Hi, when I say "concrete", or whatever it was I said, it was in reference to
being able to verify whether Crowley's UPGs of Egypt were backed up by texts
or archaeology, it's the texts and archaeology that I meant as being
"factual" or concrete (Post Modernism aside), not whether magic produces
concrete results.
>>if magick can reach new insights into the "song line" that were
corroborated in otherways<<
What I think is interesting is the way deities change throughout history,
but can still have the same names. So, for example Isis changed throughout
history, becoming broader and in charge of more and more things and
incorportating deities like Hathor and Nut, and was "still Isis". I'm
interested in how she is "still Isis". So, if Crowley expands on ancient
Egyptian, or Late Graeco-Egyptian, religious concepts... and makes them
different, to whatever degree, to the ancient versions... I do think that
they are "still those deities", but that they are now different. And yes he
may have had new insighst about those deities, but how would we prove
whether he was right or not? (Assuming one *can* be "right" about a deity,
which I don't think one actually can - seeing as they seem to change
throughout history, who am I, a mere mortal, to presume to know a deity's
real nature anyway? I think using Qabbalistic correspondecnes or gematria or
whatever to verify the right-ness of another intangible concept like a deity
is really a circular method). Although I am a bit puzzled as to how deities
can still be the same as a previous version of themselves... Sometimes it
seems that all that is the same is the name. So if a deity changes thoughout
history, how are they still the same deity? I don't think contemporary
versions of Egyptian religion and/or magic are invalid simply because they
are modern, my angle of interest however is in the diferences between
ancient and modern manifestations of Egyptian religious concepts. I want to
compare late 19th-early 20th century magicians' ideas about "Egypt" and see
how they are similar to or different to ancient ideas. In Crowley's case
where for example, the decision that the Golden Dawn material was "Old Aeon"
and that his material is "New Aeon", when all that seems to have changed are
the "Gods in charge", I want to know where he got all his ideas for that,
why he thought Nut was a better deity than Isis etc.
~Caroline.
----- Original Message -----
From: "mandrake" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 2:10 AM
Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Isis
> Caroline Tully
>
> Sure i agree it maybe doesn't matter to some -
> but, counting myself as one of those "later practitioners of his method" -
> it matters to me some
> ie if magick can reach new insights into the "song line" that were
> corroborated in otherways -
> our own "propaganda" sometimes proposes that GD type gematria is used as a
> way of corroborating
> astral visions (not always convincingly i admit) but magicians often claim
> that magick works in some concrete way.
> Others too have looked to this kind of thing -
> say the archeologist Bligh Bond who discovered a new chapel at glastonbury
> - or maybe Omm Sety - probably other examples.
>
>
>
> BB/93
>
> mogg
|