Lonelygirl15

I was reading about the goddess Nut/Nuit, and thinking about the "Nut man squirrel" video, and suddenly had a brainstorm. What if the ceremony doesn't involve the community sacrificing Bree, as we've suspected, but instead involves Bree being forced to sacrifice Daniel?

Nut is the goddess of death, after all. (See this link and this link.) In one of her early videos, Gemma talks about the "Nut kills man" game. Assuming that Gemma can't be explicit about the dangers Bree faces, but must speak in code, maybe she's making an oblique reference to the goddess Nut -- a reference that she hopes Bree will catch, given that Nut is a major figure in Thelema. What if "Nut kills man" is a reference to the ceremony, in which a specially chosen girl, representing Nut, kills a man as a sacrifice?

Perhaps the girl performs the sacrifice while she is in some kind of trance or other semi-conscious/unconscious state -- caused, or at least helped along, by the injections she's been receiving, and the special diet on which she's been placed. (Yes, I understand that this didn't/doesn't happen in Thelema as it's actually practiced. We're talking about a fictional hybrid religion. Work with me here.)

So "Nut kills man." Who might the "man" in question be?

We know the Deacons have been secretly observing/taking pictures of Daniel, and we know they went to great lengths to keep him from discovering the true nature of the ceremony. They didn't even want him to know that the ceremony hadn't taken place yet.

Why would they go to such lengths just to keep one sole teenage boy off guard?

I can't imagine that they'd consider Daniel's influence over Bree enough of a threat to justify concocting the whole elaborate fake-ceremony deal, when they know that Bree was brought up in the religion, believes in it sincerely, and is "really really really really excited" about being chosen for the ceremony.

Wouldn't it make more sense for the Deacons to go to all this trouble and hoo-ha because they've decided to make Daniel the sacrifice, and don't want him to figure things out and flee?

What do you all think?

Good Idea! Thats all I can say, nd I think you might be on to something! I have no rebuttle!

Hmm that'd be a twist that I would LOVE to see... Haha, that would be interesting. That whole "nut kills man" thing did sound fishy...

i think it's a good idea, but remember, anything that's posted on these boards that the creators see may change what they have happen. they could see this and think "hey, they've figured us out again. we should change what's really gonna happen, just to throw them off."

but they may see this post and think "oh now they're gonna think we're gonna change what's gonna happen. we should keep it the same to throw them off."

too many possibilities within ARGs. i looooooooove your theory, though.

If this is what's going to happen, I want to see how they'll PG-13 a ritualistic human sacrifice. Maybe they'll lead Daniel behind a curtain, then cut to ceremony participants eating a nicely cooked meal of fresh meat. Damn, I should write the story.

flamencopirate wrote:If this is what's going to happen, I want to see how they'll PG-13 a ritualistic human sacrifice. Maybe they'll lead Daniel behind a curtain, then cut to ceremony participants eating a nicely cooked meal of fresh meat. Damn, I should write the story.

heehee....sorry, possible canabalism makes me laugh. i can't really explain it, but it does. weird, i know.

cup o' noodles wrote:

flamencopirate wrote:If this is what's going to happen, I want to see how they'll PG-13 a ritualistic human sacrifice. Maybe they'll lead Daniel behind a curtain, then cut to ceremony participants eating a nicely cooked meal of fresh meat. Damn, I should write the story.

heehee....sorry, possible canabalism makes me laugh. i can't really explain it, but it does. weird, i know.

Who knows... all I know is that where there's a sacrifice, there's a feast...

oooooo, I like this theory. Would this make the cult a squirrel?
random-Gemma's hand movements for 'man' crack me up XD

i really like this theory
but the creators ARE going to see this and be like...damn they figured us out...
now who are we going to make bree kill??

I'm not sure... this is from Magick Without Tears which is a collection of letters written by AC (http://www.hermetic.com/crowley/mwt/mwt_38.html)

Leaving out nearly everything, the only way to simplify it is to call Hadit the "Point-of-view," and "Anywhere" to be the radix of all possible "Point-Events," or "experiences," or "phenomena;" Nuit is the complement, the total possibilities of any such radix. You can only get this properly into that part of your mind which is "above the Abyss," i.e. Neschamah: even so, Neschamah must be very thoroughly fertilized by Chiah, and illuminated by Jechidah, to make any sort of a job of it.

But to come down from the contemplation of Abstract Reality (which, being static and "infinite," is ultimately immeasurable) to these Ideas in their interaction (and thus directly observable), it is easy enough to understand the Magical Formula of their interaction. Of course, whatever I say can be no more than a rough approximation, even a suggestion rather than a statement; but I cannot help the nature of the case. Nuit is the centripetal energy, infinitely elastic because it must fit over the hard thrust directed against it; Hadit, the centrifugal, ever seeking to penetrate the unknown. Nuit is not to dissimilar from the Teh described in Lao-Tze.

Honestly I have no idea what this man is talking about... Anyone want to try to figure it out???

I also find the last part of this letter interesting- he is classifying women into three groups... Not sure any of this actually means anything, but I'm not actually sure that AC is making any sense at all.

(Note: if you get bored with detailed research, skip to the part of this message headed "So WHAT'S THE POINT . . . .")

Sheesh, storyteller. Could Crowley's writing have been any more opaque? Clear as mud.

Okay, I'll try to tackle the excerpt you quoted. My immediate reaction is to think that because Nuit is the ultimate woman (according to Crowley in the same letter you quote) and Hadit is the ultimate man, the "Magical Formula of their interaction" is sex, pure and simple.

To check out this theory, I had to look up some words.

One meaning of "centripetal" is "moving or directed toward a center or axis." Sounds to me something like a funnel; something round, at any rate.

"Centrifugal" means, essentially, the opposite: "moving or directed away from a center or axis."

What's an axis? One meaning is: "A straight line about which a body or geometric object rotates or may be conceived to rotate." Not too different from, say, the axle of a bike wheel.

Okay, so Crowley says Nuit is "centripetal energy [energy directed toward an axis, aka a long narrow object -- sound familiar?], infinitely elastic because it must fit over the hard thrust directed against it."

Something round or funnel-like that has to be elastic so it can fit over a hard thrust? Sure sounds like sexual intercourse to me.

"Hadit, the centrifugal, ever seeking to penetrate the unknown."

(snicker) He said "penetrate."

Anyway, I don't think I need to belabor this point.

For the last part, about Nuit being like Teh as described in Lao-Tze: Crowley himself translated Lao-Tze's Tao Te Ching, which he rendered as "Tao Teh King." In that translation, he defined the Teh this way: "The Teh is the immortal enemy of the Tao, its feminine aspect. Heaven and Earth issued from her Gate; this Gate is the Root of their World-Sycamore. Its operation is of pure Joy and Love, and faileth never."

All this sounds like the description in Wikipedia of the Egyptian idea of Nuit (the sky goddess as well as the death goddess), who originally "lay eternally having sex with" her husband Geb. The same description says that she became the goddess of resurrection and rebirth, and that "the heavenly bodies [presumably dead -- we're talking resurrection here] would enter her mouth, traverse her skies and be reborn with dawn out of her womb."

Now I see where some of the cannibal imagery may have come from.

Crowley's translation of the Tao also talks about elasticity and hardness in another context: that of death. Here's the relevant part:

1. At the birth of man, he is elastic and weak; at his death, rigid and unyielding. This is the common law; trees also, in their youth, are tender and supple; in their decay, hard and dry.

2. So then rigidity and hardness are the stigmata of death; elasticity and adaptability, of life.

Elasticity = the female principle = life.

Hardness = the male principle (remember that "hard thrust"?) = death.

The translation includes a lot of stuff about Will, not surprisingly. Most important, I think, is this chapter about "the discrimination (viveka) of Teh" (I dunno, you figure it out). Here's the second part of the chapter:

"He that adapteth himself perfectly to his environment, continueth for long; he who dieth without dying, liveth for ever."

(I added the italics to that last quote.)

There's lots more about Teh that doesn't seem relevant, but then there's this: "If the kingdom be ruled according to the Tao, the spirits of our ancestors will not manifest their Teh. These spirits have this Teh, but will not turn it against men. It is able to hurt men; so also is the Wise King; but he doth not."

*************
So WHAT'S THE POINT of all this info?

Remember, under this theory, Bree is supposed to represent Nut/Nuit, the Ultimate Female, in the ceremony. Crowley describes Nuit as "infinitely elastic." Elasticity is associated with life. What's more, if Bree/Nuit is like Teh as described by Lao-Tze, then she will be "able to hurt men." That's consistent with "Nut kills man."

The male principle (embodied in Hadit), OTOH, is associated with hardness. Hardness, in turn, is one of the "stigmata of death."

In Egyptian mythology, the dead "heavenly bodies" will enter Nuit's mouth and be reborn out of her womb "with dawn." Some smart person on the Forum -- sorry, can't remember who -- who was analyzing the "Proving Longitude Wrong" video figured out that the time shown on the two clocks in that video was the time of sunrise at . . . well, whatever the relevant longitude would be. So it looks like the creators are hinting that there's some significance to sunrise, aka dawn.

So maybe (writing this grosses me out, but it's part of the theory) Bree's supposed to sacrifice Daniel (representing the male principle) and then, um, eat him. So that he can be resurrected out of her womb (metaphorically, I hope) at dawn. "He who dieth without dying, liveth for ever."

And maybe Nuit's relationship with Hadit will be manifested in the ceremony by Bree having sex with Daniel before she sacrifices him.

I've got some other ideas about how Free Will might play into all this, but I've spent too much time on this message already, so I'll save it for another time.

Meanwhile, please let me know if I'm completely nuts or if any of this makes sense.

Holy Moly-
Shouldn't have read this so late... my head is really spinning. The theory is pretty much what I expected... gotta process all of that.

There are a lot of ideas floating around in my head.

storyteller wrote:Holy Moly-
Shouldn't have read this so late... my head is really spinning. The theory is pretty much what I expected... gotta process all of that.

There are a lot of ideas floating around in my head.

ugh, same here. this lg15/danielbeast/gemma thing is making my head swim.....i seriously need to seek professional help.....

Languorous Lass wrote:(Note: if you get bored with detailed research, skip to the part of this message headed "So WHAT'S THE POINT . . . .")

Sheesh, storyteller. Could Crowley's writing have been any more opaque? Clear as mud.

Okay, I'll try to tackle the excerpt you quoted. My immediate reaction is to think that because Nuit is the ultimate woman (according to Crowley in the same letter you quote) and Hadit is the ultimate man, the "Magical Formula of their interaction" is sex, pure and simple.

To check out this theory, I had to look up some words.

One meaning of "centripetal" is "moving or directed toward a center or axis." Sounds to me something like a funnel; something round, at any rate.

"Centrifugal" means, essentially, the opposite: "moving or directed away from a center or axis."

What's an axis? One meaning is: "A straight line about which a body or geometric object rotates or may be conceived to rotate." Not too different from, say, the axle of a bike wheel.

Okay, so Crowley says Nuit is "centripetal energy [energy directed toward an axis, aka a long narrow object -- sound familiar?], infinitely elastic because it must fit over the hard thrust directed against it."

Something round or funnel-like that has to be elastic so it can fit over a hard thrust? Sure sounds like sexual intercourse to me.

"Hadit, the centrifugal, ever seeking to penetrate the unknown."

(snicker) He said "penetrate."

Anyway, I don't think I need to belabor this point.

For the last part, about Nuit being like Teh as described in Lao-Tze: Crowley himself translated Lao-Tze's Tao Te Ching, which he rendered as "Tao Teh King." In that translation, he defined the Teh this way: "The Teh is the immortal enemy of the Tao, its feminine aspect. Heaven and Earth issued from her Gate; this Gate is the Root of their World-Sycamore. Its operation is of pure Joy and Love, and faileth never."

All this sounds like the description in Wikipedia of the Egyptian idea of Nuit (the sky goddess as well as the death goddess), who originally "lay eternally having sex with" her husband Geb. The same description says that she became the goddess of resurrection and rebirth, and that "the heavenly bodies [presumably dead -- we're talking resurrection here] would enter her mouth, traverse her skies and be reborn with dawn out of her womb."

Now I see where some of the cannibal imagery may have come from.

Crowley's translation of the Tao also talks about elasticity and hardness in another context: that of death. Here's the relevant part:

1. At the birth of man, he is elastic and weak; at his death, rigid and unyielding. This is the common law; trees also, in their youth, are tender and supple; in their decay, hard and dry.

2. So then rigidity and hardness are the stigmata of death; elasticity and adaptability, of life.

Elasticity = the female principle = life.

Hardness = the male principle (remember that "hard thrust"?) = death.

The translation includes a lot of stuff about Will, not surprisingly. Most important, I think, is this chapter about "the discrimination (viveka) of Teh" (I dunno, you figure it out). Here's the second part of the chapter:

"He that adapteth himself perfectly to his environment, continueth for long; he who dieth without dying, liveth for ever."

(I added the italics to that last quote.)

There's lots more about Teh that doesn't seem relevant, but then there's this: "If the kingdom be ruled according to the Tao, the spirits of our ancestors will not manifest their Teh. These spirits have this Teh, but will not turn it against men. It is able to hurt men; so also is the Wise King; but he doth not."

*************
So WHAT'S THE POINT of all this info?

Remember, under this theory, Bree is supposed to represent Nut/Nuit, the Ultimate Female, in the ceremony. Crowley describes Nuit as "infinitely elastic." Elasticity is associated with life. What's more, if Bree/Nuit is like Teh as described by Lao-Tze, then she will be "able to hurt men." That's consistent with "Nut kills man."

The male principle (embodied in Hadit), OTOH, is associated with hardness. Hardness, in turn, is one of the "stigmata of death."

In Egyptian mythology, the dead "heavenly bodies" will enter Nuit's mouth and be reborn out of her womb "with dawn." Some smart person on the Forum -- sorry, can't remember who -- who was analyzing the "Proving Longitude Wrong" video figured out that the time shown on the two clocks in that video was the time of sunrise at . . . well, whatever the relevant longitude would be. So it looks like the creators are hinting that there's some significance to sunrise, aka dawn.

So maybe (writing this grosses me out, but it's part of the theory) Bree's supposed to sacrifice Daniel (representing the male principle) and then, um, eat him. So that he can be resurrected out of her womb (metaphorically, I hope) at dawn. "He who dieth without dying, liveth for ever."

And maybe Nuit's relationship with Hadit will be manifested in the ceremony by Bree having sex with Daniel before she sacrifices him.

I've got some other ideas about how Free Will might play into all this, but I've spent too much time on this message already, so I'll save it for another time.

Meanwhile, please let me know if I'm completely nuts or if any of this makes sense.

LOL sorry but you made everyone's head spin....try this:

Nut kills Man kills Squirrel.

Bree Kills Daniel Kills Cult.

And still....a million possibilities.

Ok, so, wow. Never would have thought of this, but it makes a lot of sense. Am too tired to understand the explanation right now.