tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4306753589954666513.post7332443856443417903..comments2023-03-30T12:21:34.989+02:00Comments on Gyllene Gryningen: How to marry the Bridegroom with his Bride: A follow-up to Alchemy and the Golden DawnSincerus Renatus...http://www.blogger.com/profile/16773943810683981054noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4306753589954666513.post-31562056847400347142011-07-01T09:46:11.006+02:002011-07-01T09:46:11.006+02:00Care Frater Peregrin,
I guess any terms will be q...Care Frater Peregrin,<br /><br />I guess any terms will be quite meaningless in a community if we don't all (or most of us) agree upon them. But at the same time I believe many in the Golden Dawn community feel that we who call ourselves "traditionalists" (according to my definition) differs alot from them. <br /><br />So, somehow there must be a fundamental difference. Until we agree what they are and how to commonly define them, we probably won't understand each other which perhaps will result in further dissonance. <br /><br />For me at least, my designations and their interpretation (which follows the standard from the pagan community quite a lot) helps me in understanding the "psychology" of the different Orders and initiaties, in the same way as a "diagnosis" does in my psychoterapeutic work. But a system of diagnosis is only a map, not the person self. But it helps me in relating to that patient in a way that may lead to a mutual and repriprocal communication and a genuine meeting between two subjects. On the other hand, if I hold on to my map to much I may miss the spot in the real terrain which may lead to misunderstandings and a break up of the relation. So I have to be flexible. It's the same with the designations "traditionalist" and "reconstructionist"; they are the map not the terrain. <br /><br />Most orders, organizations and magicians are not any stereotypes; they are somewhere in between (having parts of both designations), moving a bit on the continuum according to circumstances. I myself are not a clean cut "traditionalist", as was my point in using the character Locutus of Borg; there is a part of me who thinks as a reconstructionist. There is an underlaying dynamics there. <br /><br />As with all designations, labels and diagnosis, they may be misused, and thrown on people. I admit that I have succumbed to this myself in a agitated state. Still I believe I have learnt a lot regarding myself and the other party in doing this.<br /><br />I don't know if I have labelled you anything, Frater Peregrin. All I have said is that you have defended certain individuals that I have labelled as "reconstructionists". It seems to me, reading what you say, that you are not a reconstructionist. But to be frank, I rest my case. I have no interest in labelling you either way.<br /><br />Regarding the "alchemy" of you-know-who, yes I agree with Fra. L.e.S. that it's all about intellectual speculation. Nothing that I have read concerning it airs anything traditional and operative alchemical that I have encountered. And yes, he has said quite explicitly that he doesn't believe in a real (as in physical, not methaporical) Philosopher's Stone. And yes he has stated on several occations that he is prepared to change the old alchemical tradition for it to fit his own idea of what the Golden Dawn tradition is. Needless to say, I don't at all agree with him, and I have the right to say so and speak out candidly what I believe alchemy to be in contrast to his reconstruction.<br /><br />I don't at all agree with you that I am confusing the public. Anyway, that's not at all my ambition, on the contrary. Alchemists has from the very beginning of the history of alchemy spoken out freely and candidly whenever they have spotted out "puffers" of "souffleurs". It is they (the puffers) who confuse the public, not I nor L.e.S., at least not from our perspective.<br /><br />One of the purposes of this blog is to spot and call into question all the wild and crazy ideas that is floating around concering the Western Esoteric Tradition. You may not agree with my understanding, but that's o.k. by me. To be frank again, I don't bother. I will keep informing the public about how I regard the tradition anyway. It is up to them to decide for themselves how to assess anyones ideas. My task here is to give some pointers, that's all. If you don't appreciate it, whell I guess that's your problem Frater.<br /><br />In Licht, Leben und Liebe<br />S:.R:.Sincerus Renatus...https://www.blogger.com/profile/16773943810683981054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4306753589954666513.post-20252241226707210762011-07-01T03:55:11.625+02:002011-07-01T03:55:11.625+02:00Care GH Fr SR,
Thank you for this interesting ess...Care GH Fr SR,<br /><br />Thank you for this interesting essay. I will be plain and frank here. I appreciated the unity you drew at the beginning of the essay, noting the general agreement in the GD community. However, I see no need to repeat GH Fr LES’s forum assessment of Pat’s thoughts as “mental masturbation” (though you do not mention his name, we know who you mean). What good does that do, GH Fr? What good did GH Fr LES do by his words?<br /><br />I also find the dichotomy you seem to draw between how ‘traditionalists’ and ‘reconstructionists’ approach alchemy confusing and apt to cause more separation than unity within our community.<br /><br />To make my point, I will speak personally. I have been labelled a ‘reconstructionist’ by you and GH Fr LES and even if it is meant with the best and loving intentions, I do not accept this label (nor do I accept your authority to label in this way). Since neither of you have any clue as to my lineage, practice, teachers and methods of teaching, such a labelling is based on very thin ground indeed. <br /><br />And the thing is, GH Fr, the thing is, my approach to alchemy, from what you write here, is despite being labelled a ‘reconstructionist’, COMPLETELY ‘traditionalist’. Honestly :) I was nodding and nodding as I read your descriptions… <br /><br />The same with other ‘reconstructionists’ I respect and know – <br /><br />They ARE “doing research into older alchemical and Rosicrucian Mss. and oral traditions”. They DO “agree upon that there exists an intrinsically Occidental form of Internal Alchemy which is akin to Oriental Tantra but at the same time unique and distinct from the latter, seeing the physical body and matter as an expression of spiritual forces.” They DO “believe in an actual Philosopher’s Stone and in the reality of transmutation, both of the body and of base metals.”<br /><br />And so on…<br /><br />Of course, I am not saying ALL ‘reconstructionists’ approach the subject this way, just as I am sure that not ALL (every person in the world) ‘traditionalists’ approach it the way you suggest. There are varieties and variants…but the most important thing is that we do approach alchemy, study it, grow it, be changed and transformed by it. I see no separation here.<br /><br />Unlike you, I cannot decry ANY approach, even ‘mental’, if it helps serve the growth and transformation unto service of the magician. I see the common interest and acceptance of the importance of alchemy across the various branches of the GD as cause for unification and fraternity. <br /><br />Personally, however, like the sexual mysteries so allied to certain forms, I think alchemy is one of those subjects best not discussed in great depth. It is only with a certain unfolded consciousness that alchemical texts, transmissions, practices and physical ‘experiments’ make sense and begin to really work, thereby starting the transmutation of the PM. The connection between changes in physicality and the consciousness of the operator is clear and long established.<br /><br />We can see this in analogy with both cooking and sex. The same actions to produce a meal by someone who loves cooking (and the people being cooked for) and someone paid a minimum wage will produce vastly different results. The same sexual actions can, dependant on consciousness, be a simple Friday night fuck, or an intimation of the Most Holy. <br /><br />I think we should talk more on how we can achieve the types of consciousness and love required to ensure alchemy transmutes as it should, than any practices, results or interpretations of texts etc (it is of course our PERSONAL engagement with a text that makes it alive).<br /><br />Thank you once again, GH Fr for this essay. :)Peregrinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09508191641503321789noreply@blogger.com