Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trw-unix!trwspp!urban
From: urban@trwspp.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: An Introduction to Thelema
Message-ID: <81@trwspp.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 5-Aug-83 16:44:57 EDT
Article-I.D.: trwspp.81
Posted: Fri Aug  5 16:44:57 1983
Date-Received: Mon, 8-Aug-83 23:48:11 EDT
References: unc.5642
Lines: 32

Your universe model is unusual, I'll say that.  I'm going
to restrict myself to one point to which I react strongly.

	   ....  As the Book of the Law puts it, "For I am divided for
	love's sake, for the chance of union." Love consists of the
	ecstatic union of opposites.  That is as close to a literal de-
	finition as I can muster.  Basically, Love is a phenomenon ob-
	servable in a variety of situations, the most obvious being the
	ecstatic union of male and female (a Thelemic sacrament, I might
	add).  Another obvious example is when a particle meets its
	anti-particle and they combine to become a photon.  The biggest
	consideration is that, all philosophy aside, this formula works
	in the production of ecstasy.

I hope the electron and positron are happy together.  But
seriously, there's an underlying model there that's pretty
troublesome.  In what sense do you consider that male and female
are "opposite"? This sort of assumption is the basis of a
mythical view of the sexes (the positive, bright, strong, active
male principle [god of the sun] versus the negative, dark, weak,
passive, female principle [goddess of the moon]) that has been
with us too long already.  If male and female are opposite, then
man and beast are even more opposite, and bestiality should be
an even more holy union, right?  Seems to me that defining love
and ecstasy in terms of `joining of opposites' is pretty flimsy,
although in your model it's necessary since you have to make
sense of the "joining of Will with Restriction" (i.e. incomplete
control of the universe; or did I fail to follow the metaphysics
completely).
   Oh well, at least it's a different USE of this idea.

	Mike