The Book of The Law Study Group 3.72

Aeon418

I get the 2001 reference, although I really hate that movie, all the more so because one isn't "allowed" to.
Of course you're allowed to hate it. ;)

The following quote is ripped straight from Wikipedia. I think Kubrick's 'vision' for 2001 has a lot in common with how we've all tried to approach this multiple year spanning Book of the Law study.

Stanley Kubrick encouraged people to explore their own interpretations of the film, and refused to offer an explanation of "what really happened" in the movie, preferring instead to let audiences embrace their own ideas and theories. In a 1968 interview with Playboy magazine, Kubrick stated:

You're free to speculate as you wish about the philosophical and allegorical meaning of the film—and such speculation is one indication that it has succeeded in gripping the audience at a deep level—but I don't want to spell out a verbal road map for 2001 that every viewer will feel obligated to pursue or else fear he's missed the point.

In a subsequent discussion of the film with Joseph Gelmis, Kubrick said his main aim was to avoid "intellectual verbalization" and reach "the viewer's subconscious." However, he said he did not deliberately strive for ambiguity- it was simply an inevitable outcome of making the film nonverbal, though he acknowledged this ambiguity was an invaluable asset to the film. He was willing then to give a fairly straightforward explanation of the plot on what he called the "simplest level," but unwilling to discuss the metaphysical interpretation of the film which he felt should be left up to the individual viewer.

The only reason I would choke up watching 2001 is if it all too keenly reminded me of the monotony of existence (which it does!). All I could think of while staring at that thing is "My God, what the hell am I doing with my life?" And I've tried liking it, several times, trying to convince myself I didn't understand it... I do... I really do...

Are you sure you're not confusing 2001 with Harry Potter? :laugh:

Looking at 2001 from the angle of Qabalistic psychology I can't help seeing the transition from Nephesh to Ruach in the initial non-verbal ape man section. (The Monolith is the Supernal Triad. 1, 2, 3, sqaured is the dimensions of the monolith. 1 x 4 x 9.)
The Ruach-intellect and the transition beyond it is represented by the verbal middle section of the movie, which features the mental breakdown of the logical-ego, HAL. (Instructed to lie, and can't do it. It's beyond his function. Hence he goes nuts.)
The third and final section sees Dave Bowman travel beyond the Ruach (back to non-verbal again) and make the transition to Neshamah - Superconsciousness. (Is that the birth of the cosmos or the conception of a child? Or are they one and the same?) Until right at the end you see the next step in the evolution of consciousness beyond the limited individual self, the Star Child.

Then again maybe none of that is there and I'm merely projecting. :laugh:

Open the pod bay doors HAL.....
 

Aeon418

They told me not to study or comment on the Book of the Law either ... and look where that got us :laugh:
I was told the same once. I was also told it was the correct interpretation of The Comment.

A statement written by Crowley which was designed to avoid dogma. Oh, the irony of it all. :rolleyes::laugh:
 

ravenest

Open the pod bay doors HAL.....

"Open the doors of the sky RHK"

"I am sorry ravenest I cant do that for you."

< O sh*t , how do I get out of this one ? >
 

ravenest

sorry guys ... I am cracking up to myself here.

I am imagining going to see this movie with you years ago ... I am agawp , transfixed, entering a mystical state watching it ... C is on one side sitting next to me ;

"What the hell is this about? ... What does it even mean? It reminded me of the monotony of existence ... ... My God! What the hell am I doing with my life?" <shoves more popcorn into his mouth.>

Aeon is on the other side; "Well actually, I can't help seeing the transition from Nephesh to Ruach in the initial non-verbal ape man section. (The Monolith is the Supernal Triad. 1, 2, 3, sqaured is the dimensions of the monolith. 1 x 4 x 9.) ... furthermore ... "


Ravenest; "SHHHH! "

:laugh:
 

Aeon418

I've had worse than that. The last time I went to the movies was 2006, and I swore never to return. And I've kept that promise. Sheesh! :rolleyes:
 

Zephyros

Oh, I'm not arguing that the film may or may not have a message. Under extreme duress, even I could find it. However that message is buried under crap floating in space which is basically the entire film. The first half hour is someone going somewhere with lots of stuff floating in space; he then talks to some people for five minutes and then goes someplace else which takes another forty minutes of stuff floating (in space). It's all atmosphere, it's all visual exposition, but stuff floating in space (yes, I'll say it again!) isn't a story. This does not mean the only films I enjoy are crash-bang action flicks, I do enjoy cerebral movies, but for me 2001 is very similar to David Lynch's Inland Empire: obscurantism for the sake of it, self-indulgence for the sake of it and a complete lack of substance other than hinting at something that may or may not be there. In a way, saying that a film is completely open to interpretation is taking the easy way out, and films that do so generally get bad rap because of this, since it is generally a sign of sloppy writing. 2001 gets a free pass, which in my opinion is completely undeserved.

Not that it's all bad. HAL is an amazing villain, one of the best I've ever seen. In any case, ConfusedMatthew does a very good review of it, for people who like that sort of thing.

Back to the topic, though, I find the whole left/right hand thing quite interesting (if "interesting" means obscure and incomprehensible). While the double wand does not fit the general "male" language used in the BoL, the contrast with the empty hand seems to put Hadit on the right, and Nuit on the left and Horus in the middle. this may actually be a reference to the Tree of Life.
 

Aeon418

While the double wand does not fit the general "male" language used in the BoL,

Can you elaborate on this?

this may actually be a reference to the Tree of Life.

I think that there might be a Tree reference in there too. My initial thought was along lines similar to Adam Kadmon, but it seems to be the wrong way around. Hmmm...

Does the verse (72) point to the Pillar of Mercy? Netzach(7) to Chokmah(2). What that might signify I'm not sure. The Wand itself? Although Wand symbolism is at root Chokmah related. Especially dual polarity ones. But again it seems to be on the wrong side......

Unless we're facing the Tree in this verse?

Edit: Or upside down? :bugeyed:
 

Zephyros

Can you elaborate on this?

Well, this certainly isn't an "academic" observation, only that I'm used to snakes and points and whatnot. The Double Wand seems to be a slightly more sophisticated symbol, and maybe not of solely the archetypal male used in other sections and sources. Since you quoted the line about the hollow tube, an obvious reference to Prometheus, it also made me remember where I had seen a double wand, the RWS Magician (and also the World, but let's concentrate on him for now). Now, it is my firm belief that the RWS depicts the Adam Kadmon and very fitting it is that the Magician would bring down the fire of Keter, and all the symbolism that entails (as above, so etc.). That in itself doesn't say much, ravenest already suggested Thoth. However, Ra-Hoor-Khuit may not be saying he is Thoth, but the Lord of Thoth; the semicolon suggests he doesn't control the wand of Coph Nia, he is the wand, the tool Ain Soph uses to experience. Both of these would possibly suggest his place as the Son, the entity who actually gains perspective on the union of Nuit and Hadit.

I think that there might be a Tree reference in there too. My initial thought was along lines similar to Adam Kadmon, but it seems to be the wrong way around. Hmmm...

It certainly does seem the wrong way. The context is perhaps the general hermaphroditic nature of the Law. Whichever way you look at it, even inverting all the forces of nature, the Law and Will are what they are. I've been reading up about the Big Bang recently, and I found it fascinating that in the singularity that created the universe the laws of physics we assume to be universal didn't exist, and so the state of things before had no relation to what was after. Even the amount of matter in the universe wasn't constant, since the law of conservation of matter hadn't been invented yet. What I am getting at, is that since the Apocalypse had occurred, the "end of the world", so to speak, the normal mercy/severity conventions we assume to be universal may not be, there may be a new Tree. That there is as yet no new universe means that its laws don't exist yet (obviously very proper for the "Crowned and Conquering Child"), so left is right and up is down. I find it strange the "nought remains" is in lowercase, as it seems highly important.

Lewis Carroll said:
And I haven't sent the two Messengers, either. They're both gone to the town. Just look along the road, and tell me if you can see either of them.'

'I see nobody on the road,' said Alice.

'I only wish I had such eyes,' the King remarked in a fretful tone. 'To be able to see Nobody! And at the distance too! Why, it's as much as I can do to see real people, by this light!'

Does nought remain or does nought remain?
 

Aeon418

What I am getting at, is that since the Apocalypse had occurred, the "end of the world", so to speak, the normal mercy/severity conventions we assume to be universal may not be, there may be a new Tree. That there is as yet no new universe means that its laws don't exist yet (obviously very proper for the "Crowned and Conquering Child"), so left is right and up is down.

It kind of reminds of Crowley's comment on XI Lust in The Book of Thoth:
Aleister Crowley said:
Behind the figures of the Beast and his Bride are ten luminous rayed circles; they are the Sephiroth latent and not yet in order, for every new Aeon demands a new system of classification of the universe.
At the top of the card is shown an emblem of the new light, with ten horns of the Beast, which are serpents, sent forth into every direction to destroy and recreate the world.
The Path of Teth is between Chesed and Geburah, which according to traditional Kabbalah are the "arms of God." (As mentioned before 72 = ChSD. III x 72 = GBVRH.)

Of course Atu XI links to Atu VIII. In one pan there is the letter Alpha which is equivalent to the Hebrew Aleph. Aleph spelt in full is 831, the same value as the Greek PHALLOS (and as demonstrated earlier - COPh NIA). In the other pan there is Omega - an Universe.

Very suggestive. Maybe from the perspective of Adam Kadmon it is pointing to a new loop on his left side. He has crushed the old universe symbolised by the Emperor(IV) and now Nuit(XVII) remains. A new classification of the universe?

On second thoughts forget I ever said anything about loops and card swaps. This thread has probably been derailed enough already. :laugh:
 

Zephyros

On the contrary, i find your comments very apt, and i will give a thought to the Emperor/Star connection (it may actually be what i need to make the connection myself, i have always had problems with that, obviously). I'm on my phone though, so i will have to address what you're saying later.