ilumairen

Nah, I'm more interested in the roof possums.

I'm waiting on an update about the rain..

The do what one will bit comes after the meeting and conversing with one's "holy guardian angel" bit.. prior to this bridging of what is sometimes referred to as the higher and lower it isn't actually the acting out of what was referred to as "true will."

For me using three Magus cards, two of which were rejected by Crowley, would create an imbalance towards fire and projection. Not to mention there would be two magi without their high priestess counterparts, creating a leaning towards the masculine dominance which I'm perhaps overly sensitive towards.

The movement of the Star in the Thoth deck, and how this movement is actually related to a passage in the Book of the Law was interesting to me as well. Today, I'm contemplating the old and new Fool (with the visual reference being the Rider and Thoth cards). What is presently standing out is the potentiality presented in Thoth, compared with the clear precariousness in the Rider version.

Wait, is this meant to reference me? The theory is antiquated and Victorian .. and, in this instance appears to be a means to vilify those who wished to have a deeper discussion. If something is confusing and one wants to understand, they could study or politely ask without the need to vilify.

The question was conversation, and an attempt to keep things circling around the general topic. It perhaps brought things together in odd (and difficult to follow) ways in the attempt. My apologies for this. This is amazingly on point! The author referenced has some title in OTO, but the book shares what he refers to as a little bit of information about the things needed to (more deeply) understand the Thoth tarot - without bogging the reader down with an overwhelming amount of information. What you shared provides more depth to the little bits shared regarding the Aeons in the book, and refines my own contemplation. Thank you!

Yeah, I was pretty sure you were aware of the source material, and just being conversational. Thanks for understating this and sharing a smile over memories of old friends. This is nice.

In Understanding Aleister Crowley's Thoth Tarot author Lon Milo Duquette sets forth an understanding of the second Aeon as a shift from a nurturing earth/mother view to a supplying (my word)/sustaining Sun/father view with a focus on death/resurrection. So, to generally follow the overall topic, how do the Spartans, and particularly the historically accurate quote "Then we will fight in the shade" (as an indicator pointing towards fearlessness of death) fit in this proposed understanding of the Aeons? To be clear and open, I have my own theories and thoughts, but am presently more interested in hearing other's thoughts.

It is based on a graphic novel which itself had taken great liberties with historical fact, and a visually stunning masterpiece (which has the potential to pique historical interest) imo.

For anyone who missed the reference: What? It's a good movie.

And the train has gone off the rails...

Apparently you missed the question mark... I'd suggest reading more carefully.

Because you've behaved like a petulant child, and the kindness offered in spite of your little fits and insinuations are at odds with each other and perhaps difficult to digest? Take care. And good luck with the indigestion.

Actually, I do. :offers welkin a bowl: I hope this is somehow cathartic for you, if nothing else.

What are you going on about? The present topic is will. Is there something you'd like to add to the discussion?

I'm not trying to burn you, or drown you in imaginary waves. I'm trying to have a discussion with peers (i.e. equals).

My dear young man, you haven't burned me; nor am I being drowned or pummeled by any wave you imagine. Now, would you like to actually address the topic? Edit to add: we're currently discussing will, as it relates to the title of this thread.

I have no problems with what's been recently presented here, and only thought to assist you with what you presented as a problem for yourself. You can accept my offer, or continue with the tract you've chosen. You're choice.

Hi Welkin, he writes how he writes, in accordance with his nature and will, and can actually be quite helpful and open to sharing when not addressed confrontationally. What is confusing to you in what he shared?

No, she's amicably snuggling beside me.

And would you like to elaborate a bit on this?

I would suggest perpetual interplay between what we label conscious and unconscious - with the notion some stalwart individuals have dived more deeply into the depths and discovered ways to consciously integrate the subconscious - at which point it's not really sub (or un)conscious anymore. You're rather fun, and I'm happy you're here.

Hmm What would you consider a (or the) basic prerequisite(s) for understanding the phrase used as the title of this thread (as it is set forth in the Book of the Law)?

Of course there isn't, and initiation into the book wasn't even mentioned by the individual you misquoted. No, it doesn't. No, they don't. Until actualization occurs we're running through trained programming - perhaps with the illusion we're acting out our own will. This reads in a rather adolescent manner, and I'd honestly like to see and engage in deeper exploration.