, etc.—also called the attainment of the Knowledge and Conversation of one's [[Holy Guardian Angel]]. In ''Commentaries'' (1996), Crowley says that the word is a symbol of the “establishment of the pillar or phallus of the Macrocosm...in the void of the Microcosm.” The sexual analogy here is obvious.

==Gematria==
*ABRAHADABRA = 418
*ABRAHADABRA has 11 letters
*ABRAHADABRA = 1+2+2+1+5+1+4+1+2+2+1 = 22
*The five letters in the word are: A, the Crown; B, the Wand; D, the Cup; H, the Sword; R, the Rosy Cross; and refer further to Amoun the Father, Thoth His messenger, and Isis, Horus, Osiris, the divine-human triad.
*Also 418 = ATh IAV, the Essence of IAO
*418= BVLShKIN, or [[Boleskine]]
*418= RA HVVR, or Ra Hoor
*418= ∑(13-31)

==Quotes from Liber Legis==
*"Abrahadabra; the reward of Ra Hoor Khut." (AL III:1)
*"This book shall be translated into all tongues: but always with the original in the writing of the Beast; for in the chance shape of the letters and their position to one another: in these are mysteries that no Beast shall divine. Let him not seek to try: but one cometh after him, whence I say not, who shall discover the Key of it all. Then this line drawn is a key: then this circle squared in its failure is a key also. And Abrahadabra. It shall be his child & that strangely. Let him not seek after this; for thereby alone can he fall from it." (AL III:47)
*"The ending of the words is the Word Abrahadabra." (AL III:75)

==Contemporary Research on Abrahadabra (links)==
*[http://www.abrahadabra.com] Abrahadabra Foundation (an alchemical perspective on Abrahadabra).
*[http://www.horusmaat.com/silverstar/SILVERSTAR2-PG28.htm]"The Abrahadabra Key; an essay by Ibisis.

==References==
*Crowley, Aleister. (1997). ''Magick: Book 4.'' York Beach, Me. : S. Weiser.
*Crowley, Aleister. (1996). ''Commentaries on the Holy Books and Other Papers : the Equinox,IV(1).'' York Beach, Me. : S. Weiser.
*Crowley, Aleister. (1982). ''777 and Other Qabalistic Writings.'' York Beach, Me. : S. Weiser.

[[Category:Thelema]]
[[Category:Formulæ]]
[[Category:Thelemic terms]]

Abrahadabra

2004-10-21T10:48:03Z

Ibisis: /* Gematria */

'''Abrahadabra''' is a word that appears in ''[[The Book of the Law]]'', and is described by [[Aleister Crowley]] as the "Word of the [[Aeon]]" and that it “represents the [[The Great Work|Great Work]] complete, and it is therefore an archetype of all lesser magical operations” (Crowley, 1997). It is not to be confused with the Word of the Law of the Aeon, which is [[Thelema]].

Abrahadabra is also referred to as the Word of Double Power. More specifically, it represents the uniting of the Microcosm with the Macrocosm—represented by the pentagram and the hexagram, the rose and the cross, the circle and the square, the 5 and the 6, etc.—also called the attainment of the Knowledge and Conversation of one's [[Holy Guardian Angel]]. In ''Commentaries'' (1996), Crowley says that the word is a symbol of the “establishment of the pillar or phallus of the Macrocosm...in the void of the Microcosm.” The sexual analogy here is obvious.

==Gematria==
*ABRAHADABRA = 418
*ABRAHADABRA has 11 letters
*ABRAHADABRA = 1+2+2+1+5+1+4+1+2+2+1 = 22
*The five letters in the word are: A, the Crown; B, the Wand; D, the Cup; H, the Sword; R, the Rosy Cross; and refer further to Amoun the Father, Thoth His messenger, and Isis, Horus, Osiris, the divine-human triad.
*Also 418 = ATh IAV, the Essence of IAO
*418= BVLShKIN, or [[Boleskine]]
*418= RA HVVR, or Ra Hoor
*418= ∑(13-31)

==Quotes from Liber Legis==
*"Abrahadabra; the reward of Ra Hoor Khut." (AL III:1)
*"This book shall be translated into all tongues: but always with the original in the writing of the Beast; for in the chance shape of the letters and their position to one another: in these are mysteries that no Beast shall divine. Let him not seek to try: but one cometh after him, whence I say not, who shall discover the Key of it all. Then this line drawn is a key: then this circle squared in its failure is a key also. And Abrahadabra. It shall be his child & that strangely. Let him not seek after this; for thereby alone can he fall from it." (AL III:47)
*"The ending of the words is the Word Abrahadabra." (AL III:75)

==Contemporary Research on Abrahadabra (links)==
*[http://www.abrahadabra.com] Abrahadabra Foundation (an alchemical perspective on Abrahadabra).

==References==
*Crowley, Aleister. (1997). ''Magick: Book 4.'' York Beach, Me. : S. Weiser.
*Crowley, Aleister. (1996). ''Commentaries on the Holy Books and Other Papers : the Equinox,IV(1).'' York Beach, Me. : S. Weiser.
*Crowley, Aleister. (1982). ''777 and Other Qabalistic Writings.'' York Beach, Me. : S. Weiser.

Abrahadabra

2004-10-21T10:46:22Z

Ibisis: /* Gematria */

'''Abrahadabra''' is a word that appears in ''[[The Book of the Law]]'', and is described by [[Aleister Crowley]] as the "Word of the [[Aeon]]" and that it “represents the [[The Great Work|Great Work]] complete, and it is therefore an archetype of all lesser magical operations” (Crowley, 1997). It is not to be confused with the Word of the Law of the Aeon, which is [[Thelema]].

Abrahadabra is also referred to as the Word of Double Power. More specifically, it represents the uniting of the Microcosm with the Macrocosm—represented by the pentagram and the hexagram, the rose and the cross, the circle and the square, the 5 and the 6, etc.—also called the attainment of the Knowledge and Conversation of one's [[Holy Guardian Angel]]. In ''Commentaries'' (1996), Crowley says that the word is a symbol of the “establishment of the pillar or phallus of the Macrocosm...in the void of the Microcosm.” The sexual analogy here is obvious.

==Gematria==
*ABRAHADABRA = 418
*ABRAHADABRA has 11 letters
*ABRAHADABRA = 1+2+2+1+5+1+4+1+2+2+1 = 22
*The five letters in the word are: A, the Crown; B, the Wand; D, the Cup; H, the Sword; R, the Rosy Cross; and refer further to Amoun the Father, Thoth His messenger, and Isis, Horus, Osiris, the divine-human triad.
*Also 418 = ATh IAV, the Essence of IAO
*418= BVLShKIN, or [[Boleskine]]
*418= ∑(13-31)

==Quotes from Liber Legis==
*"Abrahadabra; the reward of Ra Hoor Khut." (AL III:1)
*"This book shall be translated into all tongues: but always with the original in the writing of the Beast; for in the chance shape of the letters and their position to one another: in these are mysteries that no Beast shall divine. Let him not seek to try: but one cometh after him, whence I say not, who shall discover the Key of it all. Then this line drawn is a key: then this circle squared in its failure is a key also. And Abrahadabra. It shall be his child & that strangely. Let him not seek after this; for thereby alone can he fall from it." (AL III:47)
*"The ending of the words is the Word Abrahadabra." (AL III:75)

==Contemporary Research on Abrahadabra (links)==
*[http://www.abrahadabra.com] Abrahadabra Foundation (an alchemical perspective on Abrahadabra).

==References==
*Crowley, Aleister. (1997). ''Magick: Book 4.'' York Beach, Me. : S. Weiser.
*Crowley, Aleister. (1996). ''Commentaries on the Holy Books and Other Papers : the Equinox,IV(1).'' York Beach, Me. : S. Weiser.
*Crowley, Aleister. (1982). ''777 and Other Qabalistic Writings.'' York Beach, Me. : S. Weiser.

Abrahadabra

2004-10-21T10:43:26Z

Ibisis: /* Gematria */

'''Abrahadabra''' is a word that appears in ''[[The Book of the Law]]'', and is described by [[Aleister Crowley]] as the "Word of the [[Aeon]]" and that it “represents the [[The Great Work|Great Work]] complete, and it is therefore an archetype of all lesser magical operations” (Crowley, 1997). It is not to be confused with the Word of the Law of the Aeon, which is [[Thelema]].

Abrahadabra is also referred to as the Word of Double Power. More specifically, it represents the uniting of the Microcosm with the Macrocosm—represented by the pentagram and the hexagram, the rose and the cross, the circle and the square, the 5 and the 6, etc.—also called the attainment of the Knowledge and Conversation of one's [[Holy Guardian Angel]]. In ''Commentaries'' (1996), Crowley says that the word is a symbol of the “establishment of the pillar or phallus of the Macrocosm...in the void of the Microcosm.” The sexual analogy here is obvious.

==Gematria==
*ABRAHADABRA = 418
*ABRAHADABRA has 11 letters
*ABRAHADABRA = 1+2+2+1+5+1+4+1+2+2+1 = 22
*The five letters in the word are: A, the Crown; B, the Wand; D, the Cup; H, the Sword; R, the Rosy Cross; and refer further to Amoun the Father, Thoth His messenger, and Isis, Horus, Osiris, the divine-human triad.
*Also 418 = ATh IAV, the Essence of IAO
*418= BVLShKIN, or Boleskine
*418= ∑(13-31)

==Quotes from Liber Legis==
*"Abrahadabra; the reward of Ra Hoor Khut." (AL III:1)
*"This book shall be translated into all tongues: but always with the original in the writing of the Beast; for in the chance shape of the letters and their position to one another: in these are mysteries that no Beast shall divine. Let him not seek to try: but one cometh after him, whence I say not, who shall discover the Key of it all. Then this line drawn is a key: then this circle squared in its failure is a key also. And Abrahadabra. It shall be his child & that strangely. Let him not seek after this; for thereby alone can he fall from it." (AL III:47)
*"The ending of the words is the Word Abrahadabra." (AL III:75)

==Contemporary Research on Abrahadabra (links)==
*[http://www.abrahadabra.com] Abrahadabra Foundation (an alchemical perspective on Abrahadabra).

==References==
*Crowley, Aleister. (1997). ''Magick: Book 4.'' York Beach, Me. : S. Weiser.
*Crowley, Aleister. (1996). ''Commentaries on the Holy Books and Other Papers : the Equinox,IV(1).'' York Beach, Me. : S. Weiser.
*Crowley, Aleister. (1982). ''777 and Other Qabalistic Writings.'' York Beach, Me. : S. Weiser.

Abrahadabra

2004-10-21T05:45:22Z

Ibisis: Added a link

'''Abrahadabra''' is a word that appears in ''[[The Book of the Law]]'', and is described by [[Aleister Crowley]] as the "Word of the [[Aeon]]" and that it “represents the [[The Great Work|Great Work]] complete, and it is therefore an archetype of all lesser magical operations” (Crowley, 1997). It is not to be confused with the Word of the Law of the Aeon, which is [[Thelema]].

Abrahadabra is also referred to as the Word of Double Power. More specifically, it represents the uniting of the Microcosm with the Macrocosm—represented by the pentagram and the hexagram, the rose and the cross, the circle and the square, the 5 and the 6, etc.—also called the attainment of the Knowledge and Conversation of one's [[Holy Guardian Angel]]. In ''Commentaries'' (1996), Crowley says that the word is a symbol of the “establishment of the pillar or phallus of the Macrocosm...in the void of the Microcosm.” The sexual analogy here is obvious.

==Gematria==
*ABRAHADABRA = 418
*ABRAHADABRA has 11 letters
*ABRAHADABRA = 1+2+2+1+5+1+4+1+2+2+1 = 22
*The five letters in the word are: A, the Crown; B, the Wand; D, the Cup; H, the Sword; R, the Rosy Cross; and refer further to Amoun the Father, Thoth His messenger, and Isis, Horus, Osiris, the divine-human triad.
*Also 418 = ATh IAV, the Essence of IAO

==Quotes from Liber Legis==
*"Abrahadabra; the reward of Ra Hoor Khut." (AL III:1)
*"This book shall be translated into all tongues: but always with the original in the writing of the Beast; for in the chance shape of the letters and their position to one another: in these are mysteries that no Beast shall divine. Let him not seek to try: but one cometh after him, whence I say not, who shall discover the Key of it all. Then this line drawn is a key: then this circle squared in its failure is a key also. And Abrahadabra. It shall be his child & that strangely. Let him not seek after this; for thereby alone can he fall from it." (AL III:47)
*"The ending of the words is the Word Abrahadabra." (AL III:75)

==Contemporary Research on Abrahadabra (links)==
*[http://www.abrahadabra.com] Abrahadabra Foundation (an alchemical perspective on Abrahadabra).

==References==
*Crowley, Aleister. (1997). ''Magick: Book 4.'' York Beach, Me. : S. Weiser.
*Crowley, Aleister. (1996). ''Commentaries on the Holy Books and Other Papers : the Equinox,IV(1).'' York Beach, Me. : S. Weiser.
*Crowley, Aleister. (1982). ''777 and Other Qabalistic Writings.'' York Beach, Me. : S. Weiser.