Remember WHOM he wrote it for and- BECAUSE of- and WHY.
Allow me to comment thusly: THIS was "not" dictated from Aiwazz or Aiwass - but an overall protective guide for those who would become tranced by the words as the all truth - the reaction of the individual reading it would either be a one time thing or it would grow as they developed- one could say "dont tell me what to do!" or follow its instrucions implicity- of course both re-actions would be "wrong" in a sense.
Indeed it is important that this was not originally part of the Book of the Law and Aiwass' dictation but rather what he saw as the inspired comment. Also the historical facts surrounding this comment are interesting as well but I wanted to look at the very text of the comment itself and its implications. Either way, this comment on the comment is more of an exploration of ideas that people take for granted, i.e. the usual 'literal' interpretation of the middle lines and its incoherence on close inspection as well as the possible symbolic reading of these lines.
Nice Commentaish_mlchmhDecember 6 2008, 23:43:59 UTC
Personally, I'd also consider the Prophet's own reaction to this text which was quite literal when applied to people such as Germer. I think you allude to this, but the problem IMO is that "individualism run wild" will interpret this outside of attainment of K & C. - there being no "himself" until that point ("This unachieved, man is no more than the unhappiest and blindest of animals. He is conscious of his own incomprehensible calamity, and clumsily incapable of repairing it.").
Moreover, I'd add that Aleister Crowley's O.T.O. clearly is at odds with a number of the injunctions contained within "The Comment", but in agreement as an "appeal" to his writings.
Re: Nice Commentiao131December 8 2008, 05:59:10 UTC
93,
Most certainly. The problem is both 'individualism run wild' (which, under certain interpretations, isnt so bad at all) and also 'dogmatism run wild' i.e. any mention of Liber AL is met with scorn. I think what I wanted to bring out was that the literal interpretation as well as the symbolic mean that 'shunning others' or destroying the book or anything isnt as clear as it might seem on the face of it. Further, I wanted to emphasize that DO WHAT THOU WILT is the sole law of Thelema, not shunning others for what they Will to do.
I could have mentioned the historical circumstances around this Comment or even talk about how the OTO tells people to study the Book constantly but that wasnt what I wanted to focus on: the words of the Comment itself... although these are certainly pertinent points.
Comments 7
(The comment has been removed)
Much appreciated - people have told me to submit various essays to Agape before but whenever I did I never heard back about any of them...
IAO131
Reply
Allow me to comment thusly: THIS was "not" dictated from Aiwazz or Aiwass - but an overall protective guide for those who would become tranced by the words as the all truth - the reaction of the individual reading it would either be a one time thing or it would grow as they developed- one could say "dont tell me what to do!" or follow its instrucions implicity- of course both re-actions would be "wrong" in a sense.
Reply
I appreciate the comments.
Indeed it is important that this was not originally part of the Book of the Law and Aiwass' dictation but rather what he saw as the inspired comment. Also the historical facts surrounding this comment are interesting as well but I wanted to look at the very text of the comment itself and its implications. Either way, this comment on the comment is more of an exploration of ideas that people take for granted, i.e. the usual 'literal' interpretation of the middle lines and its incoherence on close inspection as well as the possible symbolic reading of these lines.
IAO131
Reply
Moreover, I'd add that Aleister Crowley's O.T.O. clearly is at odds with a number of the injunctions contained within "The Comment", but in agreement as an "appeal" to his writings.
Reply
Most certainly. The problem is both 'individualism run wild' (which, under certain interpretations, isnt so bad at all) and also 'dogmatism run wild' i.e. any mention of Liber AL is met with scorn. I think what I wanted to bring out was that the literal interpretation as well as the symbolic mean that 'shunning others' or destroying the book or anything isnt as clear as it might seem on the face of it. Further, I wanted to emphasize that DO WHAT THOU WILT is the sole law of Thelema, not shunning others for what they Will to do.
I could have mentioned the historical circumstances around this Comment or even talk about how the OTO tells people to study the Book constantly but that wasnt what I wanted to focus on: the words of the Comment itself... although these are certainly pertinent points.
IAO131
Reply
MatthewK puts his stamp of approval on this LJ and looks forward to reading more.
Reply
LOL thanks M.K. Im glad I have obtained your approval :P
IAO131
Reply
Leave a comment