--Miles Franklin

"Funerals suck.  Thank god I'm still young."

"I'm lonely."

"Who is this hottie?"

"Seems kind of like a bitch!"

"What is she doing to me?"

"Ack!"

*gurgle*  *gurgle*

"Who says the fun stops when you're dead?"

Happy Halloween,

Izabael xoxoxoxo

Anyway, that inspired me to to want to look at all their album covers, which were hard to find in good resolution all in one place.  So here's my personal top 10.

All these albums are by Derek Riggs, whose name should be as household as Iron Maiden's since a good chunk of Maiden's initial and lasting appeal is the intensely detailed fantasy work of their covers.  These can really only be appreciated on an album cover--CD covers don't cut it.  I've used the highest resolutions I could find.

10.  Aces High. This one is actually the cover of a single--but it's classic and much better than the 90s Iron Maiden album covers.

9. The Trooper.  This one is also a single, but it's still one of their best.  Bruce Dickinson dresses up like this in Flight 666 at one point.  Awesome!!

8. Piece of Mind (1983)-  Ah now we are getting into it....  Eddie's lost his mind! Who ate it??

7.  Iron Maiden's debut in 1980.   Eddie, created by Derek Riggs, appears in top form, sporting a punk look.

6. Seventh Son of a Seventh Son (1988).  Classy, surreal album cover.  That cool blue color was a relief from their other album covers as well.  

5.  Live After Death (1985).  This is a full fold out from the double album.  Classic horror theme of returning from the grave.  Note the H.P. Lovecraft quote.

4.  Iron Maiden took it to the future in Somewhere in Time.  A highly successful attempt at a sci-fi album cover.

3. Iron Maiden's Number of the Beast (1982).  What can you say about the album cover that still horrifies the meek of heart after 27 years.  Also notable as the debut of Bruce Dickinson.

2.  Killers (1981) -- No Bruce Dickinson, but this album is still one of their best, albeit quite a bit different than what followed.  Eddie never looked better before or after.  This album cover is so perfectly classic it was a contender for the number one spot.

1. Best Iron Maiden cover goes to Powerslave (1984).  Eddie dies and is entombed in his own pyramid.  This is also a contender for best Maiden album of all time.

Enjoy the detail!!  If you've only seen these in CD covers before, they will blow your mind!

xoxo,

Izabael

p.s. Here's the back cover to Powerslave:

Her presentation is accurate in most respects though she describes herself as an independent Satanist, and the pronunciations of some of her words is most peculiar to say the least, such as "grim-or-ree" for grimoire (grim-wahr), but then again maybe she does it intentionally to sound like Gremory the daemon.

There are three parts to this video and she does a good job of touching on all major points involved in Goetia invocation and includes modern views on daemonology including Chaos Magick "servitors."

October fun continues all month!! Conjure up those nasties!!

xoxo

Izabael

This is a artist rendition of Ardi, a small-brained, 110-pound (50-kilogram) female (Ardipithecus ramidus.)   She's not only our ancestor but an ancestor to chimps!  What a cutie, right?  What??  No??  Well just imagine what you MEN looked like...:-(

xoxo,

Iza

p.s. Full National Geographic story here.

Excerpt: "This find is far more important than Lucy," said Alan Walker, a paleontologist from Pennsylvania State University who was not part of the research. "It shows that the last common ancestor with chimps didn't look like a chimp, or a human, or some funny thing in between." (Related: "Oldest Homo Sapiens Fossils Found, Experts Say" [June 11, 2003].)

In the spirit of October coming, I'm going to reprint the History of the Necronomicon, the best darn little book of evil ever written ;-)  I took this from Official Dan Clore webpage:

History of the Necronomicon by H.P. Lovecraft (1927)

(There has been some difficulty over the date of this essay. Most give the date as 1936, following the Laney-Evans (1943) bibliography entry for the pamphlet version produced by the Rebel Press. This date, as can easily be ascertained from the fact that this was a "Limited Memorial Edition", is spurious (Lovecraft died in 1937); in fact, it dates to 1938. The correct date of 1927 comes from the final draft of the essay, which appears on a letter addressed to Clark Ashton Smith ("To the Curator of the Vaults of Yoh-Vombis, with the Concoctor's [?] Comments"). The letter is dated April 27, 1927 and was apparently kept by Lovecraft to circulate as needed.)

Original title Al Azif -- azif being the word used by Arabs to designate that nocturnal sound (made by insects) suppos'd to be the howling of daemons.

Composed by Abdul Alhazred, a mad poet of Sanaá, in Yemen, who is said to have flourished during the period of the Ommiade caliphs, circa 700 A.D. He visited the ruins of Babylon and the subterranean secrets of Memphis and spent ten years alone in the great southern desert of Arabia -- the Roba el Khaliyeh or "Empty Space" of the ancients -- and "Dahna" or "Crimson" desert of the modern Arabs, which is held to be inhabited by protective evil spirits and monsters of death. Of this desert many strange and unbelievable marvels are told by those who pretend to have penetrated it. In his last years Alhazred dwelt in Damascus, where theNecronomicon (Al Azif) was written, and of his final death or disappearance (738 A.D.) many terrible and conflicting things are told. He is said by Ebn Khallikan (12th cent. biographer) to have been seized by an invisible monster in broad daylight and devoured horribly before a large number of fright-frozen witnesses. Of his madness many things are told. He claimed to have seen fabulous Irem, or City of Pillars, and to have found beneath the ruins of a certain nameless desert town the shocking annals and secrets of a race older than mankind. [The Rebel Press edition adds this editor's note: "A full description of the nameless city, and the annals and secrets of its one time inhabitants will be found in the story THE NAMELESS CITY, published in the first issue of Fanciful Tales, and written by the author of this outline."] He was only an indifferent Moslem, worshipping unknown entities whom he called Yog-Sothoth and Cthulhu.

In A.D. 950 the Azif, which had gained a considerable tho' surreptitious circulation amongst the philosophers of the age, was secretly translated into Greek by Theodorus Philetas of Constantinople under the title Necronomicon. For a century it impelled certain experimenters to terrible attempts, when it was suppressed and burnt by the patriarch Michael. After this it is only heard of furtively, but (1228) Olaus Wormius made a Latin translation later in the Middle Ages, and the Latin text was printed twice -- once in the fifteenth century in black-letter (evidently in Germany) and once in the seventeenth (prob. Spanish) -- both editions being without identifying marks, and located as to time and place by internal typographical evidence only. The work both Latin and Greek was banned by Pope Gregory IX in 1232, shortly after its Latin translation, which called attention to it. The Arabic original was lost as early as Wormius' time, as indicated by his prefatory note; [the Rebel Press edition adds paranthetically: "there is, however, a vague account of a secret copy appearing in San Francisco during the present century, but later perished in fire" -- a transparent reference to Clark Ashton Smith's tale "The Return of the Sorcerer". Indeed, Lovecraft says in a letter to Richard F. Searight (1935) "This 'history' must be modified in one respect -- since Klarkash-Ton's 'Return of the Sorceror' (pub in Strange Tales 3 yrs. ago) tells of the survival of an Arabic text until modern times."] and no sight of the Greek copy -- which was printed in Italy between 1500 and 1550 -- has been reported since the burning of a certain Salem man's library in 1692. An English translation made by Dr. Dee was never printed, and exists only in fragments recovered from the original manuscript. [This sentence does not occur in the first draft of the essay. It was added later, after Frank Belknap Long had quoted from "John Dee'sNecronomicon" in his tale "The Space Eaters" (1928).] Of the Latin texts now existing one (15th cent.) is known to be in the British Museum under lock and key, while another (17th cent.) is in the Bibliothèque Nationale at Paris. A seventeenth-century edition is in the Widener Library at Harvard, and in the library of Miskatonic University at Arkham. Also in the library of the University of Buenos Ayres. Numerous other copies probably exist in secret, and a fifteenth-century one is persistently rumoured to form part of the collection of a celebrated American millionaire. A still vaguer rumour credits the preservation of a sixteenth-century Greek text in the Salem family of Pickman; but if it was so preserved, it vanished with the artist R.U. Pickman, who disappeared early in 1926. The book is rigidly suppressed by the authorities of most countries, and by all branches of organised ecclesiasticism. Reading leads to terrible consequences. It was from rumours of this book (of which relatively few of the general public know) that R.W. Chambers is said to have derived the idea of his early novel The King in Yellow.

Chronology

Al Azif written circa 730 A.D. at Damascus by Abdul Alhazred
Tr. to Greek 950 A.D. as Necronomicon by Theodorus Philetas
Burnt by Patriarch Michael 1050 (i.e., Greek text). Arabic text now lost.
Olaus translates Gr. to Latin 1228
1232 Latin ed. (and Gr.) suppr. by Pope Gregory IX
14... Black-letter printed edition (Germany)
15... Gr. text printed in Italy
16... Spanish reprint of Latin text

This should be supplemented with a letter written to Clark Ashton Smith for November 27, 1927:

I have had no chance to produce new material this autumn, but have been classifying notes & synopses in preparation for some monstrous tales later on. In particular I have drawn up some data on the celebrated & unmentionable Necronomicon of the mad Arab Abdul Alhazred! It seems that this shocking blasphemy was produced by a native of Sanaá, in Yemen, who flourished about 700 A.D. & made many mysterious pilgrimages to Babylon's ruins, Memphis's catacombs, & the devil-haunted & untrodden wastes of the great southern deserts of Arabia -- the Roba el Khaliyeh, where he claimed to have found records of things older than mankind, & to have learnt the worship of Yog-Sothoth & Cthulhu. The book was a product of Abdul's old age, which was spent in Damascus, & the original title was Al Azif -- azif (cf. Henley's notes to Vathek) being the name applied to those strange night noises (of insects) which the Arabs attribute to the howling of daemons. Alhazred died -- or disappeared -- under terrible circumstances in the year 738. In 950 Al Azif was translated into Greek by the Byzantine Theodorus Philetas under the titleNecronomicon, & a century later it was burnt at the order of Michael, Patriarch of Constantinople. It was translated into Latin by Olaus in 1228, but placed on the Index Expurgatorius by Pope Gregory IX in 1232. [Note that this does not appear in the final version of the essay. The explanation is that the Index did not exist at this time, as further research must have revealed to Lovecraft.] The original Arabic was lost before Olaus' time, & the last known Greek copy perished in Salem in 1692. The work was printed in the 15th, 16th, & 17th centuries, but few copies are extant. Wherever existing, it is carefully guarded for the sake of the world's welfare & sanity. Once a man read through the copy in the library of Miskatonic University at Arkham -- read it through & fled wild-eyed into the hills ...... but that is another story!

In yet another letter (to James Blish and William Miller, 1936), Lovecraft says:

You are fortunate in securing copies of the hellish and abhorred Necronomicon. Are they the Latin texts printed in Germany in the fifteenth century, or the Greek version printed in Italy in 1567, or the Spanish translation of 1623? Or do these copies represent different texts?

Note that this is not entirely consistent with the accounts given earlier.

Annotated Version

From Kendrick Kerwin Chua's Necronomicon FAQ with further annotation by Dan Clore.

(Note: I have substituted the corrected text for the older, corrupt text used in the FAQ. -- D.C.)

"History of the Necronomicon", by H.P. Lovecraft, written in 1937 with footnotes and references by Kendrick Kerwin Chua, 1993.

See above for the date of this essay.

Original title Al Azif -- azif being the word used by Arabs to designate that nocturnal sound (made by insects) suppos'd to be the howling of daemons.

Composed by Abdul Alhazred, a mad poet of Sanaá, in Yemen, who is said to have flourished during the period of the Ommiade caliphs, circa 700 A.D. He visited the ruins of Babylon and the subterranean secrets of Memphis and spent ten years alone in the great southern desert of Arabia -- the Roba el Khaliyeh or "Empty Space" of the ancients -- and "Dahna" or "Crimson" desert of the modern Arabs, which is held to be inhabited by protective evil spirits and monsters of death. Of this desert many strange and unbelievable marvels are told by those who pretend to have penetrated it. In his last years Alhazred dwelt in Damascus, where theNecronomicon (Al Azif) was written, and of his final death or disappearance (738 A.D.) many terrible and conflicting things are told. He is said by Ebn Khallikan (12th cent. biographer) to have been seized by an invisible monster in broad daylight and devoured horribly before a large number of fright-frozen witnesses. Of his madness many things are told. He claimed to have seen fabulous Irem, or City of Pillars, and to have found beneath the ruins of a certain nameless desert town the shocking annals and secrets of a race older than mankind. [The Rebel Press edition adds this editor's note: "A full description of the nameless city, and the annals and secrets of its one time inhabitants will be found in the story THE NAMELESS CITY, published in the first issue of Fanciful Tales, and written by the author of this outline."] He was only an indifferent Moslem, worshipping unknown entities whom he called Yog-Sothoth and Cthulhu.

(9) Note already how Lovecraft skirts the fine line between campy parody and seriousness. In Lovecraft at Last, Conover writes that Lovecraft wrote the history in order to allow people with any understanding of Arab studies to see through the mock scholarship. Note also the inconsistencies here with the description of Al-Hazred in the Simon Necronomicon. Al-Hazred there supposedly witnessed the horrible rituals at Masshu, a mythical island at the mouth of the Euphrates upon which Utnapishtim, the Babylonian Noah, supposedly still resides today. Whereas Lovecraft describes the Crimson Desert as the place where Al-Hazred witnessed much of what he wrote down. Note also that in the Simon version, Al-Hazred warns against worshipping "Iak-Sakkak" and "Kutulu", whereas Lovecrafts claims he did just that. Note also the improper use of the A.D. prefix until the next paragraph. KKC

In A.D. 950 the Azif, which had gained a considerable tho' surreptitious circulation amongst the philosophers of the age, was secretly translated into Greek by Theodorus Philetas of Constantinople under the title Necronomicon.

(10) Another inconsistency. Simon claims that Al-Hazred rendered the Necronomicon in Greek first, rather than Arabic. KKC

I haven't been able to find this claim in Simon's text, but he does claim that the manuscript he translated is a Greek version. As noted below, Lovecraft states that the Greek version was lost.

For a century it impelled certain experimenters to terrible attempts, when it was suppressed and burnt by the patriarch Michael. After this it is only heard of furtively, but (1228) Olaus Wormius made a Latin translation later in the Middle Ages, and the Latin text was printed twice -- once in the fifteenth century in black-letter (evidently in Germany) and once in the seventeenth (prob. Spanish) -- both editions being without identifying marks, and located as to time and place by internal typographical evidence only.

(11) Interesting to note that Lovecraft does not say outright that someone in our time had apparently found and identified these renditions of the book. KKC

The work both Latin and Greek was banned by Pope Gregory IX in 1232, shortly after its Latin translation, which called attention to it.

(12) The archivist has thusfar been unable to find Al Azif, Necronomicon, or anything even remotely similar on any of the forbidden book lists of the era. But do consider that paper records from the 13th century are incomplete and unpreserved, to say the least. KKC

The Arabic original was lost as early as Wormius' time, as indicated by his prefatory note; [the Rebel Press edition adds paranthetically: "there is, however, a vague account of a secret copy appearing in San Francisco during the present century, but later perished in fire" -- a transparent reference to Clark Ashton Smith's tale "The Return of the Sorcerer".] and no sight of the Greek copy -- which was printed in Italy between 1500 and 1550 -- has been reported since the burning of a certain Salem man's library in 1692.

(13) Again, Simon claims to have translated a Greek edition. KKC

An English translation made by Dr. Dee was never printed, and exists only in fragments recovered from the original manuscript.

(14) An internal Lovecraft inconsistency. In his short story "The Dunwich Horror", the old wizard called Whately utilizes a Dee translation of the Necronomicon in order to produce children for Yog-Sothoth. A complete listing of John Dee's books reveals none titled Necronomicon. KKC

This is not an inconsistency, as old Wizard Whateley uses an incomplete manuscript of the Dee translation. Wilbur Whateley, Yog-Sothoth's son, requires the complete edition housed in the Miskatonic University Library to fill in the gaps in the fragmentary Dee version.

Of the Latin texts now existing one (15th cent.) is known to be in the British Museum under lock and key, while another (17th cent.) is in the Bibliothèque Nationale at Paris. A seventeenth-century edition is in the Widener Library at Harvard, and in the library of Miskatonic University at Arkham. Also in the library of the University of Buenos Ayres.

(15) Other than the Harvard copy, which the archivist knows for sure does not exist, and the fact that Miskatonic University is totally fictional, I cannot say with absolute certainty that the other locations Lovecraft lists do not have some copy of a book they may call the Necronomicon. Interested parties may contact the archivist to confirm or deny posession of the book, if they wish. KKC

They don't.

Numerous other copies probably exist in secret, and a fifteenth-century one is persistently rumoured to form part of the collection of a celebrated American millionaire. A still vaguer rumour credits the preservation of a sixteenth-century Greek text in the Salem family of Pickman; but if it was so preserved, it vanished with the artist R.U. Pickman, who disappeared early in 1926. The book is rigidly suppressed by the authorities of most countries, and by all branches of organised ecclesiasticism. Reading leads to terrible consequences. It was from rumours of this book (of which relatively few of the general public know) that R.W. Chambers is said to have derived the idea of his early novel The King in Yellow.

(16) Much of the latter part of this paragraph is in fact derived from Lovecraft's own short stories, most notably "The Picture in the House", which featured the sadistic Robert Pickman character. Also, Lovecraft repeatedly cites Chambers' book as his main inspiration, although he created the Necronomicon before he first read Chambers. KKC

The story featuring Robert Upton Pickman is, of course, "Pickman's Model", not "The Picture in the House". See above on Chambers. I am unaware of any serious statement by Lovecraft attesting to any significant influence from Chambers' work.

xoxo,

Iza

"While Jung considered The Red Book to be his most important work, only a handful of people have ever seen it. Now, in a complete facsimile and translation, it is available to scholars and the general public. It is an astonishing example of calligraphy and art on a par withThe Book of Kells and the illuminated manuscripts of William Blake. This publication of The Red Book is a watershed that will cast new light on the making of modern psychology.
212 color illustrations."

awesome!!!! hello!!?  He was tripping on inner visions!!  (BIGGER SIZE HERE)

There would be no Book of Lies without Leila Waddell, his sexy violinist, whom he was pining over while he waxed philosophical in this book of poetry and Qabalistic puzzles.

There would be no Liber AL:  Book of the Law, centerpiece of Crowley's entire system of magick, without his wife, Rose Edith Kelly, who was there to "receive" it.

And without his amazing artist Frida Harris, there would be no Book of Thoth tarot deck!

Then there is The Vision and the Voice...oh wait...you say his seer was a man for that one?   Ok, well never mind that then :)

Some of Aleister Crowley's other Scarlet Women:

Mary d'Este Sturges . —"Put me in touch with Abuldiz; hence helped with Book 4." Jeanne Robert Foster . —His Scarlet Women when he took the grade of Magus. Roddie Minor —"Brought me in touch with Amalantrah." Marie Rohling . —"Helped to inspire Liber CXI. " Leah Hirsig —"Assisted me in actual initiation; still at my side, An XVII, Sol in Sagittarius."

That's all I really had to say.  The Beast isn't much of a Beast without a Scarlet Woman astride him.

xoxo,

Izabael

Maenads were the drunken female followers of Dionysus, the god of wine and divine madness.  The term "bacchanal," or "bacchanalia," essentially means "divine orgy" and comes from the name Bacchus, the Roman version of Dionysus.  So technically the Greek versions of these orgies weren't called bacchanals, but are instead are referred to as the "Dionysian Mysteries". 

The Dionysian Mysteries were holy rituals which used various intoxicants and other trance-inducing techniques, such as dancing, music, and sex to remove inhibitions and break down artificial social constraints, thus liberating the followers of Dionysus, allowing them to return to a more primitive, natural, and blissful state of consciousness.

So let's visit some bacchanals of yesteryear, shall we?  Notice how often Pan, the Goat-God (represented by The Devil card in the tarot), shows up.  He loved to hang out with Dionysus and Bacchus (when know by his Roman name "Faunus").  He was quite the life of the party!

RICCI, Sebastiano
c. 1716
Oil on canvas, 84 x 100 cm
Gallerie dell'Accademia, Venice

Bacchanal of Putti by NICOLAS POUSSIN
Date :1626
Technique :Oil on canvas, 74 x 84 cm
Location :Galleria Nazionale d'Arte Antica, Rome

Bacchanal Before a Statue of Pan by NICOLAS POUSSIN (1594-1665)

Pan copulating with a Goat, from Herculaneum, 1st century B.C.

(from an Ancient Greek krater)

 
An illustration by Édouard-Henri Avril (21 May 1843 – 1928)

Bacchanal by Auguste Léveque Bacchanalien, 1864- 1921

Marc Chagall's (1887-1985) Bacchanal

Erotic Windchime from Pompei (the city mostly destroyed of the volcano Mount Vesuvius  in AD 79).  These were common household items!  Just had to throw this in as it illustrates how Greeks and Romans had no concept of "obscenity" with reference to erotic art or images of sexual anatomy.

Red-figure cup by the Pedeius Painter.
Late 6th century B.C., Greece.

Detail of a Vase from Stamnos, First century B.C., Greece

Aphrodite, Eros, and Pan from Delos, c. 100 BC
Athens National Archaeological Museum

La-Reine-Bacchanal by Fritz Zuber-Buhler (Swiss, 1822-1896)  Originally the Dionysian Mysteries were only for women. 

And finally, (perhaps my favorite) a bacchanal by Picasso (1881-1973)

The interesting thing is that orgies were commonly depicted in ancient Greek and Roman art.  There are none in medieval art, when Pan become associated with Satan the Devil, but then in the Renaissance, Pan and bacchanals make a big comeback--which continues right up until modern times.

xoxo,
Izabael

25.  I've been in more laps than a napkin.

24.  I used to be Snow White, but I drifted.

23.  It is better to be looked over than overlooked.

22.  It's not what I do, but the way I do it. It's not what I say, but the way I say it.

21.  Keep a diary, and someday it'll keep you.

20.  Love isn't an emotion or an instinct - it's an art.

19.  Marriage is a great institution, but I'm not ready for an institution.

18.  One and one is two, and two and two is four, and five will get you ten if you know how to work it.

17.  A man can be short and dumpy and getting bald but if he has fire, women will like him.

16.  A man has one hundred dollars and you leave him with two dollars, that's subtraction.

15.  A man's kiss is his signature.

14.  A woman in love can't be reasonable - or she probably wouldn't be in love.

13.  All discarded lovers should be given a second chance, but with somebody else.

12.  Cultivate your curves - they may be dangerous but they won't be avoided.

11.  Personally, I like two types of men - domestic and foreign.

10.  She's the kind of girl who climbed the ladder of success wrong by wrong.

9.  Ten men waiting for me at the door? Send one of them home, I'm tired.

8.  Those who are easily shocked should be shocked more often.

7.  I'll try anything once, twice if I like it, three times to make sure.

6.  To err is human, but it feels divine.

5.  Too much of a good thing can be wonderful.

4.  When choosing between two evils, I always like to try the one I've never tried before.

3.  When I'm good I'm very, very good, but when I'm bad, I'm better.

2.  Anything worth doing is worth doing slowly.

1.  You only live once, but if you do it right, once is enough.

xoxo,

Iza

This is sort of question I do get now and then, and I'd like to address it directly.

Rational minded folks, often intelligent and scientific-minded persons, seem fond of being "agnostic" or "atheist" these days.  I can't blame them.  They probably polarize off the religious right who is always going on and on about how Creationism should be taught in school.  That pisses them off and rightly so.  So let's make this clear.  I believe in the foundations of science. I also believe in evolution.  I also believe in "God" and I also believe in "magick."

For me, magick is attempting to harness and master the power of the subconscious mind.  "God" is a principle of universal oneness--that all energy in the universe is ultimately one.

Though I'm a fan of the physical sciences, modern psychology is a joke to me.  They seem about 1000 years behind what was being taught in ancient Greece!  I find Hermeticism, which found its roots in Plato, and picked up steam over the years with insights from Persia, China, and India, to be a lot more useful in understanding who I am and how to make my life a better and more enjoyable place to live.  Hermeticism has found modern outlets with the Golden Dawn, and later Thelema. 

But don't these types of philosophies talk about demons, angels, magick, spells, gods and the sort?  How can that stuff be scientific?

It's not scientific the same way Geology is.  We are dealing with the mind, emotions, and our connection to things that cannot be tested or measured with scientific instruments.  Rituals, symbols, and all the trappings of magick are effective ways of staging a drama for the subconscious mind so that it can better lead us to our desires. 

Our subconscious mind contains many strange and wonderful things--some things which function as angels, or demons, for example.  They can be tapped into and utilized.  I do not say they have an external reality necessarily--only that from the human psyche's point of view they have validity and can lead to change in a person's behavior--and therefore lead to results on the material plane. 

Modern science, for all its wonderful achievements, is not particularly suited to understanding and utilizing the subconscious mind.  Science balks at ideas of universal oneness (unless its purely theoretical as in quantum mechanics), scorns concepts such as "spirit" and "soul," and doesn't seem particularly interested in making people happy or harmonious.  In fact, the most notable achievement of science in the last 100 years is the nuclear bomb.  Science alone is failing our world. 

Magick is not afraid to tackle difficult concepts such as God.   Magicians attempt to bring methodology and rationality to discussions of divinity.  Nor is magick afraid to ask for joy on Earth--a magician has no need for concepts such as heaven or hell.  We are primarily concerned with our own planet and how we can make it better for ourselves and those around us.

The great thinkers of old times were not agnostic or atheist.  They were persons of God and science at the same time.  I simply strive to be the same. 

xoxo,

Izabael DaJinn

The Book of the Law (also known as Liber AL) is the only book a Thelemite needs.  Even the other "holy books of Thelema," divinely inspired by Crowley, are not necessary or even desirable. 

The sublimity of the Book of the Law is in its simplicity.  Whereas other philosophies and religions usually need at least one gigantic book (if not many!), Thelema is content with one short book divided into three small chapters.

The origins of the Book of the Law are fascinating, as they began with Crowley and his wife doing some magick in an Egyptian pyramid, but they are not pertinent.  Whether Liber AL was written, or "transcribed" from Crowley's "higher self," is neither here nor there.  The Book of the Law holds up on its own as a spiritual and philosophical gem.  There is nothing quite like it.

The Book of the Law is a "bible" in the sense it gives us a cosmology of the universe and practical philosophy for being happy in the world.  However, there is no heaven or hell in Thelema--only those which we create for ourselves on Earth. 

So how does one approach this book for the first time?  Is it poetry?  Is it symbolic?  Is it literal?

I admit I found Liber AL confusing the first few times I read it.  I think that's normal as its writing style is peculiar.  The Book of the Law is written in a fashion where every word, punctuation mark, and odd spelling make a difference.  The book is layered with meanings, some obvious, some subtle.  In many ways it's MEANT to frustrate the conscious ego-mind, so that our true essence can shine through.  In case, I didn't make it clear enough in my last blog:  The obsessive and chronic noise of the ego-mind is what blinds us to the true nature of the universe and hides its infinite joy from us.  The Book of the Law's very writing style helps combat this tendency of the ego-mind to take control and make everything about itself.

To begin, you should know that the Book of the Law is broken up into three chapters, each with a different speaker.

The first chapter is spoken by Nuit.

The second chapter is spoken by Hadit.

The third chapter is spoken by the child of Nuit and Hadit.  His name is Ra-Hoor-Khuit.

These are all Egyptian names, and I will explain each one in turn.  They are generally meant to be taken symbolically, though the odd thing is if you want to work with them as literal "gods" they will very much come alive for you.   Sometimes I think of Nuit as a real goddess whose ethereal presence becomes almost tangible--and at other times I think of her as only a symbol for all the infinite possibilities around me.  There is no contradiction here.  Different sorts of perceptions gives different truths on different levels.  It's only small and limited minds who can't hold contrary ideas in ones head at the same time and ACCEPT both as truth, each in their own fashion.

NUIT-  Nuit (Sometimes call Nu, Nuith, Nut, etc.) is described sometimes as a vast circle whose circumference has no bounds, and sometimes as the starry night sky personified.  Her Egyptian representation usually shows her as a nude woman with a body of stars arched across the heavens.

HADIT-  Hadit, who traditionally is a red globe with wings in Egyptian mythology, is also various descried as a single "point" and also as a "snake."  The simplest way is to think of Hadit is as our "soul" deep within our body somewhere as a latent possibility.  Through our bodies and our actions he manifests  his true nature.

RA-HOOR-KHUIT-  He is half Hawk (head) and half man (body).  To put it simply, he symbolizes us as humans.  Hadit is the spark within.   Nuit is the infinite space without us.  We ourselves our their child.  We are Ra-Hoor-Khuit.  We are the conjunction between the infinitely small, Hadit, and the infinitely large, Nuit.  This conjunction is fiery, active, and even occasionally warlike, hence the martial quality of the third part of the Book of the Law.

The Book of Law doesn't need to be read in order.  I suggest jumping around and focusing on passages that catch your eye.  Some parts are much easier to understand than others.  Let the Book of the Law speak to you at your own level.

I'll give some of my favorite quotes from each chapter:

Chapter I, Nuit speaking:

"Come forth, o children, under the stars, & take your fill of love!  I am above you and in you. My ecstasy is in yours. My joy is to see your joy." --I.12-13

"Now, therefore, I am known to ye by my name Nuit, and to him by a secret name which I will give him when at last he knoweth me. Since I am Infinite Space, and the Infinite Stars thereof, do ye also thus. Bind nothing! Let there be no difference made among you between any one thing & any other thing; for thereby there cometh hurt." --I.22

Chapter II, Hadit speaking:

"I am the Snake that giveth Knowledge & Delight and bright glory, and stir the hearts of men with drunkenness. To worship me take wine and strange drugs whereof I will tell my prophet, & be drunk thereof! They shall not harm ye at all. It is a lie, this folly against self. The exposure of innocence is a lie. Be strong, o man! lust, enjoy all things of sense and rapture: fear not that any God shall deny thee for this." --II. 22

"I am the secret Serpent coiled about to spring: in my coiling there is joy. If I lift up my head, I and my Nuit are one. If I droop down mine head, and shoot forth venom, then is rapture of the earth, and I and the earth are one." --II.26

Chapter III, Ra-Hoor-Khuit speaking:

"Fear not at all; fear neither men nor Fates, nor gods, nor anything. Money fear not, nor laughter of the folk folly, nor any other power in heaven or upon the earth or under the earth. Nu is your refuge as Hadit your light; and I am the strength, force, vigour, of your arms." --III.17

"...I will bring you to victory & joy: I will be at your arms in battle & ye shall delight to slay. Success is your proof; courage is your armour; go on, go on, in my strength; & ye shall turn not back for any!" --III.46

This image will help tie the three speakers together:

"My number is 11, as all their numbers who are of us. The Five Pointed Star, with a Circle in the Middle, & the circle is Red." --I.60

What does it mean?

Hadit is the red dot. 

"I am the flame that burns in every heart of man, and in the core of every star." --II.6

Hadit is always the center, and Nuit is always the circumference.  As he himself says in Chapter 2:

"In the sphere I am everywhere the centre, as she, the circumference, is nowhere found." --II.3

Therefore the outside circle, which is dotted to show it is without limit, is Nuit.  She is the infinite possibilities, the blank canvas on which Hadit is to create his desire, i.e. express his true nature in a manifested form. 

Hadit is everywhere the center because he burns inside of every man and woman.   Nuit is everywhere without us.  Hadit is unique inside of every human, but we are all a part of each other's Nuit because we are external to each other.  Never forget that YOU ARE COMPLETE IN AND OF YOURSELF.  (If you are chasing external things to make yourself feel good, you've already made a crucial mistake.  Studying Liber AL can help you rectify this.)

The pentagram symbolizes Ra-Hoor-Khuit, their child. 

"Every man and every woman is a star." --I.3

In magick and Hermeticism, "5" has long been considered the number of man. (Why?  Stand with your legs apart and arms straight out to your side and you are in the shape of pentagram--also because of the five elements [fire, water, air, earth, spirit], and five digits on each limb, etc.

Ra-Hoor-Khuit is the conjunction, i.e. child, of Nuit and Hadit.  He symbolizes us as humans, for our consciousness is the spark of divinity, the bliss of impact between Hadit and Nuit.

Within us is Hadit.  Without is Nuit.  We ourselves are Ra-Hoor-Khuit--at least when we are at our best.  The main point of the Book of the Law is help us refine our natures until we are glorious burning stars of joy and radiance.

Though distinctly three, the three are also one, and together form a complete a system:

"Thrill with the joy of life & death! Ah! thy death shall be lovely: whoso seeth it shall be glad. Thy death shall be the seal of the promise of our age long love. Come! lift up thine heart & rejoice! We are one; we are none."-- II.66

So why all the poetry and symbolism to describe the universe?  The Book of the Law creates a vivid understanding of the natural flow of the universe.  It does so in such a way that a more straightforward description of the universe would not.  Also it appeals to a higher functioning thought process than the purely rational.  It is written in a language that is meant to resonant on a deeper level than what we are normally accustomed to.

Now I leave you with one more favorite passage (from Chapter 1) to interpret on your own:

26. Then saith the prophet and slave of the beauteous one: Who am I, and what shall be the sign? So she answered him, bending down, a lambent flame of blue, all-touching, all penetrant, her lovely hands upon the black earth, & her lithe body arched for love, and her soft feet not hurting the little flowers: Thou knowest! And the sign shall be my ecstasy, the consciousness of the continuity of existence, the omnipresence of my body.

27. Then the priest answered & said unto the Queen of Space, kissing her lovely brows, and the dew of her light bathing his whole body in a sweet-smelling perfume of sweat: O Nuit, continuous one of Heaven, let it be ever thus; that men speak not of Thee as One but as None; and let them speak not of thee at all, since thou art continuous!

28. None, breathed the light, faint & faery, of the stars, and two.

29. For I am divided for love's sake, for the chance of union.

30. This is the creation of the world, that the pain of division is as nothing, and the joy of dissolution all.

xoxo,

Izabael

The Book of the Law (Liber AL) is small, poetic, and symbolic book on the nature of the universe and our place in it. 

"Every man and every woman is a star," the Book of the Law proclaims--that is to say, every man and every woman is complete and whole unto themselves.  We all have the divine spark.  We are all of us the center of our own universe, and need not be subservient or dependent upon anyone or anything external to us.  A Thelemite is someone who adheres to this philosophy.

As a Thelemite, I'm regularly confronted with misconceptions about it--if indeed anyone has heard of it as all.  Aleister Crowley's notorious reputation doesn't help matters either.  So in simple language let me tell you guys what Thelema means to me:

First of all some things Thelema is NOT:

1.  Thelema is NOT hedonism.

2.  Thelema is NOT magick.

3.  Thelema is NOT about deifying Crowley.

4.  Thelema is NOT complicated.

Thelema IS:

1.  Thelema is freedom.

2.  Thelema is personal responsibility.

3.  Thelema is often tied to high magick by tradition, but its principles are for everyone.

4.  Thelemites do enjoy things of sense and pleasure upon the earth, but all our joys are dedicated to something higher than ourselves and our ego-mind.

5.  Thelemites are congruent and without hypocrisy.  They find divine presence in the low and lofty things of the Earth without distinction, therefore there is no need to hide our material-plane passions--they become our driving force towards finding divinity in everything, all the time.

"DO WHAT THOU WILT" is the most famous phrase from the Book of the Law.  This phrase is also the most misunderstood. 

"Do What Thou Wilt" is not a call to hedonism, but a call to personal responsibility.  The words are chosen carefully as the Book of the Law does not say "do what you want," but instead "do what thou wilt."

Do what you WILL--not what you "want."

What you "Will" is deeper than superficial wants.  Your "True Will" is something at the core of your being, far deeper than your ego-mind with all it's petty delusions and desires.  The ego-mind is that part of you that's incessantly rambling in your head about "I need this" or "I want that."   The ego-mind is that which goes around in circles, "Should I do this? Should I do that?" 

The Will, however, goes deeper than words or emotions.  Our Will is the very essence of who are.  Our Will is what cuts through the circle of mental masturbation and has us take action.   Action is the very essence of Thelema. 

To take "right action" with as little time spent in my head as possible, defines me as a Thelemite.

That doesn't meant you can't plan, but doing your True Will can only be done at one specific point in time:  RIGHT NOW.  Your focus throughout life must be in the present moment.  In every moment lies the ability to do your True Will, to take action that is not only right for that moment, but attunes you to your proper orbit in the world, and helps ensure all your future actions are for the best as well.

And remember, Thelema isn't about a promised land after you die.  Following your True Will leads to joy and pleasure right now, in this world, here on Earth. 

Understanding your True Will takes time, and the Book of the Law, though sometimes seemingly confusing with it's non-typical use of language, helps break through the ego-mind--leaving little cracks where the sun of the True Will starts to shine through. 

Next blog, I will give an introduction to the Book of the Law, and how to approach reading it for the first time.   Until then, there are full copies of it all over the web including this one if you want to check it out now.

xoxoxo,

Izabael

"We need 4 hugs a day for survival. We need 8 hugs a day for maintenance. We need 12 hugs a day for growth."
—Virginia Satir, family therapist (http://eqi.org/ht.htm#Introductory Words from Kathleen Keating)

There is some information available on the therapeutic effects of hugs online, though not as much as one might hope for.  (Where's the money in researching hugs, right?  Can't patent it!)

"A team from the University of North Carolina studied the effects of hugging on both partners in 38 couples. The study showed hugs increased levels of oxytocin, a "bonding" hormone, and reduced blood pressure - which cuts the risk of heart disease." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4131508.stm)

Oxytocin is the feel good hormone released by hugs.

"Research in America found that one 20-second hug a day makes a big difference between how happy and relaxed we are. Which is why people in a healthy relationship are happier and feel less stressed." ( http://www.easier.com/view/Lifestyle/Relationships/Features/article-91375.html)

So why don't we hear more about hugging when it comes time to go to the doctor?  Well, my guess it's because you can't put a hug in a bottle and sell it over the counter of a pharmacy.

Also American's especially seem to have an innate aversion to anything that might fall under the category of "love" or a the very least "non-violent."  It's so much easier to continue the path of violence (even if it's all internalized through TV programs and video games), than step out of one's shell to hug someone.  American's love sex too so long as it's porn and there is no contact involved.  I mean really. How many people do you know that hug regularly, with openness, and with real caring "oomph" behind the action? 

More hugs will transform the world, but are you guys man enough to do it?  Or are you going to continue to retreat into the world of your own head?  Come out...touch the world.  Touch someone you care about.  Dare to be loving.  The weak are those who give into fear, solitude and think they are too good for hugs!

Your loving hug-bunny,

Izabael DaJinn

p.s. Hugging photos by Xiao Lei ("Thunderlittle")

Regarding more "magickal" blog topics:  I'm helping pAmphAge write a small but comprehensive how-to manual on magick (with no "bullshit" allowed).  This has been sucking out my "magickal" writing efforts, but there should be a lot more going on magickally here towards the end of the year as the book nears completion.

Regarding the new Eminem album Relapse:  This is a guilty pleasure.  I'm trying to get it out of my system now so I'm not still listening to it all year with everyone else.  Also, how many dumb celebrities are going to take the bait and get mad at Eminem for the things he says?  Eminem is the motley fool jester of mainstream media.  To get mad at him only makes one look even more foolish (and helps Eminem sell more albums of course!)

Regarding EverQuest:  As some of you know I play fantasy MMOs when I have a chance.  I've been playing since I was a wee tot.  I've played Asheron's Call 1&2, Age of Conan, Anarchy Online, Dark Age of Camelot, Star Wars Galaxies, Everquest 2,  Warhammer Online, Lineage II (where I was a GM for a short while), and of course World of Warcraft.  I can say that after all these years, EverQuest is still my favorite!  If you like any of these games, I seductively suggest you check out the game without which there wouldn't even be a World of Warcraft.  EverQuest is 10 years old and the world is huge now!  Plenty to see and do!  I love it.  If anyone wants to know my EverQuest character names and server, you can email me privately and I might let you know :)

Regarding the new Star Trek movie:  Good casting! I rarely get to say this about a movie nowadays.  But finally...good casting!

Guess that's it for now!

Kisses & bites,

Izabael

The Hierophant (Trump V. in the tarot) is about expressing deep spiritual truths and teaching them to others.  The card also carries the subtext of expressing the sexual desires of the Hierophant himself (Taurus is ruled by Venus after all.) 

And then we have Charles Bukowski, whose genius by now I hope needs no espousing, who fits right in there, the man of our time.

If Crowley is the Magus of the new Aeon, then I dub Charles Bukowski its Hierophant.

kisses & bites,

Izabael