Hi, Richard, At 01:22 PM 11/4/2004, you wrote: >>My intention is not to discuss the merits of his statement or the appropriateness of >>its use in this particular context; however I would like to know why you would use >>Aleister Crowley as an authority for anything at all? I am openly curious.<<
I have had tremendous respect for Crowley since before I was a Baha'i. In spite of his sometimes controversial behavior and comments, I find that I agree, more than disagree, with him on many issues, especially His focus on will (thelema). Crowley's approach also approaches Hacking's dynamic nominalism. Tim Maroney's comments (below) reveal his lack of understanding of Crowley's perspective: "Philosophy often deals with two opposing perspectives, the nominalist and the idealist. Loosely speaking, nominalists focus on the names of things and their outward appearances as the currency of human knowledge, while idealism considers things in the world of senses to be only pale reflections of their ideal forms, or essences, or pure ideas. For instance, there are plenty of windows, but only one "windowness", which exists on a plane separate from the physical world. This plane of ideal forms is derided by nominalists but it was the basis of Renaissance philosophy and the Tree of Life. Nominalism has been crucial to existentialism and phenomenology, important parts of 20th century philosophy, while mystical idealism is not widely considered a viable philosophy today. "Crowley insisted that he was not an idealist but a nominalist, while also insisting that the Tree of Life in the form known to him from the Golden Dawn truly represented the esoteric structure of reality and could only be harmed by changing its arrangement. This is one of many contradictory statements in Crowley's approach to philosophy and whether it is an inspired paradox or a careless contradiction is a subject of controversy." http://larabell.org/mirrors/maroney.org/CrowleyIntro/The_Tree_of_Life.html >>Is there any significance, in relation to the above statement that the first task >>given to man which suggests control over his outer environment is to "name" certain >>items? Gen: 2:19.<< Yes, I think that God's directive to name created things was, in effect, an authorization to structurize creation. >>That is: is structuralization the fundamental act in the development of >>phenomenology and epistemology?<< IMO, the act of epoche (bracketing), or phenomenological reduction, in addition to intersubjectivity, are instances of structurization. Mark A. Foster * http://markfoster.net "Sacred cows make the best hamburger" -- Mark Twain and Abbie Hoffman __________________________________________________ You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, use subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: Mail - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Web - http://list.jccc.edu/read/?forum=bahai-st News - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st Public - http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
